Lords Sitting of 11 May 1911

Preamble
The Viscount WOLVERHAMPTON—Sat first Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the Home, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Durham, &c.). [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for additional Provisions in the following Bills ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committees on the Bills to insert the additional Provisions.
Penllwyn Railway. [H.L.]
Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chinley and District Gas. [H.L.]
Also that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional Provision in the
Halifax Corporation Bill
ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 5th of April last and the 4th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
Reported with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
FURNESS RAILWAY BILL.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL.
CHICHESTER GAS BILL.
MANCHESTER AND MILFORD RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

MACCLESFIELD AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
OLDHAM AND SADDLEWORTH DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order of the Day for the Second Reading read and discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BILL.
  WIRRAL WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3a on Thursday the 25 th instant, and to be printed as amended on Report. (No. 78.)
TRUSTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable certain Bodies Corporate acting as executors and trustees to charge fees for their services, and to act as sole executors and trustees, and for other purposes—Was presented by the Lord Avebury; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 79.)
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved, That the Earl of Camperdown do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House during the absence of the Chairman of Committees through illness (Earl Beauchamp); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 11) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
DUNFERMLINE BURGH EXTENSION AND DRAINAGE BILL.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
CHESTERFIELD GAS AND WATER BOARD BILL.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) 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.),

E. Plymouth (Chairman),

V. Falmouth.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Ravensworth,

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam);

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.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (ALNWICK CORPORATION PAYMENT) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is a Bill to which I do not think any objection has been offered in any part of the district which it particularly concerns. It has been published, and has been for some time a matter of negotiation between the Board of Education, the county council, and the local city council. In these circumstances I venture to hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to agree to the insertion, in Clause 2, of the words "and it shall be the duty of the police to remove such offender," I should under ordinary circumstances regard it as my duty to apologies to the House for reviving a discussion on a point on which a Division was taken the other night in Committee; but I venture to think that that Division was taken under rather peculiar circumstances. In the first place, before the House went into Committee I think very few noble Lords were aware that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill intended to agree to, or to move, the omission of these words—not, as he explained to the House, because he was anxious to see the words removed, but in consequence of what I think I am not going too far in saying were the orders or threats of the Home Office that unless he consented to this they would prevent the Bill passing into law. We were not favoured on that occasion with any argument whatever on the part of the Home Office. I do not, of course, complain of the words that fell from my noble friend Lord Allendale, who represented the Government on that occasion with the courtesy which he always exhibits, but he told us himself that he represents in this House the Local Government Board and not the Home Office, and that the instructions of the Home Office were to say that they would not have this.
The Committee were placed at some disadvantage owing to the unfortunate absence through illness of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who had been Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill; and we were at, perhaps, a still greater disadvantage owing to the equally regrettable absence of Lord Onslow, who could have spoken, from his own knowledge of the countryside, of the nuisance caused by gipsies and van dwellers. There was a third disadvantage that we who supported the original Bill were under on that occasion, because the Second Reading debate took place as long ago as May, 1909, and I think the objects of the Bill were not very fresh in the memory of many members of the House who were present when the Committee stage was taken a few weeks ago. I am not going to weary your Lordships by going into the whole history of this legislation, but I think all parties in your Lordships'

317
House agreed that there was a considerable evil existing which required legislation. Not only were great inconvenience and loss caused to private individuals in the neighbourhood of open spaces where van-dwellers are in the habit of encamping, but there were far more serious evils of a public nature—evils in regard to sanitation and arising from the fires which were lit by these people—and I think that all parties were agreed that it would be a good thing that there should be some legislation on the subject.
Consequently a Select Committee of your Lordships' House was appointed, of which, as I have said, Lord Salisbury was chairman. That Committee made two recommendations of a concurrent nature. The first was that county councils should be empowered to provide camping grounds where proper sanitation could be enforced, and the concurrent recommendation was that the police were to be authorised, where such camping grounds had been established, to, in the words of the Amendment which I am now submitting to the House, remove offenders when found "squatting" elsewhere. Those were the joint and concurrent recommendations of the Select Committee. In Paragraph 11 of their Report the Select Committee say that wherever a county council consider that van-dwellers are in such numbers as to involve the evils which the Committee describe, they shall be empowered to provide camping ground for them under such conditions as might be prescribed by the Local Government Board; and the Committee go on to say that it would, of course, follow that where this power was exercised and camping grounds provided, the encampment of these people on other places would be prohibited, and that it would be the duty of the police forthwith to see that that was observed. I think the House will agree that these recommendations were of a two-fold and concurrent nature—that if camping grounds were to be provided by the county council powers should be given to the police to remove these van-dwellers from other places. Without giving that power the Bill would be absolutely nugatory.
Consider for a moment what would be the effect of leaving out these words. Van-dwellers would be offered two alternatives. They might, on payment of the fee mentioned in the Bill, use the county council camping ground, or they might
318
"squat" gratis elsewhere; and is any noble Lord going to suppose for a moment that these people would take the first of those alternatives? Without this power given to the police to remove them, I think I am justified in saying that the Bill would be absolutely useless. I may be told that the Bill as it stands provides a penalty in the event of these van-dwellers not using the county council camping ground. Yes; but the penalty provided by the Bill would not be of the slightest effect. Clause 6 provides that—
"any person guilty of a breach of any order or regulation made under this Act shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings."
Summary conviction sounds very attractive, like "justice while you wait," and like the advertisements of quick lunches for City clerks; but from what I know of the law of England there is nothing summary in it.
The majesty of the law is a lengthy and slow process, and I believe that as a matter of fact all summary conviction means in this case is that under Clause 6 a summons can be taken out against the person guilty of a breach of the enactment. The summons would be returnable at the next petty sessions, which might be three weeks off, by which time the van-dweller would be sixty or seventy miles off; and it has been demonstrated over and over again that there is immense difficulty in getting these people, even if summonses are served upon them, to turn up at the petty sessions to answer those summonses. These are an exceptional class of persons. They are nameless and homeless "Egyptians," and there is just as much difficulty in serving a summons upon them as there would be in serving a summons on a weasel or any other slippery animal, and when a summons has been served on them there is immense difficulty in getting them to appear. That is why this legislation has been brought in. This power which it is proposed to give to the police is, of course, a little exceptional, but as I have said, this is an exceptional class of people, and the concurrent remedies that were devised by the Select Committee are those which I must venture to ask your Lordships now to re-establish. As the clause at present stands, one remedy has been taken out. Only the camping ground remains; and I respectfully ask your Lordships to re-insert the concurrent remedy provided in the Bill before it was amended in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("and it shall be the duty of the police to remove such offender").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee by whom this Bill was considered, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a word on this point. I do not know that I can add very much to the arguments of the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, because they go to the root of the whole matter. The matter is an extremely simple one, and I do not think you can gainsay my noble friend's argument that if you take away the power of the police to act in this way you destroy the efficacy of the whole Bill. It is not desired in any way to act harshly towards these van-dwellers. The Report of the Select Committee states that the policy of driving van-dwellers off the face of the earth does not commend itself to the Committee. They say that wherever a county council consider that these van-dwellers are in such numbers as to involve the evils described the council should be empowered to provide camping grounds where it would be possible to enforce regulations; and if the regulations were not observed, then that the police should have power forthwith to prevent these evils happening. I know it is said that before the police step in there should be a decision of a legal tribunal. But I would point out that in certain cases, for instance in the regulation of traffic and matters of that sort, where very clear rules are laid down for the public guidance, if any person is caught obviously infringing the rules the police can at once interfere for the general convenience and the general good. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will take that point into consideration, and will support my noble friend's Amendment giving the police power to interfere where necessary for the public convenience and the public good.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I feel that, representing the Home Office, I ought to make a few observations on the Amendment which Lord Hylton seeks to reintroduce into the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that these words were cut out in Committee as the result of a Division. I do not know whether the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment and the noble Lord who has just sat down quite appreciate the
320
importance of the provision which they seek to insert. Its effect would be to create a new liability to arrest without warrant, and that is entirely contrary to the modern practice of Parliament except in cases of very serious crime; and I may say that in the case of all Private Bills where such a provision exists the Home Office on behalf of the Government always object to the insertion of such a clause. Further, Parliament itself has steadily refused to put into any recent Act such a provision as the noble Lord here seeks to introduce. So that when Lord Zouche said it was a very simple matter I venture to think he did not fully appreciate how serious a principle this Amendment would affect. In this case the objection is intensified because you do not seek to discriminate against a particular class of crime; you discriminate against a particular class of individual—namely, the van-dweller—and to do so seems to me not only most undesirable but most unjust. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment imagines that without the insertion of these words the Bill would be nugatory.
LORD HYLTON: Hear, hear.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I think, however, I shall be able to show the noble Lord that that is very far from being the case. In the first place, the police would, of course, co-operate with the local authorities in enforcing this law.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: May I ask the noble Lord how?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I will explain in a moment. They will, as I say, co-operate, and this offence will be one which is punishable on summary conviction. That in itself is a great advance on the present state of the law in regard to trespass. But observe what this proposal means. I would remind your Lordships that it applies not only to public land, but also to private land. By Clause 2, subsection (2), it is made applicable to any land in private occupation where camping takes place without the permission of the occupier of such land, so that the proposal cannot be defended on public grounds alone as if it applied only to public commons. The noble Duke asked me in what way the police would be able to assist local authorities in carrying out this law. I would draw his attention to the fact that the police

