Lords Sitting of 12 March 1912

BARONIES OF BURGH, STRABOLGI AND COBHAM
Petition of Viscount Gage and Sir Robert Bourchier Sherard Wrey for leave to lodge forthwith one printed case applicable to the three claims to the Baronies of Martyn, Dynaunt and Fitzwaryn; read, and ordered as prayed.
CREDIT FONCIER OF MAURITIUS BILL. [H.L.]
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I see my noble friend Lord Newton in his place, and I venture to make an appeal to him with regard to a Notice which stands first on the Paper for to-morrow in his name.—viz:
"To call attention to the Report from the Joint Select Committee of the House of lords and House of Commons on the Stage Plays (Censorship)."
Your Lordships are aware that there are on the Paper following the noble Lord's Notice two Motions with regard to Ireland to which noble Lords from Ireland attach considerable importance, and for the discussion of which I understand a certain number of noble Lords are coming over from Ireland. The noble Lord, it is true, had placed his Notice on the Paper in advance of the Irish Notices, but those who issued the summons to noble Lords from Ireland were under the belief that those Motions stood first on the Paper. That, however, was not so, and consequently the day is entirely at the disposal of my noble friend. But if he should find it possible, without inconvenience to himself or to those who are interested in the subject to which he desires to call atten-
390
tion, to put his Notice off for two or three days and allow the Irish Motions to hold the field to-morrow evening it would be greatly appreciated by those who are interested in them.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it has frequently happened to me to put down a Motion and then be asked by some noble Lord, generally some one on the Front Benches, to change the day. I feel quite certain in my own mind that, if the circumstances were reversed, it would not be the slightest use my making an appeal to my noble friend to give way to me, but as I am of a much more amiable disposition I suppose I shall have to again sacrifice myself. I observed that the Notice Paper was absolutely clear of business, and thereupon, after consulting with other noble Lords and twice altering the day, I fixed upon to-morrow. Some time afterwards Lord Midleton came to me and in broken-hearted accents asked me to give up my day because a large number of noble Lords are coming over from Ireland in order to discuss a very important question. If the question is such an important one, I am surprised that they did not put the Motion on the Paper two or three days earlier. But, as I say, I do not wish to be disobliging, and if there are a number of noble Lords coming over from Ireland. I do not wish to stand in their way. At the same time, I desire to enter a protest against this practice of asking members of this House to alter their day. In this particular case, however, I have consulted with noble Lords who are interested in the question which I was to have raised to-morrow, and they have assured me that they do not mind its being postponed until next week. Therefore I will fall in with my noble friend's request, but I should like to warn him that this is the last time I shall give way.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am sure we are all most grateful to my noble friend for the generosity with which he has acted in this matter, but I wish to say a word on one remark which fell from him. He said that he had always been anxious to give way to members of the Front Benches. I can assure him that there is a perfectly clear understanding that no one on this Bench should ever rise when it is understood that my noble friend wishes to address the House.

MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES 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.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extent of Act.
1. This Act shall extend and apply to the administrative county of London and to those parts of the administrative counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, and Surrey (exclusive of the county borough of Croydon) to which the provisions of the Disorderly Houses Act, 1751, relating to music and dancing licences applied.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS) moved, after the word " of "["and to those parts of the administrative counties of"] to insert "Buckinghamshire" and to leave out the words "exclusive of " and to insert" and of the county borough of West Ham and. "The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment and of some subsequent Amendments which are consequential is to bring within the scope of this useful piece of legislation the whole of the district included within the twenty-mile radius from the City of Westminster. I think the value of the Bill would be very much destroyed if an exception were made as to the borough of Croydon and a small piece of Buckinghamshire. The position would then be this, that there would be three Acts of Parliament dealing with this subject applying to the same district. There would be the old Act of 1751, which would not be repealed in respect of Croydon and this part of Buckinghamshire; the Middlesex Act of 1894, and then, if this Bill passes, there would be this Act. There is no reason, so far as I know, why Croydon should be treated separately, and as no argument has been advanced for such separate treatment I hope your Lordships will see fit to include the whole of the twenty-mile radius.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after the first ("of") insert ("Buckinghamshire"), and leave out ("exclusive of") and insert ("and of the county borough of West Ham and").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
EARL STANHOPE: The London County Council, for whom I am acting in this matter, have naturally no objection to the noble Lord's Amendment. But I wish to point out that as far as Buckinghamshire is concerned it is really a minor matter, because I am given to understand that there is not, at present at any rate, a single building in that county which conies under the Act of 1751. The reason why the borough of Croydon was left out was, as I stated on Second Reading, that the borough council had made other arrangements and did not wish to upset thorn by having, a new Act. Naturally the London County Council do not object to Croydon being put into the Bill, but it is possible that at another stage of the Bill the authorities of Croydon may petition against it if they are now included.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next Amendment is a purely drafting one. It is better to state expressly the area; otherwise it is necessary for a person reading the Bill to refer to the Act of 1751.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out front ("Croydon") to the end of the clause and insert ("which are within twenty miles of the Cities of London and Westminster").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out the words "exclusive of the county borough of West Ham. "An administrative county does not include a county borough. Therefore it is unnecessary to insert these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("exclusive of the county borough of West Ham").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after ("West Ham") insert ("and the county borough of Croydon").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Music and Dancing Licences.
3.—(1) Premises, whether licensed or not for the sale of wines, spirits, beer, or other fermented or distilled liquors, shall not be kept or used for public dancing, singing, music, or other public entertainment of the like kind without a licence first obtained from the licensing authority for the purpose or purposes for which the same respectively are to be kept or used.
(2) The licensing authority may grant licences, to such persons as they think fit, to keep or use premises for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such restrictions, as they by the respective licences determine.
(3) The licensing authority may transfer any such licence to such person as they may think fit.
(4) Any person to whom the licensing authority may have refused to grant or transfer a licence to keep or use premises as aforesaid shall not be entitled to again apply for the grant or transfer of a licence in respect of the same premises within three months from the date of such refusal, and the licensing authority may refuse in any case to consider any application for the grant or transfer of a licence under this Act at any meeting other than an annual licensing meeting fixed by the licensing authority for the purpose of considering such applications unless the applicant can satisfy the licensing authority that there are special circumstances which justify the consideration of the application at such other meeting.
(5) Subject to the provision hereinafter contained as to the revocation of a licence by the licensing authority, every licence granted at an annual licensing meeting as aforesaid shall be in force for one year, or for such shorter period as the licensing authority on the grant of the licence shall determine, and every licence granted at any other meeting of the licensing authority shall be in force until the annual licensing meeting next ensuing after the grant thereof, or for such shorter period as the licensing authority on the grant thereof shall determine.
(6) Premises kept or used as aforesaid shall not be opened for any of die purposes aforesaid except on the days and between the hours stated in the licence relating thereto, and no such premises shall be open for any of the purposes aforesaid after midnight and before the hour of noon: Provided that if any person applies to die licensing authority for a licence exempting him on any special occasion or occasions from the provisions of this subsection relating to the closing of premises it shall be lawful for the licensing authority, if in their discretion they think fit so to do, to grant to the applicant a licence exempting him from the before-mentioned provisions of this subsection during certain hours and on the special occasion or occasions to be specified in the licence.
(7) The observance of the days and hours of opening and closing as aforesaid shall be a condition of every licence.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out subsection (4), which seems unnecessary. There is really nothing to prevent an individual making an application, and there is nothing to prevent the authority refusing it. Therefore there is
394
no necessity to insert this subsection, which is both inoperative and unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 6 to 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
EARL STANHOPE: I do not propose to divide your Lordships on this Amendment as it is not of any great magnitude. I would, however, point out that the London County Council has already a considerable amount of work to do, and if anybody is allowed to come and demand week after week a licence for a particular place and on its refusal to come again the following week, naturally it is not going to reduce the amount of work done by the Committee concerned. If this subsection is cut out it is possible that a considerable amount of extra work may be placed on the County Council committee and the officials.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE moved to amend subsection (5) by leaving out the words "at art annual licensing meeting," and also omitting all words after "determine" in the middle of the subsection. The noble Earl said These two Amendments are really of a drafting nature. It is considered that without these Amendments it would be possible for an interval to exist between the termination of one licence and the granting of another. Supposing the annual meeting was held on November 15 this year and was not held next year until, say, the 20th; in that case every single house which had received its annual licence would be without that licence from the 15th to the 20th, and every one of them would accordingly be considered a disorderly house. It is in order to get rid of that interval between the two licences that I propose these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("at an annual licensing meeting")
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("determine") to the end of subsection (5).—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Fees for Licences.
4. There shall be paid to the licensing authority in respect of the grant or transfer of a licence under this Act, such fees as the licensing authority may fix, not exceeding—
(1) For the grant of a licence in respect of church halls, mission halls, schools, institutes, awl similar premises, five shillings for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted, or one pound, whichever amount is the lesser:
(2) For the grant of a licence in respect of assembly rooms, club rooms, concert halls, hotels, restaurants, public-houses, dancing halls, skating rinks, town balls, drill halls, and swimming baths, five shillings for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted:
(3) For the grant of a licence in respect of any premises other than those in this section herein-before mentioned:
For premises accommodating not more than five hundred persons—
Ten shillings for every month or part of a mouth for which the licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than five hundred but not more than one thousand persons—
One pound for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than one thousand, but not more than fifteen hundred persons—
Thirty shillings for every month or part of a month for which a licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than fifteen hundred, but not more than two thousand persons—
Two pounds for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than two thousand persons—
Three pounds for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted.
(4) For the transfer of a licence—
For premises to which paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of this section apply, five shillings.
For other premises, ten shillings.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Before this clause is added to the Bill I should like to say a word, because I do not wish the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to be under any misapprehension as to the view of the Government upon it. This clause imposes certain fees payable to the licensing authority in respect to the premises licensed. It is true that in the Middlesex Act of 1894 a small fee is payable, but this clause goes far beyond anything in that Act, and for the first time imposes a sub-
396
stantial fee payable by the licensee to the authorities. There is a good deal to be said for this, because no doubt the authorities are put to considerable expense and will no doubt be put to additional expense under this Act. I believe it is stated that as large a sum as £6,000 or £8,000 is annually spent upon the inspection of licensed premises. At the same time, I think it must be borne in mind that the inspection of these theatres is more in the interests of the public than of the theatrical proprietors or managers, and it is questionable whether that expenditure should not be borne out of the general rates rather than be thrown upon the individual. Moreover, this is quite a substantial fee. I do not know what view the Exchequer may take of it. It is conceivable that at some time a Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to tax places of amusement, and in view of that I do not know whether it would be wise for us at this stage to grant, as it were, to local authorities such sums as might be derived from this species of taxation. However, I have not put down any Amendment upon this, but I reserve to the Government the right, after consideration, if they see fit, to move in another place to amend at any rate the amounts which are specified in this clause.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope His Majesty's Government will not follow the suggestion which has been outlined to the House by the noble Lord, because, as I stated on a previous stage of the Bill, the fees charged under this clause will not cover one-half of the cost of inspection. The cost of inspection is put at over £8,000—that is, the cost of architects going into the question of safety and the cost of fire brigade officers going into the question of fire risks. What we expect to get from these fees is approximately £3,600, as against £8,000 which the inspection will cost. As to the noble Lord's remark that it is possible at some future date that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see fit to impose taxes on places of this kind, I would suggest that these fees are not likely to be any interference with such taxation any more than was that the case with the licensing of motor-cars. Motor-cars were licensed before the Budget of 1909, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer found no difficulty in placing additional taxes upon them.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Penalties.
5.—(1) In the case of any premises kept or used for any of the purposes aforesaid without a licence for such purposes first obtained, the person keeping or rated as occupier of the same shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for every day on which the Battle are so kept or used.
(2) In the case of any breach or disregard of any of the terms, conditions, or restrictions upon or subject to which a licence was granted, the holder thereof shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in, the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding five pounds for each day on which such offence continues, and such licence shall be liable to be revoked by the licensing authority.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any other Act all penalties recovered under this section shall be paid to the licensing authority taking the proceedings leading to the recovery of the same.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My first Amendment is to leave out the words " In the case of " at the beginning of the clause. It reads better to begin the clause with the words " Any premises."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1 leave out (" in the case of ").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out from subsection (1) the words " any of the purposes aforesaid." It is thought clearer to state what the purposes are, and therefore I move to insert the words " public dancing, singing, or other public entertainments of the like kind."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("any of the purposes aforesaid ") and insert ("public 'dancing, singing, music, or other public entertainments of the like kind").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move, after the word " obtain " in subsection (1), to insert the words in my Amendment. The object is to retain the description " disorderly house " for such premises as are unlicensed. If that is retained as it is in the Middlesex Act it has the advantage of giving the police, if necessary, a right of entry. It also makes the person who occupies such unlicensed premises guilty of a misdemeanour which can be punished by imprisonment or unlimited fine, and the imprisonment can carry with it in some cases hard labour. The insertion of these words provides an alternative method of
398
procedure. If in any circumstances the local authority was slack in prosecuting houses which had not a licence it would give the public, acting through their county councils, power to obtain a warrant which would enable the police to enter and close the premises. This is an additional precaution, and I hope the noble Earl will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, after ("obtained") insert (" shall be deemed a disorderly house, and without prejudice to any enactment respecting the prosecution of persons keeping a disorderly house ").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
EARL STANHOPE: The only point against the Amendment is this, that it does preserve some of the rather extreme procedure of the Act of 1751. By Section 5 of that Act proceedings can be taken against a disorderly house by a common informer. Any two members of the public can take action against the disorderly house, and if the proceedings are successful they can claim a fee of £10 each. Several of the borough councils in London have objected to that procedure, which they think is undignified and unnecessary. They feel that the police authorities are adequate to take proceedings in such cases, and they are therefore anxious to do away altogether with the Act of 1751 in that case. I think it is possible that in another place there may be an Amendment moved to this subsection by which the common informer will be ruled out and the municipal and police authorities given the power, which, of course, ought to be left to them, of taking proceedings in such cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Your Lordships will observe that this clause provides that a penalty not exceeding £50 may be exacted from any one convicted of a breach of the provisions of the Act, and that the fine is to date from the day from which the offence is committed. There is an invariable practice nowadays in all Government Departments dealing with these kind of Bills to insist that the fine should not take place until after conviction. If that is not the case, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from purposely delaying the proceedings against an unlicensed house with a view to mulcting them in very heavy damages. It is considered better now to make the fine date from the date of conviction and

