Lords Sitting of 9 July 1913

WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

TITCHFIELD DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 16) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
BLYTH AND COWPEN GAS BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

ASCOT AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
(Kingstown Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDER.)
Reported without amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No.XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 21 st instant (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 106).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART II UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).
The Special Exclusion (Stone Carvers and Sculptors) Order, 1913, dated 2nd July, 1913, made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the Act: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 107.)

PRIZE COMPETITIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading on Monday next, discharged.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Administration of the Poor Law as to married women—Was presented by the Earl Russell; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 108.)

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill I shall move as an Amendment—
"That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country."
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Execution of instruments on behalf of Commissioners of Woods.
1.—(1) Any instrument requiring to be executed by the Commissioners of Woods or any two or one of them or to which they or he are or is a party may be executed by any permanent secretary of His Majesty's Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods, and if so executed shall be deemed to have been executed by the Commissioners of Woods and shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Any instrument purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods without proof of the official character or handwriting of the person appearing to have executed it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): I move, before the word "instrument" at the beginning of subsection (1) and also at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert the words "deed or other." These two Amendments are necessary because the word "instrument" is not a term used in Scottish jurisprudence.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("any") insert ("deed or other")
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ("any") insert ("deed or other").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 109.)

HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
LORD LUCAS: The whole of the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper are purely drafting Amendments, so that I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I move them quite formally.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out ("Before making any such Order")
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("any such")
Clause 1, page 2, lines 4 and 5, leave out from ("gallons") to the end of the clause and insert as a new subsection:
"(4) For the purposes of this Act the expression 'barrel' includes half-barrel when the context permits."—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 14, after ("be") insert ("liable to be").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 23, after ("be") insert ("liable to be").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved:
Clause 4, page 2, line 29, leave out ("or half-barrels").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendments moved—
Clause 6, page 3, line 16, at beginning insert ("In England, Wales or Ireland")
Clause 6, page 3, line 17, leave out ("sentence") and insert ("order")
Clause 6, page 3, line 18, after ("Quarter Sessions") insert ("in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 110.)

THE INDEBTEDNESS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE rose to move for a Return showing—

(a) the limitations placed by various Acts of Parliament upon the borrowing powers of each class of local authority in the United Kingdom, specifying each local authority separately; and

(b) the cases in which by subsequent Public Acts of Parliament provision has been made whereby money for various purposes is to be excluded from being reckoned as part of the debt of a local authority for the purposes of the limitation on borrowing previously imposed by Parliament; and

806

(c) the cases in which by private legislation the borrowing powers of any local authority have been extended beyond the powers allowed under the general law.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that this Motion is not dictated by any spirit of antagonism or even necessarily of criticism. There are many members of this House who have had considerable experience in local government and I have no doubt possess a much more intimate knowledge of local finance than I can pretend to, and I think they will endorse my words when I say that the great increase in the outstanding loans of local authorities during recent years is a matter which demands the serious consideration of Parliament. Local finance is a somewhat complex subject, and I think it is apt to be more complex, certainly more difficult to follow, if one plunges into a mass of figures. I therefore propose to quote only two sets of figures in order to indicate the extent of local indebtedness.
The first comparison is with regard to National Debt and Local Debt. For the year ended March 31, 1912, the nominal amount of the funded National Debt was £602,000,000; for the year 1909–10, which is the latest period for which the figures are obtainable, the outstanding loans of the local authorities of the United Kingdom amounted to £620,000,000. Apparently, therefore, the Local Debt was something like £20,000,000 over the National Debt. In that same year the loans of the local authorities of England and Wales amounted to £536,000,000; the valuation of England and Wales for the Poor Rate was less than £216,000,000. Therefore the indebtedness of the local authorities was about two and a-half times the amount of the Poor Rate valuation.
A great deal of this indebtedness is due to the action of Parliament in constantly adding to the purposes for which local authorities may borrow. Indeed, a great deal of the responsibility for local indebtedness rests on legislation which the local authorities are called upon to carry out, and it is for this reason that I venture to call the attention of the House to the methods on which Parliament is proceeding. As indicated in paragraph (a) of my Motion, various Acts of Parliament place

807
a limitation on the borrowing powers of local authorities; but these limitations vary for different local authorities, and are spread over a considerable number of Acts of Parliament. Therefore it is very difficult—in fact, it is almost impossible—to get a general view of the position. For instance, the expenditure of the local authorities is limited under the Public Health Acts of England and Wales so that the total loans shall not exceed the assessable value for two years of the premises assessable within the district of the local authority. As your Lordships are aware, there is a great deal of miscellaneous expenditure thrown upon the various local authorities under the provisions of the Public Health Acts. Then there is a limitation upon county councils. They are limited as to loans to one-tenth of the annual rateable value of the county, and that limitation cannot be exceeded without the sanction of Parliament. There are limitations on boards of guardians and on parish councils. A board of guardians is limited to one-quarter of the total annual rateable value of the union, and a parish council is limited to one-half of the assessable value. That is, roughly; an outline sketch of the general limitations on the borrowing powers of local authorities. Those limitations are scattered throughout various Acts of Parliament passed in 1875, 1888, 1889, and 1894. The only other observation which one might make is that the areas overlap—in fact, the borrowing within a county area becomes cumulative.
Passing to paragraph (b) of my Motion, I would ask the House to consider the manner in which Parliament is constantly infringing upon the limitations of the local borrowing powers. Hardly a session goes by without one or more Bills being passed by Parliament giving fresh powers of borrowing to some local authority, together with a provision—a provision which has become almost a common form in these days—that the money borrowed for the purposes specified in the Bill is not to be reckoned as a part of the debt for the purpose of the limitations on borrowing imposed by Parliament under previous Statutes. I do not wish to weary the House with numerous instances, but I would like, if I may, to give your Lordships two or three examples taken haphazard. Under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, county councils are given power to borrow for the purpose of providing small holdings,
808
but by Section 52 money so borrowed is not to be reckoned as part of the county debt for the purpose of the limitations imposed by the Local Government Act. Then in the Housing of the Working-classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, there is an unusually strong provision in Section 2 which lays down that the money borrowed for the purposes of the Act, whether borrowed before or after the passing of the Act, is not to be reckoned as part of the debt for the purposes of the limitation under the provisions of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. Under the Town Planning Act, 1909, borough councils and urban and rural district councils are the local authorities. They are given powers of borrowing for the purposes of the Act, with the proviso that the money so borrowed is not to be reckoned as part of the debt under the Public Health Act, 1875.
The provisions of these Acts are excellent. I think that therein lies the danger of our present system. Public opinion makes an advance in respect of some branch of local administration. Then proposals are brought before Parliament and an Act is passed. There is an instance this session. I have no doubt that in a short space of time the House of Commons will have passed the Mental Deficiency Bill. That is a measure which excites no Party controversy; its objects are unimpeachable. You will find in that Bill a clause such as I have been describing. Nor is this confined only to public legislation. Local authorities—in particular, I think, the big municipalities—find it very convenient to come to Parliament in order to get their borrowing powers extended by private legislation. The result of all this is that Parliament is unconsciously whittling away the provisions which it set up, and which presumably were set up as financial safeguards.
It was suggested a long time ago that there should be an annual budget of local expenditure in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of reviewing every year the financial position of the local authorities of the United Kingdom in the same way as they review at present every year our Imperial expenditure. I think a good deal might be said in favour of that proposal. At any rate, under our present system there is no method by which one can get a general view of local finance. Indeed, it is very difficult to trace the Statutory provisions relating to