321
habitually assist in enforcing the provisions of by-laws made by county councils. I have before me a list of county council by-laws in common form. They are very numerous, and include a great variety of subjects. For instance, they deal with music near houses, music near churches, noises by excursionists, noisy hawking, touting, street betting, shooting galleries, threatening language, fighting, nuisances contrary to public decency, wilful jostling, loitering at church doors—there are a host of things which form the subject of county council by-laws, and in these cases the police habitually assist the county councils in seeing that proper effect is given to the by-laws, and of course it would be their duty in this case to perform a similar office.
This Bill, as I said just now, marks a very great advance upon the present law of trespass. How great your Lordships will know, because under the present law it is extremely difficult to get any legal assistance in removing trespassers. I believe that the owner has to do the removing himself, and all that the police can do is to see that there is no violence and no breach of the peace. Anyhow the position of the private owner, and, indeed, of the public authority at the present moment, is not a very strong one. This Bill strengthens it immensely, for it will be possible for an occupier, whether a private individual or a local authority, to obtain a definite remedy at petty sessions.
One word with regard to Lord Hylton's objection on the ground that these individuals were by the very character and nature of their calling difficult to get at. He used language to the effect that they were "here to-day and gone to-morrow." Well, if they are gone to-morrow the object is attained. That is exactly what we seek to achieve, and I think as far as that is concerned we shall not suffer very much from the omission of this provision. But, of course, all migratory persons come under the same category, and it is one of those difficulties which are inherent in the case. But I do appeal to the noble Lord very strongly not to press this Amendment. The Home Office take a very serious view of it. It has been the practice of Parliament for many years to object, with the greatest regularity, to the insertion of any such provision, and I think this case is hardly sufficiently serious to warrant Parliament in making a new departure in principle.
LORD HYLTON: Do the Home Office really contend that these are not an exceptional class of people? Why, this is exceptional legislation.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, whether you insert this provision or not is a matter entirely for your Lordships. I only rise to correct a mistake which was made by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Home Office. The noble Lord said that this Amendment would justify arrest without warrant. It does nothing of the kind. It simply enables the police to move people on. These words would give them no additional power of arrest. If this had been a proposal empowering arrest, there would have been a great deal in the objection. I do not say whether the provision is necessary or not, but certainly it does not affect the power to arrest.
LORD FARRER: My Lords, I would remind the House that the Select Committee who considered this Bill, and of which I was a member, were unanimously of opinion that some power of this sort is necessary, and that the police are practically the only people who can preserve our commons, which are so essential for the health and benefit of the inhabitants of London, from this evil. The evil is really worse on those great stretches of common that surround London, and the Select Committee were very much impressed with the growth of the evil of recent years. I can say from my own experience, living in Surrey, that I cannot now allow my own children to go out on the Downs. My poorer neighbours are equally unable to let their children go alone on to these wastes and commons, and I look with the utmost apprehension to the loss of these great playgrounds around London. Every coroner in the county in which I live has called attention to this great evil. Only a month ago a child was burned to death in one of these vans, and the senior coroner of the county said—
"These people who encamped on commons were a perfect curse and nuisance to the community. He had over and over again made strong remarks as to the way in which these roving classes were allowed to occupy tents and caravans without any supervision whatever. They lived under most insanitary conditions, and he thought it was a national matter to see whether something could not be done to stop this state of things."
The matter came up at the meeting of the Surrey County Council on Tuesday, and

323
I believe the council were unanimous in thinking that the police are the only persons who can deal with this matter. Unfortunately, owing to a technical objection the particular motion could not be carried, but I have a letter from the chairman of the county council, in which he says that I am more than justified in stating that the council were practically unanimous in favour of having the police as the regulating authority in these particular cases. As has been pointed out by the Lord Chief Justice, the words do not refer to arrest but to removal. All we are anxious for is that there should be some power to remove these people. Before you can serve an injunction these people are away, and the only method of effectively dealing with them is to remove them off the common. Therefore I hope the Government will consider whether some words cannot be inserted which would at any rate give power to the police to co-operate in a more definite way than they do now.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I must say I feel considerable pity for the noble Lord who represents the Home Office in this House. He seems to be very badly coached by the Department. He has already been corrected as to his law by the Lord Chief Justice, and. I am now going to call attention to some facts of which the noble Lord seems to be unaware. He spoke of the power of moving van-dwellers on from place to place as being quite sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the case. He told us just now that if you can move these people on, then there is no grievance. Is that the opinion of the Home Office?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I said the object was attained.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Well, is that the opinion of the Home Office? It is bad enough to be governed in this country by bureau, but at least they might know something about their business. Is it the opinion of the Home Office that if an owner or the commoners can move on people occupying the common the whole object is attained?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: They have their remedy at petty sessions. Summary jurisdiction acts in this case.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I will come to that in a moment. The noble Lord says that if the power existed of moving these people on the object would be attained. Therefore the Home Office appear to be perfectly unaware that the state of things which exists in counties like the county of Surrey is that you have a continuous stream of these people coming often daily and trespassing in this way. I will tell the noble Lord of a case in Surrey. A gentleman affected told me that the whole of the area near his house was made positively insanitary by the number of people who "squatted" there all the winter in succession. If the object were attained by moving these people on, we should never have had a Movable Dwellings Bill at all.
The noble Lord who represents the Home Office next said that these persons could be summoned at petty sessions. That is something like telling a farmer that he can prevent damage from sparrows by putting salt upon the birds' tails. These people whom you are going to summon to petty sessions are off before you can catch them. Do you think it is practicable to track them all over a county and bring them before petty sessions for punishment? Moreover, the object is not the punishment of these unhappy people. The object is the correction of their mode of life, and the gradual conversion of their present nomad habits into something of a more permanent character. The whole feeling of the Select Committee was, as Lord Hylton has already said, strongly against hunting these people from place to place, and the object we had in view in recommending the formation of encampments was to avoid having to hunt them from place to place. I would impress upon the House that the recommendations of the Committee are useless unless you give some power of this kind.
I do not know what the noble Lord meant when he referred to the action of the police under by-laws passed by county councils. If the police can under the by-law of a county council move these people off the land—if the noble Lord will tell us that that power is given to the police, then it will meet our point. But we believe that whatever assistance the police may have to give to county councils under their by-laws, it will not include the power of removing these people from the ground on which they

325
are, and that is the one thing which alone can make the provisions in this Bill operative. The original form of the Bill was that all these dwellers or the habitations which they occupy should be registered, and that is the strong feeling of a great many of the magistrates and those most acquainted with the subject in the counties. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that, however desirable, this was not possible for various reasons with which I need not now detain your Lordships, and we fell back upon the system of encampments as an alternative.
Encampments are awkward things for those who live in the vicinity. We did not conceal from ourselves that fact. I know perfectly well that landlords will be reluctant to give ground for encampments, and I am certain that the tenants of those landlords will be even more inclined to oppose encampments. Therefore a landlord will not only have to get over his own reluctance, but he will have to overcome the reluctance of his tenants before county councils are granted land for these encampments. But if van-dwellers are to have the same opportunity as now of occupying the roadside, the commons, or waste lands, and private land, and we are to fall back on the only remedy which we have at present, then none of these encampments will be formed and the Bill will become nugatory. I must say I think it is making fools of the members of a Select Committee of this House if they are called upon to sit and consider a question all round and hear the evidence of the Home Office, and are then to be told that they are to be over-ridden by the dictum of a bureau which is evidently totally unacquainted with the conditions of the subject. If this Amendment cannot be adopted, or something equivalent, I for one shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, for I will not be a party to putting an absolutely useless measure on the Statute book.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Duke proves too much. No doubt it would be an extremely convenient thing for us all if our private rights could be enforced at our request by the police on demand, but that is not the law of this country, and if it were the duties of the police would become overwhelming. I think it was a sense of that truth that led your Lordships in Com-
326
mittee to come to what seems to me to be the wiser decision of omitting the words in this Amendment.
It is no doubt true, as the noble and learned Lord opposite said, that this is not technically and in terms a proposition to confer upon the police a right to arrest for trespass, but it comes to very much the same thing if you look at the clause. Under the Bill it is proposed to create a new offence. If a county council has provided sufficient land for a camping ground, then anybody who encamps, contrary to that provision, upon other ground, upon either a common or waste land or upon the land of a private proprietor, commits a new offence which is created under this Bill, and for that offence the Bill proposes to exact a penalty. But before you can tell whether sufficient land has been provided and establish that an offence has been committed, you have to go in the ordinary way before a Court of summary jurisdiction. Otherwise, who is to tell whether an offence has been committed? Who knows whether sufficient land has been provided or not? The matter is in dubio. You have the ordinary remedy which you possess in all other cases. You may establish that an offence has been committed, and then the penalty is exacted. But the proposition here is to get the police in aid of the right which every one has to remove trespassers if he can do so without a breach of the peace. It is the right of a private owner of land to remove trespassers, but he is not entitled to call in the assistance of the police except where he is threatened with a breach of the peace in the exercise of his right to remove.
But this Amendment goes far beyond that: It proposes that while the matter is in dubio, before it is established that an offence has been committed and simply because people have "squatted" upon the ground, the police may be called in to enforce the provisions of the by-law. The Home Office have always taken up the ground that it is very undesirable to cast new duties of this kind upon the police. This has been the settled practice of the Home Office under successive Governments for some years. It was upon this that in Committee you came to the decision that the words should not be inserted, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the decision you came to in Committee on the 2nd of this month is the wise course, the sound course, and the one which is in accordance with the common

