Lords Sitting of 4 May 1911

LORDS DECIES.
Petition of John Graham Hope Horsley, Baron Decies, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Central London Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

MALVERN ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
MATLOCK DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

D. Bedford (Chairman),

M. Winchester,

M. Bristol,

E. Bathurst,

L. Manners;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL.
IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (ACTON DISTRICT) BILL.
UPPER MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL.
NORTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
CHESTERFIELD GAS AND WATER BOARD BILL.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to appropriate certain lands for the purposes of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to make provision with respect to certain Crown Lands forming part of or adjacent to St. James's Park—Was presented by the Earl Beauchamp; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 71.)

THE PROPOSED SCIENCE MUSEUM.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I beg to move that further Papers relating to the proposed Science Museum be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That further Papers relating to the proposed Science Museum be laid before the House.—(The Earl of Cromer.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I shall be glad to supply to the noble Earl all the information in my power, and I will see that everything possible is presented to your Lordships.

LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): This is a Bill the substance of which I hope to be able to explain to your Lordships in a few minutes. The Bill is proposed in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Feeble Minded. That Commission reported in 1908, and recommended a large scheme which contained no fewer than ninety-six recommendations with regard to England and Wales alone, there being also others with regard to Scotland. The Commissioners very naturally appreciated that there would be much difficulty in the preparation and also in the passing of a Bill of that magnitude, and accordingly they made a temporary recommendation—Recommendation XXIV—in urgent terms, which runs as follows—
"That for immediate purposes, and pending the establishment by the Legislature of the proposed central authority and local authorities, it is expedient that the Lord Chancellor, in pursuance of his power under Section 337 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, should at once—
"Amalgamate the office of the Chancery visitors and their duties and staff with the office, duties, and staff of the Lunacy Commissioners; (2) appoint two additional medical Commissioners to the amalgamated office, at such salaries as, with the concurrence of the Treasury, he may think reasonable."
There is a section—Section 337—in the existing Act which purports to give the Lord Chancellor power to do this under his own hand without any legislative authority, but questions have been raised with regard to the sufficiency of that section to justify an act of that kind. It would be a great misfortune if, after an order of that sort were made, it were to be in any jeopardy of being lawfully made; and I have therefore thought better to ask the consent of Parliament to do that which was evidently contemplated as long ago as 1890, and which is strongly recommended by the Commissioners, with whose recommendation I entirely agree.
The second point in the Bill is this. Unfortunately the Commissioners in Lunacy have been shorthanded for a considerable time, and I have, in the hope that some fresh scheme might be started, put off from time to time asking Parliament to grant two more medical Commissioners. It has
162
been found necessary to make orders in three successive years diminishing the number of visits each Commissioner had to make, and I do think the number is at present insufficient. The Commissioners in Lunacy remain the same in number as they were in 1845, though the number of patients under their care has increased from 25,000 to 120,000. I think this ought to be dealt with now. I believe that a Bill was introduced by my predecessor, Lord Halsbury, before the late Government went out of office, for the purpose of adding two new Commissioners.
The scheme in this Bill also provides that the unpaid Commissioners may include women. To my mind it is almost essential that women should be associated with the central administration of the Lunacy laws. I may state to your Lordships that this was suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission—Recommendation XX—and that I went so far as to ask one lady whether she would serve as one of the unpaid Commissioners and she was kindly willing to do so; but the Law Officers advised that under the framework of the Lunacy Act, 1890, women could not be appointed Commissioners. This, I hope, will be remedied by the clause in the present Bill.
The remaining clause as to vesting orders is a small and technical matter. It is a minor detail in the administration of lunatics' estates, strictly belonging to Chancery practice, and it is desirable to place that branch of the work in the hands of the Chancery Judges, though it cannot be done without an Act of Parliament. I may say that the whole administration of these estates was recommended by the Royal Commission to be transferred to the Chancery Court. A Committee, of which the Master of the Rolls was a member, inquired into it, but found that it would not be practicable to do this except in so far as vesting orders were concerned, and accordingly this Bill is limited in that form. That is all I have to say with regard to the substance of this Bill, but I am glad to be able to add that Lord Halsbury authorises me to say that he heartily concurs in the Second Reading of the Bill, which I need hardly tell your Lordships gives the Bill great, additional authority.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, for two reasons, which your Lordships will recognise as being amply sufficient, I will not occupy much time in describing this little Bill, and I confidently predict that your Lordships will ungrudgingly give it a Second Reading. My first reason for brevity is that close upon two years ago, after an exhaustive inquiry at which fifty-two witnesses were examined, including representatives of Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, of associations of employers and of trade unions, officials of the Home Office, of the Board of Education and of local education authorities members of the consultative committees of the Board of Education, certifying factory surgeons, school teachers, farmers, and private persons—an inter-Departmental Committee presided over by Mr. Trevelyan submitted its Report to the President of the Board of Education, and this Bill, as I will show directly, is closely framed upon that Report.
My second reason for brevity is that on April 27 of last year my noble friend Lord Sheffield moved in your Lordships' House to resolve—
"That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that legislative effect should be given to the recommendations of the inter-Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from School Attendance, and that a statutory obligation should be imposed on local education authorities to provide, where it is reasonably practicable, continuation schools," &c.
My noble friend completely convinced your Lordships of the reasonableness of his Resolution, and after sympathetic speeches from the noble Earl the Leader of the House, from the right rev. Prelates of Southwark (now Winchester) and Hereford and from Lord Meath, the Motion was agreed to.
The law as it stands now with respect to school attendance is, in the words of the Report, "somewhat complicated, and in certain minor respects uncertain." The Committee indeed evidently found it very complicated, for in preference to setting it forth at length they rather cunningly refer
164
to a Memorandum drawn up by one of their members, Mr. Lindsell. This Memorandum describes the present state of affairs as lucidly as is possible, and yet with its references to Education Acts, Factory Acts, and by-laws, with their exemptions and partial exemptions, you need to read it very carefully and more than once to understand the position of the child in this country at this moment as regards its educational liability. Broadly speaking, the law of the land at this moment is as follows. Every educational authority is compelled through its by-laws to take educational notice of every child between the ages of five and fourteen, but having taken this notice it may grant exemptions of two kinds—partial and total.
First as to partial exemption. A child between eleven and thirteen may, if employed in agriculture, be absent from school during part of the year if he makes 250 attendances during another part of the year. Again a child of twelve may claim partial exemption if he is employed under the Factory Act, and as this is what is usually called the half-time system, though I should myself prefer to call it the double-time malpractice, I will pause for a moment to describe it. It is the system by which a child in alternate weeks spends his mornings in the mill and in the school, and his afternoons in the school and in the mill. Thus a child of twelve may leave his bed at 5.30 a.m. to be in the mill at 6, work there with an interval for breakfast till 12.30, and after an interval for dinner, work in school from 2 to 5. If this was the child's lot this week, then next week he would spend his mornings in the school and his afternoons in the mill. But what I would specially draw your Lordships' attention to is this. A fortnight's work for a half-timer figures out as follows: 55½ hours in the mill, and 27½ hours in the school, or half as mach again in actual hours as the full-time scholar.
Now as to total exemptions. A child of twelve who has not availed himself of either of the foregoing partial exemption facilities may obtain total exemption on reaching a standard of proficiency, varying in different localities from Standard 5 to Standard 7 of the Code. Again a child of thirteen may obtain total exemption for the purpose of employment if he has made 350 attendances after five years of age in

165
not more than two schools during each of five previous years. This is the provision under which total exemption is most commonly claimed.
I said that I would show that my Bill is framed very closely upon the Report of the inter-Departmental Committee. With your Lordships' permission I will read the summary of the recommendations of that Committee in conjunction with my Bill. The recommendations of the Committee are as follow—

(1) That partial exemption should be abolished.

(2) That there should be no total exemption under the age of 13.

(3) That no exemption should be allowed by reason of previous school attendance.

(4) That exemption at the age of 13 should only be allowed for beneficial or necessary employment.

(5) That in the case of exemption before the age of 14 the obligation to attend a continuation class be imposed; or

(6) That with the approval of the Board of Education the alternative of passing a standard not lower than the 6th be permitted, and that these recommendations should over-ride the Factory Acts.

Now, My Lords, turn to the Bill. The pith of it is contained in Clause 1. Subsection (1) says—
"The earliest age at which a child shall be entitled to any exemption from the obligation to attend school shall be 13, and such exemption shall be granted only for the purpose of beneficial and necessary employment."
Here we have Recommendations 2 and 4 given effect to. Subsection (2) says—
"No child shall be entitled to obtain partial exemption from school attendance under the age of 14, and the ordinary condition for total exemption under 14 years of age shall be due attendance at a continuation class, or, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, the passing of a standard not lower than the 6th."
Here we have Recommendations 1, 3, 5 and 6 given effect to. Your Lordships will recognise the sweet reasonableness of the Bill. You will see that it follows the dictates of the Committee, and you will know that it carries out your own wishes expressed by your agreement to my noble friend's Resolution last year.
It only remains for me to say a word or two in justification of the Bill from my own point of view. I will say without fear of contradiction that, as the Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Committee, so
166
those recommendations were the only possible result of the evidence that was heard by that Committee. With regard to the raising of the age for any exemption from twelve to thirteen, surely no evidence was required. It is common knowledge that while a child of twelve has memory he has little or no reasoning power, and to take him from school at that tender age is to deny him a fair opportunity in life. I look forward confidently to the day, not far distant, when the compulsory age will be raised yet another year, and when education will be carried further, through continuation classes, to the age of sixteen or seventeen—continuation classes not necessarily in the evening, when the child is tired out, but forming a part of a new and reasonable half-time system by which a child from fourteen to seventeen shall divide a fair day between work and education.
To show how rapidly public opinion is working in that direction I would draw your Lordships' attention to a little fact. Lord Sheffield, in his speech on his Resolution last year, said, referring to the recommendations of the Consultative Committee—
"The proposals of the Committee which would require statutory enactment comprise recommendations that local authorities should be compelled to provide continuation schools and empowered to make by-laws making attendance at such schools compulsory up to the age of 17 years."
He went on—
"I do not think the time is ripe for carrying out the latter proposal. A similar provision was made in the Scottish Education Act of last year, but none of the great towns of Scotland have exercised the power to make such by-laws, and I am informed that none of them contemplate doing so."
One can hardly imagine the noble Lord being otherwise than there or thereabouts when an educational reform was on foot, and yet Scotland seems to have given him the slip, for I visited several education authorities in Scotland last month and I brought away with me, among other little gems of Scottish commonsense, this pamphlet headed, "School Board for Glasgow. By-laws for enforcing attendance at continuation classes, made by the School Board for Glasgow under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908. Dated 19th December, 1910." I think my noble friend is to be congratulated, for, like the Huddersfield School Board, he has been bringing steady pressure in this direction all his life.

