Lords Sitting of 2 July 1913

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April, last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
PRIZE COMPETITIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to prohibit certain Prize Competitions—Was presented by the Earl Loreburn; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 97.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; to be read 2a TO-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 98.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the
718
House of Commons shall be road a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
McBRIDE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
THE EARI OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARI OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to the present condition of the Island of Lewis as disclosed in the Report of the Crofters Commission recently issued; to ask whether it is the fact that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have recently applied to Major Matheson for certain farms with a view to the further subdivision of holdings; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to sanction the further extension of a policy which has already proved disastrous; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is only a few weeks ago that I ventured to call your Lordships' attention to the Report of the Congested Districts Board and to the state of the Lews as contained in that Report. That account was, as some of your Lordships may remember, a very lamentable and melancholy one; but since then the Report of the Crofters Commission, for which I had on several occasions asked in this House, has at length been delivered. Besides that there has been a development of this question, for since that date the new Board of Agriculture have made a further demand upon the owner of the Lews for farms for the purpose of subdivision into small holdings. It would be useless to wait until this proposal of the Board is dealt with because the evil will then have been done, and my reason for bringing the subject

719
forward to-night is that I wish the Government to consider very gravely as to the consequences which must inevitably follow upon the further development of this policy of small holdings in the Lews.
I said when I last raised this question that if confirmation was wanted as to the state of things in the Lews it would be found in this Report of the Crofters Commission. The Report is from December 31, 1910, to March 31, 1912, when the Crofters Commission expired, and I would call your Lordships' attention to that portion of the Report which relates to the Lews. They say in the last paragraph, at page xxvi:
"We had proposed to append to this Report a Memorandum on the social condition of the people of Lewis, the problems connected with the land awl the fishing industry, and the remedies which had been suggested or which might be applied, but other and pressing duties have not permitted us to complete it. The main points have already been dealt with in the Reports of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland as well as in our very full Report of 1901. But we have thought it useful, particularly in view of the fact that these questions now come almost entirely within the province of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, to print a Return of Cottars and Squatters in each township and parish in the Island and the stock possessed by each in 1910, which is one of the documents on which our Memorandum was to be based."
I would say, in the first place, that it is ten thousand pities that this Memorandum was not completed. The Crofters Commission has been in existence ever since the year 1886, and this has been from that time and is now a most difficult and intricate problem; and surely one would have imagined that in their final Report the Crofters Commission would have thought it necessary to make some definite remarks with regard to the state of the Lews. Indeed, in looking through this Report I cannot find anything, with the exception of this subject of the Lews—which it appears has been shirked—to justify the delay that has taken place in the publication of this Report, which has made its appearance a year after the time when it was due.
The Commissioners say that other and pressing duties have not permitted them to complete the Memorandum of which they speak. I regret that that is so. But they go on to say that the main points have already been dealt with in the Reports of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland. I read to your Lordships the
720
other day the substance of one of those Reports, and I am not going to trouble the House with it again this evening. Those Reports for many years past have from beginning to end pointed out the state of destitution and misery that existed in the Lews. Then the Crofters Commission say that the main points were also dealt with in their Report of 1901. The Crofters Commission were directed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh to make a special Report in the year 1901. They presented a long Report, but the only definite recommendations which they made were, first, that a law ought to be passed to make squatting more difficult; and, secondly, that technical education should be taught to the people of the Lews.
Now the Crofters Commission have handed on the matter to their successors. It appears to me that they were extremely glad to get rid of a difficult subject with which they had omitted to deal for many years and winch they have left undealt with at the present moment. But in this Return they have given some valuable information of the cottars and squatters and the stock which they owned in 1910. The Return shows in concrete form the real facts of the case in all their nakedness. I do not know that the Board of Agriculture will feel greatly indebted to their predecessors for giving to Parliament this valuable detailed information, which I think might with advantage have been presented some years ago, and at the same time abstaining from making any recommendation themselves. If your Lordships will turn to the Appendices at page 220 and following pages of this Report you will see that there is a list given nomination of the cottars and splatters in each parish and township in the island, with information as to where their houses were situated, as to whose crofts they were squatting on, their occupation, the rent payable by the crofter, and as to whether or not the cottars and squatters paid any part of the rent of the croft. There are 1,100 of them, and your Lordships will see that in a great many cases, I think in the majority, the houses were built on crofts, and where they were not so built they were erected on common pasture. In hardly any cases did they contribute anything in the way of rent towards the croft. But the most important thing of all is that the average rent of the crofts on which they were squatting does not exceed £2. Just