327
law of the land. We should not, merely on the ground of sentiment, disturb what is the settled practice in our legislation.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot concur with my noble friend who has just addressed your Lordships, because I think he has completely answered his own objection. What is quite true is that for the mere prevention of civil trespass you cannot call in a constable, whose duty is to preserve the peace. But the noble Viscount has answered his own objection, because he has said that this particular Bill makes trespass by these people an offence, and if an offence is committed in the sight of a constable he has a right to interfere. It seems to me that the Home Office have not sufficiently considered what they are doing when they set themselves against the preservation of the law and the preservation of the peace by the police. I confess that when I see what the attitude of the Government is—and their view apparently is that they do not want to have these duties fastened upon the police—I rather doubt the wisdom of insisting upon this Amendment, because if it is insisted upon I am afraid that in another place the Government would prevail upon their supporters there to refuse to acquiesce in this Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the history of this Bill is rather peculiar and interesting, and as all your Lordships have probably not read the proceedings of the Select Committee fully I would like to dwell upon them for a moment. The Bill was introduced two years ago by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It was then a Bill which provided for every sort of inconvenience in the matter of the registration and licensing of these unfortunate people, and I have a recollection that the Second Reading of the Bill as it then stood passed this House with general approval, and, so far as I can recall, mine was the only voice which vas raised in opposition to it. Then a Select Committee was appointed on which I had the honour of sitting, and while on the one hand the Select Committee as a whole came to the conclusion that there was not a sufficient case for the extremely drastic provisions of the Bill as then introduced—the provisions as to registration, licensing, and so on—on the other hand every member of the Committee was convinced that there was some case for legislative interference, and that there was a distinct nuisance with which
328
Parliament was entitled to deal. As a result of these deliberations, the Select Committee put forward a series of recommendations and amended the Bill in the form in which it was re-introduced this year.
It is perfectly true to say, as was stated by the Duke of Northumberland, that the right to remove is really an essential part of the scheme of the Committee as put before this House, and that if you take that right away you destroy the scheme of the Committee. The mischief which was represented to the Committee as existing was that these people moved up and down the country committing various offences and were generally a nuisance, and that you could not deal with them by the ordinary law, because, in the first place, if you took their names and addresses they would probably prove false; in the second place, you probably could not serve a summons at all; and, in the third place, if you did there would be no appearance at the petty sessions. The Committee, being satisfied that there was a mischief, had to devise some kind of remedy that would inflict less hardship and less annoyance on these people than registration and licensing. They therefore came unanimously to the decision that encampments should be established where people could properly encamp under efficient supervision and sanitary conditions. But it is an obvious and necessary correlative to establishing these camping grounds that you should prevent unauthorised camping elsewhere. It is not a matter of sentiment.
Let us consider what the facts are. You have a piece of waste land, say, in Surrey, and on a certain night A and B arrive there in caravans and camp upon the land. The policeman is not to remove them, but to take their names and addresses. He has to chance whether they are correctly given. Having taken the names and addresses he is to go away and get a summons. The people arrived at six o'clock at night, but when the policeman returns to serve the summons at eleven o'lock the next morning they will have gone.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: How could he remove them any quicker?
EARL RUSSELL: But though they have gone they have done the very mischief

329
you want to avoid. They have camped there for the night, and may have been engaged in picking up stray chickens, &c., and behaving in an insanitary manner. This Bill proposes, not that people who camp on unauthorised camping grounds should be arrested, but that power should be given to the police to remove them—that is to say, a policeman when he comes up will say "Off you get." That surely is the obvious way of dealing with these people; for, otherwise, on the next night on the same ground you would have C and D camping, and you would have the same futile procedure over again. It is said that it is the duty of the owner to remove trespassers, and the general law of trespass is appealed to. Of course that is so, and there may be something to be said for exempting private land from this provision, although I can quite understand that a farmer does not care to summon his farm labourers and take upon himself the removal of a gipsy encampment with the possibility of a fracas; he would very much rather have that done by the police, and would be perfectly willing, no doubt, to assist them.
But the real evil that this Amendment is directed against is camping on commons. The difficulty, without the power proposed in the Amendment, would be to find the owner of the common and get him to move. It may be said that when there are proper camping grounds these people will go to them; but the worst class whom you most wish to have under supervision will be the people who will defy the law. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, said it was little use persisting in this Amendment because of what might be its fate in another place, but I think the balance of argument here has been in favour of the Amendment and in another place the same thing might prevail even against His Majesty's Government. I believe these vagrants themselves would infinitely prefer a provision of this kind to the provisions regarding registration and licensing which were in the Bill as originally introduced and which we have succeeded in getting out of the way. I venture to think that they themselves would prefer that there should be a power to remove them from camping grounds on which they have no right to go. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be inserted, and that His Majesty's Government will see their way, on reconsideration of all the circumstances, to accept it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, speaking on behalf of an area peculiarly troubled by gipsies—the New Forest—I strongly support the Amendment. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Russell, has ably put forward the case with regard to commons, where the difficulty is to find the owners. The same argument applies to the New Forest, where there is divided management. It may interest the noble Lord who represents the Home Office to know that some years ago in the Crown Lands Bill a special clause was inserted which gave the Crown power in regard to the New Forest to remove gipsies and visit them with penalties if they did not so remove to certain stated grounds, largely on the lines proposed in this Bill. These people are the greatest possible nuisance, not only to those owning land adjoining, but to the poor people and small holders of land in the neighbourhood, who suffer greatly through the depredations of these gipsies. It is not a question of private parks and private owners of land. I speak in this matter on behalf of over 3,000 commoners of the New Forest who desire that these encampments should be regulated. I hope the Government will carefully consider the necessity for this provision. In my opinion, the Bill would be absolutely nugatory in the case of the New Forest unless the police were given this power.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, before the House goes to a Division I should like to say one or two words on this subject. It is very important that, having occupied such a large portion of the time of the House, this Bill should, when the terms of it are settled, be a Bill that is likely to be a settlement of the question, and should deal with the matter from a commonsense point of view. In the discussion this evening there have been differences of opinion as to the legal effect of this provision, and it has struck me, in looking through the Bill, that there might also be a difference of opinion as to whether the Amendment as it stands will have the effect that its promoters desire. Clause 2 of the Bill deals entirely with the occupier of the movable dwelling. It provides that where a county council has, with the approval of the Local Government Board, provided sufficient land for camping grounds under the section, the occupier of a movable dwelling may encamp upon any such ground upon payment of the authorised fee, but the occupier

331
of a movable dwelling shall not encamp within the county upon any land in private occupation without the permission of the occupier of such land. And then this Amendment goes on to say that in certain circumstances the police may remove him.
I understand that the occupier could not be arrested. What, then, is to be done if the moment the police have gone he goes back again? And does this power to remove the occupier cover also a power to remove his cattle, his movable dwelling or van, and his family? As the clause stands, only the occupier is referred to; and the occupier is defined in Clause 10 in this way—
"The expression 'occupier' in relation to a movable dwelling means the person occupying or having for the time being control or charge of a movable dwelling."
Therefore I take it you could not remove the family, and I very much doubt whether you could remove the man's cattle or his movable dwelling. If that be the case, it would appear that the clause as it stands is not efficacious for the purpose desired. It certainly seems to me that some further power would be necessary in this case. I should have thought there must be some means of devising arrangements, of which the Home Office could approve, for taking care that, if the law said a man was not to go on particular land, you could have some power to move him off and keep him off.
I am sorry the matter has got to this point, as the success of the Bill in its later stages may be interfered with. This Bill has been promoted by the County Councils Association. My noble friend Lord Clifford has taken charge of it, and has taken a great deal of trouble in regard to it. Our only object is to meet the difficulties which have arisen in particular counties, and to do that without unreasonable provisions or provisions of too onerous a character. As the Bill stands, it would appear necessary to insert further Amendments at a later stage, but perhaps some noble Lord experienced in the law will answer the question I have put—whether this provision would give power to remove not only the occupier, but all his properties and his family as well.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am in a somewhat curious position with regard to this Amendment. As originally introduced by me the Bill contained no provision of the nature proposed
332
in this Amendment, but there was Amendment but there was an elaborate system of registration, by means of which, when an offence against the Bill had been committed, there was a possibility of tracing the offender and bringing him before petty sessions. When the Bill was referred to the Select Committee this system of tracing the offender was removed. The Committee objected to the system of registration on the ground that, if it was to be of any use at all, it would have to extend over the whole country. They therefore substituted this remedy, which would enable the authorities to get rid in a rapid and efficient way of persons who camped upon ground forbidden by the by-law approved by the Local Government Board. In this matter I think the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, hardly did the Bill credit, because he supposed that it was to be used for the benefit of every private owner. It is only to be used in regard to such places as may be specified in the order; those places may be public places, they may be commons or they may be private property, but in the latter case the particular proprietor has to be mentioned in the order. Therefore it is not generally to be used for relieving private owners from trespass.
The principle of registration having been rejected by the Select Committee, when I introduced the Bill this session I introduced it in the form approved by the Committee. But the position taken up by the Home Office was such that it would have considerably jeopardised what I regard as an extremely useful, I might almost say necessary, measure—it would have jeopardised the chance of doing anything to remedy what the Committee found to be a very considerable grievance if this power to the police to remove offenders had remained in the Bill. In those circumstances I felt bound to move in Committee an Amendment deleting this power to the police, and to that Amendment, of course, I strictly adhere. I therefore regret that I must oppose the Amendment to reinsert these words.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it may be that the county of Surrey and the New Forest are districts more chiefly affected, but to some extent at any rate we in Kent also suffer in the same way, and I think we should generally be strongly in favour of this Amendment. Lord Belper expressed a doubt a moment ago whether the insertion

333
of these words would carry out the object with which they are moved. He understands this matter much better than I do; but I would point out to him that he did not quite follow the wording of the clause. He said that any occupier would be guilty of an offence under the Bill and might be removed, but he doubted whether members of his family could also be removed. If he will look again at the clause he will see that it is not confined to the occupier. It says that if "any person" acts in contravention thereof he shall be guilty of an offence. Therefore it is clear that a member of the family would be a "person" and might be removed under the provisions suggested. I hope that, on further consideration, the Government may be induced to give way in view of the very strong feeling in favour of this power being given, not only in this House but also generally throughout the districts which are affected by the Bill.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: The amendment standing in my name to Clause 8 exempts from the operation of the Act any movable dwelling used by or on behalf of and with the authority of any Department of His Majesty's Government. At present the clause provides that the Bill shall not
LORD HENEAGE: I do not think my noble friend understood exactly what Lord Belper said. Lord Belper was questioning whether the man's property—his van, horse, and anything else that he had with him—could be removed.
LORD AVEBURY: Lord Belper also doubted whether the man's family could be removed.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Does the noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Belper) think that if the occupier and his family were removed, the van and the cattle would be left?
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS

Bedford, D.