167
I will only say a word in conclusion on the half-time system as I understand it. The evidence before the Committee amply proved that this so-called system is nothing but the survival of a vicious habit by which parents in some parts of the country, more by custom than from need, exploit their children for the sake of a small weekly wage. I say more by custom than from need because, for instance, the half-time system is prevalent at Halifax in Yorkshire, whereas at Huddersfield, only six miles away, where the chief industry is a similar one, it has been stamped out by the steady pressure of an intelligent school board, the figures of half-timers falling gradually there from 1,762 in 1879 to 94 in 1901, and the half-timer is now as dead as the dodo. The custom is not justified by the necessities of poverty, because the wages earned in the places where it is prevalent are higher than in other places where it is absent. That it demoralises the children who are the victims of it and hinders the classes in which they are irregular attendants is the testimony of every teacher in the land, and, moreover, to numbers of boys who are half-timers it is a system leading to nowhere except to unemployment.
My own first hand knowledge is very small, but, such as it is, a day spent in the mill and in the school in Preston, where the custom is in vogue, confirms me in the conviction that not a day should be lost in wiping it off the Statute-book. Is there any conceivable reason why the children of Bradford, Preston, Halifax and Dundee should not have the same chance in life as those of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hamilton, Reading, Huddersfield and London, where the education authorities would scorn to allow their little ones to be the victims of this relic of the dark ages? I do not wish to harrow your Lordships' feelings, and indeed some of the half-time children whom I saw in Preston were marvels of brightness, but there were others; and the face of one little chap remains in my memory, carrying upon it, as it seemed to do, the weight of the whole of those eighty-three hours of toil. If I could place him here in your midst, you would say that this miserable practice must cease.
Your Lordships are in the peculiar position to-night of having two Bills before you of a curiously similar nature. I feel no hos-
168
tility whatever towards the Bill of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. On the contrary, I recognise that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Moreover, when noble Lords on both sides of the House are tumbling over each other to secure legislation on this subject the Government will, I hope, recognise that the matter is not only urgent but somewhat overdue. I hope your Lordships will give my Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. As we have just been reminded, it is a very useful bit of legislation long overdue. Technically our education laws are for the good of the child, but in this case the various concessions which have been made in our educational system have not been in that direction. The present system must, I think, be described as an extremely wasteful system. Until it has been supplemented by some reasonable system of continuation schools, I do not think that any other description would appropriately apply to it. Just at the time when your Lordships are considering to which of the great schools you will send your own sons, these children in the elementary schools are stepping out into their little world, and multitudes of them, so far as we know, then turn their backs on any organised system of education, and, in fact, begin to forget the little they have learned. The concessions which this Bill is intended to put an end to greatly aggravate the waste, and while aggravating the waste they rob the children of the best part of the education available and at the same time inflict upon them very serious hardship. As we have been reminded, the half-timer, if you add the hours of attendance at the mill and at the school, has to attend daily just one-and-a-half times as many hours in the mill and school together as the whole-timer spends at school. The result is physical degeneration, and the child arrives at school too weary to benefit by the instruction given, and therefore suffers both loss and hardship. I sincerely hope your Lordships, by giving a Second Reading to this Bill and finally passing it with such Amendments as may seem reasonable, will

169
put an end to these cases of injustice and hardship.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I feel extremely doubtful as to when to intervene in this debate, because the Bill now before the House is to be followed by one in charge of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, and though to a certain extent they are on all fours they approach the question from a totally different point of view. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill has stated that the Bill is due to Lord Sheffield having brought this matter forward in the year 1908, and as a result of the debate which then took place the Committee was formed on whose Report, as far as I understand, this Bill is based. Lord Saye and Sele's Bill embraces two points. It embraces the question of half-timers and deals also with compulsory attendance of children after school age. This, of course, is a question which gives rise to a good deal of controversy; and the question is not settled there, because there arises the Bill of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who takes exception to the attendance age in the Bill now before the House. He does so to a certain extent with perfect justice, because I know from personal experience that the agricultural classes do not view the increasing of the age with the same admiration as the noble Lord or those who live in the great manufacturing towns.
The half-time principle was originally started in order to take children from the factories and give them time for education. The present Bill proposes to reverse that and keep children at their education rather than let them go back to their work. I do not express any opinion upon that, more than saying that I sympathise with the noble Lord's view, and I also sympathise very sincerely with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, whose Bill is to follow this. I cannot help thinking that in regard to the raising of the minimum age a good deal of the difficulty might be met if the child's last year at school were devoted to instructing him in the details of that industry in which he is situated, instruction which would be of use to him in after life. I know there is a good deal of controversy on this subject. I have no doubt that the agricultural classes, who look to children when they reach these years to be able to assist them, think that
170
they can do far better by working on the farms than in what they call book-learning at school. Therefore I think the proposal I have made might go a little way towards meeting that difficulty.
But the present Bill seems to me to treat these cognate questions in an indefinite manner. I read in March last that Mr. Runciman informed a deputation that the Board of Education had been at work for some time upon schemes for linking up continuation classes and other educational reforms. A proposal, he said, had been made by a Committee for the abolition of half-time or raising the age, which must be accompanied by work in continuation classes or schools, and he would shortly introduce a Bill to carry out some of these recommendations. From this statement I think we are justified in arriving at the conclusion that the Board of Education have in contemplation a measure of wide scope on this subject, and I cannot but think that, in view of this fact, if I am right in the opinion I have formed, it would be wiser on the present occasion to postpone dealing further with the Bills of my noble friends until we have the Bill of the Minister for Education before us. We shall then be able to see how far it goes towards meeting their wishes and requirements. In what I have said I have not in any way opposed these Bills, for I sympathise entirely with the views of both noble Lords.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I had rather hoped that we should have taken the course, not unusual in your Lordships' House, of discussing both of these Bills at the same time. However, as Lord Willoughby de Broke has not risen I will proceed to say what there is to be said on behalf of His Majesty's Government on this Bill, though what I have to say applies equally to the second Bill to be moved this afternoon. In the first place, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord behind me upon the fact that, having put this Bill down, I think, for every day this week, he has at last been able to secure an opportunity for discussing it. I venture also to think that both he and the noble Lord whose Bill is to follow have rendered a real public service in bringing forward this matter. This is one of those questions on which it is important we should raise a strong public opinion throughout the country, and

171
discussions of this kind in this House can only do good, because they support the object which all education reformers have at heart, and when the time comes they will no doubt make it easier for Bills having the same object to pass into law. One good result I hope will be that further attention will be drawn to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from School Attendance, which was published in 1909. It is a very valuable Report and deserves a good deal of attention from all who are interested in the subject, especially, perhaps, the paragraphs in it which deal with partial exemption in cases of agriculture.
The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill referred, quite fairly, to the expectations and hopes which have been expressed on various occasions that legislation would shortly be introduced. I do not suppose he is very much surprised to know that it has not been possible, in the pressure of other business during the last twelve months, for the Board of Education to lay any measure upon the Table of either House before this date. Having been concerned with the preparation of this Bill the noble Lord will, I am sure, be one of the first to realise that the questions involved are very complicated questions; and in our opinion they are best met by a Bill introduced by the Government, who have behind them the experience of the Board of Education and the technical skill of the Parliamentary draftsman. Take the question of continuation schools. If attendance at continuation schools is to be enforced it is obviously necessary to provide suitable machinery. What, therefore, I hope on this occasion is that your Lordships will follow the advice of the noble Marquess opposite and give both Bills a Second Reading, and then wait, at any rate for the present, to see the terms of the Bill which will be introduced by His Majesty's Government. I hope that noble Lords who are interested in this matter will be able to bring pressure to bear in order to secure the passage of that Bill, and that when next year comes the whole question will be in a far more forward state than it is now.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to detain you for more than a few minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I may say that I offer no opposition whatever to the Bill of Lord Saye and Sele. The only real difference between the two Bills is that the object of the Bill which I am moving is to make it easier for children in agricultural districts to obtain exemption from school attendance. The exemption foreshadowed by the Bill of Lord Saye and Sele depends upon continuation classes and upon passing Standard VI. I propose to add to that the qualification of having made 350 attendances in not more than two schools during each of the five preceding years. This will mark some difference between urban and rural districts. The reason why I shall make a point in any future discussion of insisting as far as I am able on this provision as to attendances is that there may be, and are, boys in agricultural districts who are not able to pass even Standard VI, and whose detention at school is a pure waste of time and money. In my opinion they would be far better working on the land than absorbing public money by being kept at school for the purpose of eventually being examined in a standard in which there is no reasonable possibility of their passing. Provided that in future discussions this principle is accepted, I believe I am in accord with everything in the Bill which Lord Saye and Sele has moved. I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to my Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I do not rise to prolong this discussion, because I think the agreement to read both Bills a second time and then postpone them in order to see the Government Bill is perhaps the most satisfactory solution we could come to. I hope we may look forward to the Government Bill being laid