809
Local Debt. The Return for which I ask is, perhaps, somewhat comprehensive, but I nave no doubt that the Local Government Board possess a great deal of the information desired, and I venture to think that that information will be useful not only to those of us who are interested in local finance, but it will be useful when that large and somewhat complex question of the readjustment of local and Imperial finance comes to be considered by Parliament. Before I sit down I should like to say once more that I am not criticising local authorities. I am endeavouring to obtain authoritative information on a matter which is not only of local but of national importance.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing—

(a) the limitations placed by various Acts of Parliament upon the borrowing powers of each class of local authority in the United Kingdom, specifying each local authority separately; and

(b) the cases in which by subsequent Public Acts of Parliament provision has been made whereby money for various purposes is to be excluded from being reckoned as part of the debt of a local authority for the purposes of the limitation on borrowing previously imposed by Parliament; and

(c) the cases in which by private legislation the borrowing powers of any local authority have been extended beyond the powers allowed under the general law.—(The Earl Dunmore.)

VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, the noble Earl prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not think he was so well informed as many other members of your Lordships' House on local finance, but I think from the remarks which fell from him we shall all agree that he has made himself thorough master of the subject. Though I am afraid I cannot follow him into the figures which he gave, I quite agree that the whole question of Local Loans demands attention. They certainly are increasing in an alarming way, and the figures which the noble Earl quoted in comparing the National Debt with the Local Debt were certainly rather startling.
810
Coming at once to the noble Earl's Motion, I may say that it will be quite possible to issue a Return dealing with paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Earl is, perhaps, aware of the Table which is contained in the Report of the repayment of loans by local authorities which was made by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1902. If he is not acquainted with that Table—which he will find at page 264 and following pages of the Report —it is possible that it may be sufficient for his purpose either as it stands or brought up to date, and if he would confer with the officials of the Local Government Board it might facilitate the giving of the Return asked for.
But with regard to paragraph (c) of the Motion it would be very difficult to give the Return. A great many local Acts are passed every year giving powers to local authorities, and almost without exception they include some additional borrowing powers. To make a Return including all these cases, even covering a limited number of years, would be a long and laborious business, and the results, I think, would not be commensurate with the time and trouble involved. It really would necessitate an immense amount of labour, because several thousands—I do not think I am exaggerating in using that number—of local Acts would have to be looked up. As to paragraphs (a) and (b), however, the Local Government Board will be glad to give the noble Earl the information he desires.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount sees his way in the main to grant the wish of my noble friend who made so interesting a speech in moving for this Return. I cannot help feeling very strongly the way in which, certainly without the knowledge of the ratepayers and almost without the knowledge of Parliament, these very considerable powers of borrowing are given to local authorities, and I really think that Parliament itself, in justice to its own views of expenditure, ought to take some little means to make more public and bring home what is being done in this direction. To say that the check on this expenditure lies with the ratepayers is a truism. At the same time every one knows that in local elections you are dealing with ratepayers who think in shillings, and it is absolutely useless putting before them

811
these questions of millions, which convey nothing to them at all. Very few members even of your Lordships' House are really aware how great a pressure there is of rates in certain places, and how much has been added by Bills which in themselves look absolutely innocent and which hardly seem to have the smallest effect on local expenditure.
I made a suggestion some sessions ago which was received very favourably on both sides of the House, but on which no action was taken, and I venture to renew it now with the desire that even before the end of this session we should consider whether some Sessional Order should not be passed which would enable us to call the attention of Parliament to what it is doing in this matter. In this House we do not deal with the financial stage of general Bills, but in the House of Commons every financial point which can in any way affect the Exchequer is obliged to be printed in the Bill in italics, in order to call the attention of Parliament to the fact that they are putting a charge on the Exchequer. I venture to think that any provision in a Bill which puts a charge on the ratepayers should, by order of this House, be printed in italics, so that the attention of your Lordships and of the public may be called to the fact that there is a proposal to add to the local charges. Without some provision of this kind there really is no means of our finding out what we are doing; and, as my noble friend has pointed out, in the last few years it has become not an occasional but almost a habitual practice, not merely to put charges on the local rates by the Bills that are passed, but to put those charges beyond and outside the limitations which Parliament has laid down in each particular to prevent over-borrowing and overspending.
My noble friend and I have had together a pretty considerable experience of what the London County Council has done in this respect, and I can assure your Lordships that, without any question of Party or even policy, it is possible by close scrutiny and by bringing home to those concerned what they are doing to limit very considerably these charges which it is endeavoured to set up. And there are some cases, of which I could give instances, in which we have in this House unwittingly
812
laid what seems to be a power but what practically becomes an obligation on local authorities to borrow and to spend considerable Sums which I think would be regarded as avoidable. In many of these cases when a permissive power is given it very often becomes almost a necessity that it should he adopted by the local authorities; and the joint effect of all these permissive powers has undoubtedly been to carry borrowing by local authorities to a point which, even if it be necessary in the interests of the public, becomes an enormous charge on the local exchequer.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, there is one consideration which appears to me to be germane to both the speeches to which we have listened from the other side of the House but was not alluded to in either—namely, the distinction which it is necessary to draw in this matter of local borrowing in particular, because we draw it so far as we can in matters of national borrowing, between productive and unproductive expenditure. No hint was given in the very interesting speech of the noble Earl opposite, or in that of the noble Viscount, that such a distinction could be held to exist. But it is a distinction of the most profound importance when the figures of either national or of local indebtedness come to be considered.
For instance, when you compare the figures of the National Debt, as the noble Earl did, with the figures of local indebtedness it is surely reasonable to ask what is represented by the one and by the other. That debt which represents the remains of the cost of the Napoleonic wars, however necessary it may have been to incur it—for, indeed, if it had not been incurred perhaps none of us would have been sitting here at this moment—cannot be compared, for instance, with the kind of debt which we in India pile up in the building of railways or the financing of great schemes of irrigation. The two things are really hardly comparable, and ought perhaps not to be called by the same name. One is indeed an investment, and the other often represents something like a dead loss. Of course it is necessary, even in considering the most productive expenditure—expenditure which will pay both