Russell, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

De Mauley, L.

Verulam, E.

Digby, L.

Westmeath, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bath, M.

Farrer, L.

Camden, M.

Greville, L.

Churchill, V.

Hindlip, L.

Camperdown, E.

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Halifax, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Cromer, E.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Dartrey, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Devon, E.

Alverstone, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Eldon, E.

Ampthill, L.

St. Levan, L.

Fortescue, E.

Avebury, L.

Saltoun, L.

Halsbury, E.

Basing, L.

Sempill, L.

Harrowby, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.).

Lovelace, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Templemore, L.

Morley, E.

Wynford, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.).

Bangor, L. Bp.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Denman, L.

Eversley, L.

Allendale, L.

Glantawe, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Carrington, E.

Belper, L. [Teller.]

Haversham, L.

Craven, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Heneage, L.

Southwark, L.

Haldane, V.

Colebrooke, L.

Weardale, L.

apply to any movable dwelling used by any portion of His Majesty's naval or military forces. The Treasury are anxious to include all Departments in this Clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, line 6, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of and with the authority of any department of His Majesty's Government or by").—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I cordially accept this Amendment. It is quite in keeping with the principle of Clause 8, which is to exempt from the action of the Bill any person overlooked by a proper authority who can insure against abuse.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 80.)

SMALL HOLDINGS ANT) ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I respectfully ask the House to be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I hope will not take up much of your Lordships' time. The object of the measure is to repeal subsection (3) of Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. The subsection proposed to be repealed runs as follows—
"No holding of 50 acres or less in extent, or any part of such holding, shall be authorised by an Order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily for the purpose of small holdings and allotments."
Your Lordships will no doubt remember that this provision was not originally in the Bill, but was put in on account of fears—rather groundless fears I venture to think—that one small holder might be ousted from his land in order to find land for another.
I have seen it stated in the Press that there is some sinister design at the back of this Bill, and that it ought to be resisted. It is stated that there is a sinister design to cut up farms and to injure existing small holders. I can assure the House that nothing is further from the thoughts of the Government than to do any such thing, and I might, in passing, say that it would be futile to try to do so, because if you injured or took away any portion of a man's land in an improper manner, all the tenant would have to do would be promptly to call upon the county council to find him some more land, which they would have to do. As noble Lords know, small holdings range
336
from one acre up to fifty acres, and that would be an expensive and inconvenient process.
The sole and only reason for proposing the repeal of this subsection is that it has had in its working results which were neither contemplated nor desired. There have been the inevitable legal difficulties, which seem to crop up on every possible occasion. We have had an object lesson to-night. The noble Duke opposite seemed to me to be unnecessarily hard on my noble friend Lord Ashby St. Ledgers when he said that my noble friend had been badly coached in regard to his Bill and had been rebuked on a question of law by the Lord Chief Justice. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is no member of the House who is more painstaking about his Bills than my noble friend Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, or who explains them more plainly or lucidly, and I think it was a little hard upon him that he should be found fault with on account of the inability of legal luminaries to agree on a particular point.
There have been, as I say, the inevitable legal difficulties in this case. Lawyers have differed—I suppose it was necessary they should—as to what is and what is not a holding, and this has been found very seriously to impair the fair and reasonable working of the Act. I will not trouble your Lordships with many examples, but will state two or three. It is held on the highest authority that if a farm of 200 acres is let by five different agreements to five different persons, or even to the same man, they are five different holdings, though they are cultivated as one farm and under one management. With all respect I do think that this is the misapplied subtlety of legal ingenuity. If I had time I could give numerous instances of the result of this decision. But I may be allowed to quote one, and I only quote it on account of the sequel. It is a case in the county in which I live, where a lady, held in high respect, had a 274 acre farm. The County Council of Buckinghamshire wanted eighty acres for the poor men in the district, all of them hard-working, respectable, solvent men, just the sort of men your Lordships would desire to have as tenants on your own estates. So this estimable lady set to work to defeat the county council by cutting up this farm into six different holdings of under fifty acres each, and she let them to six members of the family, five of whom were women. Of course, that knocked all

337
the men out. There was no possibility of getting land for the men in the district, and the Act which your Lordships in your benevolence passed two years ago was openly set at nought.
Now I come to the sequel. There is a very large and useful body called the Farmers' Union of England. It has 15,000 members, and they passed a resolution at the general executive committee, in which they said—
"The general executive committee of the National Farmers' Union, having regard to the case of the Buckinghamshire County Council and Miss—would urge the Board of Agriculture not to proceed with the compulsory order that they made on this land with a view to making it a test case."
The County Council of Buckinghamshire were openly defied, and we had determined to make a test case of it to see whether or not it was legal for this good lady to do as she had done. I agreed with the union. I thought it would be better not to make a test case of it at all, but to ask the House of Lords, which, after all, is one of the fairest tribunals in the world, to stop a repetition of such an open scandal; and that is one of the reasons why I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
There is another hard case. A holding must not be a separate holding at the time an order is made—that is, of course, some months before the land is procured for the men. This creates some of the hardest cases that the county councils have to deal with. Where small holders are given notice to quit, either at the end of the lease or because people want to get rid of them, the county council very often would be glad to get hold of that piece of land and keep the tenants in possession, but they cannot do so on account of this subsection. The tenants are given notice to quit, and are deprived of the land which we all know is of such benefit to them.
The third case, and perhaps one of the worst, is what is called in the agricultural world the case of a "by-take." Your Lordships know that many farmers take small bits of land as what is called a "by-take." They take a field or a bit of land some distance from their farms; in many cases it is not a great advantage to the farm itself, but it is a convenience. This subsection as it stands prevents our getting a portion of a man's farm that is necessary for the benefit of the neighbourhood
338
because it is a separate "take," and because it is under fifty acres. I will give an instance of that. The Buckinghamshire County Council wanted to get land for the people at Marlow. It was quite impossible. Nobody would let them have a flower plot. There was a field close to Marlow which was very convenient; it belonged to one of my tenants, and was certainly a mile and a-half or two miles from the homestead itself. I went to the County Council's Small Holdings Committee and met the men, and everybody agreed that it was an ideal place for the men to have. Curiously enough, my tenant came by in his gig from the market at the time, and I stopped him and said, "Will you let us have that field?" He replied, "Yes, with the greatest possible pleasure." I said, "Would it be a great inconvenience to you?" His reply was, "It would be a great 'bore' to give it up, but I have no objection. You can have it if you like." We went to the Oxford College authorities, to whom this field belonged, and they at once doubled the rent because it was to be let to poor people, but the men said they could manage that. Then, ten days after, the tenant changed his mind and said, "You cannot have this field." I am speaking under correction, but I believe that up to this moment the men at Marlow have no land whatever. It is to stop a case of this description that I ask your Lordships to give favourable consideration to this Bill. These are technical difficulties which were never contemplated.
I have heard that there is some objection to the way in which this Bill is drafted. I tried to substitute other words which would meet these cases, but "English as she is spoken" is a most difficult language. I had the best legal advice it was possible to get, and it was found quite impracticable to find words in the English language and string them together so as to meet the case. Therefore the only thing to be done was to ask that subsection (3) of Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act should be repealed. I think that the tenants of these holdings may sleep comfortably in their beds. They know that county councils are, after all, human beings, and have a certain sense of what is right and what is wrong. They do not want to strain the law to injure their fellow-creatures. Moreover, every order is carefully considered by the Board over which I have the honour to preside, and every application to take land