173
on the Table of the House of Commons within a reasonable time, and if any long period after Whitsuntide goes by without our seeing the text of the Government Bill we might then say that it is fair that this House should proceed with its own Bills. The difference between the two Bills before your Lordships this afternoon is so microscopic that practically they might be treated as one Bill and the points of difference made a matter of amendment. I confess I have a preference for the Bill of my noble friend Lord Saye and Sele, but I would gladly welcome the Bill of the noble Lord opposite.
As to what the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench said with reference to the importance, if we prolong the school age to fourteen, of devoting the child's last year at school to instructing him in the details of the industry in which he would work in after life, I think if that could be well done it would be a very great improvement in the school curriculum. I have in my hand the last Report of the Board of Education, and any one who reads, on page 61, a paragraph headed "Practical Instruction in Rural Public Elementary Schools" will see that the Board of Education there say that they have continued to give close attention to the needs of country schools, more particularly as regards practical instruction. I think that in town and country alike boys should learn some form of handicraft and girls should learn cookery. The Report goes on to say that in a large number of rural schools a great deal is now being done to give a practical turn to the education of the older girls. Girls might be taught ordinary subjects in the morning and in the afternoon receive instruction in practical subjects, such as dressmaking, cookery, and home nursing. From the Report you will see that there has been a substantial expansion of this work in the case of girls, and I think noble Lords who are working on the education committees of their counties will know what an impulse has been given to that branch of education in rural districts. But the same Report shows that very much less is being done in the way of manual instruction for boys. Something, however, is being done both in the way of school gardens and by manual instruction. I should be glad to see those forms and other forms of practical instruction greatly
174
developed in boys' schools. This, how ever, is a matter of curriculum and does not depend on any Act of Parliament.
Again, the possibility of doing this will depend entirely upon securing a sufficient number of competent and adequate teachers for giving instruction in these subjects. All that means money. I should be glad if the Board of Education would be a little more liberal in grants at the upper end of the school. The grants given to schools have been rather with a view to relieving the burden of the school managers than with a view to improving the education in the schools. In former days we used to have grants earmarked in a way which did encourage more advanced teaching. I do not wish to return to that, but we could do a great deal to improve the instruction in our village schools if we took a leaf out of the Scottish Code and secured in England what is now the law in Scotland, where in every village school, no matter how small, it is obligatory that the school shall have a supplementary class for children over twelve, in which the claim of those children to a wider education is recognised. Until you are willing in England to do something like Scotland is doing—and remember that the Scottish law will not allow in future any teacher in a school who is not a trained and certificated teacher—until you are prepared to work to that type of teacher in England you cannot expect to get that liberal, wide, and intelligent curriculum in our village schools that we all desire.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to express my satisfaction at the laudable rivalry which has been shown by the House on either side, even to anticipating the action of His Majesty's Government in bringing about a change which I think every educationist feels to be a desirable one. I confess to some little apprehension when I listened to the rather reticent phrases in which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, referred to the production of the Government Bill. I should have liked to hear something a little firmer as to the prospect of the appearance of that Bill at a really early date. I am afraid that the passing of these two Bills to-night may serve as a narcotic rather than a stimulus,

175
and that it is not inconceivable that some little time may be allowed to elapse before we see the Government measure. Therefore I should like to say that in the event of the Government Bill not being forthcoming I hope there will be no scruple whatever on the part of either or both of the noble Lords in going forward with these Bills. It does not seem to me, notwithstanding what the noble Earl said as to the labours of the Board of Education of late, that the task ought to have been an impossible one of producing a Bill of not a very complicated character on this particular matter, and I do hope that we may expect before long to see the Government measure.
Reference has been wisely and appropriately made to-night to the great advantage of the final school year being used where possible for the preparation for the actual work which will be immediately begun outside. But we have to note one caution in that matter. It is only by prolonging the period of school attendance that we can justify the abstraction of a portion of the school hours for the other work which is to be taken up. I should in no sense regard it as an improvement in our educational plan if what I regard as the too early age at which children now cease their educational work were to be further curtailed by preparation for the work which is to follow. With that caution I am entirely in favour of the suggestion as to the better use that might be made of the further year, and I look forward with eager expectancy to the production of the Government Bill at no distant date.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am rather handicapped by not having heard the speech of Lord Saye and Sele in moving the Second Reading of his Bill. I do not quite know, therefore, what his arguments were in favour of it. But my own view, after comparing the two Bills, is very much in favour of Bill No. 2. In the first place it is much plainer and simpler than that of Lord Saye and Sele, which appears to me to be rather involved. Lord Saye and Sele's Bill begins by saying that the earliest age for exemption should be thirteen, but it is not clear in the second paragraph whether the age is to be thirteen or fourteen.
176
I do not like the provision that "no child shall be entitled to obtain partial exemption from school attendance under the age of fourteen." Partial exemption is most completely condemned by the Departmental Committee, whose Report devoted pages to the harm which partial exemption does. It shows how children who are allowed to go from school to factories for a certain time return to school tired and unable to give the necessary attention to their studies. The Report supplies various reasons why partial exemption should be abolished. The reference in Lord Saye and Sele's Bill to attendance at continuation classes would absolutely bar rural children. The main object of No. 2 Bill is to assist children in rural districts to work on farms when they are thirteen. Children who make the best agriculturists are not always the cleverest, and therefore it would be useless to keep them at school until they were fourteen when they might be learning their business and doing good work on a farm. There are no such things as continuation schools in most villages, and therefore the provision of Lord Saye and Sele's Bill with regard to continuation schools would be absolutely useless to the agricultural child.
Lord Willoughby de Broke's Bill is clear and expresses the whole case so well that it is very much the better of the two, and I think with a very slight amendment, by incorporating a few lines of Lord Saye and Sele's Bill, it could be made a very good Bill. I know that the objection that people will take to this is that it makes a differentiation between rural and urban children. If you can accomplish that it will be a very good thing. It is ridiculous to have a hard and fast rule for children living in towns, and that that rule should apply also to children who live in the country and attend village schools. I hope your Lordships will give Lord Willoughby's Bill a Second Reading and make provision for including within its scope children in urban districts under fourteen years of age on condition that they attend continuation classes, thus incorporating a few lines of Lord Saye and Sele's Bill. Amended in that way the Bill would be a great stride towards perfecting the education of children.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY HORSES.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE rose to call attention to the deficiency of trained horses for the Cavalry Division, and to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to rely on untrained horses to fill up the deficiency on mobilisation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to call public attention to the lack in the number of trained horses in this country—that is, trained for the purposes of war. The difficulty of trained horses and trained men is not at all a new one. It appears to have been present to the minds of people ever since the days of Hezekiah. Your Lordships will recollect that the King of Assyria sent a message to Hezekiah to say that he would provide a thousand horses if Hezekiah would provide a thousand men to put on them. It seems to me, looking at the number of trained horses in relation to the men you have in this country at the present moment, that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War is going to do even better than Hezekiah did. He is going to put three men on one horse instead of one man on each horse. But be that as it may. What I desire to call serious attention to is not so much the method of increasing the number of trained horses—we shall come to that later on, because I understand that the Secretary of State for War has under consideration a scheme for dealing with this matter—but the present peace establishment. We cannot say with what nation we may be allied in the event of a European conflict. We have an entente with the French nation. The French have a large Army of Infantry; and. I submit that it is not too rash a statement to say that in the event of a European conflict the French, or any ally that we had, would rely mainly for assistance from this country upon the Cavalry Division of twelve regiments, which contains, if our information is correct, some of the finest trained Cavalry soldiers and Staff that Europe has yet seen. But it is absolutely vital that you should be in a position to place your Cavalry Division in the field at the very first moment after the outbreak of hostilities.
I am told that the war establishment of the Cavalry Division, including Horse Artillery and the rest, is 10,618 horses, and that the peace establishment you provide at present is only 6,810. I know that it is
178
difficult, probably impossible, to keep your Cavalry Division supplied with trained horses for every man, and I am not able to state positively what is done in other countries with regard to this; but I submit that some of them have the double training establishment on which they can count for a certain number of trained horses at the outbreak of hostilities. I submit with great respect to the Secretary of State for War that the fact that there is a supposed deficiency—I hope the noble Viscount will be able to contradict it—of 3,808 horses required on mobilisation, is a very disquieting factor in considering our military strength; and it should be further remembered that this figure of 3,808 horses has been arrived at after deducting 10 per cent. as unfit to take the field, which percentage in the opinion of all experts is, I am informed, a very low rate of deduction.
The next question that arises is, where are you going to get trained horses from supposing your Cavalry has to be mobilised suddenly? Do you propose to take totally untrained horses to the front? I am aware that in the Boer War a great number of comparatively untrained horses went to the front, and I believe they behaved in the field with more or less satisfaction, but I should say that a European campaign would be quite a different matter. In support of that opinion I am fortified by the view of General Haig, who, I believe, is one of the experts upon whom the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War relies. He calls attention to a very striking incident in the Battle of Gravelotte, owing to a squadron of the 9th German Hussars being mounted on untrained or comparatively untrained horses—at any rate, horses added on mobilisation. These horses stampeded as soon as the slightest confusion arose, as soon as a shot was fired, and carried with them not only that regiment but several other regiments and the baggage wagons which were standing on the side of the road down which the horses stampeded.
Another question which has to be seriously considered in the event of mobilisation is that if you have to send, as you must endeavour to send, all your trained horses to the front, what provision is going to be made for a certain number of horses for the recruits who are to be trained at home? You will be compelled to leave some of your stock of trained horses, which ought to be sent to the front, for your recruits to train