813
interest and sinking fund and be disposed of in due course—in the making of a work which is to the general benefit, to consider the effect on the national credit. But, however much that may be the case, no reasonable person would compare the debt involved, for instance, in the South African war with the debt involved in the completion of the great scheme of Irish land purchase. They are not comparable things, and ought not to be spoken of in precisely the same terms. And that difference surely offers at any rate one reason for the exclusion of certain subjects from the limitations imposed by Parliament upon the indebtedness which different local authorities are entitled to incur, because it may in particular cases be reasonable to take into account to what extent the indebtedness of a particular 'local authority has been for productive or for purely unproductive purposes.
With regard to the interesting suggestion made by the noble Viscount opposite I do not, I confess, recall the debate to which he alludes, in which he said that a suggestion that certain parts of public, and I assume also of private, Bills should be printed in italic's in order to show that thereby a certain burden might be thown upon the rates was brought by him before this House. I should be sorry to dismiss the suggestion off hand, and I conceive that in some cases it might serve the purpose of calling the attention of a possible burden on the rates to the minds of those who would otherwise have neglected it altogether. But whether the effect would be either as prompt or as complete as the noble Viscount appeared to anticipate I confess I have some doubts. I am afraid that the sentences printed in italics would, after their first novelty had worn off, tend to be slurred over, and that they might not receive all the attention which the noble Viscount would desire them to have. But, as I said, I should be sorry to throw cold water on the suggestion, and I should be quite willing, if noble Lords opposite desire it, to concert with them in consulting the authorities of the House, and in particular the Lord Chairman of Committees, as to what in their opinion the effect of such a technical alteration of our printing proceedings would be. I am sure the noble Viscount will not expect me to say more than that, and I hope that that rather limited promise may satisfy his desires in that direction.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I am quite prepared to admit the distinction which the noble Marquess has just drawn between remunerative and unremunerative expenditure, but whether a loan is for remunerative or for unremunerative purposes the total local debt is a mortgage on this country, in the same sense that the National Debt is a mortgage, and it therefore deserves the same careful consideration of Parliament. But I submit that it receives certainly no consideration as a whole, and extremely little consideration in detail. I associate myself with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that it would call attention to Bills which are going to impose a fresh burden on the rates if the provisions involving this charge were printed in italics; but I should like to add that I think such Bills ought to be brought in by a responsible Minister. That would add one more safe-guard. As regards the Return for which I move, I gathered from the noble Viscount opposite that he was going to meet me so far as paragraphs (a) and (b) are concerned, but only in so far as referring me to a certain Table, which I confess I once tried to wade through but which does not put the information concisely or make it very easy to gather.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The Table to which I referred could be brought up to date; or if it is not in the shape which the noble Earl would like perhaps he would confer with the officials at the Local Government Board, who would try and give him the information in the form he desires.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: As long as it is in intelligible form and easy to understand I shall be quite satisfied. I withdraw paragraph (c) from my Motion, as the noble Viscount says it would entail a great deal of work. But perhaps he would inquire whether the Local Government Board could give me the information asked for in paragraph (c) from 1903. I think they might have that information in their possession. But in any case I withdraw paragraph (c) from my Motion to-day
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: I will inquire whether the Local Government Board have the information from the year the noble Earl mentions, and if they have I am sure they will be very glad to give it to him
On Question, Motion, as amended agreed to and ordered accordingly.

THE ROAD BOARD.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask His Majesty's Government when the Annual Report of the Road Board will be issued; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: I quite understand that there are special reasons this year why the Road Board's Report has not been issued earlier. The fact that the able chairman and the excellent secretary of the Board have been engaged in certain work in connection with the International Road Congress may have delayed the bringing out of the Report, but I think that any time which may have been technically lost in that way has been well expended. But as a general principle I think your Lordships will agree with me that it would be convenient if the Report was produced earlier in the session. We have not been getting the Report until the beginning of August—last year's Report was dated August 1—with the result that, certainly in another place and to some extent in this House, there is no possibility of detailed criticism, for at that time of the year everybody is rather weary of Parliamentary matters.
The Road Board's Report has become a Report of a great deal of importance to the nation at large, and especially to country and district councils awl other local authorities. The Road Board now handles a comparatively large sum of money. Its revenue is approximately £1,000,000 a year, and it takes a very large, and so far very honourable, share in making the main roads of this country better and more fitted for the traffic they have to bear. I have nothing but praise for the actual work of the Road Board. They have, in my opinion, gone the right way to work, and if there are criticisms as to their administration of the funds in their possession they are only in this direction, that the Board are rather too keen in their dealings with local authorities and when they give a grant towards an improvement demand that the local authorities should provide more than those authorities think right out of local funds. It is contended also that the Road Board should help directly towards maintenance, and not confine their financial assistance to improvements. But as to that criticism it must be remembered that in the Act of Parliament which constituted the Road Board it was laid down that they were not to assist in
816
maintain but only in specified improvements.
Later on we may hear something as to the position of London. London has some right to complain, because a large proportion of the taxes which form the revenue of the Road Board is collected in London and so far London has had a very small share of the expenditure. I am delighted to know that, by an arrangement entered into between the Road Board and certain local authorities on the west side of London, we are within measurable distance of having a trunk road constructed from somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hammersmith to take us out to the main roads leading to the south and west of England. That is a very much needed improvement, and a right thing for the Road Board to engage in; but it would be convenient in a case of that sort that we should have ample time to discuss such an important project at an earlier period of the session than the beginning of August. Considering that the financial year ends on March 31 it should be possible for the Report of the Road Board to be presented earlier.
Your Lordships will no doubt be glad to hear that at the International Road Congress, which held its session in London a fortnight ago, it was unanimously agreed by all competent foreign observers that the roads of this country, were on the whole the best of their class in the world. I think the Road Board must be given credit for having assisted to a great extent towards that result. It is a good thing to know that we are proceeding on the right lines, because, quite apart from all questions of horse-drawn or motor traction, traffic of all kinds increases daily, and the roads in future must be constructed to carry both fast and heavy traffic of a kind that did not use our roads in years gone by. One very wise thing that the Road Board have done, in my opinion, is that they have insisted on the provision of good foundations for roads. It is pretty well accepted now amongst road engineers that it is not the rolling of wheels over the surface of a road which wears the road away, but the crushing of the material between the crust of the road and the foundation. The use of bituminous material has very much diminished that wearing away. It is with that knowledge that the Road Board are working, and I hope that the

817
result will be a great saving not only in wear and tear but also to the ratepayers' and possibly to the taxpayers' pockets.
As showing how important this road question is I may mention that we have in this country 27,700 miles of main roads and well over 200,000 miles of secondary roads. Therefore, the Road Board have to do, or may have to do, directly and indirectly, with grants for something like 230,000 miles of road. That indicates the importance of their labours. It is an extraordinary thing that at the present moment there is no Department of Government directly responsible for road administration. If there is maladministration in connection with sanitary matters, with the Poor Law, or any other maladministration there are Departments of Government to appeal to. But in the case of the roads of this country there is no responsible Government Department, although the taxpayer, apart from the ratepayer, provides quite a large sum per annum towards the upkeep of the roads. I suggest if the Government and the Road Board are thinking of any development of the Board's duties, and if noble Lords on this side of the House should be in a position to handle the question in the near future, that they should give serious attention to this matter and consider whether the time has not arrived when a national Department of Highways, similar to the Department which exists in France and in every other civilised country, should be established.
On the 230,000 miles of main and secondary roads in this country, with which the Road Board sooner or later may have to deal, no less a sum than £18,000,000 is spent annually out of the rates and taxes. That huge expenditure may be well or badly spent, but at present the only possibility of criticising it is in the council chambers of county councils and other local authorities. No Parliamentary criticism is possible, and if questions arise of national importance concerning roads there is no responsible Minister to whom we can appeal. I will give your Lordships an instance. When dust was admittedly a very serious nuisance the only questions that could be asked in Parliament were questions affecting the use of motor-cars as the raisers of dust, and not the sins of the roadmakers which were the real cause of dust. The drivers of motor-cars could be criticised, but you could not criticise the makers of the roads.
818
I think that shows how inconvenient it is that there should be no Department to answer for the roads of the country. To show what ignorance prevails on the question of road administration I will quote an instance against the Party to which I belong. According to a report in The Times, which I believe to be perfectly correct, Unionist speakers at the New-market by-election, and I believe the candidate also, alleged that the difficulty of getting money advanced for the building of cottages for rural labourers was very great, while on the other hand large funds were paid out of the Development Fund to keep up the roads for rich motorists. We know, of course, that that is not so, but that certain specific taxes are imposed on all motorists out of which road improvements are made for the benefit of the whole community.
As regards the work of the Road Board, I understand that at the present moment there are certain difficulties in the way of the granting of the Return which I have suggested privately to the noble Earl. But what this House and the public generally would like to see in the Report of the Road Board which is almost due and in future Reports is some plain statement of fact as to the finances of the Board and the way in which they are managed. We would like to see a statement of the revenue on one side and a statement of the expenditure on the other, put in a simple and clear way year by year. At the present moment, owing to the curious system of bookkeeping adopted at the Treasury, it is only by most diligent search that we can extract from the Road Board's Report the real state of the Board's finances. It is only by means of Questions such as were asked in the other House the other day that we can ascertain what the revenue of the Road Board is under certain heads. We all know that the use of petrol continually increases, and that the petrol tax is very much more productive now than when it was first put on; but we know, on the other hand, that the revenue from the carriage tax, both motor and horse-drawn, has shown a tendency to remain stationary or decrease. It seems as if the number of horse-drawn carriages is declining out of proportion to the number of motor vehicles coming into existence.
Another point which I should like to make is this. Would it not be possible for