399
not from the date of the offence. I hope it will meet the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if, as my next Amendment proposes, " one hundred pounds " is inserted instead of " fifty pounds " for a first offence, and £50 for every day following. In that way the fine is increased, but the authorities are rather put under an obligation to take proceedings at once and not let the thing remain on with the object of possibly abstracting a bigger fine.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, after (" exceeding") insert (" one hundred pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding ").—Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("used") insert ("after conviction therefor")
Page 4, line 12, after ("continues") insert ("after conviction therefor").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: I move to leave out from subsection (3) the words " all penalties " and to insert " any fines." This is merely a drafting Amendment to make the clause read clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out (" all penalties ") and insert, (" any fines ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: I move, after the word " section " in subsection (3), to insert " on the prosecution of a licensing authority." The object of this Amendment is to allow fees and penalties to he paid to the police authorities or to whoever takes proceedings in such cases where it is not the county council. As the clause at present stands, all fines and penalties would be paid to the licensing authorities whoever took proceedings. I hope my noble friend will realise that the county councils are giving over these fees, and will remember that fact when he is dealing later on with Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, after (" section") insert (" on the prosecution of a licensing authority ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Repeal.
9. From and after the commencement of this Act the enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act, in so far as they apply to the area to which this Act applies, are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to omit the words " in so far as they apply to the area to which this Act applies." This is merely a drafting Amendment with the object of bringing in the whole of the twenty-mile radius.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 32 and 33, leave out (" in so far as they apply to the area to which this Act applies ").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 12.)

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present session.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lords following were named of the Committee—

L. Chancellor.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. De Manley.

L. Stanley of Alderley. (L. Sheffield.)

L. Ashby St. Ledgers.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

IRISH FINANCE.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether it is intended to publish the Report or evidence, or both, of the Committee on Irish Finance, having regard to the early introduction of the Home Rule Bill and to the consequent need for authoritative and expert opinion and figures being available to Members and the public upon the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland; whether the contents of the Report, or any part thereof, or its general import, have been shown or communicated to any member of either House of Parliament, except Ministers, or to any other person, and, if so, to whom.
This Question is no novelty to those who have studied this matter. Questions of a similar character have been frequently put to His Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons, but the replies have always been of an unsatisfactory, and, I think I may say, of an evasive character. I may remind your Lordships that it was in March last, at Oxford, that the Chief Secretary announced that an inquiry was to be held with regard to the relations between English and Irish finance, and that it was to be of a purely confidential character and for the benefit of the Cabinet solely. That Committee called a number of witnesses and made its Report to the Government last autumn. I fully admit that if His Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Home Rule Bill—which in all probability will lead to the absolute ruin of finance in Ireland—it was their duty to appoint a Committee to inquire into the financial relations between England and Ireland. But the Committee reported now some months ago, and as we are told that a Home Rule Bill is to be introduced into the House of Commons during Easter week I cannot understand why the Report should not be made public. Before the introduction of the Home Rule Bill and afterwards there will be discussions of an important character in Parliament, in the Press, and on public platforms. Consequently, I think it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to give every facility to those who will take part in those discussions of knowing what is contained in the Report of this Committee. I think it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to let the country know the basis on which they have founded the financial proposals which will appear in the Bill shortly to be introduced.
402
I can quite understand that up to the time when the Home Rule Bill is prepared His Majesty's Government should consider the Report of the Committee confidential, and, I might even say, of a secret character; but now that the Bill is about to be introduced I maintain that the confidential nature of the Report is entirely removed. The Committee in question was appointed and discharged its duties at the public expense, and as the public has had to pay for the information obtained by the Committee I maintain that the public has a perfect right to obtain the Report made by the Committee to His Majesty's Government. I gather froth the answers of the Prime Minister in another place that the Government have not finally made up their minds not to publish the Report. On February 19 the Prime Minister said he could not yet say what the eventual decision as to the publication of the Report might be; and again, on March 6, the Prime Minister replied in the negative to a question whether we were definitely to assume that he undertook not to publish the Committee's Report. Mr. McKenna, on February 27, said it would be contrary to precedent to produce the Report of this Committee before legislation. From that answer it is gathered that the Government will not be unprepared to publish the Report after the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is intended to give the Report to the public before the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, whether it will be issued in the course of the discussions of the Bill, and, if not, what grounds they have for keeping the Report back from the public. I hope to have direct answers to those questions.
But I hope to have an even more direct answer to the latter part of my Question. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government considered the Report of a secret and confidential character, but there are rumours that the details of it have not been confined to the members of His Majesty's Government. Reports are abroad that other people have seen the Report. That rumour has gained a certain amount of credence owing to the evasive answers which have been given by the Home Secretary in another place when questioned on the matter. The Home Secretary was asked whether the Report had been shown to others than to His Majesty's Government, but be fenced