179
on or else they will have to train upon horses which will not enable them to carry out their training as quickly as with trained horses. I understand that some scheme is being proposed for training the horses of private owners with a view to their being mobilised in a satisfactory condition, and I should like to tell the Secretary of State for War that as a private owner of horses I will do everything in my power to help him and the War Office to make that scheme a success. I think he is very wise to undertake it, because the trouble is not the lack of horses in the United Kingdom. I have some horses myself which would be very safe mounts. If the noble Viscount could see his way to foreshadow this evening anything he has in his mind for the strengthening of the supply of horses I am sure we should be much obliged. But the point I particularly want his views upon is whether he thinks, putting on one side altogether the number of horses in the country which might become available, that the present peace establishment of trained horses is adequate supposing the Cavalry had to be mobilised at anything like short notice?
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I crave your indulgence in addressing your Lordships for the first time. My excuse is that, having served something like fourteen years in a Cavalry regiment, this question of trained horses naturally appeals very much to me. I heartily support the noble Lord in raising the question of the shortage of trained horses for the Cavalry Division. I do not think it is necessary to call your Lordships' attention to the enormous handicap that any trained soldier is under when placed upon a horse that is not properly trained. Many of your Lordships have had experience in the hunting field and on the polo ground, and I am sure as regards yourselves the last thing you would wish to do would be to take the field on untrained horses.
What would be the position of the Cavalry soldier, who in time of peace has probably no horse at all allotted to him owing to the number of horses being short, when he is called up suddenly on active service if he is given, say, one of those delightful Irish four-year-olds and asked to ride it in his squadron or troop? Any one who has had experience of Cavalry will tell you the enormous mischief an untrained horse can do in the ranks. I had the honour of serving in a regiment with
180
General Haig to whom Lord Willoughby de Broke referred, and also with the present Commandant of the Cavalry School, and in that regiment great stress was laid on the training of our horses. I have also had some experience on active service of untrained horses, and I had the pleasure on one occasion of riding some sixty miles after 150 horses which had stampeded, mainly owing to the fact that we had bought horses which were not trained. I do hope, and I speak very feelingly as a late Cavalry soldier, that this question of trained horses for trained men will be considered, because I do not think there is any use spending money on the trained Cavalry soldier if you are unable to give him a trained horse to take the field on. You might just as well keep him an infantry soldier.
Attention was also called by Lord Willoughby de Broke to the question of recruits. We all know that a very large percentage—a much larger percentage than I care to think of—are put in all regiments to fill up. With regard to the recruit on an untrained horse, I leave it entirely to your Lordships' imagination to consider what would be the result on active service. I understand that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War is taking an interest in flying machines. He is going to pay a visit to the headquarters, and perhaps take a ride in one. May I suggest to the noble Viscount that when he next visits Aldershot he should ride a trained horse and also an untrained horse, so that he will be able to appreciate the position of the trained soldier?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, we owe a good deal to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and to the noble Lord who has just spoken for bringing this matter before the public, because the subject of Cavalry horses has for long been the least explored part of the whole of the not very deeply explored military organisation of this country. Our practice has been when we wanted horses on the outbreak of war to go and buy them wherever we could get them. Those horses, of course, were not trained, and the unfortunate Cavalrymen were put on them. We did the best we could. That practice contrasted in an extraordinary fashion with the Continental practice, where the question of remounts has been carried to a very high pitch of perfection.

181
There are two systems. There is the German system, where the regiments have their own mounts, and there is the Austrian system, where boarded-out horses are used extensively. I may say to your Lordships that it was not till two or three years ago that I myself realised the gravity of the situation in this country, and there is very little in what Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Greville said that I dissent from. Supposing our Cavalry are mobilised, they are obviously at an enormous disadvantage particularly if opposed to well-mounted Cavalry. We therefore set to work to consider what was the best to be done, and in what has been done I have been guided by men such as General French and General Haig, great Cavalry experts, who were consulted at the beginning of this business—and a very difficult one it is going to be. The constitution of the Cavalry Division two or three years ago brought to light an enormous number of new points never dreamed of. The whole machinery was put to the test, and we found that the weakest points were the remounts. Since then we have added men and horses to the regiments. We have added to the men and substantially to the horses, and we have added remounts—regimental horses and boarded-out horses. But I say at once that although we have a peace establishment which shows an actual number of horses in excess of the war establishment, we have not yet solved the problem of how to produce that war establishment of trained horses; and I entirely agree with Lord Willoughby de Broke that until your horses are trained your Cavalry cannot be said to be properly efficient.
At the present time the peace establishment of a Cavalry regiment is as follows. I will take regiments as more convenient than Divisions, because the figures of a Division are complicated by transfers and other things which prevent your getting the right figures as regards the horses. The peace establishment of a Cavalry regiment is this:—With the regiment, 469 horses; boarded-out, 73—total 542. The war establishment is:—With the regiment, 434; at the base depôt, 48—total 482. But the surplus is only a nominal one, because a considerable number of these horses are untrained horses, and as I have already said I agree that the problem we have to solve is how to get trained horses for the Cavalry. There is no difficulty
182
about numbers. Numbers can be got by means of the boarding-out system. If that proves, as the result of experiments, to be useful, it may facilitate our task, but I should be sorry to dogmatise about this business, and I will tell you why. This is one of those things that can be solved only by making careful investigation by the best experts. We have had sitting now for about a month a Committee which I think leaves very little to be desired. Some of the best Cavalry soldiers in the country are sitting on that Committee, and I believe we are to have the advantage of the evidence of Lord Willoughby de Broke as a Master of Hounds on the subject of what training can be given to boarded-out horses in order to make them efficient.
There are two views on this question. One view is that you can by perfecting your system of training secure that every boarded-out horse may reach a certain condition of efficiency. The other is that you can only provide properly trained horses if the horses are allocated to a regiment. That view can only be tested by experts. Germany takes one view, Austria the other; but the Committee must take some time to inquire. There is a good deal of evidence, and therefore I do not want to say anything about the subject or in any way to prejudice the conclusions to which the Committee may come on this subject. One very important point arises in this connection. We know how wasteful it is in war to use horses under six years old. Our custom has been to use for war purposes four and five year old horses. That has not been done on the Continent, although you may do it very well for the Yeomanry where the stress is not so great. But for Regular Cavalry, particularly for the Expeditionary Force, who may have severe work, it is wasteful to use horses under six years old. What we want to do is to train our horses thoroughly if possible, and not use them until they are in a proper condition. There are experts who say that British horses can be taken at less than six years old, that you can utilise them between five and six years old, but that is a point upon which the Committee will come to a decision.
I think I have said enough to show your Lordships the extraordinarily conflicting character of this problem. At all events,

183
the War Office is very busily engaged with it at the present time. We hope under the new legislation of this year to complete before long the census of horses. No doubt we shall find many more horses than we require, but the difficulty will be when you come to the Cavalry to get trained horses, and I doubt very much whether the census will help us in this matter. The problem that remains is a Cavalry problem, and I can only say that I hope the light thrown upon it by the Committee will enable us to come to some practical conclusion. We have so far solved the problem that we have increased the establishment for Cavalry very substantially within the last two years, and there are more than enough horses to mobilise them; but you cannot properly mobilise with these horses, and therefore there remains this secondary problem which I consider in some respects a more difficult problem than the first.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the Secretary of State for War has most frankly stated how indebted your Lordships are to the noble Lord for bringing this subject forward, and I desire to associate myself with the noble Viscount in saying that. It seems to me that this is really a most important question, more specially important perhaps because it is not the kind of question that, from its ordinary nature, comes very much before the public eye. At the same time it is a question about which rumours fly around, and one on which the public should be reassured.
It seems to me that there are really two questions involved—the question of the provision of trained horses on mobilisation to which the noble Lord has referred and to which I desire to refer no further, and the question of reassuring the public as to the fitness of the horses you have in the ranks at the present moment. The noble Viscount spoke the other day of mobilising four Divisions in ten days and the remaining two Divisions in twenty-one days. I did not gather at the time in which of these two categories the Cavalry are at present considered to be, apart altogether from the question of the provision of the number of horses. But I rise this afternoon in order to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider whether something might not be done to bring clearly to the mind
184
of the public the fact, and I believe it to be the fact, that the horses you now have in the ranks are as efficiently trained as they ought to be if they had to go to war at ten days' notice. I do not think the public mind is satisfied at the present time on that point, and I think it ought to be.
The French Cavalry during the last few weeks have performed a most remarkable achievement, with the details of which I have no doubt the noble Viscount is familiar. It arose from a good deal of discussion in France as to whether the horses in the ranks were kept as fit as they ought to be. The result was that a prize was offered to the regiment which should prove itself best in a competition organised more or less on the lines of a scouting movement. The trial took place about four weeks ago, when I had the good fortune to be in France. Although I did not actually see any of the trials going on, I think I fully appreciated the atmosphere. The tests were to be that parties from the various regiments—an officer, a non-commissioned officer, and four men—were given seventy-two hours in which to cover a distance of 300 kilometres, or, roughly, 188 miles. They were to perform this feat, all converging upon Paris, as a unit. It was perfectly useless for a horse or a man to fall out; disqualification met them the moment one of their number was unable to keep up with the others. It was not a race, because no unit was allowed to enter Paris before the seventy-second hour, but you will see at once that it was a very high test of courage and endurance—a very high test of the brains of the officer in charge, and of his power to study his route and look after his horses and men. It was also a very high test of the efficiency of the turn-out, the efficiency of the fitting and the saddlery, and, in fact, a very high test of a Cavalry unit.
Well, the remarkable part of this trial is that whereas twenty-seven parties started from twenty-seven regiments to take part in this competition, twenty-three parties actually carried it out. There were only four failures, and of those one was caused by a horse slipping on the tram line as it was entering Paris and thus becoming lame. It was coming along, therefore, in the last few yards of the competition. Another failure was caused by a piece of bad luck—