339
in this way is always most carefully gone into. I may add that in many cases the views of objectors to an order have been met by the Board, and the wishes of the farmers and landowners have also been met. I honestly think that if this Bill is not allowed to go through these great hardships will continue, and if a test case is taken and the law maintains that it is possible to defeat the legislation of 1908 in the way I have described, then the Act will be practically a dead letter, and the real good that we are doing will be most seriously impaired. Therefore, with great respect, I ask your Lordships to be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I confess that when I saw the Bill of the noble Earl I considered it a most extraordinary infringement of the Act which was passed a few years ago, and I expected that in the speech which he would make in proposing the repeal of this subsection we should have heard some arguments put forward which would have carried real weight with your Lordships. I would speak in the most respectful way of the noble Earl's speeches, but I cannot see one argument in his speech this afternoon which should induce your Lordships to repeal this most important section of the Act of 1908. Remember for what that Act was passed. The Act was passed to give county councils compulsory powers to acquire land from large farms in order to make small holdings. It was, however, a colleague of the noble Earl's—Mr. Harcourt—who moved this subsection, which was perfectly right, that holdings of fifty acres, which are considered small holdings, should be excluded, and that county councils should not have power to take them.
The proposal now made is not only entirely contrary to the Act, but to my mind it is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Act; because by enabling county councils to take these small holdings, for fifty-acre farms are small holdings, you take away the main principle of the Act of 1908, which was the creation of small holdings. The object of that Act, as I understood it, was to extend the principle of small holdings. Now, as far as I can gather, the intention of the noble Earl is to change the class of existing small holdings. I fully
340
anticipated that the noble Earl would have gone fully into it, and explained the reasons for proposing to repeal this subsection, which was meant to safeguard the men who were holding small holdings. The noble Earl quoted certain cases, and for the sake of a few cases he asks us to alter the principle of the Act, which seems an extraordinary thing to do.
One particular case he quoted was the breaking up of a farm into five different portions. He maintained that that was not legal; that one person had no right to break up a farm into five different portions, and give to five persons a small holding under fifty acres. That surely is a matter of opinion. At any rate, it does not break into the noble Earl's principle of making small holdings, because every one of these holdings is a small holding, and the main object of the Act, was, as far as I can gather, to break up large farms. It seems to me that the lady in question has really been carrying out the spirit of the Act which the noble Earl introduced, and I think there should be a great many more instances given to us to prove the necessity for the repeal of the subsection before the noble Earl asks us to pass this Bill.
There is another point which has been overlooked. I think it is very hard that a man who has a small holding of his own should have it broken in upon, a thing he never anticipated, by a still smaller man who wishes to have a part of that holding. Surely that never was intended when the Act was passed. It seems to me a very odd way of promoting the desire of people to obtain small holdings that a man who has obtained his small holding voluntarily, who has, perhaps, expended the sweat of his brow and his capital upon it, should have part of that holding taken away from him because the county council think it right to break it up. I am told that this would not be the general course pursued by county councils, and that they would not do this without the sanction of the Board of Agriculture, but I think we have seen recently that the Board of Agriculture is a somewhat squeezable body. I think that if county councils are urged to break up these small holdings, the Board of Agriculture would be found very squeezable, and I could not envy the position of these small holders in hoping that their holdings would be kept for them by the Board of Agriculture.

341
While I am on the subject of small holdings, I would say how glad I was to see that the noble Earl wrote a letter contradicting the false statement that the Duke of Portland, amongst other landowners, had not done his best to promote the system of small holdings. As far as my experience has gone since that measure became the law of the land, I know that it has been the object of the owners of property to make the Act a success. I should like to hear from the noble Earl whether he considers that the whole system of small holdings is working well.
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes, I do.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I know what the noble Earl means. But I saw in one of his speeches the statement that "the thing is going like wildfire." That meant that small holdings were being taken up, and that is satisfactory. Perhaps it is early in the day to ask the question or to get a reply, but are these people who have taken up those holdings satisfied with their bargains? Are there any cases in which they have not been able to make as much out of them as they had hoped to do? I am not asking this question in any spirit of controversy, but we should be glad to hear how the Act is working. At the same time I do think that to break into an Act which the noble Earl tells us is working well and to alter it materially as is now proposed, as far as I can see without rhyme or reason, is very inadvisable, and in view of the hardship which this might inflict on small holders I think the step proposed would be very naturally resented by them.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do hope that before it becomes law your Lordships will insist upon very much better reasons being given than we have received up to the present moment for passing it. I notice that when the noble Earl gets into a difficulty he always begins by abusing the lawyers, saving present company. Having done that, and having proposed his Bill, he always says to your Lordships, "I respectfully ask you to pass this little Bill. It is only a little one." Two or three days ago the noble Earl recalled your Lordships' attention, for some reason best known to himself, to the great muddle he made, with the assistance of his legal advisers, about the question of Scottish sheep stock. He
342
said on that occasion exactly the same as he said on this.
Let me point out to the noble Earl that he does not seem to realise in the least the importance of the Bill which he is now proposing. He says—
"It is only to repeal a subsection of the Act of 1908 which was not inserted by me but by somebody else."
To a certain extent that is true. But let me remind him of what the real history of the clause was, because he gave it to us imperfectly. This clause, I believe, originated in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons. When it went down to the House, it was debated and altered. Then it came to this House, and Lord St. Aldwyn had it altered here. Then it went back to the other House, and was again debated, and so this clause was thoroughly considered in both Houses, and in that form passed into the Act. On this occasion the noble Earl is striking at this very clause. The other day he blamed me, very unfairly as I think, for what he called attacking the principle of his Act. What is he doing to-night himself? I do not refer to the particular set of circumstances which have arisen in the course of the administration of the Act. But what is he proposing to do to-night? He is proposing to tear up one of the most important clauses in his own Act. And what reason has he given us for that? If this Bill had been brought forward by somebody on this side of the House I should like to know what the noble Earl would have said. He would have said, "Dear me, you touch my small holders, the children whom I have created," and there would have been any amount of indignation with the wicked Unionists for attacking the principle of his Act. But it is quite a different thing when the noble Earl tears it up himself.
Just let me consider what this clause is. It was passed by Parliament as a protective clause, to protect the small tenants who would be created under the Act, and also to protect existing owners of small properties, who represent a large number of people. The noble Earl says the reason for tearing up this clause is that there is an estimable lady in Buckinghamshire. By the way, I notice we always go back to Buckinghamshire whenever we talk about small holdings. I suppose it is natural. The noble Earl thinks a good deal of his own home. Apparently this lady has six admirable daughters—
EARL CARRINGTON: No, not daughters. Tenants, I said. She is the landlady.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Six tenants. I am afraid I did not catch correctly what the noble Earl said. But he did say that all the men were turned out, and I naturally supposed it was because the women were in. The noble Earl says that these tenants can sleep in their beds at night, for the Board over which he has the honour to preside watches over all the arrangements that are made with regard to them. However great may be the confidence which these tenants repose in the noble Earl, I think the man of fifty acres would prefer the protection of an Act of Parliament; and if I were one of those men I should be extremely angry—and I expect they will be angry—with the noble Earl for proposing to take away this protection. I ask your Lordships to consider what would be said by a tenant of a small holding of, say, forty acres, which he had cultivated, when he was told, "It is quite true you have been protected up to the present time, but now we have taken away your protection. There is very little chance of your land being taken, but, if it is taken, all you have to do is to go and ask the county council to give you other land." I am sure small holders will by no means bless the noble Earl for this proposal. It is really cutting at the root of his own Act; and why in the world he proposes to do it I cannot imagine.
The noble Earl says it has been stated in some of the newspapers that there is a sinister design on his part in bringing forward this Bill. I do not think anybody would suspect the noble Earl of doing anything from sinister motives. They might possibly imagine that his proposals were not always very wise. And certainly unless the noble Earl can produce for it some better reasons than he has done, I think a Bill of this kind ought not to be allowed to pass into law. Just consider the reasons that have been given to-night, if you can call them reasons. The noble Earl quotes a case where a big farm has been divided up into a number of forty-nine acre holdings. The noble Earl wishes to crack an egg, and what does he do? He comes down on it with the biggest steam hammer he can find. He wants to prevent this old lady from dividing up her farm, and in order to do that he absolutely does away with the whole protection at present
344
enjoyed by small owners and small tenants in the kingdom. I must confess that up to the present time the noble Earl has said nothing to make me in favour of the Second Reading of his Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it must be a little surprising to your Lordships that the speeches which have been delivered on this side of the House have not been thought worthy of reply by any of the noble Earl's friends. Apparently he stands alone on that side of the House as the champion of this measure. Now let me assure the noble Earl that nothing is further from my thoughts than to impute to him what he calls a sinister design in connection with this Bill. I am quite certain he has no sinister design. But I do desire to call his attention and the attention of the House not to the design that may or may not lie behind the Bill, but to the effect which this Bill produces.
This Bill, beyond all question, destroys a safeguard which was deliberately inserted by Parliament for the protection of a very important and a wholly blameless section of the agricultural community. Your Lordships will not have forgotten the grave apprehensions with which the farmers of this country regarded the proposals to allow county councils to cut up their farms for the purpose of creating small holdings. That feeling was a perfectly natural one, whether the farmer was a large or a small farmer. A farmer can become deeply attached to a large farm, just as he may become deeply attached to a small one. We were, however, all of us in favour of extending small holdings, and we realised that unless some sacrifice of this kind were made there was no chance of the policy being successfully applied, but when we sanctioned that policy we made an obvious exception in favour of those who were already small holders, whether owners or occupiers of their farms. That class of agriculturist is numerically very important. The noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that in England alone there are something like 248,000 of these holders of less than fifty acres of land. What this Bill does is to throw the whole of those holdings open to the encroachment of the county councils. That is a very serious matter indeed.
Another small point which I think has not been noticed is this. I understand that