721
imagine a holding the rent of which is only £2, and on this croft, in addition to the crofter, are planted one or more squatters, members of his family, relatives, or other persons, who are a burden to the island in the way of rates, but who contribute nothing towards the expenditure which they cause.
There is a further piece of information at page 258 in the shape of an abstract which shows concisely what the position of those people is. There are in the Island of Lewis 1,175 cottars and squatters. They own among them 94 horses, which is not quite a tenth of a horse each; 1,277 cattle, which is a little over a beast apiece; 5,444 sheep, or a little over four sheep apiece. That, my Lords, is the total amount of stock which those people possess. But an important question to ask is, When did their occupancy and their squatting begin? Your Lordships will remember that the Crofters Commission, to whom this whole question was entrusted, came into existence in the year 1886. At that time they found 418 cottars and squatters in possession, and during their time there have been added another 757, or nearly double the original number. This Report only takes us up to the year 1910, and while no additional crofts have been created since then the squatters have increased by about forty. So that the squatting evil, instead of being in any way diminished by the number of small holdings which have been created, has liven to that extent increased.
That brings us to the year 1913. The Board of Agriculture, who represent the old Congested Districts Board—to whose melancholy report with regard to the Lows I recently called your Lordships' attention—have now to deal with this matter. How do they propose to deal with it? They propose to take more farms for still further subdivision, while at the same time they admit that this is not a real remedy. They have issued a Report which runs from April 1 to December 31 last, in which they say—
"Of the 3,370 applications for new holdings which we have received, over 1,300 came from the Outer Hebrides."
Remember that the Outer Hebrides have been already split up and subdivided. Your Lordships have heard me mention
722
Vatersay and other places of that sort. At this moment 1,300 more of these persons have made application for small holdings. I do not believe that they have any means at all. That is a matter which it is the duty of the Board of Agriculture to inquire into, and I hope they will be very careful indeed as to the manner in which they carry out that duty. The Board of Agriculture go on to say—
"Of the 1,300 applications from the Outer Hebrides, nearly half came from the Lews. The whole of the farm land in these islands could not satisfy the demand even if it were divided into holdings of the small type usually occupied by crofter fishermen. It will, therefore, he necessary for the Board to consider how far it will be possible to provide for the migration of the population to the mainland."
Therefore, in proposing to take these farms they are merely trifling with the difficulty, for they acknowledge that if all the land was subdivided it would not really meet the complaint which has been made. Their proposal does not in any way pretend to be a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. I presume that their application for this land will go before the Land Court and be inquired into by them. But assume that the application is granted, what are the inevitable consequences? They have been proved over and over again by experience. I do not say in the least that it was not a right thing to try these small holdings in the island in the first instance; but you have given the experiment a thorough trial and it has proved nothing but an unmitigated mistake; and it appears to me that to persevere in the face of such a state of things, and in the face even of your own official reports is—well, if the person dealing with this matter were a private person I should say that the proper place for him was a lunatic asylum.
Now what must be the consequence of proceeding with this proposal? The real source of all the difficulty and all the danger in the Lews is the large ratio which the population bears to the rateable value. At the present time the population of the Lews is 29,000 odd, and the valuation £33,000 odd—that is to say, the valuation is a little more than £1 per head. How is it possible for such a state of things to endure? Yet if this demand of the Board is persevered in and carried out the result will be that this ratio will be made even worse than it is now. You not only

723
increase the number of the people but you also diminish the rateable subjects. Take such things as shootings, which in the Lews represent a considerable portion of the rateable value of the island. Those, of course, will be very largely decreased. On the other hand, the rates must necessarily increase. These new people will come upon the education rate, at all events, and the call on the rates generally will become heavier while the rateable value will have become less.
I listened with great pleasure to the speech which the noble Lord (Lord Emmott) made the other day, with the greater portion of which I concurred. I agreed with nothing more than with his statement that this was a purely social and not a political question. But in the other House of Parliament it is made nothing but, a political question. Only the other day when the Scottish Estimates were being discussed Highland Members argued as if the Highlands and these islands stood exactly on the same footing as Forfarshire or Midlothian. It quite distresses one to hear people talk in this way of a subject of which they must be utterly ignorant. But these Members had made speeches to their constituents and promised them land, and so long as they can put pressure on the Board of Agriculture and on the Land Court so long will they continue to do so. I wish with all my heart that this was treated, as it properly should be, as a social question, but unfortunately it is regarded from a very different point of view in Parliament.
After all, it comes to this. In this difficult, question have the Government a policy, and what is their policy? The Board have reported over and over again that the state of these islands is wretched. The line they take is this, "We are not to express any opinion with regard to policy. We have been appointed under an Act of Parliament, and that Act we have to carry out. In that consists the whole of our duties, and therefore wherever it is reported to us that there is a piece of land capable of being subdivided and used for farming purposes, and wherever it is reported to us that there is a demand for land, we must take the land." It is the same in the case of the Land Court. The Land Court, as we know, is made omnipotent in this matter. The Court, I suppose, would say,
724
"We are appointed under an Act of Parliament to carry the Act out and to consider the representations made to us by the Board. We have merely to consider those representations, and have nothing whatever to do with the policy of the Act." The Government, of course, are in an entirely different position. What I want to know is, Do the Government regard the real interests of these islands apart from the political question, and have they a policy? Is their policy this, that wherever there is a bit of land which is available for farming purposes that land is to be cut up? And is that policy to go on until all the land is extinguished, because it will not be many years before that takes place?
I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships further. What I say is that the policy which is being pursued at this moment is a policy of drift, of mischievous drift, which if persevered in will be ruinous to every person concerned, from the owner down to the poorest inhabitant of these islands. This experiment has been tried and has failed. If His Majesty's Government persist in continuing it and in pauperising these islands and increasing the destitution and misery prevailing in them, then all I can say is that in my humble judgment they take upon themselves a very grave responsibility.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present condition of the Island of Lewis as disclosed in the Report of the Crofters Commission recently issued.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, the portion of the Final Report of the Crofters Commission to which the noble Earl has referred relates to a question which, as he has said, recently formed the subject of discussion in your Lordships' House and which has occupied the attention not only of this Government but of several of its predecessors. The noble Earl states that he fears that the policy of the Government is a policy of drift. I wish the noble Earl had had some new remedy to propose to us for the very difficult situation which, as we have frequently acknowledged, exists in the Lews and elsewhere in the congested districts.