185
a horse going lame. The non-commissioned officer and the men sat up all night but failed to get it right, so it had to be sent home to Paris by rail. But they felt so disappointed that although they only remained five in their unit and were disqualified, they determined to complete the competition themselves, and in order to be in at the proper time they did eighty-four miles in twenty-four hours, and arrived spic and span on the last morning of the trial. These sort of failures are not failures to be ashamed of. They only illustrate more fully, I think, the excellence of the whole performance. The very heavy feat of going 188 miles in this time was performed successfully by twenty-three units out of twenty-seven, the four failures being really very small failures, and two were almost, as I have pointed out, successes.
The reason I have drawn attention to this matter is this. There is no doubt whatever that this competition made a most profound impression upon public opinion in France. It profoundly impressed public opinion there as to the efficiency of their Cavalry. I would suggest to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War whether he would like to give us a similar impression in England. It would be possible for him to carry out a similar competition amongst thirteen regiments at this moment which are all within that distance—188 miles of London. He could bring fourteen regiments if he chose to bring in York, but he would have to arrange for York to start 10 miles this side of London. If the noble Viscount thought it desirable and found it convenient to carry out such a trial as this, it is important that a start should be made very soon because it is undesirable that horses should be put in special training. We want to know whether the horses in the possession of our Cavalry are fit to go to war in ten days' time. If the noble Viscount thought it desirable that this trial should take place here, I do not wish to put myself unduly forward but I think I might undertake, having consulted Lord Willoughby de Broke and one or two others, that a small sum would be forthcoming to give a prize to the successful men and a piece of plate to the successful regiment. I do not myself doubt that the British Cavalry could carry out this trial every bit as well as the French Cavalry, but I do not know whether the public also realise that. I should like them to, and
186
therefore I commend this idea to the noble Viscount opposite.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I have been a Cavalry soldier for a short time myself, and although I agree with a part of what the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, said, I think he rather—I do not like to put it too strongly—cast an aspersion on members of the Cavalry in this country. I could not quite hear what he said. I was sitting behind him, but I think I heard him describing a ride of French Cavalry recently towards Paris. The ride, I understand, was about 188 miles, but I could not hear the time which the noble Earl gave.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Seventy-two hours.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: It is two or three years since I was in the Army, but I remember that a squadron of the regiment in which I had the honour to serve certainly did as much as sixty or seventy miles in a day in reconnoitring and that sort of thing, and although it was manœuvres carried on as much as possible under the conditions of war that squadron continued its very active operations next day and the next day after that, and I do not remember that there were any casualties in that squadron or that the horses were in any way put out of action. I fancy in course of time the officer commanding that particular squadron took a certain amount of pride in having carried out this ride, and it certainly surprised several people that the horses of an ordinary Cavalry regiment in England could do such a thing. But there it was, and I do not think the noble Earl would find any difficulty in discovering several Cavalry regiments in England who would be able to carry out a ride and compete with any Cavalry regiment abroad.
The root of the trouble in regard to the supply of horses is, to my mind, the initial difficulty of getting horses at all. The Remount Department are limited as to the amount of money which they can expend. At least they used to be. Formerly they were limited to a certain amount as the price which they could give for a horse. I suppose the Exchequer did not like to produce as much money as the Army officers would like, and the

187
result was that Cavalry regiments as a rule had to train their men on an insufficient number of horses. Besides that, the Remount Department used to obtain horses of too young an age. They could not afford to pay a longer price, and the result was they bought three or four-year-olds. What was the effect of that? These horses were trained in the riding school and given a very severe training, and in several cases the constitutions of the horses were ruined and they never recovered. That will be borne out by any Cavalry soldier in your Lordships' House, and that is where the British Army suffers such a disadvantage as compared with the German Army. I believe the Germans never fight with, or even train, a horse until it is six years old, and the result is that it lasts much longer. The reason we cannot do that is that we have not the horses.
The Secretary of State for War, of course, knows all this. He has a Committee sitting, and all these points are naturally gone into. The great difficulty so far as trained horses are concerned is, as I have said, the initial difficulty of supplying the horses to begin with. If you give the Cavalry regiments sufficient horses you will find sufficient trained horses to go to war when the time comes; but, as everybody knows, the Cavalry regiments are insufficiently horsed, and the result is the horses have to do a great deal too much work. They are worked from morning till night, from year's end to year's end. In the regiment I was connected with we had this great advantage over other Cavalry regiments, that our horses were not worked all the winter as well as all the summer. They had a certain amount of rest, and the result was they were much better; and though I do not say it in derogation of any other Cavalry regiment, our horses were much fitter when manœuvres came than the other horses of the Line, for the reason that they had been cared for a bit more because we could rest them.
I was in Canada about two years ago, and an officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway was talking to me about the supply of horses. He said, as everybody knows, that it is quite feasible to obtain a supply of horses fit for Cavalry regiments from Canada, if the Government would only give
188
the ranchers an undertaking that they would go and buy a certain number every year. The Government did not do so, and the result is that the ranchers do not any longer breed the class of horse fit for this particular work, but go in for the shires and the hackneys. But this officer told me that a few years ago he was authorised by the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway to write to the War Office and offer them 10,000 acres of land at a nominal price, about a cent an acre, the idea being that this land would be carefully chosen and would act as a collecting station for troop horses to mount Cavalry, or gun horses. I asked him what happened. He said, "They never even answered my letter." This was several years ago and the noble Viscount the present Secretary of State for War is quite exonerated in the matter, because he probably never heard of the letter much less ever saw it. But there it is. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company made this offer. They hold to it, I believe, to-day. They would produce these 10,000 acres at the nominal rent, as I say, of a cent an acre, and you would then be able to collect your horses and buy the very best, for in Canada, as is well known, there are most excellent horses. It is difficult to improve upon them; and so long as you had the command of the sea you would be able to ship them over very quickly during war time.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I entirely agree with the last speaker, that the English Cavalry would be perfectly competent to carry out the exercise which Lord Donoughmore so graphically described. The question is not so much one as to the training and fitness of the English horses, but as to the quality of the horses themselves. I was told only a year or two ago by one of the Inspectors-General of Cavalry—I will not mention his name—that he had attended in an official capacity the manœuvres in Germany, France, and Austria, and the conclusion he had come to was that the Cavalry in those three countries were far better mounted than the Cavalry in this country. And the worst of it is that the horses on which these Cavalry are mounted are either English horses or their descendants. The reason this is so is that the foreigners come over here and buy our horses at three years old, whereas we do not buy them until they are four years old; the result is we only get what they will not take.

189
I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount opposite say they were not going to send out any horses until they are six years old. I think that is economically correct. I took a horse to South Africa which had never been worked at all until he was six years old, and I have got him running in a cart now, and he is over twenty years old. I believe that is entirely due to his not having been hard worked when he was three or four years old. I would point out, further, that in the case of a Continental war there might be difficulty in providing horses for this country, as the foreign markets would probably be closed to us. I speak with some diffidence on this question, as the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture has put me on the Advisory Board. When I was in a regiment and anybody grumbled at the food he was immediately put on the Mess Committee, and I think it was on this principle that the noble Earl placed me on the Advisory Board. As far as I understand, the duty of the Board of Agriculture is to provide the horses and to see to the breed of horses in this country, but I think, on the other hand, it is the business of the War Office to retain them, either by buying them at three years old or getting a lien on them, so that they shall not be taken away by the foreigner, or so that we, at any rate, shall have the first choice.
It seems to me that if we had to mobilise suddenly the Territorials would be more or less denuded of horses to fill up the Cavalry Division when they started. I think it would be the right thing if every Yeoman had a horse registered on which he could rely at the moment of mobilisation. At the end of six months we should probably want to entirely remount the Cavalry in a campaign, as the mortality is something enormous amongst horses, not only from want of food and from exposure but from the extraordinarily hard work which they have to undergo. The Yeomanry, as your Lordships know, are very short of horses. Three men as a rule have to ride one horse. Mr. Tilling, I believe, provides these horses; and I was much surprised the other day to hear from the Secretary of State for War that Colonel Repington had said that two Yeomanry regiments were equal to one Regular Cavalry regiment. I should like to know whether those Yeomanry regiments are mounted, because if they are not I do not think it is putting the Regular Cavalry regiment very high.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, nobody is more conscious than I am of the difficulties which beset the Secretary of State for War, and I have no doubt that every effort is being made by the War Office to overcome them. There is one point which I think is not sufficiently realised by some Cavalry officers, and that is that the difficulty as regards the shortage of horses for regiments in ordinary times, in time of peace, is not by any means due to the parsimony of the War Office. I myself on two occasions had a Committee of Cavalry Officers and directed them to let us know the largest number of horses they would take in a regiment in time of peace, and on each occasion the War Office exceeded the number which these officers declared themselves willing to take. The difficulty was that with the number of duties to be performed one man was found to have to groom two horses unless you kept down the number to a reasonable limit. The difficulty before the war was that Cavalry officers found it impossible to house, or rather to maintain, as many horses as the War Office would have been glad to give. Then, of course, there comes the difficulty as regards age, and the provision of horses on mobilisation. I believe that those officers who had the advantage of the first 14,000 registered horses which were used—some for Cavalry, some for Artillery, and a few for transport—all agree that on the whole the first demands in the South African war were well met. I might even now commend to the noble Viscount the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that there should be a registered horse for each Yeoman. I believe that would not be an undue demand, and would really make the Yeoman efficient for the immediate purposes of mobilisation without waiting for a further supply.
What I rose chiefly to say was this. It fell upon me later in the war, after the original difficulties of supply had been more, or less met, to have to maintain a supply of 10,000 horses per month for a year and a half—300 horses a day to be landed in South Africa; and I have always been convinced that we could never attempt that again unless we had some supply from British territory on which we might depend. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount opposite, before all these vacant lands are taken up in Canada—I mean lands con-

191
venient for this purpose—to consider such offers as Lord Clanwilliam said had been made. The sooner we make this provision in some country where there is ample range and where we can secure the class of horse which we desire, the better it will be for the Army. I dare say it is well known to all those who have studied this question that the breed of horses in Australia for this purpose left a great deal to be desired; and I am sorry to think that in the years that have elapsed since the war we have not at the War Office made any change in this respect.
I hope that the noble Viscount will, if he possibly can, enable a system to be set on foot which will register for every trooper who will be mobilised, whether in the Regular Army or in the Yeomanry, a horse on which he can put his hand on the day of mobilisation, and that the noble Viscount will also be able to find for us outside the United Kingdom, without in any way prejudicing the supply from here, some supply which will enable us in that particular country where we get the horses to keep them until they are five years old if not till six years. I know that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War is fully alive to this grave and increasing danger in regard to a sufficiency of horses, a danger which must increase owing to motor traction so largely diminishing the supply of horses in some parts of the United Kingdom, and one which I am sure your Lordships will be glad to help him to overcome.