819
the Road Board as a whole to be consulted more often as regards all kinds of matters concerning traffic? Every one who has studied this question knows that there is great need for the codification of our highway law. There are numerous Acts of Parliament, extending back to Tudor days, concerning traffic on the roads, and the present state of the law is chaotic. The traffic in London is well managed simply because of the tact of the police and the common sense of the public. But it is only in the middle of Section 78 of the Highways Act, 1835, that the rule of the road can be found. I ask, Has not the time arrived when we ought to codify our highway law?; and I suggest that the Road Board might well spend a portion of their funds in employing some skilled legal gentleman to draw up a codification of the laws which govern traffic on roads, and then this House and the other House should be asked to consider it, and, if thought advisable, place it on the Statute Book. The law is at present in such a state that local authorities and other people concerned in highway matters experience the greatest possible difficulty in ascertaining what the law is; and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will corroborate me when I say that the Highway and Locomotive Acts are sometimes entirely contradictory.
The Returns of the Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade show, in the case of London, that whereas Londoners took 144 journeys per head in 1903, they took 228 journeys per head in 1912, and this year the figure will be higher. In the country it is just the same. Every one knows that the great highways are much more used now than formerly. Therefore, this has become an important national question, and the more responsibility that is put on the Road Board and the more funds that are placed at their disposal the better it will be for the nation at large. I have raised this debate in an entirely friendly spirit. I have watched the proceedings of the Road Board and there is nothing serious to find fault with; but I have ventured to submit a few suggestions to His Majesty's Government which I hope the noble Earl who will reply on their behalf will be able to adopt. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the proceedings of the Road Board.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord has said as to the necessity of a Roads Department. It would solve a great many of the difficulties which we now meet with in local administration. When I talk of main roads I do not mean main roads in the technical sense. In the county of Huntingdon, for instance, no less than 93 per cent. of the roads are main roads, showing the peculiar definition in that county; whereas the average of main roads in other counties is 20 per cent. The main difficulty arises in the case of roads in urban areas outside our great towns, because it is obviously important that for exits from and entries into the great towns far wider roads are necessary. The local authorities say, Why should we spend these large sums of money on the maintenance of roads larger than we require for the benefit of other people? The fact is that the old local government areas are much too small, and you cannot get roads on a sufficient scale made even by cooperation between local authorities because of the very large expenditure involved. To some extent the Road Board relieve that difficulty, but only to a very partial extent, because, as Lord Montagu pointed out, the Road Board have nothing to do with maintenance, and it is very largely the cost of maintenance of the roads of which the local authorities complain.
I would venture to offer one or two criticisms on the administration of the Road Board. In administering these grants the Board have mainly dealt with rural areas and with inter-urban areas. I quite agree that great damage is done by motors and in other ways to the roads in rural areas, and that rural areas and inter-urban areas ought to be fairly considered; but I think that urban areas ought to have more consideration from the Road Board than they have received up to the present. These urban areas supply the funds, in the way of the Petrol Tax, the Carriage Tax, &c., for the Road Board. That is true of all our great cities. It is certainly true of London. Your Lordships have only to appeal to your own sense of smell to know the amount of petrol consumed in London, Yet when I look at the last Report of the Road Board I find that the amount of money granted to London is absolutely negligible; it amounts to only £1,200 granted to the Borough Council of Fulham. Considering the large proportion of the revenue of the Road Board which is contributed by

821
London, I think London ought to receive more consideration.
The Road Board ought also to consider far more what are the requirements of the local authorities, and not attempt, as they very often do, to dictate to the local authorities on what principles they should conduct their own roads. There should be some interplay between them. I will take an instance of the recent administration of the Road Board. You have the suggestion of a great western approach to be made into London. The Road Board say they are prepared to grant half the cost of that great new road. Of the total expenditure, £1,000,000 falls within London and of that amount the London ratepayers would have to contribute half. It is very hard, indeed, to ask the ratepayers to contribute half of the cost towards a road mainly to be used by motors and rapid traffic. So far as municipal London is concerned, it is very well supplied on the whole with main exit roads. There might, of course, be others; but what London really wants is by-passes to relieve the existing great roads and also new roads passing between one great borough and another. I submit that London, being so vast, ought to be considered not merely as a town but as a conglobation of towns, and roads running between the borough council areas ought to be considered as inter-urban and contributions ought to be made accordingly.
May I add a word as to the amount which the Road Board contribute? It is prohibitive if the Board say that they will contribute only half the money. If it is a question of a road costing £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 you cannot ask the ratepayers to contribute £500,000 or £1,000,000 towards that great road. In my opinion the contribution of the Road Board ought to go to at least 75 or 80 per cent. for this class of road. In some parts of the country that is done, but where the sum is large the Road Board get nervous of spending their money and do not give such large grants. If 75 or 80 per cent. is contributed by the Road Board there will still fall on the local authorities, in addition to the balance of the original expenditure, the whole cost of maintenance. I think if the Road Board would modify its position in that respect much more would be done. I observe that a great deal of the funds of the Road Board are not spent, and I contend that those moneys were contributed in
822
order to be spent and not to be merely invested. I do not say that the position of the Road Board is not a difficult one, but I suggest to the Government in a friendly spirit that the Road Board might, while not neglecting rural areas, extend a little more consideration to the large urban areas and to the views of the local authorities concerned. If that were done, I believe that great benefit would ensue to the roads in London and also in the great cities.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am sure that those who are responsible immediately as well as indirectly for the administration of the Road Board have every reason to be grateful to the noble Lord who initiated this discussion. The work of the Board is of an entirely novel character, and in those circumstances public criticism could only be of the greatest value; for naturally in the case of a new work of this kind the more minds that are brought to bear on the problems presented the better it must be. Those of your Lordships who have read the Reports which have been issued during the last two years will, I am sure, have found them to be of a very interesting character. The second Annual Report, to which reference has been made, was presented on August 1 last year, but the Board hope to present the third Annual Report within the next fortnight, a slight improvement upon last year. I shall certainly convey to the Road Board the wish which has been expressed that if possible an earlier date should be found for the publication of the Annul Report.
I am sure that the Road Board will appreciate the praise of their work which the noble Lord who raised this question to-day was good enough to express. But the noble Lord thought that in some cases the Road Board had been rather hard in their dealings with local authorities, and had not contributed as much as the local authorities would have wished. It is perfectly natural that expression should be given to that view, and I notice that a similar complaint was made by the noble Viscount who spoke last. Local authorities are like private individuals in this matter. Whenever they see sums of money lying about they are very anxious to get their share of them. It was therefore only natural that the noble Viscount, speaking on behalf of urban authorities, should