403
entirely with that question. Therefore I have to ask the noble Marquess whether it is the fact that the contents of the Report or any part of it, or its general import, have been shown or communicated to persons outside His Majesty's Government, and if the noble Marquess replies in the affirmative I can only say that it is most unjustifiable to show the Report to nonofficial individuals when they refuse to show it to people in the House of Commons who are entitled to ask for it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Marquess has told us that Questions similar in character to that which he has just asked have been put more than once in another place, and he does not consider that the replies which have been given are satisfactory. I fear, however, that I shall not be able to-day to go beyond what my right hon. friends have said elsewhere. This inquiry, as has been already stated, was a purely confidential inquiry for the purpose of assisting His Majesty's Government in framing a Home Rule Bill, and upon His Majesty's Government the whole responsibility must necessarily rest for the particular financial proposals as well as for all the other proposals which they embody in that measure when it is presented to Parliament. I therefore cannot see any reason, and I know of no precedent which would help the noble Marquess, in urging that the Report of an inquiry of this kind should be published before the Bill is read a first time in the House in which it is introduced. It seems to me that you might almost as well ask for the publication of the various drafts upon which a Bill is framed, sometimes, as noble Lords who have been responsible for Bills know, greatly differing in their details and even sometimes in their principles, in order that you may be able to trace the various processes of mind through which the framers of a particular measure have passed. Therefore, so far as the immediate publication of this Report is concerned, there seems to me to be no case for it whatever.
As to its ultimate publication, I am not in a better position to speak than my right hon. friends in another place. I cannot say that it will be published. I certainly am not going to say that it will not; but, if it is, it is impossible for me now to tell the noble Marquess at what stage of the
404
discussion it will be produced. But I can safely say that the particular considerations which the noble Marquess urges as to the need for authoritative information on certain financial matters so far as they would be advanced by the publication of this Report will certainly carry due weight with His Majesty's Government. I cannot help thinking that there has been a confusion in the minds of some people between the character of this inquiry and the large inquiry by Royal Commission into the financial relations between the two countries which was held before the last Home Rule Bill was introduced. They are entirely different in character in every respect. I have noticed that in some of the Questions that have been put to my right hon. friend in another place this Committee has been spoken of as the Financial Relations Inquiry, as though it were exactly on all fours with the wide and sweeping inquiry which was held nearly twenty years ago.
As regards the second part of the noble Marquess's Question, that, also, has more than once been put in another place. I am not quite sure with what object this query has been put either here or on former occasions in the House of Commons. The Report is, as I have explained to the noble Marquess, of a purely confidential character. As to whether it has been shown to any other person or persons, as confidential Papers are sometimes shown in confidence, I am not in a position to speak. Honestly, I do not know, and although I am probably as much interested in the forthcoming measure as any other member of the Government, and more than some, because when it comes here it will, I presume, fall to my lot to be in charge of it, I have not made any inquiry as to whether any other person or persons outside the Cabinet have seen it. I am bound to add that even if I did know I could not answer the noble Marquess's Question, because the Report is a confidential one, and it would not be proper to state who had or who had not seen it. But I cannot think that in any case the matter is one of great importance, because, as I have already said, what is important is the responsibility which His Majesty's Government will take for the actual proposals which they will produce immediately after Easter in another place. Meantime, I am afraid it is impossible to satisfy further the curiosity of noble Lords opposite on this particular point.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I put this Question on the Paper some days ago, and I think it is an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the noble Marquess not to have taken the trouble to find out the answer to the latter part. Speaking with great respect I venture to say that there was never a more discourteous action done by one Front Bench to another. Probably the noble Marquess knows full well that the Report has been shown to people associated with the Nationalist Party but he is afraid to say so in your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I must contradict that statement. I was speaking quite seriously and stating a simple fact when I observed that I do not know whether or not any one outside the Government has seen it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: There was one remark made by the noble Marquess to which I should like to allude. He stated that the proceedings of this Committee were quite different in character from the former inquiry. The only difference in character that I can make out is that this country has since those days provided a great deal more money than it had done before—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but my observation was directed to the fact that the former inquiry was held by Royal Commission and this was an inquiry by a small confidential Committee.
THE EARL OF MAYO: What I feel in this matter is that we have not got out of the Government any statement as to whether the Report has been shown to outside persons. If this Committee had reported in a favourable manner with regard to Irish finances, and if they had reported that Ireland would be able to pay its way under Home Rule—if they had taken an optimistic view of the result of a measure of Home Rule upon the finances of the country, we should no doubt have heard all about it. We should have been told that the Committee had been a great success, and that they had found out that everything would be all right when Ireland had got Home Rule. But we have
406
reason to believe that the contrary has occurred, and therefore we are told that the Report of the Committee is to be kept a secret. I hope that after the Home Rule Bill has been introduced we shall see the Report of this Committee and know exactly the opinions at which they arrived. I cannot say that the answer of the noble Marquess is other than most unsatisfactory, but we must be thankful even for small mercies. I can only repeat that if the Committee had found out that we would be able to pay our way under Home Rule we should have heard all about it before this. That, I am afraid, is not the case, and therefore the Report is to be kept secret as long as possible.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am unable to agree with my noble friend who has just sat down, for I see no mercies at all to be thankful for. The noble Marquess had ample notice of the Question on the Paper, and my noble friend Lord Londonderry presented his case with the greatest courtesy and clearness. I anticipated the answer we should receive to the first part of the Question, but the noble Marquess has given no answer at all to the most crucial point contained in the latter part of the Question to which attention has been keenly directed in the Press and in conversation, and which is of the highest possible importance. The noble Marquess said he did not know whether the contents of the Report had been shown or communicated to outside persons. I ask, What business has the noble Marquess to be in that state of mind? When such a Question as this is put to His Majesty's Government by a noble Lord who fills a considerable position in reference to this question, is it not the business of the noble Marquess opposite to be able to give an answer? Why is he in a position to clothe himself in masterly ignorance? Ignorance is entirely out of place on this question. I can understand the noble Marquess saying that this was a secret Committee, but, if so, surely he should be in a position to say whether the secret was fairly observed all round, and whether when the discussion opens every one will be in a state of ignorance until the Prime Minister, who will have charge of this Bill, unfolds the secret. What is suggested is this, that it is extremely probable, if the Report has not been shown, that at any rate its contents have been communicated to ersons who do not belong to this side

407
in politics, and that one Party greatly interested in the Home Rule Bill have been given an opportunity of knowing a great deal about the contents of this Report, whilst no information at all has been communicated to those who sit on this side and who are deeply interested in knowing the contents of that Report. Personally, I am entirely dissatisfied with the answer given by the noble Marquess. Having regard to my personal respect for him, I do not like to say it was unfair. But I think I will go as far as to say it was not fair. I do not think it is reasonable for the noble Marquess, when asked a fair question like this, to say that he is unable to give an answer on what is a most crucial point in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I say that as the noble Marquess has stated that he is not in a position to answer the latter part of my Question because he has no knowledge on the subject, I will repeat the Question on Thursday next, when I hope he will be able to give me some information.

THE ARMY.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD rose to call attention to—

1. The following Table showing the number of men required from Section D of the Regular Reserve to complete the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force after October, 1913, according to statements supplied by the Secretary of State for War and by the Under-Secretary of State for War.

2. The number of men in Section D available for service abroad in 1913 after all the requirements of mobilisation have been supplied; and to move for Papers.

Estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913 (Lord Erroll's Return)

106,372

Less number resident abroad on 1st January, 1912. (Statement of Under-secretary of State for War on Monday, 4th March, 1912. Official Report)

8,230

98,142

Less 10 per cent, for casualties. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State, 15th November, 1910. Official Report)

9,814

Less number of Reservists required to bring the four home battalions and other Regular units left at home up to war establishment. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State, 15th November, 1910. Official Report)

3,729

Less number required to replace combatant Regular Reservists who have been transferred from Regular Reserve to serve with Royal Army Medical Corps on mobilisation and are no longer available in the combatant ranks. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State, 20th February, 1912. Official Report)

1,650

Less number required to complete deficiency in Category B. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War on 20th February, 1912. Official Report)

6,467

21,660

Regular Reservists A and B available for Expeditionary Force

76,482

Number of Reservists required for Expeditionary Force. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War, 30th May, 1911. Official Report)

90,000

Deficit in Sections A and B

13,518

Number required from Section D to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force in 1913

13,518

SECTION D, THE SECOND CLASS OF THE ARMY RESERVE. RE-ENLISTED RE-SERVISTS ABSENT FROM THE COLOURS FROM 9 TO 13 YEARS.