345
under the law as it now exists if these small holders happen to be the owners of the land they occupy they are not entitled to more than the bare price of the land. His Majesty's Government last year, and I am bound to say not of their own accord but at our instigation, did provide a measure of protection for those small holders who happened to be occupiers of their holdings, but that protection, unless I am misinformed, does not extend to the small holder who is owner of the farm which he tills. What is the justification for this really momentous change? The noble Earl produces two cases, and I have no doubt he was correct in his statement of the facts. There was the case of the ingenious person who subdivided his farm into five holdings. I confess it surprised me to hear from the noble Earl that no means could be discovered, with all the legal assistance which he has at his command, for rendering a practice of that kind unsuccessful. But do let me remind the noble Earl of the homely old adage, which after all contains a great deal of wisdom, that "hard cases make bad law." The noble Earl says that in this and other cases the law was openly set at naught by these people. Surely it should be possible to discover some means of preventing flagrant evasions of the law such as he described.
Let me, before I sit down, add one word more. I will tell the noble Earl why this new departure of his inspires me with a great deal of alarm. It seems to coincide with the adoption of a somewhat more vigorous and aggressive policy on the part of his Department in connection with this question of small holdings. We all recollect how at a certain moment it was thought necessary to appoint Small Holdings Commissioners, whose duty is was to travel about the country, and—the expression is not my own; I think it was used by the noble Earl or one of his colleagues—to "ginger"—[Several NOBLE LORDS: It was the Home Secretary]—whose duty it was to "ginger" the local authorities and stimulate them to increased exertions in augmenting the number of small holdings. We gather that the noble Earl is now going to appoint six more of these roving Commissioners, whose business it will be to apply a further stimulus to such county councils as have up to the present disappointed the noble Earl's hopes. I confess I regard these appointments with a good deal of suspicion. In the first place,
346
I regard with suspicion any multiplication of the number of new public appointments. The record of His Majesty's Government in this respect is certainly an extraordinary one. I have no recent figures, but I remember coming across a Return which showed that up to the end of the year 1909 His Majesty's Government had been responsible for no less than 1,164 new salaried appointments, and they evidently intend to go on multiplying appointments of this kind.
But there is another thing. These officials are appointed for the deliberate purpose of applying coercion to the local authorities—local authorities elected by the people of this country and possessing an amount of local knowledge which no gentlemen sent down from a bureau in Whitehall could possess. I have not a word to say against these gentlemen, but if I am to choose between their judgment and that of a properly constituted small holdings committee of a county council, I prefer the judgment of the committee. I should like to quote to the House a statement I happened to come upon the other day which rather impressed my mind. This is from a report of a meeting of a small holdings society—
"Mr. F. Verney addressed the meeting. He said he was an enthusiastic advocate of small holdings, but he recognised the possibility of pursuing the policy to the injury of tenant farmers and even landowners, and he urged that they should not be forgetful of these."
The speech of Mr. Verney was followed by one from Mr. Fordham, a gentleman well known, I think, to the noble Earl. Mr. Fordham—
"bemoaned the squeamishness that had been shown about disturbing tenant farmers to make room for small holdings, and he hoped that a more aggressive policy would be adopted in the future."
It is against this proclamation of an aggressive policy that I hope the noble Earl will set his face. I trust that this question of small holdings will be dealt with without any addition to these aggressive and somewhat incendiary elements. Both political Parties are committed to the policy of small holdings. Both political Parties desire to do what lies in their power to bring back a large number of people to the land. But it is when you introduce these elements of quarrelsomeness and aggressiveness that, in my view, you most imperil thesuccess of your policy; and I hope we shall learn from the noble Earl that he, at any rate, deprecates the introduction of elements of that kind, and desires that the policy which he has so

347
much at heart should be followed out in a temperate and conciliatory spirit.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, with the concluding observations of the noble Marquess about the spirit in which the Act must be interpreted if the system is to be worked successfully I find myself in entire agreement. The system cannot work if the Act is carried out aggressively or arbitrarily. It can only be made a success if consideration is shown in the selections made of land for allotments and for small holdings which are submitted for confirmation by the Board of Agriculture. But that is not the root of the difficulty at the present time. There may be good reason for it, but in many cases the Act is not working with the celerity and smoothness which one would wish to see, not because of any desire to work it in an incendiary way, but because there are parts of the country where it has not been taken up in the spirit of which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition would approve.
The noble Earl opposite asked us to tell him, the Act of 1908 having been carefully considered while it was in this and in the other House of Parliament and this provision deliberately adopted, why it is now proposed to alter it. For a very good reason. It very often happens that in initiating legislation you start off by providing against something which seems to be an object of terror, and which turns out not to have been justly so regarded. Nobody desires, and I do not think even the keenest critics of the system as it is going on have ever alleged, that there has been any disposition to seize the land of the small holder, the man who has fifty acres, and annex it. Nobody has said so, and I am sure that neither on the part of the county councils nor of the Board of Agriculture is there the slightest disposition to institute any such policy.
But something else has turned up, not perhaps to any great extent, but to an extent which requires to be recognised and to be dealt with. This Act puts a legal restriction against taking a holding of fifty acres or a less extent. That is a simple legal proposition. And to that extent the holding cannot be taken, no matter what its genesis was, or how created or acquired. If you put into an Act technical provisions of that kind, it is always certain that there will be some people who will use them, not as a barrier
348
against the evil which you intended to guard against, but for some other purpose. My noble friend Lord Carrington has given cases in which this restriction has been used as a technical instrument for defeating a portion of this Act. It is perfectly obvious, if you leave the words as they stand, that they may be used to create a plurality of holdings of fifty acres or less virtually under the control of one holder, in whose nominees they stand vested as tenants, and in this way that owner is enabled to defeat the purposes of the Act. I do not say that happens often or is a common case, but if it happens half a dozen times it is amply sufficient for asking whether you cannot correct the machinery of the Act by getting rid of what your Lordships and the Legislature never intended should be placed in its way.
In the particular section of the Act which contains this restriction there is an immediately preceding subsection which shows that it is the duty of the Board of Agriculture and of county councils not to take away the land of a person who will be treated oppressively. I am only paraphrasing, but it says you are to look at the question of the rest of his holding before you take any land from him. Speaking for myself, after the experience we have had of the working of the system, I would infinitely prefer to rely upon the way in which the county councils and the Board of Agriculture are carrying out the duties imposed upon them in making these selections and exercising the discretion which is left to them, than rely upon the legal provisions of the three subsections which create the technical difficulties of which I have spoken, which enable things to be done which were never intended to be done, and which give room for a far more elastic application of the Act than would be the case if this Bill which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has introduced were passed into law. It is absolutely certain that neither the county councils nor the Board of Agriculture will abuse this provision.
The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, said he preferred an Act of Parliament to anybody's discretion. I agree as a general rule. But there are a great many cases with which you cannot deal on any rigid principle in an Act of Parliament, and there are countless instances where it is necessary and prudent to give discretion to some responsible body. In a case of this kind

349
I submit that it would work far less injustice to rely upon that procedure, which is a perfectly safe one, than to leave in existence a subsection which it turns out is used for a purpose never intended, and may in a few cases prevent the working of a system in which the noble Marquess said not only the authors of the Act upon this side but noble Lords on the other side of the House are interested.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I think if it is intended to take this restriction away we ought to see what is the object of the restriction. In the case which was mentioned just now one of two things happened. Either it was a bona fide subdivision of the farm, in which case the person was doing no harm; or it was a single and solitary case in which this person fraudulently evaded the law by taking a farm of 250 acres and cutting it up into five holdings. In that case surely what you want is to amend the law in a way which would prevent that taking place, and not to take away the protection of the small owners. See what would happen in this case. You are going to set up two different classes of small occupiers. Those under the county councils will be protected by the law, but not so the other small occupiers of fifty acres and below, whose farms may have been held in their families years before ever Mr. Jesse Collings's "three acres and a cow" and long before the Small Holdings Act introduced by the noble Earl were heard of. Any farmer who holds a small holding of fifty acres directly from a landlord can have the very best field or the whole farm taken away from him if this protection is removed, whilst those who hold under county councils are protected by the law. I oppose this Bill because I prefer the interests of the 200,000 or more small holders who now enjoy the protection which the Act gives them, and who ought not to be deprived of that protection because of some case of evasion in Buckinghamshire. If the noble Earl were willing to limit the removal of this protection to Buckinghamshire I for one would have no objection. Funny things happen in Buckinghamshire that do not happen in other counties. I do not think any case has been made out, beyond the one or two cases in Buckinghamshire, why this protection should be taken away. I shall therefore oppose the Second Reading.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, there is, I think, some slight justification for this Bill. It is not unknown for a farmer who has a considerable farm under one landlord to take perhaps a field or two of the glebe, or a field or two from another landlord. These detached cases are technically "small holdings," and under proper safeguards there may not be any hardship in allowing fields of that character to be taken for the purpose of making what I may call genuine small holdings. I think if this Bill were altered so as to apply only to cases of that sort there would be very little objection to it. The case put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, as justification for this Bill seems to me a very flimsy one. He told us of a lady in Buckinghamshire who had cut up a farm of 250 acres into five holdings. If she has done that in order to get the better of the county council, I think her act is very likely to bring in due time its own punishment, for her tenants are not likely to die together, and unless they do she will be left with people holding detached fields, which will make it exceedingly difficult for her to let the farm or deal with it in any way.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken has put the matter on a very different footing from that stated by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture; and after the speech of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War everybody must have realised that if he had drawn this Bill it would have been in very different terms. Your Lordships listened to the cases of hardship put forward by the noble Earl opposite, but the noble Earl's method of warfare has been on previous occasions very much as it has been to-night. He puts down a very wide provision. He then expatiates, as Lord Camperdown said, on the fact that he is there, that the whole matter is an individual matter, and that we can rely on no hardship being done. It is true the noble Earl is there, but none of us know how long be may be spared to that sphere of usefulness. We are certain that under his superintendence no hardship will be done, but we cannot legislate in that way.
If this Bill is allowed to be read a second time it can only be on the clearest understanding that, when we go into Committee, the noble Earl will be prepared