725
This is an old question. The condition of the Lews has been most unsatisfactory for a great many years. The noble Earl referred to the fact that Lord Balfour of Burleigh when he was Secretary for Scotland asked the Crofters Commission to prepare for him a Report on the social condition of the people of the Lews in 1901 as compared with twenty years previously. I took the opportunity recently of reading that Report. It is a very interesting document, and I am going to ask your Lordships to allow me to read one or two extracts from what the Crofters Commission then said for the purpose of pointing out that the words which they used in 1901 apply equally to the situation to-day. At the conclusion of their Report they stated—
"It has often been said, and with truth, that of all parts of the crofting area that portion which presents the most difficult question is the Island of Lewis; not but that some at least of the problems existing there are to be found elsewhere, but in Lewis they are snore pressing as they affect a wider area and a denser population. The observations already made tend to prove that these questions and problems have existed for a great length of time."
Dealing with the question of the then condition of the people as compared with their condition during the previous twenty years, and mentioning that a good deal had been done to improve the general condition of the people by the Acts of 1872 and 1886 giving fixity of tenure and fair rents, by the fact that some of the crofters had obtained enlargements of their holdings, by the fact that considerable relief had been given to the ratepayers and special grants made for development purposes, and by the fact that a better system of education was in vogue, the Commissioners went on to say—
"It is of consequence to observe that the result of this generous and considerate policy has been that when we compare the general state of matters with that which prevailed in the island twenty years ago a gratifying improvement is to be discerned."
I hate read those two extracts for two reasons. They show, in the first place, that this is an old and a very difficult question; and, in the second place, that considerable improvements had taken place in the general condition of the people of the island at that time. I am informed that those remarks apply equally to-day. It is true that since 1902 there have been several years in which the fishing has been extremely unsatisfactory, and, of course,
726
that makes a considerable difference to the condition of the people of the island. But last year was an excellent fishing year (and there are signs that this year is likely to be a better year also); and this has conduced considerably to the prosperity of these unfortunate people. The grant of old-age pensions has relieved the wants of the old among them, and the better communications that have been made under the system of grants of which I have spoken have also clone something to improve their general condition.
But the one thing that has not been altered for the better is the condition of congestion. I stated when we discussed this subject on April 23 last—the Congested Districts Board have given it as their opinion in their Final Report, and this Report of the Crofters Commission practically repeats the same opinion—that there is not sufficient land in the Lews to provide holdings for the various people who desire to obtain holdings in that island. In the Report of the Crofters Commission to which the noble Earl has alluded particulars are given of the very large number of cottars and squatters, with the number of horses, of cattle, and of sheep that they possess, who are now stationed on various crofts throughout the island. The number of those people has considerably increased during recent years, but even in 1886 there were 418 of them. The difficulty of the question is really this, His Majesty's Government have no control over these cottars and squatters. The only people who have control are the crofters, who are liable to he removed from their holdings if they subdivide or sublet them without the consent of the landlord or suffer any dwelling-house to be erected thereon. They have a remedy if they choose to exercise it, and the landlord also has a remedy if he chooses to exercise it. I admit that it would be extremely difficult to exercise that remedy; but the possibility of removal lies with the crofter and with the landlord, and not with His Majesty's Government. Neither this Government nor any other Government are in any way responsible for these cottars and squatters being there. The noble Earl has stated that in his opinion the provision of small holdings is not a real and satisfactory remedy.
THE EARL or CAMPERDOWN: In the Lews.
LORD EMMOTT: To some extent I agree with the noble Earl, and I stated in the previous debate that it could not be a complete remedy, because there are far more applicants for land in the Lews than there is land which can be provided for them. But in his Notice on the Paper the noble Earl speaks of the policy being disastrous, and he has stated in his remarks this evening that the remedy of further splitting up farms into small holdings is one winch will increase the number of people in the island but will diminish the rateable value. I will deal with that question in a moment. But if any further splitting up of farms leads to that most undesirable result it will be a great misfortune.
First, let me mention the only two remedies which are open to the Board of Agriculture. The first is the creation of small holdings in the Lews itself, and the second is migration of some of the applicants for land in the Lews to other parts of Scotland. The noble Earl knows perfectly well, for he is thoroughly acquainted with this question, that it is the duty of the Small Holdings Commissioners under the Small Landholders Act of 1911 to report what demand for small holdings exists in any district, and, after consultation, where practicable, with the landlord, what land is available to meet this want. In the case of the Lews the applications received by the Board number as many as 1,200–836 of these are for new holdings, and 364 for enlargements. The number of applications shows beyond all question that a genuine demand exists for small holdings; and the Small Holdings Commissioner, carrying out his duty, has after investigation, partly personal and partly through his staff, written to the estate asking whether the latter will negotiate for the subdivision of five more farms. A reply has not yet been received from the estate, and while matters are in this initial stage it would be premature to discuss the scheme in detail. I think I shall have your Lordships' agreement in saying that so far as this matter has gone the Government and the Government officials are only carrying out what they are directed by the Act to carry out. Of course, if there is an adverse reply from the estate a decision will have to be taken as to what further is to be done. I imagine that in this case the Government are likely to proceed with an application to the Land Court to
728
decide upon a scheme. The Land Court is a judicial, or at any rate a quasi-judicial, body. They are bound by the Act to hear all parties, including the landlord if he has any case to make against the scheme that is put forward, and if a case is not made out by the Government officials the Land Court is at liberty to declare its opinion and to reject the scheme. That is the present position of affairs.
Now I come to the most important question whether any further subdivision of farms is likely to improve the situation or to make it worse. That, of course, will depend upon whether some of the most suitable cottars and squatters who are applying for new small holdings are provided with small holdings, and whether when they leave their present habitations those habitations are filled by other cottars and squatters, or whether the crofts are left empty of cottars and squatters. I want to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that the Board have in view in framing these schemes the importance of dealing with the cottar question. Accordingly, most of the proposed new settlers would be cottars and squatters. Moreover, the Board intend to use any power and influence they have, in conjunction with the estate, in preventing as far as they can a recurrence of squatting on any holding from which a squatter moves to a new holding, and they are also determined to guard as far as they possibly can against any squatting on the new holdings if new holdings are created. They are most anxious that any creation of new holdings should not in the long run merely lead to an increase of squatters. More than that, the Board have not in tins case confined their attention entirely to the question of providing new small holdings. They have questioned every applicant whom they have seen, and they have seen, I think, almost every one, as to whether or not he is willing to migrate to the mainland if a suitable small holding can be found for him there. Naturally, to provide 100, 200, or 300 men with new small holdings on the mainland is a matter of considerable complexity, and cannot be done in a moment. Therefore this question has not reached the stage at which any general statement is possible; but I may say that of the 800 odd applicants for land in the Lews about one-fourth of them have expressed their willingness to migrate under certain conditions.