823
express the opinion that they should have a larger share than rural authorities. I am quite sure that if representatives of rural authorities had taken part in this debate they would have expressed their desire that more money should be given to rural authorities and less to urban authorities. The fact of the matter is that in considering the respective claims of urban and rural authorities the Road Board must look upon the question from a detached point of view and hold the balance even, and do their best for the general administration of the Fund.
Generally speaking, what the Board do is to contribute a proportion, but only a proportion, of the amount of money which is spent upon improvements. Generally it is as much as 75 per cent., and the complaint which is made that they do not contribute more invariably comes from rural counties with only a sparse population. Those counties naturally suffer from the increase which there is in the cost of maintenance due to motor traffic, and having themselves a sparse population, with perhaps comparatively little traffic, they object to spending very much money upon the improvement of their roads. When that happens the Board do not urge them to spend more money than they can afford. The Board's view is that the work of improvement in counties of that kind is really not of a very urgent character. The Board are anxious, in the first place, to assist in the improvement of the more important roads in the country which connect the populous centres and carry a large volume of motor traffic, and they are not of opinion that any serious harm will ensue if roads in sparsely populated areas are left without those improvements until the more important roads are dealt with.
The policy by which the local authorities are expected to contribute something towards the expenses of improvements is one which has certainly received the approval of Parliament for a great many years past. It has always been held by Parliament that so long as the local authorities are made to bear a certain proportion of the expense you will have a more economical administration than if the whole of the expense fell upon a central authority. It is a well understood maxim, I think, in our local government that local authorities should always bear some
824
portion of the expense. It is only natural, of course, that there should be this complaint from rural areas; but it is in the view of the Road Board sounder policy to deal first with more important roads and then afterwards deal with those rural areas to which I have referred.
The noble Lord and also the noble Viscount spoke of the great problem in London, and they thought that too little money was spent upon London itself. Your Lordships must remember that there is a large sum of money at the present time in the hands of the Road Board which is intended to be spent upon the new western approach road within the area of the Middlesex County Council. It is proposed to give a grant of£400,000 to the Middlesex County Council, which will go a long way towards the expenditure—between£500,000 and £600,000—which it is thought that this new road from Kew Bridge to Hounslow will cost. The length of the new road will be about, three and a-half miles, and those of your Lordships who have had experience of the difficulties of motoring in and out of London on that particular road will appreciate the relief which may he expected when this western approach is finished. The Middlesex County Council will provide one-fourth of the cost and the Road Board three-fourths, subject to Treasury sanction. I understand that the county council will ask for Parliamentary powers for the work in the next session of Parliament.
Reference has been made to one or two questions which have been discussed before in this House. The question of a new Department for Highways is not an unfamiliar subject to your Lordships, but it is one upon which I do not know that I can add anything very useful upon this occasion. The further criticism with regard to the accounts of the Road Board shall certainly be conveyed to the Board, and I have very little doubt that if they feel there is real substance in the complaint they will do their best upon subsequent occasions to see that their Reports are presented in a form more intelligible to the public as a whole. Had the noble Lord been in the House yesterday he would have heard a short reference to a third point which he mentioned—namely, the difficulty of highway law. We had it from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack yesterday that this was an exceedingly complicated question.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I was here.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then no doubt the noble Lord heard it himself. It was a dictum from the Lord Chancellor that there were few subjects in English law more complicated than the law relating to highways. It might, perhaps, interest the noble Lord if I gave the figures with regard to the income and expenditure of the Road Improvement Fund. The income since the constitution of the Road Board to June 30 last year, including interest on investments, amounted to£3,556,995. Out of that income the Board have indicated grants to highway authorities aggregating£2,596,752, leaving a balance of £960,243. Out of that balance short loans, amounting to£838,48l, have been indicated to highway authorities, so that your Lordships will see there is no large balance available now for further grants. The noble Lord is probably so well aware of the distinction between grants made and grants indicated that I will not take up time with regard to that point.
The other point which I think will be of interest to your Lordships is that a large portion of this money, although indicated and promised, has not been spent. It is pledged in respect of certain improvements, but it has not been spent. The reason for that is very largely to be found in Section 18 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, which I shall venture to read to your Lordships—
"In approving, executing, or making advances in respect of the execution of any work under this Act involving the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of employment."
I think it is a matter of real congratulation that at the present time while employment is so good as it is in the country and there is no need for expenditure on unemployment work, this money, quite apart from what is available under the Unemployment Insurance Act, is accumulating for the time when distress becomes really bad and there is urgent need for the expenditure of money. Perhaps the most common criticism upon work carried out for the benefit of the unemployed has been that it is conceived in a hurry and that very often the money is largely wasted. Here on this occasion there is a well considered scheme of vast public utility, and funds are available for carrying it out. We hope that it may
826
not be the case, but if there should be large unemployment and great distress among the population during the course of next year there will be this very large sum of money available for the benefit of the unemployed. I venture to think that that is a matter of very real satisfaction when we come to consider the possibility, however much we hope it may be avoided, of unemployment in the course of next year. I do not know that there is anything that I can usefully add in answering the various questions put to me, but I shall certainly take care that the Road Board are made acquainted with the criticisms that have been made, and I have very little doubt that they will try as far as possible to meet them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it may be of very great advantage that the unemployed should have proper provision made for them in the time of distress which the noble Earl reluctantly anticipates. At the same time I am a little doubtful whether great improvements in the roads of this country ought to be indefinitely postponed until the time of distress comes. After all, though it is very important that we should relieve unemployment it is equally important that a great industrial country like this should be properly equipped with roads, and I question whether the policy of hoarding money may not be carried too far. At any rate, I hope that the noble Earl and those who act with him will consider how long we ought to wait before this money is made available.
I am not able to go quite so far as did my noble friend in his interesting speech introducing this discussion in saying that we ought to have a Minister of Highways. At the same time I have considerable sympathy with him in that view, because I am perfectly certain that the policy of which the Road Board is the embodiment is only in its initial stage. It will require any amount of extension and development. The truth is that the old state of things under which the charge for the maintenance of the roads of this country falls primarily upon the ratepayers is altogether out of date. After all, why should the owners and the occupiers of real property in the various parts of England pay for the maintenance of a road which is primarily used, not by themselves or by their fellow ratepayers, but by persons and vehicles belonging to other parts of England? That cannot be defended