IRISH LAND SALES.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEhad the following Question on the Paper—
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether in sales under the Irish Land Act, 1909, a portion of the purchase price is retained by the Land Commissioners for the redemption of Government and other charges; and whether it is the case that the Stock so retained is habitually sold by them at a price considerably below the market quotation of such Stock; and whether arrangements cannot be made which will not entail this heavy additional loss on landowners."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend who replies on behalf of the Irish Office has asked me to postpone the Question which stands in my name, and with the permission of the House I therefore propose to do so.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I ask the House to consider and approve this Report from the Select Committee. There are only two points which require special notice. One indicates a slight change of policy with regard to the appointment of messengers. At present there are some messengers who are called temporary messengers, and are only employed during the weeks that Parliament sits. This has not been found by the Clerk of the Parliaments to be an altogether satisfactory system, because while those who are appointed temporary messengers have a sort of claim to a permanent post, the temporary nature of the first employment does not always tend to attract those whom the Clerk of the Parliaments thinks would be the best men. Under the policy indicated in this Report the temporary messenger will be absorbed in the regular staff, and it is hoped by adding one to the staff and not having temporary messengers at all that a more satisfactory arrangement can be made. I need hardly say that appointments to this staff, as a matter of practice not by any order, are made by the Clerk of the Parliaments from those who have served in some portion of His Majesty's Dominions.
The last paragraph of the Report is, I think, worthy of notice by your Lordships. It states that—
"The First Commissioner of His Majesty's Works reported that the Trustees of the National Gallery had kindly offered to lend for exhibition within the precincts of the House of Lords Copley's picture of "The Death of Chatham."
The Committee accepted that offer with gratitude, and the picture is now hung at the head of the Royal Gallery. I hope that it will remain there, and, as is indicated by the First Commissioner of Works, that he will be able to induce the Directors of the National Gallery to send us some further pictures which will adorn the walls of this House. I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the First Commissioner of Works for the interest he has taken in this matter, and I hope his policy will go further. I would also call attention to the fact that the First Commissioner himself has made us a gift of a coloured engraving by Nash representing the opening

193
of Parliament by Queen Victoria in 1858. I am sure the House will cordially approve, and thank the First Commissioner as the Committee has already done. I beg to move the adoption of the Report.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be adopted. (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ARMY RESERVE.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORDhad the following Notice on the Paper—
"To call attention to—
1. The deficiency in the 1st Class of the Army Reserve, Sections A and B, and in the 2nd Class of the Army Reserve, Section D, to meet the requirements of the Expeditionary Force in event of mobilisation in 1913, according to the following table compiled from statistics furnished to Parliament by the Secretary of State for War, and according to statements made by the Under-Secretary of State for War on 15th November, 1910.
THE NUMBERS OF THE ARMY, OF THE REGULAR RESERVE, AND OF THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN 1913.

By the Army Annual Return published in 1911 the total number of non-commissioned officers and men in the United Kingdom

121,143

There are 28,268 under 20 years of age in 121,143

(A)—From Peace Establishment.

Number of non-commissioned officers and men in the United Kingdom

121,143

Less number of non-commissioned officers and men under 20 years of age

28,268

Less 10 per cent. for casualties

9,287

Regulars available for Expeditionary Force

83,588

Number required from peace establishment for Expeditionary Force by Table 1, Memo. of 8th April, 1907

60,927

(B)—From Reserve.

Estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913

106,372

Number living out of the country by statement of Under-Secretary of State for War in November, 1910

7,198

99,174

2. The unfitness of the men of the 2nd Class of the Army Reserve, Section D, and of the Special Reserve, for the duties assigned to them in connection with the Expeditionary Force; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in the Notice that stands in my name on the Paper I call your Lordships' attention to two points—the lack of quantity in the First Class of the. Army Reserve and to the lack of quality in the Second Class of the Army Reserve and of the Special Reserve to meet the requirements of the Expeditionary Force in 1913. I deal with non-commissioned officers and men only. My figures are taken from statements made by Lord Lucas when Under-Secretary of State for War on November 15 last, and also from the War Office Table dated April 8, 1907, which sets forth very clearly and in considerable detail the numbers required from the peace establishment, from the Regular Reserve, and from the Special Contingent for the Expeditionary
196
Force. I am aware that there is a more recent Table than that, issued only last month, but it was dated June 1, 1910. This Table gives the total number of men required for the Expeditionary Force, but it does not differentiate between the numbers required from the peace establishment, from the Regular Reserve, and from the Special Contingent, and hence is valueless for my purpose. It is like substituting the comprehensive word "miscellaneous" for the separate headings of a financial statement, and produces the same impression.
The Table which I have put upon the Paper shows that on the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force in 1913 there will be a deficiency of 29,240 men in the First Class of the Army Reserve. This shortage is met in part by the men of the Second Class of the Army Reserve, whose estimated number in 1913 is 24,895. Assume that mobilisation takes place at the end of the trooping season—that is, in or immediately after the month of April, when all the drafts required for foreign service have been sent abroad. At that time there will be a total deficiency in all classes of the Regular Reserve amounting to 6,834. In the debate which took place before Easter the noble Viscount alluded to—
"a large number of surplus Reserve and the Special Reserve left in the country after the departure of the Expeditionary Force."
The question I beg to ask the noble Viscount is this, Whence will this large number of surplus Reserve be derived in 1913, and why do War Office Returns supplied for our information show not a surplus but a deficiency? There will not only be a great deficiency in the quantity of the First Class of the Regular Reserve, but there will also be a great lack of quality in the Second Class of the Army Reserve.
The men comprising this class of the Reserve known as Section D of the Army Reserve were found by Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny during the South African war to be unfit for active service. I have on a previous occasion quoted the evidence given by these two distinguished Generals upon this matter, but I failed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who then represented the War Office, to pay any attention to their opinion. I must therefore press the noble Viscount for an answer to this question. Why, if

197
these Section D men were found unfit for active service in South Africa, should they now be considered fit for active service at a moment's notice with the Expeditionary Force in Europe and elsewhere? The noble Viscount knows that the reason why the men of the Second Class of the Army Reserve proved unsatisfactory in South Africa was due to the length of their absence from the Colours. I must remind the noble Viscount that whereas the men found by Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny unfit for immediate active service abroad had been absent from the Colours from five to nine years, the men now relied upon by the noble Viscount to complete his Expeditionary Force will have been absent from the Colours from nine to thirteen years. The noble Viscount must be aware that he is counting upon men who will be the product of the three years with the Colours and nine with the Reserve term of enlistment, and that consequently the unfitness complained of by Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny will be not only intensified but in some cases more than doubled.
Now until the noble Viscount tells us some good reason for setting aside the evidence of Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny it is useless for him to expect us to accept the men of the Second Class Army Reserve as in any way fit for First Line duties against Continental or other troops within three weeks of mobilisation. However, the noble Viscount must include 25,000 Second Class Army Reservists in the ranks of his Expeditionary Force, and even then he will have to draw at once on his Special Reserve to complete his numbers. The noble Lord has assured us, in answer to a question put to him by Lord Curzon, that—
"He had the machinery and provision for keeping the Expeditionary Force in existence."
Now that provision is the Special Reserve. There is no other; therefore it is well to consider that force in some detail. The noble Viscount decided to destroy the old Second Line, the Militia, and to create a new force, the Special Reserve. The noble Viscount has told us that he is satisfied that the new Special Reserve is a better force than the old Militia. We have lost the Militia but we have gained a better force, the Special Reserve, and pro tanto our military forces are the stronger. I should for a moment like to set the loss against the gain.
For instance, in the South African war 126 battalions of Militia were embodied, and there served abroad sixty-one battalions in South Africa and nine in the Mediterranean and Egypt. These seventy battalions expanded the Regular Army abroad by complete units. In short, they carried out the chief recommendation made by the South African War Commission on the need for means of expansion outside the limits of the Regular Army for foreign service. No one would contend that you can simply wipe out a force which supplied seventy battalions for foreign and active service and put nothing in its place without weakening your military strength. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has told us that the Special Reserve in its present form—
"is a far more valuable part of the military system than the old Militia, on which a considerable sum of money had to be expended."
Tested by war experience we know the value of the Militia Force in the past. It was good for seventy battalions abroad besides more than fifty embodied battalions at home, and it supplied its own officers and non-commissioned officers.
Now as to the present value of the Special Reserve. This is quite certain, that whereas you had seventy Militia battalions actually serving abroad, now you have not got a single Special Reserve battalion fit for foreign service. For this very duty the noble Viscount designed the twenty-seven fourth battalions, and told us on March 14 last that they were to go abroad in the same way as the old Militia. All the same, there is not a single battalion in a fit state to go on foreign service, and there is not the smallest prospect of any becoming fit for that duty. The noble Viscount announced on March 14 last that he was going to raise the establishment of these battalions from 530 to 750 men. That means that the noble Viscount must get 5,940 more men for his twenty-seven fourth battalions. At present the whole Special Reserve Infantry is 7,228 men short of its establishment. It is not enough for the noble Viscount to tell us that he proposes to raise more than 13,000 additional recruits; he must also be prepared to show us how he is going to get them without injuring recruiting for the Regular Army, and how he is going to provide them with non-commissioned officers. Last March the noble Viscount