729
I have now said, I think, all I can in reply to the noble Earl. I do not wish, however, to be understood as meaning that migration is an alternative which would supersede the policy of creating small holdings in the Island of Lewis. On the contrary, it would be supplementary to it. The Government feel that both may be necessary. I think clearly both remedies are necessary if the existing congestion in the Lews is to be materially relieved; awl in the face of the urgent demand for holdings to which I have alluded the Government intend to proceed with the measures competent to them cinder the Small Landholders Act for establishing in the Lews such small holdings as are practicable. To do otherwise would, I think, be to leave the main provisions of the Act inoperative in a district which specially calls for their being applied. The Government are most anxious, however, to take all the precautions which experience suggests to them in the interests of all the parties concerned to ensure the success of any new experiment in the direction of small holdings.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord said that he would deal with the question of how an increase of population would affect the rate-paying ability of the island, but he omitted to do so.
LORD EMMOTT: I am sorry that I forgot to deal with that point. There will be no increase of population, as I understand it. To increase the population would mean drawing new small holders from the mainland or from other islands to the Lews.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, no.
LORD EMMOTT: If a part of the present population are made into new small holders there can be no increase of population. With regard to the question of rates, if these measures are successful there is no reason at all why they should be any detriment to the rates. If the scheme involves any interference with a shooting and thereby diminishes the rent of the shooting, then, as the noble Earl knows, compensation must be paid to the landlord, and the Court would see that this was done on a fair basis.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, The noble Lord who has just replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government stated that this policy would not lead to an
730
increase in population. I submit that wherever you make new holdings and put up new houses yon will find within two or three years that there will be three or four families living in each house. It is quite impossible to prevent it unless new laws are passed, for as long as they all go in by one door there is no rule against as many families as can possibly be got into it living in one house. The making of a new settlement always leads in a few years to further congestion in that settlement, and eventually to an increase in population. It is quite clear that the Government policy is gradually to split up all the land which is at present occupied by people who are getting their living off the land in order to improve the condition of other people who are not going to live on the land but who will be dependent for their livelihood on some other occupation. Every new holding decreases the chance of getting that occupation, because there is more competition for it. I do not say the policy is a bad policy; all I want is that the Government should realise what they are doing—that they are giving small bits of the poorest land in the world to a mass of people who will not be able to exist without other employment. They are making uneconomic holdings as far as the land is concerned, and are doing so more or less at the expense of the proprietor. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in making these new holdings His Majesty's Government are going to consider in what way they can prevent several families inhabiting each of these new houses.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, before the noble Lord opposite replies I should like to make one or two observations. The difficulty in facing this question in the outer islands and also in certain parishes in the Western Highlands is that the bylaws on the subject of health cannot he enforced for the reason that you cannot turn people out of houses which are absolutely uninhabitable when there is no other place to which they can go. It is impossible to do anything for them in the way of town-planning, because the limit of the shilling rate which the council is allowed to charge has already been reached. Therefore as regards the rates you have practically arrived at an impasse in the matter; and, as both Lord Camperdown and Lord Dunmore have pointed out, the question of the rates is a much more vital

731
one than a great many Members of the other House and even of your Lordships' House who have no experience of rates running to 15 s. and upwards in the £ can possibly realise. Owing to the fact that the public health rate is already up to the 1s. in the £ there is no money even for the provision of water for a township which may be drawing the whole of its present water supply for fifty or sixty cottages from a place contaminated by dung and manure. I make this point because it is germane to the whole subject. Unless His Majesty's Government face the whole of this problem from the point of view of the ratepayers as well as from that of their Party enthusiasts they will only increase what is already a very serious problem.
I would take the opportunity of saving to the noble Lord who now represents the Scottish Office in your Lordships' House that we are glad that there is some hope of these matters being approached here from a non-Party standpoint. I can assure the noble Lord that there is a great desire to see this question of the outer islands faced in a fair and reasonable spirit. No doubt the landlord class will receive abuse in another place, but it is a great thing to know that there is a possibility that in your Lordships' House our suggestions will at all events be listened to and considered, even if they be not subsequently acted upon. The noble Lord spoke of the gratifying improvement in the outer islands and especially in the Lews. But if you go to the Lews to-day you find men living in the same houses as cattle, and you see excrement, of human beings as well as of cattle, remaining there from the beginning of the winter till the early spring. I greatly doubt whether there has been the advance to which the noble Lord referred. Make these new holdings by all means if it is part of your settled policy, but I hope that at the same time you will really face the housing question and effectively deal with those public health nuisances with which the local rates are unable to cope. They have, as I have said, reached the shilling limit, and it now rests with the Government to take action if anything is to be done to remedy the present grave state of things.
The noble Lord referred to two lines of action which were open to the Government. Is there not a third? Is there not the question of the development of local industries, especially fishing. The latter might easily come under the Board of
732
Agriculture. Although the noble Lord put a very roseate view on the prospect of the Lews in regard to fishing, I would point out that, in the southern end of the island, last year was one of the worst years ever known in regard to fishing. I believe that the condition of the people of Barra last year was worse than it has ever been before; and on the west coast there has never been such a dearth in stock as during the past year. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will go into the question, and find out whether in calculating that things are likely to improve he is speaking by the book or not. There was a strike in the fishing industry and a great many Lewis men have not been taken on again in the East coast fishing, and that will mean a great loss to the island.
The outer islands are suffering from doles indiscriminately given, and in my opinion the pauperism and stupid things done in the western islands constitute a grave evil. Various boards have been set up and have doled out money, and the people have now conic to the condition when they are ready to prey on the Government, whom they regard as soft-witted and easily induced to give grants provided there is sufficient noise made in Parliament. The Government have given these doles without watching the results of their work. Attention should be given to developing the fishing industry in these islands, very much on the lines adopted in Ireland by Mr. Plunket. Attempts have been made in this direction, but they have failed through being badly carried out. There are in Lewis the men who were employed in the East coast fisheries, and surely there is no reason why the herring industry should not be developed there in order to bring more money into the island. Again, no one can go to the outer islands without being met with the crying scandal of the trawlers. I do not pretend to be an expert in the matter and can only judge from what I am told, but trawlers are in there day and night, and the slow fishing boats which are sent out from the island are absolutely useless for the work. There are other things which might be done to help these people. Sir Samuel Scott, a member of the other House, has started a tweed mill there. By this industry' about fifteen families are helped, all of whom have built houses from their earnings. The surplus money has been used for emigration to Canada, and the men who have gone there have sent home