827
as a sound policy. The charge should fall upon a much larger area; and I think that Parliament will ultimately come to the conclusion that, in the case of what I may call national or arterial roads, the burden must be made to fall not upon the ratepayers but upon the taxpayers of this country. That, I think, explains to some extent the policy of the Road Board in using more of their money for rural districts than for urban districts even so far as their operations have already extended, because in urban districts the principal wear of the road is by the inhabitants of those districts. It is clear in that case that the charge should fall upon the urban ratepayers; but in the case of these great arterial roads the local rural ratepayer uses them comparatively little.
This leads me to another point. As your Lordships are aware, the Act confines the expenditure of the Road Board to improvements and precludes them from paying towards maintenance. That limitation, as the noble Earl opposite will remember, we resisted to the best of our ability when the Bill was going through Parliament. I am quite sure that subsequent experience confirms us in the view that on that occasion we were in the right, and if I may say so respectfully, the Government were in the wrong. The noble Earl opposite (Earl RUSSELL) shakes his head, but I think he agreed on that occasion that the burden of these arterial roads ought to be thrown upon the taxpayer. Why only the making of the road? Why not the maintenance of the road? The people who wear out these arterial roads are not the local ratepayers but persons belonging to all parts of England. Therefore the maintenance, like the improvements, ought to fall primarily upon the taxpayer. I do not say that that should be so in the case of every road—I am speaking of national or arterial roads, with which your Lordships are very familiar. That appears to me to be the direction in which policy ought to move—an extension of the operations of the Road Board in the direction of bearing the cost of maintenance as well as of the improvement of these important roads; and I think probably in the administration of the roads as well. I think there is no such sound maxim as that those who pay for the road should manage the road—that is to say, should be primarily responsible for the management of the road. My noble friend Lord Peel spoke of a contribution of 75 or
828
80 per cent. towards the cost. That may be very proper in certain instances, but I confess that in the case of these great national roads the whole charge ought ultimately to fall on the taxpayer, and then the administration should be with the central authority representing the taxpayer. This discussion has been a very interesting one, and I hope that it may bear fruit and that we may see a little quickening of the operations of the Road Board and in the near future an extension of their powers.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, so far as the Road Board themselves and their administration are concerned I endorse everything that fell from my noble friend Lord Montagu, but on the question of the maintenance of the roads I am bound to say that I have always thought that the Road Board was founded on a totally wrong principle. I am of opinion that it is a mistaken policy to tax a special class. It is to some extent a return to the turnpike system—namely, the idea that the man who uses the road should be the man who pays for it. As a general rule the people who use the roads—except, of course, motorists who use them merely for pleasure—use them not merely for the benefit of the man who happens to be conducting the vehicle but for the benefit of the community as a whole; and I deprecated when the Road Board was established going back to what I called the turnpike system.
I agree entirely with the noble Marquess that these arterial means of communication should be national highways and should be supported by national money, and in that case, of course, administered by a Minister of Highways. I should not approve of grants of the taxpayers' money being handed over to local authorities and then that they should be allowed to administer them in any way they liked. If we have national highways they should be a national service, like any other service. The Road Board is somewhat of an intermediate stage, and I fear that while in this transition stage we shall always have this feeling of soreness on the part of local authorities that they are paying for traffic which is not their own. In the case of a sparsely-populated district between two towns this is a very natural and legitimate feeling on their part, and to that extent I hope we shall nationalise the burden of the rates and nationalise their administration. Every one interested in good road administration takes that view and supports

829
it as the ideal of the future. I therefore have welcomed the establishment of the Road Board, although I deprecate the principle on which it was founded—namely, the taxing of a special class. I welcome it because it is paving the way towards a national administration of the roads. The reason why I shook my head at the observation of the noble Marquess opposite that the funds of the Road Board should be used for the maintenance of roads was that a pledge was given when this taxation was imposed that the money should not be used to relieve the ratepayers but for the purposes of road improvement only. That was the understanding between the motor industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It may have been a bargain between them and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was not a bargain between them and Parliament, because, as the noble Earl knows we did our best to persuade Parliament to agree that the funds should be used for maintenance as well as for road improvement. But I quite appreciate the point made by the noble Earl. It does make a difference that this money is raised from a special class and not out of the general funds of the country.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I desire to thank the noble Earl for his promise that our suggestions shall receive consideration. I agree with the noble Marquess that the funds of the Road Board ought not to be hoarded. The Road Board have great powers of borrowing. They can borrow up to£5,000000, so that if there was any sudden demand for the employment of casual labour they could always borrow to meet that emergency without any inconvenience. Therefore I think the policy of hoarding money is a bad one. As to the noble Marquess's suggestion about maintenance, I should be quite willing that taxes from motorists should go towards ordinary maintenance if other traffic paid something as well towards the funds of the Road Board.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I did not understand whether the accounts of the Road Board are going to be given in full in the next Report. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us. It is important that we should see what amounts have been spent and what amounts are invested.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think the figures in the Report which is due within the next fortnight will be in the same form as those in previous Reports. If, however, after having seen them they are not thought satisfactory by the noble Earl I should be willing to consider the question of putting them in another form which he may like better. As to the question of hoarding, I would point out that as Parliament has not yet been asked to give its sanction to the proposed new western road and powers must be sought during next session, it is inevitable that for the time being the money should be kept in hand for this purpose.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
LORD WYNFORD LORD WYNFORD rose to call attention to the recent special Army Order of June 20 affecting the establishment and organisation of the Royal Field Artillery, and to ask whether the changes therein ordered cannot be carried out equally efficiently and at no great expense to the public without ruthlessly destroying the long record of service of the batteries concerned.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the methods by which the recent decision of the Army Council to reduce certain batteries of Field Artillery is to be effected, methods which, if carried out as contemplated, will cause a great deal of resentment. Lord Midleton a week ago, when Lord Lucas replied to some Questions of mine, referred to this matter, and Lord Lucas then asked for notice of the noble Viscount's Question. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will put forward the plea of economy, but I would urge that on occasions like these such considerations should give way to those of old associations, memorable traditions, and a feeling of esprit de corps, and that the saving of a comparatively small sum of money is not justified when it involves bitterness and resentment.
Your Lordships, I hope, will allow me to explain what is to happen on August 1 next. His Majesty's Government have decided to make alterations in fifteen batteries. Three of these are to be disbanded altogether. The remaining twelve are to be reduced in establishment; they