351
to furnish us with a list of these cases of evasion, so that your Lordships and the country may know what are the circumstances which cause a Minister to run counter to the express policy of Parliament and endeavour to undo what was deliberately done, after careful consideration between the two Houses, three years ago. I feel very strongly on this matter. I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition put no undue stress on the appointment of these Commissioners to continue the course, which this Government has been pursuing relentlessly in the last two or three years, of bullying the local authorities. The Board of Education has earned a most unenviable notoriety in this respect, and the Local Government Board has done it constantly to a degree never before known in the history of that great Department. They are in continual worry and trouble with local authorities all over the country, and the Board of Agriculture is not without some experience of the same kind. This policy of driving local authorities, who are representative and responsible to their constituents, to take action when they are not desirous of taking action, makes us look with some suspicion on the wide powers of this Bill.
If your Lordships are willing to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading with the object of meeting such cases as Lord Fortescue has spoken of—genuine cases of hardship and difficulty in obtaining land—I think that so far as my noble friend behind me (Lord Lansdowne) is concerned, he will be prepared to assent to that course and to vote for it. But it must be on the clearest understanding, as I said on rising, that the noble Earl will be prepared to show us categorically what are the cases of hardship and difficulty with which he wishes to deal, and that he will be prepared also to accept such restrictions of wording as will limit the Bill to those cases. Your Lordships should not be put in the position of withdrawing in 1911 the protection which was deliberately given in 1908 to the very class whom this Act was intended to benefit.
EARL CARRINGTON: I really am grateful to noble Lords opposite for allowing me to have the Second Reading of this Bill. I am sure that the Bill is a perfectly proper one. As regards what the noble Viscount has just said about not knowing how long I should be in my present sphere, I am confident that my successor would carry out his duties in the honourable and
352
straightforward way in which all Unionist Ministers have discharged their responsibilities. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, told us about this clause having been very fully considered by Parliament. That is perfectly true; but what has happened was not contemplated, nor is it desirable. I shall be prepared, of course, to substantiate my claim. I had, of course, a great many other instances to give, but I did not wish to weary the House. I will do my best to adduce categorical cases, because the only object of this Bill is to remedy these cases of hardship.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POULTRY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have to apologise to noble Lords for speaking again, but I have another Bill. It is really a very small matter, the object being to give the Board of Agriculture power to deal with the traffic in live poultry, so as to secure its being carried under more humane and sanitary conditions. This Bill has been brought forward under the auspices of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and will reach people bringing in live poultry from other countries and dealers who collect birds for market. They have rather a rough way of dealing with live poultry, which causes a good deal of unnecessary suffering. I am sure the House would be as anxious to prevent that in the case of chickens, turkeys, and so on, as in the case of cattle. These fowls are tied by the legs for long periods and are somewhat roughly handled and thrown about. I dare say some of your Lordships have seen them lying about on different railway station platforms, and you will have noticed that frequently they are packed without sufficient room or ventilation. The Board of Agriculture have power, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, to deal with the traffic in cattle, and it is desirable to extend the protective provisions to poultry. I do not think there is anything controversial in the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will approve of it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of CAMPERDOWN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Transfer of powers as to vesting orders from Judge in Lunacy to High Court.
2. The powers of the Judge in Lunacy under sections one hundred and thirty-five to one hundred and forty-three of the Lunacy Act, 1890, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to make such vesting and other orders as are in those sections mentioned shall, except so far as they relate to lunatic mortgagees, be transferred to, and, subject to rules of the Supreme Court, be exerciseable by, the High Court, and, except as aforesaid, those sections as so amended shall have effect accordingly as if for references to the Judge in Lunacy there were substituted references to the High Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the words "lunatic mortgagees," to insert "not being also trustees." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very small Amendment, which will not in the least affect the principle of the Bill. It is in the clause which provides for the transfer of powers as to vesting orders from a Judge in Lunacy to the High Court. Where property belongs to lunatic mortgagees in their own right, it is not intended if they are trustees that the property which really beneficially belongs to others should be transferred from the tribunal which now deals with it. Accordingly I move this Amendment, which is merely to carry out that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 20, after ("mortgagees") insert ("not being also trustees").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5. Any vacancy occurring among the unpaid Commissioners may be filled up by the appointment of such person of either sex as the Lord Chancellor may appoint.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH*LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved to omit the word "unpaid." The noble Lord said: I have to apologise to your Lordships for rising to move an Amendment which has not been printed and circulated, but my excuse is that the time since the Second Reading has been so short that it was scarcely possible to get a properly considered Amendment printed. However, it is in itself a very simple Amendment, and I think I can rely on making it so plain that there will be no misunderstanding as to its meaning. This schedule deals with the reconstruction of the Lunacy Commissioners. The number of Commissioners is increased, and there are certain new regulations in respect of the conduct of their business. There are to be certain paid Commissioners and certain unpaid Commissioners, the former being professional persons, either medical or legal. The unpaid Commissioners, of course, have no such qualifications. The point has been raised as to whether it were possible to appoint a woman to be an unpaid Commissioner. The Lord Chancellor thought it extremely desirable that women should be associated with the work of the Lunacy Commissioners, considering the immense number of women lunatics and the tact, judgment, and knowledge which women would bring to the work of the Lunacy Commissioners. He therefore proposed to remove the legal ambiguity felt by the Law Officers of the Crown, so that it would be possible for him to appoint a woman to the position of an unpaid Commissioner. Those who are interested in this matter and have been working for this change for a long time are very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for proposing this change.
But the question arises whether the same discretion should not be allowed to the Lord Chancellor in respect of the appointment of paid Commissioners. The paid Commissioners, as I say, have to possess certain qualifications. They must be medical persons or barristers-at-law of a certain standing. Women are not eligible for the law, but there are medical women

355
who now take high rank in their profession, and all the arguments which are so forcible in favour of permitting women to act as unpaid Commissioners in co-operation with male unpaid Commissioners to look after the case of women lunatics, would operate also, I submit, in respect of the appointment of paid women medical Commissioners. I therefore suggest that the discretion which the Lord Chancellor proposes in the fifth section of the First Schedule should apply also in the case of vacancies among the paid Commissioners. If the word "unpaid" is omitted, that is all that is necessary to be done. The Lord Chancellor would then be empowered in case of a vacancy to appoint a woman as a paid Commissioner. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will be sympathetic with the object of this proposal, and we shall be glad to hear from him that he will be able to agree to it. If he desires further time, no doubt the Amendment could be brought on again at a subsequent stage, but I propose it now for the purpose of eliciting an expression of opinion upon it.
Amendment moved—
First Schedule, Clause 5, line 25, to omit the Word ("unpaid.").—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I do not think it would be easy to overstate the importance of having women associated with the care of the insane in this country, because we all know that in those sad and depressing cases where women are insane there is a great difference in the handling, treatment, and control of them by women. Therefore I unreservedly assent to the principle which my noble friend has advanced. As I said on the Second Reading, I did nominate and obtain the assent of one lady to act as an unpaid Commissioner, and I was most disturbed when the Law Officers advised, on a ground which is rather an open question, that it could not be done, and therefore I could not proceed further then. Now I have proposed that in the case of unpaid Commissioners a woman may be appointed, and if I have the good fortune to get this Bill through I shall certainly use the power of appointing women.
But my noble friend Lord Courtney of Penwith proposes to go further. The only reason why I am afraid I cannot entertain his proposal at the present time is this. This Bill is purely of a temporary character,
356
recommended by the Royal Commission as of a temporary character, until a larger scheme, more ambitious and more useful, is embraced in a longer Bill for the organisation of the whole matter and dealing with the qualifications of those who have to serve in this connection. I am afraid this is not an apt time for entering into the big question of what ought to be the qualifications of the paid Lunacy Commissioners who travel round the country and visit the asylums. It is too big a thing to touch now, and it would lead to a good deal of disturbance in connection with what is merely a temporary difficulty. But I have a very strong feeling, as I said before, that in this particular kind of work and in other kinds of work women ought to be associated, and I hope it will be so as soon as possible. It will certainly not be through any want of desire on my part if it is not brought about.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I am grateful, and I am sure all who are interested in this matter will be grateful, to the Lord Chancellor for his expression of sympathy. I appreciate the difficulty of pressing the Amendment now; and relying upon what my noble and learned friend has said with respect to the future and the possibility of reconsidering the matter when the larger scheme is brought forward, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to; Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 81.)