733
money; so that this one mill has been instrumental, directly and indirectly, in leading to the erection of thirty or forty houses in which cattle do not live with human beings. Something might also be done in connection with the willow industry.
I have been associated with western islanders in connection with the Yeomanry and the Militia, and in my opinion your only hope of inducing these men to migrate would be to get them to migrate in certain numbers. They should be put down in plots together, and their priest or minister might be induced to go with them, and, if possible, start a colony. One never can go to the outer islands without feeling that one of the most important things required is firmness apart from political wavering. No one man will take a decided line of action, and in many cases how can the proprietor turn these people out of their houses when they have five or six half-starved and badly-clothed children? Unless, in conjunction with the division of farms, something is done by the Government to see that the present state of things does not continue, you will be simply adding to the misery there. I believe that since the Act of 1886 the number of squatters in the Lews alone has increased by 700 or 800, which shows how the practice of squatting is going on. It is not the harm that these individuals do on the croft itself, but they bring down the grazing to such an extent that in the springtime you can go through any part of the island and see a crop on only 60 or 70 per cent. of the land, with the sheep in practically a starving condition and the ewes looking as though they could never breed again. That comes from letting things drift and believing that you will improve matters by dividing up farms without making the necessary regulations. Unless the division of farms is followed up by an absolutely steady policy it will be impossible to secure any permanent advantage.
Another subject which ought to be faced is the non-payment of rates by squatters. The time has come when, if these squatters are not going to be turned out, inquiry should be made whether it would not be a good thing to legalise their position and make them pay rates. At present there exist squatters who have, perhaps, the best stone houses in the township, and yet who escape rent free and rate free while everybody else is paying rates at the
734
rate of 15 s. in the £. I submit that that is a question which must be faced. The noble Lord said that if the value of a deer forest or anything of the kind is deteriorated compensation is paid to the landlord. But that does not finish the matter in the least, because you permanently reduce the rateable value of that particular parish. If you reduce the value of a shooting by £1,000 you reduce the rateable value by that amount for all time, and therefore your rateable value goes down correspondingly. Where rates stand at the high figure which they have reached at the present moment in these islands any increase in the rates is a matter which ought to he regarded very carefully.
I sincerely hope that in framing their decisions on the subject of the administration of the outer islands His Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to the possibilities there are of increasing local industries, because I fully believe that the whole of the problem is a matter of employment. Even if you divided every single acre in the Lews you would only find crofts for under a quarter of the number who have applied for them, and I do not think that anything like 50 per cent. even of that quarter would be economic crofts on which a man could live unless he had outside employment. I hope that this question of the development of local industries, especially the big industry of fishing, and possibly other matters such as Militia training and further levies of Yeomanry, will be considered amongst the rest of the policy which His Majesty's Government have in view for dividing land.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Report to which my noble friend has called attention is a document of great, I would almost say of tragical, interest. It is, in effect, the last will and testament of the Crofter Commission, and it is impossible to read it without becoming painfully aware that the inheritance which the Board of Agriculture have taken over from the Commission is one full of the gravest and most serious difficulties. The problem which the Board of Agriculture has set to it is to effect the conversion of a population which is miserably poor, which has to cultivate a very unproductive soil under bad climatic conditions, which is, as the noble Lord who speaks for His Majesty's Government has told us, immovable in the sense that it is not in the

735
least inclined to accept a transfer from its present abode to other places, and which follows agriculture in its most precarious form, into a self-sustaining community. The noble Lord told us that in his view some success had been achieved by the Crofter Commission in ameliorating the condition of these poor people, and he referred to some paragraphs on the last page of the Commission's Report. I have looked at those paragraphs, and I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord is justified in appealing to them for the purpose of showing that some improvement has taken place during recent years in the comfort and well-being of these islanders. They are better housed than they were, they cultivate their land rather better, and there appears to be a comparative absence of that lawlessness which was so remarkable a few years ago. But, my Lords, I find nothing in this Report to show that any improvement has taken place in what I would call the economic condition of these crofters. I do not see that they are any nearer to a condition of prospective solvency than they were a few years ago. At any rate, I can find nothing in the Report to warrant the conclusion that we should be justified in trying these experiments on a larger and more ambitious scale than that on which they have as yet been tried.
The noble Lord told us that the Island of Lewis had always been a most difficult problem. But is it not significant that, as my noble friend told us just now, out of 3,370 applications for new holdings no fewer than 1,300 come from the Outer Hebrides, and of these no less than half from the Island of Lewis itself. We have heard a good deal about the condition of the Island of Lewis. I remember that when this subject was last before us my noble friend produced the Report of the Crofters Commission issued in 1912. What had they to tell us? They spoke of acute and widespread congestion in the island, congestion so marked that even if it had been possible to assign the whole of the farms or forest lands in Lewis for the relief of the congestion, even then it would not provide a remedy of a permanent nature. I venture to think that a remedy of a permanent nature is the very thing we ought to aim at. Then they went on to tell us that the congestion had been greatly increased by the amount of squatting which had gone on on the island
736
both on the common pasture and on individual holdings. The Report on the Table gives one some idea of the condition of these cottars and squatters; but I think the most significant fact brought out in this Report is that of these 1,200 cottar and squatter holdings something like, in round figures, 800 have actually come into existence since the year 1886, so that owing to remissness on somebody's part this evil, which ought to have been taken in hand and diminished, has been steadily increasing against us.
I share the feeling which the noble Lord who speaks for His Majesty's Government expressed OD a previous occasion. He told us then that he was moved by a feeling of pity for all concerned—for the crofters themselves, for the landowners, and for the Government which had to endeavour to solve these problems. The case is one of undoubted hardship for all concerned. But in his remarks to-day the noble Lord said "This is, after all, a very old standing trouble"; and he rather. taunted my noble friend with having been unable to produce a new remedy for an old disease. I would venture to suggest that there is one prescription, at any rate, which ought certainly to be followed in a case of this kind—namely, not to do anything to encourage the disease; and that is what my noble friend, not without reason, is, I think, afraid of.
The noble Lord the Under-Secretary clearly realises the difficulty of the case and the need of endeavouring to do something to cope with it; and I must say that I liked the concluding part of his speech a good deal better than the earlier part of it. Unless I misunderstood him, somewhere about the middle of his remarks he made an observation to the effect that this was a condition of things for which it was impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept responsibility, and that the responsibility really lay with the crofters or with the landowners who permitted these mischievous subdivisions to take place. Up to that point I thought the noble Lord was inclined to adopt an attitude of helplessness and to disclaim all responsibility. But towards the conclusion of his speech he made several observations which went some length, at any rate, to comfort me, I understood him to tell us, in the first place, that His Majesty's Government realise the necessity of dealing with this question of migration with a little more