831
will be allotted to stations where their depots are at present stationed, and to all intents and purposes will become amalgamated with those depôts. They will cease to be efficient batteries; they will never go abroad nor carry out practice, and will never be more than a training school for Special Reservists. Of the 150 batteries which now exist, numbered from 1 to 150, all above the nineties have been formed since the year 1898. Your Lordships would think that the natural course to adopt would be to take the fifteen batteries with the highest numbers, and reduce the three of those batteries which had the highest numbers and carry out the necessary changes with the other twelve. But that is not the course which recommends itself to His Majesty's Government. It is rather difficult to explain to your Lordships what exactly is to take place, but I will endeavour to do so. In order to save the cost of moving the personnel to the particular stations to which these batteries are to be sent—or, as the Army Order has it, "as it is impracticable to change the personnel, etc., of the batteries affected from one station to another"—the changes will be carried out by batteries exchanging their numbers, records, and digests of service, and no actual move will take place.
Then follow in the Army Order changes in detail by which batteries, all formed over 100 years ago, are to hand over their numbers, records, and digests of service to batteries formed since 1900. More than half of these old batteries have a continuous record extending back to the latter part of the 18th century, and all but two have histories which go back to the time before Waterloo. If Artillery carried Colours, all these batteries, or the majority of them, would be entitled to have inscribed on those Colours such names as Seringapatam, Corunna, Salamanca, Vittoria, Aliwal, Chillianwalla, Sevastopol, Afghanistan, Lucknow, Cawnpore, Tel-el-Kebir, Tirah, and Omdurman. From their list of service, which I have been able to extract from the regimental history which I hold in my hand, I see that two of them were actually at Bunker's Hill in 1775, and others in places as far apart as Java in 1811 and the West Indies in 1796–1810. With such records as these what wonder is it that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men are proud, and justly proud, of belonging to the batteries which hold them? and your Lordships can understand their feeling
832
of indignation and resentment when by an Army Order and at a mere stroke of the pen these batteries are directed to hand over such records as these to batteries none of which have been formed earlier than 1900, and none of which have any record at all of active service even in South Africa.
No one would dream of ordering two Infantry regiments or regiments of Cavalry to change their numbers or names and hand over their records. Such a thing would never be tolerated. I know the analogy in this respect is not a true one, and I will tell your Lordships why. The majority, in fact nearly all the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of a regiment remain during all their service in the one Infantry or Cavalry regiment, but this does not take place in the case of a battery. The officers change much more frequently. At the same time there are non-commissioned officers and men who have done all their Colour service in the battery and a great many have spent their whole military life in the battery. I believe this is the first time on record that the whole of the rank and file of as many as fifteen batteries have been transferred in a body against their wish from old batteries to new ones. That is really the effect of this Army Order. Every man in a battery with such records as these has a legitimate pride in them and an intense feeling of esprit de corps. I do not know that I need cite to your Lordships any illustrations of this, but one does occur to my mind of which I have personal experience. A non-commissioned officer of many years service as a sergeant was asked whether he would accept promotion and become the senior non-commissioned officer—the sergeant-major—of a battery which had only recently been formed. He belonged to a battery which had a very good record, and his reply was that he would rather be the junior non-commissioned officer in his old battery than the senior one in the new.
I would like to ask the noble Lord what is to happen in the case of these batteries to the officers' mess plate—pieces of plate presented by former officers in the battery, many of them of historic interest and all of them associated with the records. Are these to be handed over with the records? Some of the batteries, too, have prizes, such as challenge cups and shields, which were presented by old officers with a view to

833
increasing the skill and efficiency of the men. Are these to be handed over with the records? Some of these batteries, by long and careful and judicious management, have amassed considerable funds which are invested and the income used for the benefit of the non-commissioned officers and men of the battery. Are these sums to be handed over also with the records? I would appeal to the noble Lord and ask why it is impracticable to move the personnel of the battery and thereby allow officers and men to retain their own records and digests of service—in fact, to keep their own property?
I am fully aware that the plea of economy will be put forward, and it will be argued that the cost of moving the personnel cannot be entertained. I should like, however, to point out that of the fifteen batteries in which these changes are contemplated, all except three have been two years or over in their present station and some have been actually four years. These batteries would, therefore, in the ordinary course, be transferred to another station this autumn. If economy is pleaded, I would ask why three field batteries were moved from Sheffield in 1911 to Ireland, only to be moved twelve months later out to South Africa; or why three other batteries which came home from South Africa only in January of this year are to be sent out to India next October. I do not wish to occupy too much of your Lordships' time, but I think it is only right and proper that this matter should be brought to your notice. That there is a very strong feeling, amongst all ranks of the batteries concerned I feel sure your Lordships will understand. After all, does not the success of our voluntary system depend to a great extent on the sense of pride in the traditions the past and in the records of regiments and batteries? I would appeal to the noble Lord to represent, seriously to the Secretary of State for War whether with equal efficiency and very little extra cost to the public the personnel of these batteries could not be moved to their new stations and thereby avoid this ruthless disregard of the traditions of the past.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this question has stated the case, I will not say unfairly, but at any rate not fully as it stands at the present time. The facts as he has given them are accurate, but the conclusions drawn by
834
him from them are in a great many cases not quite justified by the facts that he has already quoted. It is perfectly true, as he says, that certain portions of the, batteries composing these training brigades are going to be transferred and exchanged with other batteries, but the thing to which the noble Lord attaches importance, and rightly—namely, the personnel, the guns and horses—will remain. Their places will be taken in these training brigades by the eighteen youngest batteries on the Army List at the present time. His suggestion is that instead of doing what is proposed in the Army Order the actual batteries, including the men, guns, and horses, should leave their present quarters and change places with the batteries which are going to take up their position.
The noble Lord suggests that the only reason for not doing that is a question of expenditure. No doubt it would involve considerable expense to take these eighteen training batteries, move them out of their present quarters, and bring into those quarters eighteen other batteries, six of which would subsequently be reduced. That is a consideration, as all questions of expenditure are. At the same time it is the fact that if that had been the only consideration in the case very likely the decision that has been come to would have been different. There is another consideration, and one which has weighed on the whole more with the Army Council in arriving at this decision than the question of expense, and that is the question of efficiency. The establishment of the training batteries is different from that of the batteries allotted to the Expeditionary Force. But more important than their establishment is their training. The training brigades are instructional cadres. Their establishment is given to them for that purpose, and their time has been devoted entirely to instructional work. They are not in any sense trained as a unit in the way that a battery has to be trained, and if they were to be suddenly put into the Expeditionary Force it would be difficult to mobilise them and they would not be able to act with the unity which is essential to make a successful battery. That is the main difficulty at the present moment. The batteries forming part of the Artillery of the Expeditionary Force have been trained as batteries, trained in Artillery work, trained to take their place in the Divisions to which they are respectively allotted; and what