199
proposed to divert men from joining the Second Class Army Reserve and to enlist them into the Special Reserve. Yes; but then what becomes of the Expeditionary Force when the Second Class of the Army Reserve is thus depleted by being put into the Special Reserve?
The whole Special Reserve numbers at present 60,957 non-commissioned officers and men; of these, by the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for War on November 15 last, 15,175 Special Reservists are required to form the Special Contingent of the Expeditionary Force and to proceed abroad at once on mobilisation. That leaves at home 45,782 non-commissioned officers and men of the Special Reserve; one-third of these must be recruits too young to serve abroad. I must further explain that this number of 45,782 would include the twenty-seven fourth battalions who are, by the statement of the noble Viscount, earmarked for foreign service. If the noble Viscount adheres to his statement of March 1 last and sends the twenty-seven battalions abroad they cannot be counted in the home force; that would diminish the home force by some 15,000 men, reducing the total at home to 29,280 including the immature and the unfit. I shall include the twenty-seven fourth battalions in the home drafting pool, because it is obviously impossible for them to serve abroad as battalions. But I must insist on this point, that these twenty-seven battalions cannot be counted as serving abroad as battalions and at the same time as forming part of the home drafting pool. It is for the noble Viscount to elect to which duty he definitely assigns them, but I do protest against his using them in two places at one time. It is certain that the noble Viscount would never have detailed these twenty-seven battalions for foreign service had he not required them abroad. Well, they are not available for foreign service. How, then, are their places to be supplied over seas?
If we recognise the failure of the Special Reserve to provide battalion units for foreign service we shall have in round numbers 45,000 men in the Special Infantry Reserve at home. That number, less one-third too young for foreign service, leaves 30,000 men. That number, again less 10 per cent. for wastage and unfitness and less the number required to sail with the Expeditionary Force in the first instance,
200
would leave at the very outside 25,000 men available for immediate drafting abroad. There are no non-commissioned officers fit to go abroad with the drafts and take their places in the non-commissioned ranks on joining the Line regiments on service. This, then, is the fighting value of the Special Infantry Reserve at the present moment, but then it is a diminishing quantity. At first the establishment was to be 90,000 representing the whole Militia force transferred, and the noble Viscount credited the Regular Army with an additional 90,000 men; then the establishment came down to 70,000, and now the strength is about 60,000, and I read in the Army Annual Return published in 1911 that 7,803 fewer recruits were obtained for the Special Reserve than in the previous year. From 90,000 to 60,000 in three years is a pretty rapid descent down hill, and from the last Army Annual Report we have not yet reached the bottom. In spite of all this the noble Viscount told us that he—
"believed that the Special Reserve was a better force than the Militia; its numbers were less but it supplied what the General Staff had worked out as the requisites for finding drafts and providing for the wastage of war during the early period of a war."
The numbers of rank and file of the Special Reserve are at present nearly 30,000 less than those of the Militia in 1905. We have been told that to supply the wastage of the Expeditionary Force during the first six months of a war 70,000 men will be required. Now if the General Staff work out a demand for 70,000 men and are well satisfied with providing 25,000 men to meet it, I do not think they are ever likely to be disappointed with the results of their administration, because they do not seem to appreciate the difference between success and failure.
Twenty-five thousand men are no very great quantity. Now as to their quality and their fitness for the particular duty for which they are required. They are to go abroad within a few weeks of the departure of the Expeditionary Force on active service in Europe or elsewhere. In a recent debate the noble Viscount refused to regard men with one year of continuous service with refresher courses as sufficiently trained to meet Regular Continental troops, and he considered that—
"if the doctrine were taken seriously it would spread alarm and consternation throughout the Army."

201
These Special Reservists, with whom the noble Viscount is satisfied, are wanted for this particular purpose, and yet the noble Viscount gives some of them five and others of them three months of squad drill at a depôt, and it is noteworthy that the men of the battalions ear-marked for foreign service are the ones who receive but three months. That represents, or rather misrepresents, their term of Colour service. These Special Reservists are never trained with a regiment in the correct sense of the term. Their annual training of four weeks is but a skeleton training conducted with skeleton companies drilling in single rank, and never enough men in a company to carry out the minor tactics of company training.
Then as to musketry, there is only time to fire 80 rounds instead of the 250 required for the Regular soldier. Machine gun practice and signalling are unknown. The Special Reserve is the special invention of the noble Viscount, and consequently he must accept the product as fit for First Line duties or he would stultify himself. He told us before Easter that—
"His present military system gave a large number of highly trained Reservists, more highly trained than the Reservists of any other country in the world, who mobilise with your Regulars and make them efficient fighting battalions."
That is true of the men of the First Class Army Reserve only where there will be a deficiency of upwards of 30,000 men. But we know from the evidence of Lord Methuen and Sir T. Kelly-Kenny that it is not true of the men of Section D, the Second Class Army Reserve, who are to number 25,000, and it cannot be true of the men and boys in the Special Reserve. No military Power would include in their First Line—that is, in their frontier force, and our Expeditionary Force represents our frontier force—men who have been a dozen or more years away from the Colours, or boys with five and three months of squad drill and no Colour service at all and only trained in musketry up to one-third of First Line standard.
I beg to ask the noble Viscount, first, if he expects us to believe that the men in the Second Class Army Reserve and the men and boys in the Special Reserve upon whom he relies for the requirements of his Expeditionary Force are really more highly trained than the Reservists of any country in the world; and, secondly, to show us
202
from whence the 70,000 men are to be obtained to feed the Expeditionary Force during the first six months of a war. It is certain they cannot come from the Special Reserve. The War Office Returns tell us that they are not there. They must be in the same place as the large surplus of Regular Reservists alluded to by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount will produce them from somewhere because he has told us that he will do so, but why not let us know from where, because after all, in spite of the secrets of mobilisation, they are bound to appear within the next eighteen months on the Army Estimates.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the deficiency in the 1st Class of the Army Reserve, Sections A and B, and in the 2nd Class of the Army Reserve, Section D, to meet the requirements of the Expeditionary Force in event of mobilisation in 1913, according to the statistics furnished to Parliament by the Secretary of State for War, and statements made by the Under-Secretary of State for War on 15th November, 1910.—(The Duke of Bedford.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the limits of my poor capacity have prevented me from doing more than catch a few drops from the torrent of figures which the noble Duke has poured forth, but I have secured enough to catch the general drift of his arguments. It is the custom of the noble Duke to give us the advantage of seeing his speeches in print, sometimes in the form of letters to the Morning Post and occasionally in a pamphlet, and that is a great advantage, because it enables one to follow what otherwise it would not be easy to follow.
But I wish that the noble Duke, the next time he deals with such a question as the state on mobilisation in 1913, would pay a little attention to what has been explained by my noble friend Lord Lucas in this House and by myself elsewhere, which, I should have thought, could not have been misunderstood. We agree that in 1913, excluding Section D, the Regular Reserve will drop to about 106,000. We know all about that, and we have explained over and over again why it is so. It is so because the system of three years with the Colours and nine in the Reserve was altered by the late Mr. Arnold-Forster for a short period into nine years

203
and three. That, again, was altered to what I believe a much better subdivision, seven years with the Colours and five in the Reserve, and since then you have got nine with the Colours and three in the Reserve. Naturally in 1913 you will find your figures drop, but that need not perturb you very much, because if your battalions are full of men trained for nine years it is clear that you do not require so much of the Reserve to mobilise. Therefore it is as broad as it is long; not quite, but nearly as broad as it is long. In 1913 the Reserve will drop, but you will be wanting a much smaller Reserve because your battalions will be full of men who have been nine years with the Colours. I have explained over and over again that the year 1913 has to be watched. It will be down temporarily, but the Reserve will rise immediately after that to its normal, because the five and seven years' system will be in existence. We have explained fully that we are quite aware of what will be the state of things in 1913, and that such provision has been made as will avert any danger connected with it.
But the noble Duke speaks of 1913 as if it would be the beginning of disaster. He ignores altogether that it is transitory, and that the state of things then will be due to circumstances and to a policy over which this Government have no control—a policy which existed for a short time and which has given rise to circumstances which cannot but be temporary. I will say no more about 1913, except to express the hope that the next time the noble Duke speaks on this subject he will do justice to the fact that his point has been answered and disposed of, as far as I can judge, in a manner which admits of no doubt. The noble Duke went on to say that his figures had been taken from Papers which the War Office had laid on the Table from time to time, and they showed a deficiency which he brings out in the account he has put before your Lordships as a sort of appendix to his Question as 6,834. The noble Duke has also given your Lordships a whole string of figures which he says are taken from War Office Papers and establish his point. Will your Lordships believe that the true result is that there is not a deficiency of 6,834, but a surplus of nearly 27,000?
I have thought it worth while to get out some figures, and I wish to take the opportunity of saying that I cannot be constantly putting that burden upon the hard-worked
204
officials at the War Office. These figures have taken three officers the best part of a day and a half to search out, and I will give them to your Lordships. In the first place the noble Duke said he had not paid much attention to our Table showing the state of the Army in June, 1910. He proceeded on the Paper which was laid on the Table in 1907. I should have thought it would have been more prudent to examine a little closely the figures of the 1910 Return to see how far the figures of 1907 compared. But the noble Duke has not done that, and the result is that the whole of his figures are vitiated. I will take them one by one, because it is interesting to notice the differences.
The first point is a very minor one, and I will not dwell upon it; but the noble Duke, in the figures which he gives at the beginning of his Table showing the numbers of the Army to be 121,143, has omitted 851 warrant officers. It is a small point and I do not make much of it, but it shows how careful one has to be if one professes to be accurate. Next, under the heading "(A)—From Peace Establishment," the noble Duke gives the number of non-commissioned officers and men in the United Kingdom as 121,143, and then he deducts "less number of non-commissioned officers and men under twenty years of age," 28,268. From that one would believe that on mobilisation men under twenty were never sent abroad. The noble Duke has confused two things. We do not send drafts to India under twenty; but since 1899 the constant practice, under Lord Midleton, Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Arnold-Forster and myself, has been to treat, for certain arms, for certain purposes, men of nineteen as fit to go even to India, and certainly to Africa and to the. Continent. We do not send men under twenty into the fighting line in the Infantry or the Cavalry, but, as I have pointed out, we should on mobilisation, following the established practice, use a very large number of men under twenty. The noble Duke has, therefore, made an altogether excessive deduction in his figure of 28,268.
But the noble Duke has done another thing in this connection. He has taken, not establishment as he ought to have done, but strength, in giving these figures. Establishment and strength, I am glad to say, are not the same thing. There is at this moment, owing to bad recruiting—the