THE ARMY.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD rose to ask the Secretary of State for War—
1. Whether men returning from abroad on the expiration of their term of Colour service are included in the strength of the Reserve for the year in which they return home, and consequently must be counted in the strength of the Reserve and not with the Colours.
2. Whether men in the 2nd Class of the Army Reserve are considered fit for the fighting line of the Expeditionary Force.
3. Whether the surplus of the Regular Reserve above the requirements of the Expeditionary Force of 28,130 mentioned by the Secretary of State for War on the 4th May last refers to 1910 or to 1913, and is it calculated on establishment.
4. What is the standard of age below which non-commissioned officers and men will not be considered qualified to serve abroad with the Expeditionary Force in India and elsewhere.
5. In view of the fact that the twenty-seven fourth battalions of the Special Reserve are not available for foreign service, are there any other troops available to discharge the duties abroad which they will be required to perform in connection with the Expeditionary Force when on active service.
6. Whether the Secretary of State for War would cause Table I, War Establishments, dated 8th April, 1907, to be laid upon the Table of the House in identically the same form as when first issued, but corrected up to date; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, these Questions arise out of the discussion which took place in your Lordships' House last week. The point in the first Question is this. Are the men whose period of Colour service has expired and who have come home and been transferred to the Reserve estimated as forming a part of the Reserve for the year in which they return? If so, when you deal with the figure—the number of the Reserve in that year—you find included in that figure the total number of the drafts who have returned home in that year and who cannot be also counted with the Colours. Hence my Question.
In my second Question I ask the noble Viscount whether men in the 2nd class of the Army Reserve are considered fit for the fighting line of the Expeditionary Force. Last week the noble Viscount gave me a caution, and a very proper one, not to underrate or underestimate the value of our military forces. I admit that both in writing and speaking I have always dwelt upon the fact that the men of the 2nd Class of the Army Reserve are not fit for the fighting line, basing my statement, as the noble Viscount is aware, on the evidence of Lord Methuen and General Sir Kelly-Kenny. If I am wrong I hope the noble Viscount will
358
correct me, because nothing is further from my wish than to make any misrepresentation as to the true value of any particular part of our military forces.
I come to my third Question. The noble Viscount last week gave figures dealing with the year 1910, and then passed on to 1913. He left me in doubt as to whether the surplus of the Regular Reserve—28,130—referred to the year 1910, or whether that figure is the estimated surplus of 1913. I also ask him whether he calculates that surplus on establishment. Then in the fourth Question I ask the Secretary of State for War what is the standard of age below which non-commissioned officers and men will not be considered qualified to serve abroad with the Expeditionary Force in India and elsewhere. Last week the noble Viscount informed me that it was no longer necessary to be so particular as to the standard of age at which men were sent abroad.
With regard to my fifth Question, I would remind the noble Viscount of the duties he assigned to these twenty-seven fourth battalions of the Special Reserve. In dealing with the Army Estimates he said "they would be available in the event of an outbreak of war to proceed abroad at once for duty on lines of communication," etc. I think the noble Viscount would admit that at the present moment none of these battalions are in a condition to proceed abroad. I am glad it is the intention to increase their establishment, but how is the noble Viscount going to get his officers and men? He is probably aware that he will want about 6,000 more men to bring them up to the due establishment, and there is I believe at present a decreasing intake into the Special Reserve.
My last Question refers to the 1907 Table. I put this request to the noble Viscount last week, and be kindly said he would consider the possibility of reproducing the 1907 Table corrected up to date. If I may say so, I think the 1907 Table a most admirable Return, giving all the information that could possibly be required. I am not asking for any new Return, but merely whether we can have this 1907 one brought up to date. I cannot help thinking that it must exist in the corrected form at the War Office. I

359
hope the noble Viscount will see his way to produce it.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for further Papers relating to the Army Reserve, &c.—(The Duke of Bedford.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Duke for deferring his Questions until to-day, which has given me the opportunity of looking into them more closely. His first Question relates to men returning from abroad on the expiration of their term of Colour service, and he asks whether they are shown in the strength of the Reserve or with the Colours. The answer is that men are not shown, according to the figures which I have given, in the strength of the Reserve until they have actually been transferred to the Reserve.
The second Question is whether men in the Second Class of the Army Reserve are considered fit for the fighting line of the Expeditionary Force. I have never understood why the noble Duke speaks of the Second Class of the Army Reserve. We do not know that term in connection with these men. There are the men in Section D. I grant that a man who has been a long time away from the Colours is not so good as a man who has been only one or two years away. But in Section D no man of the Infantry, Cavalry, or Royal Artillery is now allowed to enter who has been more than five or at any rate six years from the Colours, and there are men who have been away a shorter time. No doubt in Section D there may be men not as fit as others for fighting, and the longer a man is away from the Colours the less fit he is; but I am advised that the greater proportion are well fitted and suited to take their place in the fighting line. There are, as I say, some who are not suitable, but we can use those who are fit, and of these there is an abundance.
In his third Question the noble Duke asks whether the surplus of the Regular Reserve above the requirements of the Expeditionary Force of 28,130 mentioned by me on May 4 last refers to 1910 or to 1913, and whether it is calculated on establishment. The answer is that I took the figures of the noble Duke in his Questions. Where they referred to 1913 my answers referred to 1913, and where he was referring to the 1910 Return or the 1907 Return I took those figures. They followed the
360
Questions put by the noble Duke. I wish, however, to make a correction in the figure which I gave. It should be 27,000. The next question is as to the standard of age below which non-commissioned officers and men will not be considered qualified to serve abroad with the Expeditionary Force in India and elsewhere. Since the year 1899, from the time of the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne, it has been customary, while not sending drafts to India under twenty years of age, to count in, under certain services, men of nineteen as fit to go there or to any other part of the Empire with the Expeditionary Force. Those services are the Royal Artillery, the Army Service Corps, the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Army Ordnance Corps, and the Royal Engineers. We do not send, and have not sent, men under twenty years of age abroad in the Cavalry or the Infantry, but for the Artillery they have been considered fit for the last twelve years. My advisers have no reason to alter their opinion that provided a soldier has attained nineteen years he is fit for these services; but for the other combatant arms the age of twenty obtains.
As regards the twenty-seven fourth battalions, referred to in the fifth Question, they are, of course, available for foreign service just as much as any others, as they are enlisted and organised for that purpose. As the noble Duke correctly said, their primary purpose would be for lines of communication, or to relieve units abroad which are to proceed to war. They would get opportunities for additional training before being called upon to take an active part in the fighting line, which they might have to do later on. As regards the particular numbers, the new system recently adopted has not been long enough in operation to enable us to judge. The establishment of 750 has to be obtained by bringing a couple of hundred ex-Regulars into the battalion. We do not know yet how that is going to work. I am glad to say that recruiting both for the Regulars and for the Special Reserve was very much better during the past week than during the preceding week. I dare say all these things are being affected by emigration just now, but last week the figures jumped up. I cannot tell for some little time how this experiment of adding 200 men, a good many of whom will be ex-Regulars, to the twenty-seven fourth battalions will succeed, nor can I tell yet whether the Officers

361
Training Corps is going to be fruitful. All one can say is that it promises well, but one has got to see.
Now, I come to the last Question. The noble Duke asks whether I will cause Table I, War Establishments, dated April 8, 1907, to be laid upon the Table of the House in identically the same form as when first issued, but corrected up to date. I said the other day that I would consider that, and I have done so. My advisers think, and I am bound to say I agree with them, that there is a considerable difference between the state of things in 1907 and now. In 1907 we were only giving our plans of the way we proposed to make up the war establishment. In 1910 things got very much further on, and as I stated the other day, one Cavalry Division and six Divisions could now be mobilised, four of them within ten days and the remainder within twenty-one days, and we hope all will be capable of being mobilised within ten days shortly. But that involves, even now, certain arrangements being made. There are certain special enlistments, and certain changes which the introduction of mechanical transport is bringing about. If I were to lay on the Table a War Establishment Paper as in 1907 we should be giving information as to mobilisation of a much more practical kind than that given in 1907 when things were still in the air, and my advisers think we ought not to do that to-day. Certainly in no foreign Army would it be done, and I think the time has come when we should proceed a little carefully in these matters. But I know the noble Duke's great interest in this subject, and I have seen the Director of Organisation, who will be prepared to place at the disposal of the noble Duke any information he desires. The noble Duke will, of course, keep the information confidential so far as details are concerned. But that will not preclude him from making criticism so long as he does not make use of the ipsissima verba, which it is not desirable in the public interest to publish.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for his answers, but I am not quite able to follow him yet on the point of the transfer to the Reserve. If you make an estimate of the number of your Reserve it seems to me that you must include in that estimate those drafts that come home and are due to pass into the Reserve. I gather that you do
362
not count them in the Reserve until they are actually transferred, but it seems to me they are included in the estimated strength of the Reserve. They cannot be in two places at one time, and as they are estimated for in the Reserve, you cannot count the men with the Colours as well. Again, I am not quite certain what the noble Viscount means by including ex-Regular soldiers in his twenty-seven extra battalions. Does he mean the men who have been through Section D?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: As the noble Duke knows, we propose to enlist a certain section of veterans—of course, not veterans in the ordinary sense of the word—of any age up to thirty-one or so who have passed through a period of Reserve service but have not entered Section D. There are numerous men passing every year through the Reserve out of the Army altogether. There are some who serve in Section D, but we have reason to believe that there is another section of men who, if they could get the training, would join the battalions. That is the experiment which the Adjutant-General is now making.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: But surely the noble Viscount has taken Section D for the Expeditionary Force. Now he is going to divert them and send them into the twenty-seven fourth battalions.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think the stream that flows out of the Reserve every year is ample for both, if they choose to come in.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The noble Viscount is right there, so long as the enormous exodus due to the three years' term of enlistment is going on, but that will cease in time. These battalions will be required, of course, for foreign service. The noble Viscount did not answer as to whether the surplus is calculated on establishment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes; on establishment at present, but we hope to make establishment and strength the same thing.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I would give an instance. The Special Contingent last November was very much below the full numbers, and the Army Medical Corps also had a deficiency. The two together were 8,361.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: When I spoke of that, I was only speaking of the Regulars. In the Special Contingent we took the actual figures.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I thank the noble Viscount for his kind offer to give me the information, but of course I regret that he has not been able to produce the Return. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.