Estimated strength on 1st February, 1913. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War, 19th February, 1912. Official Report)

29,862

Less 10 per cent, allowed for Casualties. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War, 15th November, 1910. Official Report)

2,986

26,876

Less number required to make up the deficiencies of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve for the Expeditionary Force

13,518

13,358

Less 9,840 time-expired Reservists to be enlisted into the Special Reserve battalions instead of Section D. (Statement of Secretary of State for War, 14th March, 1911. Official Report)

9,840

Less 2,032 required for Depôts by Army Order, 23rd December, 1907

2,032

11,872

Available surplus from Section D for foreign service with Regular Army after mobilisation of six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force in 1913

1,486

The noble Duke said: My Lords, my present Questions arise from a discussion which took place in your Lordships' House on February 28 last as to the fitness for immediate active service of time-expired soldiers re-enlisting into Section D, which I describe as the second class of the Regular Reserve, and as to the number of men of this description required by the noble Viscount to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force. It is necessary to remember, in reference to this Section of the Reserve, firstly, that for the next four years it will be composed of men who are the product of the three-years Colour service term of enlistment, and, consequently, have been absent from the Colours from nine to thirteen years; secondly, that if the noble Viscount succeeds in re-enlisting, as he hopes to do, 30,000 men out of the 40,000 due to pass out of the Reserve by October, 1913, these 30,000 men in four years time pass out of the Reserve and cannot be replaced. They cannot be replaced because the noble Viscount has diminished the Reserve-creating power of the Army by reducing the number of men serving with the Colours by 37,000 since 1905. It is this reduction in the number of men serving with the Colours which necessitates the re-enlistment of these time-expired soldiers. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the Reserve created by the three-years term of Colour service the Expeditionary Force of the noble Viscount, which has shed such lustre upon his military administration, would have been numerically impossible even on paper. It therefore seems to me that the noble Viscount, instead of denouncing the scheme of the three-years Colour service as preposterous, ought to be deeply grateful that the plan was ever tried.
The body of men in the Section D of the Reserve with which we have to deal for the next four years have been absent from the Colours from nine to thirteen years without doing any military training during the period of their four years' re-enlistment. Their musketry practice consists in two attendances on the range and in firing twenty-five rounds on each occasion. On mobilisation they will find themselves armed with a rifle of a different pattern to the one which they carried in bygone days when they were soldiering. Lord Methuen has told us that he found that this class of Reservist could not march on
410
active service, and has described them as more or less veterans. This combination of facts proclaims them at once as unfit for active service on the Continent with the Expeditionary Force within three weeks of mobilisation. The noble Viscount has not quoted any military authority to prove that such is not the case. The question is, How many of these re-enlisted Reservists, unfit for the duties assigned to them by the noble Viscount, must he include in the ranks of the Expeditionary Force? Upon that point the noble Viscount was reticent, on account of the secrets of mobilisation. Now the numbers of our Army are matters which must be, and are, within the knowledge of the public. I ventured to say, therefore, in my reply to the noble Viscount the other day, that I would put on the Paper of the House the figures with which we have already been supplied bearing upon the point. This I have now done. I propose to take the headings separately, and if the noble Viscount in his reply found it convenient to follow the same course I hope we may be able to understand why these War Office figures point on mobilisation to a very narrow margin in the Reserve, whereas we know that the noble Viscount reckons on an abundant surplus.
The estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913 is 106,372; the number resident abroad is 8,230. Necessary allowance for wastage at 10 per cent. is 9,814. These headings need no explanation. The next deduction is 3,729, the number of Reservists required to bring the four home battalions and all other Regular units at home up to war strength. The four home battalions represent the backbone of the swiftly moving central field force upon which, according to the noble Viscount, we can rely with such certainty. These battalions, as well as the other Regular units, must be made up to war strength by 3,729 Reservists, who, being wanted at home, cannot be available for foreign service.
My next heading is 1,650 combatant Reservists who have transferred from the combatant ranks to serve with the Royal Army Medical Corps on mobilisation. I read in the Army Annual Return for 1912 that the full number of 2,000 Infantry Reservists who had been invited in 1909

411
to transfer to the Reserve of the Royal Army Medical Corps have not yet been obtained. However, 1,650 have been obtained, and it is certain that if these 1,650 men are withdrawn from the fighting line their vacant places must be filled by a similar number of combatant Reservists. My last deduction is 6,467 men, the number required to complete the deficiency in Category B of the Special Reserve. Category B is composed of men who are returned as supernumerary to the Territorial Army and who have undertaken to join the Special Reserve on mobilisation and to serve abroad. They are an absolutely essential part of the Expeditionary Force, which will be incomplete without them. We heard a great deal about them-once; we do not hear much about them now. The establishment is 7,448. The deficiency shown by the Army Estimates of this year 1912–1913 is as follows—Army Service Corps, deficit 5,513; Royal Army Medical Corps, 420; Army Veterinary Department, 524.
To sum up. The allowance necessary for wastage, the number of Reservists required for home Regular units, the number transferred to Army Medical Corps, and the number required to make good deficiencies in Category B amount to 21,660. The result, then, is that there are left available for the Expeditionary Force 76,482, but as 90,000 are required there is a deficit in Sections A and B of 13,518. This deficit of 13,518 represents the number required from Section D to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions. In the Table dealing with Section D I would only say, as to the second heading, that the War Office allowance of 10 per cent. for unfitness amongst time-expired Reservists is contrary to common sense, because it is the same rate which is found necessary for soldiers serving with the Colours. It is more likely to be 30 per cent.
The only other heading requiring any notice is the fourth—namely, the 9,840 time-expired soldiers required by the noble Viscount to complete the establishment of his Special Reserve battalions. I have already mentioned this point in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount appeals to time-expired soldiers to enlist both into his Special Reserve battalions and into Section D. The supply of time-expired Reservists is limited to the number
412
who pass out of the Reserve in any one year. Of course, all men who enlist in the Special Reserve battalions, and the noble Viscount has assured us that few men go to Section D, must be lost to Section D. Finally, according to the War Office figures I have quoted we are to be left in 1913, after the departure of the Expeditionary Force, with less than 1,500 Regular Reservists available for the Army overseas, and those of the second class. The noble Viscount told us on May 4 last that he would have, in the event of mobilisation in 1913, a surplus of 27,000. I beg to move for Papers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Duke has laid before the House a Table, which he says is compiled from statements made by myself and by the Under-Secretary in the House of Commons and from Returns, showing what he considers will be the state of things as regards the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force should that take place in the year 1913, and he has added to that a further Table showing the number of men in Section D who will be available for the purposes of the Expeditionary Force. The noble Duke laid a similar Table before the House last May dealing with practically the same subject. I always treat the views of the noble Duke with profound respect, so I referred that Table to the department of the Adjutant-General, and I brought before the House the result of their Report, which was that the Table contained a trifling error of a little over 32,000 men. On this occasion I congratulate the noble Duke. I have referred his new Table to the department of the Adjutant-General and have got a further Report from them, and this time the error is not anything like as great.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I would point out that the figures are not mine. This is not my Table; it is the War Office Table.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke has misunderstood and quite unintentionally misrepresented the War Office figures. But, as I say, I congratulate him because on the present occasion the error is reduced to a trifle over 18,000 men, which is an improvement. This is a very