205
recruiting is, I am glad to see, increasing this week—a slight deficiency in the numbers of the pool, but no deficiency on the establishment. I should be sorry to contemplate it. It is undesirable to take your figures from strength, which may vary from day to day, instead of establishment, and the practice of doing this has led the noble Duke into a very great difficulty. He has put the number of men who leave the United Kingdom as drafts at 13,603, and he has said that these should be deducted; but he has overlooked altogether this fact, that, taking the trooping season with which he is dealing, while it is true that 13,603 are shown as drafts gone out, 12,369 men came home. Of course, there are men going out and men coming back. Most of them come to the Colours for a short time and then go to the Reserve, but there they are available, and if you deduct the drafts on one side going out you must take those who come home. Therefore the noble Duke's figures blunder by 13,000 at a stroke. No wonder he gets a deficiency where in the ordinary course of things there is a surplus.
I come to other points. The noble Duke has given the number of Regulars available for the Expeditionary Force as 83,588. That comes of taking the 1907 Return instead of, as he ought to have done, the 1910 Return, which shows the Army as it is under the seven and five years' system. If the noble Duke had taken that Return he would have found that his figure was wrong by no less than 7,000 men. The true figure is not 83,588 but 90,953. I come to another figure. The noble Duke gives the number required from the peace establishment for the Expeditionary Force by quoting Table 1 of the Memorandum of April 8, 1907. As your Lordships will see, it is 1907 again. There again he has taken it wrongly. He has taken the number available not the number required in 1907. The Return of 1910, which he ought to have taken, shows not 60,927, but 70,288 actually existing men detailed to the Expeditionary Force. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with these figures, which I am sure are quite as difficult for you to follow as the noble Duke's; but I am bound to protest against figures being brought forward and going out to the public which seem to show that the position of things is such as would naturally very much disturb the public mind, whereas as a matter of fact we have the whole of the men, the fighting personnel, of the
206
Expeditionary Force ready to mobilise at this moment.
I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with the whole of the details, but I find the figure of actual Reservists available for the Expeditionary Force is put down by the noble Duke at 80,896, when it should be 87,557, because whoever prepared these figures for the noble Duke has made an accounting blunder. There are a certain number of men taken from the Reserve and detailed for Medical service for instance. Of course, these form part of the Expeditionary Force just as much as if they were combatants. The noble Duke has deducted them because they are said to be required for those purposes. But he should have put them on both sides of the account. Though they are deducted from the number on one side, they are still going as part of the Expeditionary Force, and they are just as much a part of the Expeditionary Force as if they were fighting with the combatants. Again, as stated in the 1910 Return, 5,000 men for the A.S.C. and R.A.M.C. may be specially enlisted. The noble Duke is therefore wrong here by nearly 7,000. I should only weary your Lordships if I went through all the noble Duke's figures, but there is one particular point in which they are altogether misleading. They make out that the total Reserve will show a deficiency, but after the corrections that I have pointed out have been made instead of a deficiency of 6,834, as stated by the noble Duke, there is a surplus of nearly 27,000. I am not giving these figures recklessly. They have been carefully investigated, and are the result of very hard work in the Adjutant-General's department and the Actuarial department. As far as human skill and industry can make them, they are right. At least I am certain of this, that they are arrived at by going through the proper numbers, and by taking, not an antiquated document, but the most recent document as the basis of calculation.
The noble Duke has overlooked various things in this connection. In mobilisation you would not get much, but you would get a small amount for transport purposes by special enlistment, but in the substitution of mechanical transport it would be essential, not for transport in the fighting line, but the third and fourth transport, as it is called under the new system, to get highly skilled civil drivers for motor vehicles. This new system will to a con-

207
siderable extent reduce the demand for horses, and also to a certain extent for men for the same, and this is also true of the medical. The general observation I would wish to make on the noble Duke's criticism of the Army is that he goes on the principle of counting noses. That is an archaic plan. We fight to-day with great units of mixed arms of Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, and so on, with their transport, medical service, and supplies, and unless you have those things your mobilisation will be the old archaic mobilisation which has long been superseded in Continental armies.
There is only one way to make the Army efficient, and that is to study the organisation of the units. It is all very well to have a large surplus of Infantry, but it is no good to you if you have not the transport and supplies and Artillery to make them effective. Your success on mobilisation turns, and must turn, on your having a proper provision of everything, and therefore the basis of study and the basis of criticism ought to be these large units. That is a problem which does not seem to attract the noble Duke, who goes back to the state of things in the old Militia days as if in the Militia days there was any proper system of mobilisation. Everybody knows there was none. It would have taken months to mobilise a proper Army in those days. We are trying to do the best possible with a system which will provide against wastage in war, and which will enable us to mobilise our Divisions in such a way as we could not do in the old days. I dare say there are many shortcomings and deficiencies, but among these are certainly not the deficiencies in the figures which the noble Duke suggests in the Question he has put down on the Paper.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his reply to my Question, but I should like to be permitted to say a few words. First with regard to the question between the two Returns of 1907 and 1910. I beg to tell the noble Viscount that I could not make out anything in the 1910 Return, because you have not differentiated between the number of men you want from the Regular Reserve, the peace establishment, and the Special Contingent. You have lumped them together, and I have been unable to follow the Return. Will the noble Viscount lay on the Table of the House a Return made out precisely in the same way as
208
the one of 1907? If he does that, everything will be clear. The 1907 Return gives all the information wanted.
The noble Viscount has told your Lordships that we are to send abroad men of less than twenty years of age. I admit that is news to me. If you take the number of men under twenty years of age and count them as available for the Expeditionary Force, that will give you a surplus in the Reserve at once. Then the noble Viscount said I had made a great blunder in taking 13,000 drafts leaving the United Kingdom during the trooping season and not counting the drafts returning. It is true you send out 13,000 to India and abroad, and bring others home again, but they are bound to go to the Reserve the moment yon have got them back. Therefore I hold that you must deduct those 13,000 in the way I have done. I asked the noble Viscount whether he considered the men of the Second Class of the Army Reserve fit for the Expeditionary Force. I do not think he has answered that question. As regards the Special Reserve, I think he admits that there are no battalions tit to go abroad now as battalions. That is certainly a very great disadvantage compared with what happened in the old Militia days. Then the noble Viscount expects after the year 1913 to have some rebound in the numbers of his Regular Reserve, but I do not think that that is anticipated to be more than 10,000 men, and as he is losing over 130,000 I think he will still find himself after the year 1913 short in the numbers of the First Class Regular Reserve. I am much obliged to him for his explanations, and I think that the great difference in our tables of figures would arise from the point of age for foreign service.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I only rise to express the hope that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War will see his way to meet the views of the noble Duke by giving us, in some form in which we can judge of them, the figures which he has so largely quoted. The noble Viscount's military strategy, I have been told by colleagues in the House of Commons, is of the very first Parliamentary order. He involves the House and himself in a cloud of figures, covering his front as it were with so great a cloud of skirmishers that no one knows what operations are going on behind. One hon. member of the

209
House of Commons said to me about the noble Viscount—
"His speeches paralyse our minds, and leave the reporters in tears."
And he added that they were unable to follow his expressions, and could only come to the conclusion that he was himself perfectly satisfied and that he believed all those who were not satisfied ought to be ashamed of the part they were taking in criticising him.
What I feel is that these duels of figures, though they may be necessary, are only useful in so far as they give concrete facts on which we can judge. The noble Viscount has done two things undoubtedly which have tended to increase the Reserve. The first is that the medical measures which have been taken have decreased, at least I hope they have, very largely the wastage in the ranks. And the second great change he has made has been by adding the old Militia to the Reserve, which increases the Reserve largely on paper but by including a number of boys who are immature and insufficiently trained among Regular Reservists. But as regards Regulars everybody knows you cannot get a quart out of a pint bottle. The noble Viscount has decreased the battalions in number and strength, and therefore, except for the medical advantage to which I have referred, he has decreased the output of the Reserve. Nothing can alter that. No actuarial calculations can make his Reserve stronger than the Reserve produced by a much larger force. But what I think is of importance is that we should know what the Reserve is, not in 1913 but the normal. A duel has been going on to-night about 1913, but what we want to know is not what may be our weakness in a given year but what it is we can depend upon under the present system at the normal.
I wish to add one word of protest before I sit down. The noble Viscount told the noble Duke that, after all, the whole point was not numbers but the organisation for the purposes of mobilisation. The noble Viscount always speaks as if he had made a study of this organisation, of such an elementary fact as that, for the first time.
210
This is a subject which for the last twenty years has been exercising the minds of successive Secretaries of State for War, and the noble Viscount has lived and flourished on their efforts; he has boasted of the results which they created; he has prided himself on having changed certain conditions and has thrown a very thin gauze over what he has destroyed, especially in the case of the Artillery, which he has had to set up again. Your Lordships pressed him time after time to restore the number of Artillery batteries. We were assured it could not be done, but now it has been done, and the strength of the Reserve in the Artillery in the normal will be entirely due to that. I protest against its being supposed that these subjects are being looked upon for the first time, though I will not say Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona. What we have now I endeavoured to show the other night in a paper which the noble Viscount has. If he challenges those figures, I am ready to argue them at any time; but he must not, of course, take the Arnold-Forster changes which were incomplete, without giving him credit for undertaking what he had in mind to do. I ask the noble Viscount to adopt a fair estimate and give us figures of which we can judge. That, I think, would put an end to these discussions and exchanges of broadsides of figures, which are very difficult to follow and which do not instruct the public as we desire they should be instructed as to the strength of the Army.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I would ask the noble Viscount whether he would be disposed to allow me to have a Return like the 1907 one made up to date?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should have liked the 1910 Return to have been considered a little more first, but I will consider what the noble Duke says.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.