737
vigour. I am sure they will be right in doing so. I am confident that it is a kinder thing to these wretched people to provide them, under the most humane conditions, with suitable homes not too far off from the districts which they now inhabit, rather than to go on bolstering them up on holdings which under no conceivable possibility can ever become profitable enough to keep them in decent comfort.
I also understood the noble Lord to indicate that His Majesty's Government had made up their minds that something must be done to prevent the recurrence of indiscriminate squatting. I hope I did not misunderstand the noble Lord; because it would be a very unfortunate thing if it were to go forth that the Government were helpless to prevent this illegal kind of subdivision, for it is an illegal kind of subdivision, and that the only thing they can do is to hold up their hands and say "The crofters or the landowners are responsible for this, and we can avail nothing." Therefore I welcomed that part of the noble Lord's speech. I have only one other observation to make, and that is to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will bear in mind what has been so well said by my noble friend Lord Lovat as to the desirability of doing something to encourage local industries. I believe that you are likely to effect a great deal more by means of that kind than by merely giving the whole population small slices taken off other people's property.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, perhaps I may reply, so far as I am able to do so, to certain specific questions that have been put to me. The noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, asked whether in regard to the new holdings, if new holdings are created, we would take care that four or five families did not become inhabitants of one house. I am afraid we have no legal powers to safeguard that particular point. At the same time, from my small knowledge of the number of population and number of crofts in the Lews there are not four or five families in each crofter's house to-day. What we shall try to do is this. We shall try to prevent the new small holders from encouraging or allowing cottars and squatters—
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I can assure the noble Lord from personal experience that he will find three or four families in many of the new crofts which have been
738
created during the last ten years. If the Government have no legal power in the matter at present, will they devise some means by which this could be prevented?
LORD EMMOTT: I will call the attention of the Scottish Office to the matter. I suppose that what the noble Earl means is that where an improved class of house is built too many people are inclined to go into it. Time does not allow of my following point by point Lord Lovat's speech, and on many of the points he raised I should require information before I could give him an answer. But there are one or two specific points as to which I should like to say a word. The question of Imperial and local taxation is engaging the attention of a strong Committee at the present time, and until that Committee has reported I am afraid the question of rates cannot be fundamentally dealt with. But I agree that a satisfactory solution of the question of rating lies at the bottom of any real improvement of a congested district of this kind. With regard to the improvement of houses, the Board of Agriculture are hopeful that they have evolved a better method of granting assistance for the improvement of houses than has hitherto been the case. I do not know whether that may be so or not, but at any rate the matter is receiving their very serious attention. On the question of migration, Lord Lovat said that if these people were migrated they should be migrated in settlements. That is a point of which the Board of Agriculture are fully aware and to which they will give due consideration if any scheme of migration can be, as I hope it will be some day, carried out. Another point on which great stress was laid was that there should be no squatting on the new small holdings. I am afraid it is impossible to prevent it under certain conditions, but every effort will be made to prevent it as far as we have power to do so.
LORD LOVAT: I think the fact of really facing this matter resolutely lies at the bottom of the whole problem. The statement which the noble Lord has made is likely to accentuate the evil rather than to remedy it. At one time squatting was common all over the islands, but as the result of resolute action after the 1886 Act squatting has, so far as I know, practically ceased outside the Lews. In my opinion all that is required is resolute action.
LORD EMMOTT: Yes: but one has to be very careful, when replying officially for a Department which one only for the occasion represents and when one is not aware of all the facts connected with the case, in making a more definite statement. All I can say is that we shall use every effort to secure that these people enter upon a binding obligation. I will not pursue the matter further.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure we are all obliged to the noble Lord for answering the questions put to him; but I regret to say that personally I have not been able to derive very much consolation from his speech as a whole. The point that appears to me important is this, that the Government are proposing to continue to cut up the few solvent and good holdings that there are in order to put other persons into them. I regret to say—in fact the Report proves it—that the persons who are going to be put into these holdings are not solvent and are not likely to be able to fulfil any obligations. The noble Lord said, for instance, that the squatters are to be the first persons who are to be put into these holdings. After what is said of these squatters in the Appendix which I mentioned to your Lordships, it is quite clear that they are not possessed of any stock and it is most probable