413
dry and tedious subject, but I think I shall be able to put shortly before the House the points which have misled the noble Duke. The noble Duke started off with the Return which was made in response to a Motion by Lord Erroll in 1909, and he has taken the figures as they appeared at that time. For instance, he says that 106,372 is the estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913. According to that Table, that is quite true. We said at the time that we were dissatisfied with that state of things, which arose from the outgoing of the nine years enlisted men. It was only temporary, because the Table itself shows that the numbers went up afterwards. In order to meet the shortage at that time, or at any rate the small numbers at that time, we said we would resort to measures which we have since taken and which I have explained on former occasions to the House. We have allowed, in the case of suitable battalions where recruiting was very good, a considerable number of men to go to the Reserve before their time, and the result is that—not because the old Table was wrong, for it was based on the then existing state of things, but because of the new state of things—the figure to-day is not really the figure which the noble Duke has taken from the 1909 Report.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Can the noble Viscount give us the figure? The figure of 106,372 is the one on which we have worked for some time past.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke has worked on it, but we have since then taken extensively the step of enabling men to pass prematurely to the Reserve when the state of recruiting was so good that the shortage in the battalions was easily made up. In that way we have increased the Reserve by several thousands.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Will the noble Viscount give us the figure?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I can obtain it for the noble Duke if he likes, but we have increased the figure by several thousands. My point is that it is misleading to take the figure of 106,372, what at best is merely an actuarial estimate, as if representing the ascertained facts. The next point is the figure of 3,729, which was the
414
number of Reservists required on January 1, 1910, to bring the four home battalions—that is to say, the unallotted battalions—up to war establishment. For very much the same reason that is an unreliable figure, and constantly changing. It is different now from what it was then. I will give the noble Duke a Table which will enable him to see where he has gone wrong.
Then the noble Duke speaks of 1,650 Infantry and Royal Garrison Artillery Reservists transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps. He has deducted these as not being available for the purposes of the Expeditionary Force. But these should not be deducted, as they are part of the establishment of the Expeditionary Force. They are included in the 90,000 required for the Expeditionary Force, and the noble Duke has counted them in that way twice over. They are in the 90,000, and you cannot have them twice over. That is a mistake. But there was a much larger mistake in the noble Duke's last Table. The next point is this. The noble Duke puts the deficiency in Category B of the Special Reserve at 6,467, based on the 1911–12 establishment. If the noble Duke had looked at the establishment in the new Estimates for 1912–13 he would have found that it was 5,210, and not the figure he has given, and that the strength on February 1, 1912, was 988 all ranks, leaving a deficiency of 4,222. As, however, 680 out of that number are not required for the Expeditionary Force at all, the actual deficiency on Expeditionary Force requirements is 3,542, which, as we have already explained, will be made up by specially enlisted men.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Will the noble Viscount explain what he means by specially enlisted men? Does he propose to enlist these men at the moment of mobilisation?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes; and I should explain that we have made considerable changes in the system of transport. The transport used to be horse transport. It has now become in large measure mechanical transport, and the drivers, instead of being horse-drivers, will be men specially trained in the driving of these mechanically-propelled wagons, some of which we are building and others of which we are subsidising. We are making special arrangements for enlisting skilled motor-drivers.

415
That is what I mean by specially enlisted men. The number of Regular Reservists available, admitting that the other figures used by the noble Duke are approximately correct, therefore becomes 84,599 plus the men who join Section B on premature conversion of service, and not 76,482. Then, finally, the full number of 9,840 time-expired Reservists to be enlisted into Special Reserve battalions instead of into Section D has been misunderstood by the noble Duke. Those are in addition to and not in substitution for Section D men, since they will be men of an age who will already have finished their time in Section D if they ever contemplated joining that Section of the Army Reserve.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Does the noble Viscount mean that the man must go to Section D before he goes to the Special Reserve?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Not necessarily. The age fixed for the Special Reserve is higher. Men are going into the Special Reserve at a higher age than into Section D.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: May not these men go into Section D in preference to going into the Special Reserve?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Some men will not go into Section D because it does not suit them to take the obligation attached to that section.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Then the noble Viscount has a competition between Section D of the Regular Reserve and the Special Reserve?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is an abundance of old soldiers in the country and an enormous source from which to draw men, and we are not conscious of any difficulty in that direction. With regard to the figures in the noble Duke's Table, I have here a Table corrected in accordance with the criticisms which I have made, and the effect of it is that, instead of the state of things shown by the noble Duke, a very different state of things is disclosed. The noble Duke makes out that we would have to use up Section D men to such an extent in order to mobilise in 1913 that there would only be a surplus of 1,486 left over. According to the corrected Table, the
416
surplus left over is not 1,486 but 19,483. I will hand this Table to the Official Reporter to be added to my reply, so that the noble Duke may examine it.†
There is only one thing I should like to say in conclusion. I do not interfere in any way with figures made out on the responsibility of the Adjutant-General's Department. But I did suggest to the noble Duke before, and I make the suggestion again, that it is really impossible for any person who is not trained to the work and has not the materials for making out Tables like this to do it efficiently. The noble Duke falls into these mistakes not from want of zeal—we all know with what public spirit he has applied himself to this—but he obviously could not possess the materials for making out such a Table. I suggested before that when he prepared a Table again he might send it to me or to my private secretary or direct to the Adjutant-General, and I promised that the Table would be returned to him with the observations of the Department upon it and accompanied by a cor-

[†] TABLE.

Estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913. (Erroll Return)

106,372

Less number resident abroad—say the same as on 1st January, 1912

8,230

98,142

Less 10 per cent, for casualties

9,814

Less number of Reservists required to bring the four home battalions up to war establishment (assuming that the figure in 1913 remains the same as that in 1910)

3,729

13,543

13,543

Instead of 76,482, there are available

84,599

Number of Reservists required for Expeditionary Force, approximately

90,000

Number required for Expeditionary Force from Section D

5,401

To meet this Section D is estimated to be on 1st February, 1913

29,862

Less 10 per cent. for casualties

2,986

26,876

Less number required for Expeditionary Force

5,401

21,475

Less number required for depôts

1,992

19,483

417
rected Table, and if that had been done we should have been saved two or three debates in this House on figures, which are very unprofitable. The noble Duke pours out figures like a torrent, and then I trickle forth a number in response, and I am afraid the result is not very profitable. In these circumstances I trust the procedure which I have suggested will commend itself to the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his answer, but I wish he could tell me what the estimated strength of the Reserve is going to be. The figure I have quoted is the figure which has always been given to us. As regards the deficiency in Section B, the figure I gave is the figure of the Under-Secretary of State for War himself. The noble Viscount has never told us how many men he wants for the mobilisation of the Regular troops at home. Does the figure 3,729 remain?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What figure is that?
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The number required for the mobilisation of the troops at home.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, that figure is practically correct. It is changed to this extent, that the Reserve of many of these home battalions varies from time to time. It is a quite unreliable figure to stand by, because it changes for the reasons I have given—that in the case of many battalions men pass prematurely to the Reserve and the Reserve of those battalions is larger than it would otherwise have been. The noble Duke may take it that I have not altered this particular figure in making my estimate of the error in his Table.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The noble Viscount has included those men in the 90,000?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Until the noble Viscount can tell us what the difference is with regard to the figure of 106,372 I do not think we can arrive at the large surplus which the noble Viscount has stated.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have assumed 106,372 as the figure for working on. It is really a conjectural figure, and therefore if I had corrected it the noble Duke's error as to the surplus left over might have been greater.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Would it not be possible to bring Lord Erroll's Return up to date?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, I think so; and if it would be of any convenience to noble Lords I will see if it can be done.
LORD AMPTHILL: Why will not the noble Viscount give us the actual figure of the estimated strength of Sections A and B?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not the actual figure with me, but I can say it is some two or three thousand over the 106,372, assuming that the latter figure turns out in 1913 to accord with the actuarial estimate.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT REGULATIONS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask why the Regulations made in pursuance of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and laid upon the Table, have not been printed and circulated, and to move that all such Regulations shall in future be printed and circulated. Your Lordships will recollect that a very important part of the administration of the Insurance Act passed last year is left to Commissioners by means of Regulations. The Act also stated that certain of those Regulations were to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that if either House adopted an Address against any one of them the Regulation was to fall. Several Regulations appear to have been made provisionally; they seem to have been presented, but further than that this House has no cognisance of them at all. Regulations were laid as long ago as February 14; another was laid on February 22 and another on the 27th, and the twenty-one days given to Parliament in which to consider these Regulations have been running since that time. The Regulations have not been printed and circulated, and therefore if things are to continue like this there will be no possibility of checking or scrutinising the Regulations which the Commissioners make.