835
the noble Lord is suggesting is that we should take these instructional cadres and ask them at a moment's notice to take their place in the Expeditionary Force. The result, in the opinion of the Army Council, would be a serious loss of efficiency to these Divisions, and that is the main reason which has actuated the Army Council in making this change.
Now I come to the question of the transfer. I do not think it is quite fair for the noble Lord to speak of it in the terms he did. His comparison, though he did qualify it, between these batteries and Infantry regiments is not a fair one either. I think we are much too prone in this House to discuss all Army organisation in terms of Infantry. To suggest that there is any analogy at all to, let us say, the converting of the Royal Fusiliers into the Oxford Light Infantry is absolutely misleading. The Field and Horse Artillery is one corps; these batteries are all parts of that corps, and it is a normal thing for men and officers to be transferred from one battery to another. An officer is constantly, I should think usually, transferred, on promotion, into another battery, and very often during the time he is in a particular rank he is transferred from one battery to another. Is is a normal thing, and a thing that every gunner expects to occur to him—namely, to be transferred from one battery to another.
The noble Lord talks about the continuous record of these batteries. What is there, after all, in the battery besides the actual record contained in its digest of service? The officers and men are not continuous. What is continuous is the digest of service itself. At the time of the South African War, when the Artillery was considerably increased, very large changes of personnel were made in batteries. I have not got the figures with me at the present moment, but I think cases could be quoted where almost as large and complete changes of personnel had been made in batteries in order to provide for the cadres of the new batteries, and so on, as are being made in this proposal. Yet did anybody at that time suggest that because of the transfer you were therefore smashing the records of the older batteries and transferring them to the new ones?
LORD WYNFORD: They were never all swept away.
LORD LUCAS: I admit that it is a question of degree, but it is the normal practice to transfer officers and men from one battery to another. It is the regular and usual routine of the Artillery to do that. Because it has been done in a greater degree here than usual is no reason for saying that therefore the unit as a unit has ceased to exist, and that, in the words of the noble Lord, we are ruthlessly destroying the long records of service of that battery. They are carried to the new battery and will continue in it, and very possibly in time as changes go on the personnel of that new battery may be very much what the personnel of the old battery was before. This, I think, is the point of the whole thing, that what the noble Lord is really asking for is that the Horse and Field Artillery as a whole should no longer be treated as one corps. Once you set up the idea that you cannot make transfers you break down the corps idea of the Artillery and nothing could possibly be done which would militate more than that against the efficiency of the Royal Artillery.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in my opinion the speech to which we have just listened is entirely misleading. It is quite impossible to make any comparison between what happened during the South African War and what is now proposed. It is not so much a question of transferring officers and men from one battery to another as it is of transferring records from one battery to another. That really completely brings to an end the life of the battery and starts it under another number. It is virtually the same thing as a corps being dismissed and a new corps being formed possibly with an entirely new name and everything completely changed. There is a certain amount of analogy between the Infantry and these batteries in this matter. It is perfectly true that the Artillery is one corps. But take an analogy inside a regiment. A certain number of companies have had plate given to them for competitions. If that plate or the company Colours were transferred from that company to another company, it would be felt as a very great grievance indeed. It often happens that men are transferred from one company to another in a regiment, but plate and things intimately connected with the records of the company are never exchanged from one company to another. That is the grievance which the Artillery have, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is a very real grievance indeed.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think there is great force in what has fallen from my noble friend behind me. Any one not versed in the affairs of the War Office listening to Lord Lucas would judge that his speech was a direct negative to that of my noble friend. I submit that the noble Lord opposite carried his argument a great deal further than he was entitled to do. I know that these cases of reduction are extremely difficult, and I do not dissent from the principle that you must have regard to economy and efficiency in making them. But when the noble Lord carries us to the point of telling us that there is no analogy between reducing a battery and reducing a regiment, I do not think he will find a single military man of any standing to support him. There is an analogy. It is not the same thing, but it is a great deal nearer the same thing than the noble Lord admits. When you are dealing with records, with trophies, with funds—in all those cases you are depriving batteries of things which date back to the Battle of Waterloo or earlier. I submit that it is a strong measure to transfer what are to the battery in question most cherished insignia and memories to a new battery formed twelve years ago; and I am quite sure that nobody would feel more than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who throughout his period at the War Office was most careful of the traditions of the Army, the undesirability unless absolutely necessary of taking this step, which is condemned by every soldier.
I deprecate the overstatement of his case by Lord Lucas as to its being the normal thing to transfer men and officers from one battery to another. I know that it is done, and has to be done. But I am sure that if the noble Lord had been longer at the War Office than he has he would know that these things are done only with the utmost discretion and care, and in some cases we have avoided sending men from batteries to India because of the very strong feeling that men who were holding particular positions in a battery or who had been long in a battery should not be severed from their comrades and sent to a battery where they were not known. I have been asked to intervene myself to save even a dozen men going from one battery to another, and have had the support of the Adjutant-General. Therefore so far from its being the normal thing to break up what I may call the esprit de corps of a
838
battery, every attempt has been made by past Adjutants-General to avoid doing it. I cannot, of course, deal without more information with the plea of efficiency—the plea that these particular old batteries have been trained to something which enables them to be broken up, while the new batteries having been trained to something different can be allowed to take over their work; but I believe the noble Lord will find that everybody who has had to administer the Army has endeavoured to avoid doing the very thing which the Secretary of State is now doing.
If I might make a special appeal it would be on this ground, that the necessity for reducing these batteries at all is challenged by the vast majority in this House and by every military man in the other House. We regard it as a retrograde step of a most unfortunate and of a very shortsighted character. There is not a military man in this House who will rise to support it. These batteries were granted by the Cabinet of the day after great consideration in deference to a very strong public feeling; and certainly the emergency which the Army in 1900 had to meet was not greater than the emergency which under the present Government and with the difficulties they have to encounter our Army may be called upon to meet either at home or abroad. For that reason I regard with great distrust this policy of reduction. But, quite apart from that, if it is carried out I would say, in the interests of the esprit de corps of the Artillery, that I hope that the very temperate observations made by my noble friend will be reported to the Secretary of State, and that even now he will consider whether the strong wishes of the batteries affected, whose old records are a treasured memory to them, may not be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down referred in the early part of his speech to a point on which we must all feel sympathy with these batteries. Every one would wish to keep their records intact and to make as few changes as possible; and the present Adjutant-General has worked with a desire to keep that steadily in view in such changes as he has to make. But the real point is the question of efficiency. The changes to which attention has been drawn are made at the suggestion of the General Staff, and the Secretary of State has acted on the advice of the General Staff. The purpose of the

839
General Staff was this that the Expeditionary Force should have the most efficient Artillery service that could be given to them. Great progress has been made in recent years with the Artillery service of the Expeditionary Force, but it was in the opinion of the Chief of the General Staff desirable that more of the batteries should be placed on the higher establishment than had been the case.
I doubt whether the public knows the immense changes which have been made in the Artillery service in the past few years. I remember the first experience I had of the Artillery. We were then in a position in which we could have mobilised only forty-two batteries, with one hundred men over. The reason for that was not any fault of the noble Viscount, because when he was at the War Office he was dealing with batteries which had a different kind of gun requiring less ammunition and which made a smaller demand on personnel. But this position was obsolete when we came to the use of the quick-firing field gun. Our position as regards mobilisation when I went to the War Office was, as I have said, a lamentable one. All that has been completely changed. We can now mobilise without any difficulty up to the full extent of our Artillery capacity; and the point that remained, the personnel being there, was to make the Expeditionary Force so equipped that it should be at least on a level with any other Force in Europe. In my time we got it up to a much better point than it had been, and we made it, I believe, efficient. But it has been strongly
840
impressed on the mind of the General Staff that it was essential that the standard of the Artillery service should be raised to a yet higher level, in view of what has been done in France and in Germany, and that has been carried out in the recent changes.
No doubt a certain amount of suffering has been occasioned by this change. In my experience I have always found that people were apt to look at what immediately lies before them; and what immediately lies before every soldier is the tradition of his own unit. But what those responsible for the Army have to look to is the good of the whole, and I doubt whether the change could have been made with less alteration. I deprecate very much that the War Office should be hampered in what they are doing, and I do not doubt from my knowledge of the Adjutant-General that everything in his power will be done to mitigate any hardships which may be involved by the change.

FORGERY (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

MONEY-LENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.