that they have not got much money. If we are to reason from previous experience, just see the state of affairs which prevails in these islands at the present time. Many of the new holders have not discharged their obligations to the Government; they have not paid the instalments due on the loans that were made to them; they have not paid their rent. Then is it likely that the residue in these islands are persons really solvent and able to take up a small holding with advantage to themselves and to their neighbours? If the Government persist in this practice it can only have one end, and that is that you will have done away with the solvent tenants and replaced them by persons who have no means of fulfilling their obligations. The noble Lord said that it rested with the estate to stop squatting. The noble Lord, naturally, has not much experience of these matters—certainly they have nothing to do with the Colonial Office—but be surely must know that it would be practically impossible for an estate in an island like Lewis to evict squatters.
LORD EMMOTT: What I said was that it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to stop squatting, and that the only people who could stop it were the crofter and the landlord. I did not wish to express surprise that the landlord did not attempt to stop it, and I think I used a sentence which showed that I felt it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to do so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe noble Lord certainly did say that; but he stated that it was impossible for the Government to stop it. Now he says that when these people are placed in the new holdings the Government are going to try to stop squatting.
LORD EMMOTT: They will do what they can.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But how? The noble Lord has himself said that they have no power to stop it. That is a matter at all events which requires immediate and strenuous legislation. Then the noble Lord said that the Board in asking for these farms are obliged, after consultation with the landlord, to go through a certain procedure. One grave cause for complaint is that in many of these cases the landlord has not been consulted or communicated with in the first instance. The reports have been made to the Board by persons who are unknown to the landlord, and the Board themselves have not attempted to communicate with the landlord until they have given notice to him that they wish to take the land. The noble Lord put it to me that I should suggest a policy to him. That is a form of argument which is very often used in Parliament. I certainly have one policy, which is that I would not cut up solvent farms of reasonable size in order to place upon them persons who have neither stock nor money; and so far from doing these persons a service by placing them in these holdings you are doing them the greatest disservice possible. I still venture to hope that the Government will see their way not to insist on carrying out this policy to the bitter end, because I am sure that if it is carried out in the way in which apparently it is going to be, the result will be very great misery and very great evil to these islands. I beg to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this is an extremely small Bill. It is not framed with the object of in any way extending or altering the powers that are at present vested in my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture who is also one of the Commissioners of the Office of Woods, but merely to simplify the machinery on his behalf. The Office of Woods is the owner of a great deal of property, and there is an enormous amount of business to be transacted in the matter of deeds with regard to the letting of land, and so on. As things are arranged at present, all these deeds have to be brought to him for signature. In almost every other Office this work of fixing signatures to deeds, which is purely mechanical, is done by the Permanent Secretary; and the object of this Bill is simply to make the procedure of the Office of Woods like that of other Offices and to enable the signing of deeds to be carried out by one of the Permanent Secretaries of the Office.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to appoint officers for the purpose of branding for export herrings that have been packed in barrels. The conditions under which they would be branded are given in Clause 1 (1) and (3), and the details will be given in the Regulations which we shall make under the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill. This is a system that is now general in Scotland and has been in force there for many years, and it is because of the good results that have been obtained in Scotland that there is now a growing demand in this country
742
among fish curers for a similar system here. What happens is that after these herrings are packed in a way which satisfies our inspector they are branded, and this brand is a kind of hall-mark which has been found very valuable among foreign purchasers. It is a guarantee of quality, of good packing, of weight, and so on. The demand for this system in this country, however, is not by any means unanimous. A number of the big curers do not want it. Their own trade mark is so well known abroad that it is quite sufficient for them, and they do not think it worth while to pay the small charge which we shall impose for this work in order to make the system pay for itself. Therefore the Bill is entirely optional. It will apply only in those cases where there is a demand for it, and it will be the business of the Board to ascertain as to whether or not the demand exists; and even when it is applied in any particular seaport it will be entirely optional on the curers in that seaport whether they take advantage of it or not. This Bill has been framed in response to repeated applications we have received, and I hope your Lordships will see no difficulty in giving it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