419
This question was raised in 1910 by the late Lord Onslow, and the noble Marquess who leads the House and Lord Sheffield and one or two others all took the same view—that when an Act says that a certain period is to be given to the Houses of Parliament in which they may consider Regulations, that period should be a real period, and that the Regulations themselves should be presented to Members and they should have an opportunity of looking at them. There are, of course, different kinds of Acts of Parliament. Some Regulations are ordered to be laid on the Table which, perhaps, may not be so important, but in this particular case the Regulations are of exceptional importance. It is most desirable, indeed it is absolutely essential, that all of your Lordships should have an opportunity of looking at them and of taking any action with regard to them that you may think necessary.
Now we come to the question whose fault this is. It is very difficult to say, because the Minister who presents the Regulations apparently does not use the mystical words that they are "to be printed," and because he does not use those words, according to the practice of your Lordships' House, they appear not to be printed. When questioned on the matter the Minister naturally says he was not aware that it was necessary to use the words that they should be printed. Therefore that is his excuse. Then, on the other hand, we come to the regulations of this House. The practice of this House, I must say, appears to me to partake of red tape on particular occasions, particularly with regard to the words "to be printed." When you present a Bill, if you do not use the words that it be printed, although you present it and have it read a first time it is never printed. However, the important thing is this, that with regard to the Insurance Act at all events it is most important that your Lordships should see these Regulations and should have an opportunity of considering them during the twenty-one days on which they lie upon the Table of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Regulations made in pursuance of the National Insurance Act, 1911, when laid upon the Table be in future printed and circulated.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, the facts of the case are exactly as the noble Earl has stated them, but I think I can in a few words state what has happened as regards these Regulations. It is true that they were printed in the House of Commons but not in this House. I am given to understand that when Regulations are printed by one House of Parliament they are not printed by the other; and in this case they have not been printed by this House. These particular Regulations were not circulated in the House of Commons, and they have not, as your Lordships know, been circulated here.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But they are to be found in print in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: Yes, and they are available in print here at the Printed Paper Office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I asked for a copy the other day and could not get one. I was told that there were no printed copies.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: There are, I know, copies to be obtained in the Printed Paper Office, though they have not been circulated. The Regulations were mentioned on the Pink Paper which is sent round to your Lordships, and any noble Lord who desired a copy could have had it sent to him if he had requested it. This really resolves itself into a question of expense, and an enormous amount of expense would be involved if all Regulations were printed by both Houses of Parliament. Every noble Lord has a right to move that particular Regulations should be printed and circulated; but I understand that the Regulations in question are available at the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House to any noble Lord who asks for them, and the Treasury will be glad to give any other Papers with regard to this Act.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): I should like to say a word with regard to one statement that was made by the noble Earl Lord Camperdown. In the case of Bills which are presented and read a first time it is not necessary for the Peer introducing the Bill to move that it be printed. It is printed and circulated as a matter of

421
course. I believe that is the only form of circulation—the circulation of Bills—which the house does of itself.
LORD SANDERSON: I would venture to call attention to what appears to be a curious anomaly in the practice of this House. Every time a scheme for a professorship at a University or for a change in the scheme of a college or even a grammar-school is laid on the Table of your Lordships' House it is printed and sent round with the Votes, whereas Regulations of the importance of those referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, are not circulated. Sometimes we get notice of important Regulations in the Pink Paper, though sometimes we do not.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The practice referred to by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sanderson) has, I think, often struck us as involving something of an anomaly. It is true that the schemes which are regularly circulated to us are by no means always of universal or even of wide interest, whereas in particular cases some Papers, such as the one in question, which are not regularly circulated are of greater interest and importance; but it has been and remains the custom of the House to print and circulate everything which can be described as a scheme, whereas Regulations are not as a rule circulated or even printed unless the House so orders. I should have considerable hesitation in adding either to the expense which would be involved or to the mass of printed matter which your Lordships would receive by suggesting a universal and general printing and circulation of all Papers which might conceivably be printed, and I confess that I am not clear as to any method by which the difficulty to which the noble Earl has drawn attention can be met except by the readiness of individual Peers to ask in particular cases for the printing and circulation of Papers in which they are specially interested. That would certainly involve no small degree of watchfulness on their part, and even something of a prophetic gift in knowing that the twenty-one days, or whatever the period would be, were approaching during which the Papers would have to lie on the Table. But I own that I am not prepared to ask the House to agree to a general printing or circulation of all such Papers. Neither am I prepared with any system by which those
422
of special interest to a considerable number of peers can be automatically forthcoming. In those circumstances I confess I do not see that there is very much to be done. In this particular case I understand from my noble friend that copies of the House of Commons print are now available in the Printed Paper Office here. I hope that that may satisfy the noble Earl so far as this particular case is concerned, although I fully appreciate that he may not feel quite satisfied unless some adequate suggestion is made for dealing with the question as a whole.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think my noble friend, or any one else who sits on this side of the House, desires to suggest for a moment that all Papers, no matter what their importance, should be circulated. That would, no doubt, occasion a great deal of unnecessary expense. Besides, we are always able, if we pay any attention to the Pink Papers which are circulated from time to time, to ask for a particular Paper if we desire to have a copy of it. But the case my noble friend has in view is rather a different one. He is talking about Regulations issued in order to give effect to a very important Act of Parliament. The tendency in these days—I say it with all possible respect—is to shirk a great many of the minor difficulties of legislation and to deal with many points of detail in Regulations, which are really parts of the Act itself. Whenever that takes place I think the House is entitled, as a matter of course, to be supplied with copies of the Regulations in due time. That is what my noble friend presses for, and that, I think, we should all of us like to see carried out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am not very fond of the argument of tu quoque, but I should like to remind the noble Marquess the Leader of the House of what he said in the year 1910 when this same question came up. He then said—
"With regard to the general question of the laying of Regulations I have no hesitation in saying there could not possibly be two opinions that when it is provided in an Act of Parliament that a Regulation should be laid on the Table of either House or both Houses during a fixed time that period should be a real period, and that the Regulations should be available during the whole of it."
I entirely concur with that, and if the noble Marquess will look at my Motion he will

423
see that I have limited it to the Insurance Act. There is no doubt that in this particular Act exceptional powers are given to the Commissioners, and it seems to me most desirable that your Lordships should have every opportunity of seeing the Regulations in sufficient time to enable objection to be taken to any of them with which noble Lords may not agree. How we are to obtain information as to when these Regulations are laid on the Table raises a point of difficulty. I think Lord Liverpool said that the fact that they had been laid was set out on the Pink Paper. I generally look at the Pink Paper, and there are one or two noble Lords near me who do so, but none of us recollects seeing any reference to these Regulations. That is all I can say. With regard to the general practice, I believe it is this. Once in every week a Pink Paper is issued containing a notice of every Regulation which is lying on the Table, but if your Lordships do not happen to look at the Minutes on that particular day in the week you have no opportunity of seeing the Pink Paper again for another six days. I hope that your Lordships will insist on this occasion on these particular Regulations being invariably printed and circulated.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps, by the indulgence of the House, I may be allowed to say that I certainly do not depart in any way from the opinion quoted by the noble Earl, which is that during the time that Regulations of any substance are lying on the Table of the House they should be at the disposal of anybody who wants them. I do not think that that necessarily involves their circulation in all cases to the whole House, although I have no doubt the noble Earl thinks that in this case circulation ought to have taken place. Whether or not the notice respecting these Regulations appeared on the Pink Paper I am not from personal observation in a position to state, but I quite agree that it should have so appeared in a case of the importance of these particular Regulations. It would, of course, I may remind the House, have been open to anybody during the discussion on the National Insurance Bill when it was in the House to have expressed the opinion that the Bill was of a character which would justify an order for circulating the Regulations under it, and I have no doubt it would have been done. It is not altogether easy to say upon whom the
424
responsibility is to lie of saying that certain Regulations are of such general importance that we ought to go to the not inconsiderable expense of circulating them. In this particular case it might no doubt have been done, but some other case may occur in which other noble Lords will rise with indignation at not having seen certain Regulations which, on the other hand, may not be of acute interest to a great many other noble Lords. Therefore, although in this particular instance, if the noble Earl desires it, I have no wish to oppose the instruction that these Regulations should be printed and circulated, I cannot promise that in some future case some noble Lord will not complain that certain Regulations in which he is deeply concerned have met the same fate as these—namely, that they were only able to be obtained on application at the Printed Paper Office.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF BENGAL.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether it is a fact that the Chief Justice of Bengal is drawing a pension as Retired Chief Justice of Bombay as well as the full pay of his present post; and if so

2. Whether there is any precedent (a) for an official of the Indian Government drawing pay and pension at the same time; or (b) for a retired official of the Indian Government, who has accepted an appointment in the Council of the Secretary of State for India, returning to India to take up a permanent official appointment.

3. What were the circumstances in which the extraordinary departure from custom involved in the appointment of the present Chief Justice of Bengal was considered justifiable.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has placed three Questions on the Paper with reference to the appointment and the present position of the Chief Justice of Bengal, Sir Lawrence Jenkins. The first Question is whether it is a fact that Sir Lawrence Jenkins is drawing a pension as Retired Chief Justice of Bombay as well as the full pay of his

425
present post. The answer to that is that it is the case that Sir Lawrence is in receipt of a pension which was earned by his Judicial service in India from 1896 to 1898, and that he is receiving that pension in addition to his salary as Chief justice of the High Court of Calcutta, where he went in March, 1909. The rules relating to the salaries of Chief Justices and other Judges of the High Court in India are of a statutory character made by the Secretary of State in Council under powers given to him by Act of Parliament, and they have, therefore, the same effect as though they were actually embodied in an Act. Therefore they are in no way affected by the ordinary rules as to pension which govern the usual Civil Service appointments in India, as the noble Lord will appreciate. As the rules stood in the year 1909 they did not provide for the suspension of an existing pension in the case of a former Judge who was reappointed to a Judicial office in India. Since then the Secretary of State in Council has made a rule taking power to decide in any future case of the kind whether the new salary ought or ought not to be reduced in consideration of the holding of a pension by the Judge in question.
The second Question is whether there is any precedent for an official of the Indian Government drawing pay and pension at the same time, and, secondly, whether there is any precedent for a retired official of the Indian Government who has accepted an appointment in the Indian Council in London returning to India to take up a permanent official appointment. As the noble Lord is well aware, retired officers whose pensions do not fall under statutory rules, if they are reappointed to another position, either have their pension held in abeyance altogether or partially held in abeyance while they are serving, or else they are liable to have the salary of the new post which they occupy reduced. On the other hand, it is not forbidden to receive a pension for past services as well as the pay of any office from Indian revenues. For instance, as the noble Lord will, I have no doubt, have considered, members of the Council of India receive salary from Indian revenues, but they also receive the pensions which they have earned by service in India—it may be Civil, it may be Judicial, or it may be military. In fact, Sir Lawrence Jenkins was himself a case in point, because when he was serving on the Council while Lord Morley
426
was Secretary of State he was drawing the salary of a member of Council and also the full pension of a retired Judge. On the second point which the noble Lord mentions there is no rule, and I think it cannot even be said that there is a custom preventing the return to India to an official appointment of a retired Indian official who has held an appointment in the Council of India. There was a case not so very long anterior to the appointment of Sir Lawrence Jenkins—the case of a distinguished Indian official, Mr. J. F. Finlay. This gentleman was in the Indian Civil Service from 1875 to 1903. He then came home to England and sat on the Council of India from 1903 to 1907, and in the latter year he returned to India as an ordinary member of the Council of the Governor-General. That, I think, disposes of the particular point raised by the noble Lord.
Then the noble Lord, in his last Question, asks, "What were the circumstances in which the extraordinary departure from custom involved in the appointment of the present Chief Justice of Bengal was considered justifiable?" I have shown, I think, that in essentials and arguing from analogy the appointment was not so extraordinary as the Question would lead one to suppose. Sir Lawrence was not appointed in my time, although I have the honour of knowing him well and hold the same opinion of him as was held by those who actually appointed him. But it was undoubtedly the case that he was considered by my noble friend Lord Morley and by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to be the most suitable person to appoint to the then vacant, office of Chief Justice of Bengal in virtue of his quite remarkable ability, his exceptional legal knowledge, his Judicial experience, and his knowledge of India. I ought to add that Sir Lawrence, far from in any way applying for the post, did not desire it, and he only accepted it in deference to the strong wish of my two noble friends Lord Morley and Lord Minto, who were exceedingly anxious to secure his services; and it was as a matter of fact, as I am informed, both an inconvenience and something of a real sacrifice to him to take up the appointment at the time he did. I hope that the replies which I have been able to give to his various Questions will satisfy the noble Lord as to the character and the propriety of the appointment.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for having replied so fully, and I only beg permission to put a supplementary Question. Have I clearly understood the noble Marquess that this appointment, so far as its financial aspect is concerned—and I was only concerned with that—is regarded as an undesirable precedent, and that a new rule has been established which will make it impossible in the future that a man should be drawing pay and pension at the same time in India?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord must not draw from what I have said quite so far reaching a conclusion as that. What I said was that a rule had been passed by the Secretary of State in Council which would make it possible for the Secretary of State in such case, supposing another to occur, to consider what it was not possible for him to consider before, whether any, and if so what, reduction should be made from the salary of the post in consideration of a pension
428
being already held by the officer appointed. But I would not say that it might never occur in special cases that a man might be allowed both to enjoy his pension and to receive the full salary. It would not, however, be an absolutely necessary sequel of his appointment, as it was in the case of the present Chief Justice of Bengal.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope the noble Marquess will guard himself in that respect, because I have myself in another Department found extreme difficulty arising from the fact that an official who had a small pension from one part of the public service and was ready to take a not very lucrative employment was unable to take the post because the law of this country is so strict against the holding of pay and pension together. I think there are cases, as the noble Marquess says, in which the Secretary of State ought to have some latitude.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.