THE ARMY.
*LORD WYNFORD*LORD WYNFORD rose Majesty's Government—
1. The number of service or practice rounds per gun fixed annually on practice ranges by—

(a) Batteries, R.H.A., quartered at home;

(b) Batteries, R.F.A., 18-pr., quartered at home;

(c) Batteries, R.F.A., 4·5-inch Howitzers, quartered at home;

(d) Batteries, R.H.A. (Territorial);

(e) Batteries, R.F.A. (Territorial), 15-pr.;

(f) Batteries, R.F.A. 5-inch Howitzers;

(g) Batteries, Horse and Field, in the French Army;

(h) Batteries, Horse and Field, in the German Army.

2. The cost of a round of practice ammunition used by the various batteries mentioned above in 1 (a) to 1 (f).
3. The annual cost of—

(a) A Field Battery on the higher establishment of the Regular Army;

(b) A Field Battery on the lower establishment of the Regular Army;

(c) A Reserve Battery of the Regular Army;

(d) A Field Battery of the Territorial Artillery.

4. The number of Territorial Batteries, Horse and Field, that fired live shell over land ranges during 1912.
5. The number of Territorial Batteries, Horse and Field, that have fired, or will fire, live shell over land ranges during 1913.
6. The number of Batteries included in both 4 and 5.
7. Whether the land practice ranges utilised by our Horse and Field Batteries, Regular and Territorial, are fully occupied during the training season.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions which I have on the Paper appear, I am afraid, rather technical in character, but I cannot help thinking that the replies to them will be welcomed by those of your Lordships who take an interest in military matters. The Questions, I hope, are sufficiently concise to elicit the desired information; but with the permission of the House I should like to make one or two remarks in reference to them. The information asked for in Question 1 used to be given in a pamphlet issued every year entitled Instructions for Horse and Field Artillery Practice, but it has ceased to be so given now, and is, I understand, contained in another Memorandum which is only issued to those concerned and a copy of which I have not been able to obtain. I hope the information will not be refused on the ground of its being of a confidential character. As to Question No. 2, I hope the noble Lord who will reply to me will understand that a round of ammunition includes the shell, the cartridge, the fuse, and the tube.
I hope the noble Lord will have no difficulty in giving me replies to Question 3. I felt bound to ask for information in some detail as now we have not only field batteries on the higher and lower establishment but also a new class of battery, a reserve battery which has just been formed out of the remnants of the training brigades which have been reduced from three batteries each to two. I must say I fail to understand how the Secretary of State for War reconciles the statement which he made in the Memorandum relating to the Army Estimates of this year, in which he said that the Artillery would not be reduced by a single unit, with the statement which has appeared in the last Army Order, dated June 20, where the number of batteries has been reduced by six.
My fourth Question is somewhat similar to one asked a short time ago by Lord Portsmouth. The difference consists in this, that the reply to Lord Portsmouth's Question gave the number of batteries that fired in each year and did not distinguish between batteries that fired over land ranges and those which fired over sea ranges, the latter of which are of little or no practical use for instruction. The same remark applies to the fifth Question.
Question 7 is, I hope, sufficiently clear. What I wish to learn is whether land practice ranges are made full use of for practice by both Regular and Territorial batteries during that period of the year when climatic conditions permit of such practice being carried out. If I am not mistaken, one if not two of the ranges on Salisbury Plain are closed about this time of the year to permit of the training of other branches of the Army being completed. I also understand that the range in Northumberland which was purchased two or three years ago by the Government is not being used this year and is not available for practice. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to give some reason for that.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I very much regret that Lord Herschell, who would in ordinary circumstances have answered these Questions, is still away, his state of health being very far from what we should all like to see it. Lord Herschell since he has represented the War Office in your Lordships' House has worked very hard at these particular questions, and, as your

745
Lordships know, there is no subject which requires a greater knowledge of facts and figures and of an enormous amount of detail. Therefore it is to the loss of this House that we should be deprived of the services of Lord Herschell after the amount of work which he has put in on this subject. In his absence I will do my best to answer the noble Lord's Questions.
The answer to Question 1 is as follows: The number of practice or service rounds per battery (six guns) fired annually on practice ranges by the R.H. and R.F.A. (Regulars) quartered at home and by Territorial batteries is—(a) Batteries of R.H.A. Regulars—Divisional, 600; Un-allotted, 580. (b) Batteries of R.F.A. Regulars—Divisional, 600; Un-allotted, 400. (c) Batteries of R.F.A., 4·5-in. Howitzers, 480. (d), (e) and (f). The annual allowance for batteries of R.H.A., Territorial Force, and 15-pr. batteries of R.F.A., Territorial Force, is 200 rounds, and for batteries armed with 5-in. Howitzers 122 rounds. The annual allowance in each case is pooled each year and allotted to the batteries practising that year at a rate which varies in accordance with the class of camp at which they practice. Batteries practising in 1913 are allowed the following number of rounds per battery:—

R.H.A.

R.F.A. (15-pr.)

R.F.A. (Howr.)

Batteries practising at a Regular Practice Camp—viz., Lark Hill, West Down, Oke-hampton, or Trawsfynydd

280

285

250

Batteries practising at Buddon or Pernbrey

180

172

150

Batteries practising at Lydd

100

100

108

(g) 150 rounds per gun are fired annually, but in addition many batteries at practice camps fire a great many more; 50,000 rounds are allowed for the gunnery courses in March and April at the Camp de Mailly alone, and these are fired in addition to 150 rounds per gun. (h) No information is available as to the number of service or practice rounds fired annually on practice ranges by batteries of Horse and Field Artillery in the German Army.
In reply to Question 2, the following is the cost of a round of practice ammunition used by the under-mentioned batteries of R.H.A. and R.F.A.:—

R.H.A.

Home

Shrapnel

£1

9

0

R.F.A. Home

18-pr.

Shrapnel

1

9

3

R.F.A.

4·5-inch

Howitzer. Home

2

11

3

Lyddite

Shrapnel

2

8

9

Shrapnel (practice)

1

15

6

R.H.A.

T.F. 15-pr. Q.F.

Shrapnel

1

12

2

Case shot

15

2

R.F.A.

T.F. 15-pr. B.L.C.

Shrapnel

1

6

11

Case shot.

9

11

R.F.A.

T.F. 5-in. Howitzer

Lyddite shell

2

17

1

Common

1

8

4

Shrapnel"

1

11

10

The total annual cost asked for in Question 3, including a share of brigade headquarters, is—(a) £19,200; (b)£15,200; (c) £12,000; (d) £3,500. The answer to Question 4 is 131, and in addition 11 batteries fired a modified course on the ranges at Shoeburyness. As to Question 5, the number who have fired or will fire (in accordance with 1 (d), (e) and (f) above) in 1913 is 128. Five others have fired a modified course. The replies to the remaining Questions are—To Question 6: The number of batteries who have fired or will fire both in 1912 and 1913 is 62, exclusive of batteries firing a modified course. To Question 7: The land practice ranges are fully occupied during the whole of the training season.
With regard to the point about Salisbury Plain, I do not think any change has been made since the time when I was at the War Office. It was always an understood thing then that one part of the range on Salisbury Plain was only used as an Artillery range during the earlier part of the training season when the Infantry and Cavalry units, and so on, were in the early stages of their annual training, and the moment they began to reach the more advanced stage which required a considerable amount of land it then became necessary to close the range in order to give them sufficient ground to do their training over. But the rest of the range on Salisbury Plain is in use from the earliest possible moment. I have no information as to the Northumberland range.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: Can the noble Lord tell us how many Territorial batteries, if any, did not fire during 1912, and how many will not fire during 1913?
LORD LUCAS: I should like notice of that Question.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Can the noble Lord tell us whether the readjustments of the Artillery referred to by Lord Wynford, which have caused the regrettable loss of six batteries, have been accompanied by any
748
saving? And can he explain why in these readjustments batteries which have old records and distinctions have had them transferred from the personnel of those batteries to other batteries of different numbers which have not been reduced?
LORD LUCAS: Perhaps the noble Viscount will give me notice of those Questions.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.