Lords Sitting of 20 March 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Esher—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Ramsay (E. Dalhousie)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE EARL OF BALFOUR.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, we meet this afternoon in order, in the first place, to pay a tribute and, I hope I may say on behalf of the whole House, an affectionate tribute to the memory of the late Earl of Balfour. The late Earl had been for many years an outstanding figure in our national life, owing to his multiple national activities in many fields over more than half a century of time. No one would dispute his claim to take a high place in the story of our nation and Empire. We who knew him, both here and in the House of Commons, will not forget the appeal of his personal charm, his literary power of clarity in classical expression, his refinement in political repartee, his contempt for vulgarity in political debate, his sympathy with all new phases of philosophic thought, his successful effort to keep abreast of many branches of modern scientific investigation and research and his very real love for music. His whole life is a living answer, as I think, to those critics who are too ready to deplore what they ask us to regard as the lowered level of political action and debate. I confess that I profoundly differ from those critics, and the disproof is to be found in the life of such a man as the late Earl of Balfour.
The wide generality of the interests of the late Earl implied no lack of vigour and determination. These qualities, as many of us will remember, were notably conspicuous in his first great administra-

935
tive office. The late Earl entered political life as Member of Parliament for Hertford no less than fifty-six years ago, and fifty-two years ago, as private secretary to the late Marquess of Salisbury, then Foreign Secretary, he went with Lord Salisbury to the Berlin Conference, a first apprenticeship in the arena of diplomacy in which he was destined to become one of the most conspicuous figures in his later life.
This is not an occasion to trace, or attempt to trace in any detail, the later steps of the political life of the late Earl, but we cannot forget, especially those who were in the House of Commons with him, that for ten years he was Leader of the House of Commons, and Prime Minister from July, 1902, to November, 1905. Great public and patriotic services were rendered by him as First Lord of the Admiralty and Foreign Secretary at a critical period during the Great War. Subsequently, he went as our Second Plenipotentiary to the Peace Conference in Paris. I would desire, however, to give special testimony to the great part which the late Earl took as chief British Delegate at the First Assembly of the League of Nations in 1920, and to state what I know to be true, that he well and truly laid the original foundation stone at Geneva, on which in later times a goodly and permanent structure has been reared. In addition, we remember that he was the chief Delegate of this country at the great International Conference at Washington in the winter of 1921–22, the precursor of so large and important a chapter in subsequent history, and in pushing forward a growing friendliness between our country and the United States of America.
When the late Earl retired from active political life in 1929 he held the office of Lord President of the Council, an office endeared to him as head of the Government Department for scientific inquiry and research. May I add, as his successor in that office, testimony to the deep appreciation of the value of his services held by all the scientific people so closely associated with him during the period of his office? Outside the area of political activities the late Earl held numerous offices of great honour. He was President of the British Association in 1904. He was President
936
of the British Academy, President of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. This is no time, nor is there now opportunity, to attempt any final estimate of the influence of the late Earl. We are, however, in this House, rightly and justly proud that for many years he was one of our members, bringing into our debates his unrivalled experience and unique distinction in debating power. We bid him farewell with a deep sense of our loss—a loss that we share with the peoples of the whole Empire which he did so much to link together in Imperial unity under a loyal allegiance to the common and much-beloved Sovereign.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that you will appreciate the sympathy with which the noble and learned Lord has spoken of Lord Balfour. To me it is, as you may well believe, somewhat difficult to follow him. I cannot hope to do justice to the great public reputation which Lord Balfour has left behind, and I naturally shrink from touching, in more than a sentence or two, upon that more intimate life with which I was most especially acquainted, and the incomparable charm of Lord Balfour's character. The noble and learned Lord has spoken of Lord Balfour's career. I will ask your Lordships to forgive me if I do not follow him in that historical survey, which has been well-treated in other places as well. It is more Lord Balfour as we knew him that I would recall to your Lordships' minds—his immense wealth of qualities, which shone from so many different facets of his character. It was not merely that he was a statesman but, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded you, he was an authority upon philosophy and science and music and literature. He wrote in a style whose force and purity are a model for all others. He was held in the highest honour in the great University to which he belonged—nay, in many Universities—and he was also the leader and patron wherever men or women were gathered together in mental or physical pursuits to compete with himself.
Those were great qualities; and yet, speaking in this place, they were as it were only subsidiary to the reputation which he held, for to us he was primarily a Parliamentarian and a statesman, a

937
past-master in the Parliamentary art. He only reached your Lordships' House comparatively late in his life, but we were witnesses whilst he was here of the weight and acuteness of his intellect. But in the Commons, where, like the noble and learned Lord, I so well remember him, he was a master of debate, with a marvellous power with the rapier, which glittered but never left a lasting wound. And to those who, like myself, had the great privilege of working under him, the wonder was the subtlety of the mind, the discriminating subtlety, and the extraordinary rapidity of apprehension, so that after a few minutes' conversation in his room, or even a word or two to his companions on the Bench, he was able to deliver a considerable speech which had great weight in the debate.
And, above all, what I carry away in my recollection is the loyalty of Lord Balfour. He never gave away a friend, he never abandoned a subordinate, and he was at his best when defending a difficult case. Then as a statesman. It would be impossible for me to go through his qualities in that respect, but he was pre-eminently an expert in foreign affairs, with unrivalled experience, unrivalled historical knowledge. And then in all that pertained to national defence, if not the author of the Committee of Imperial Defence he was certainly the man who, more than any other statesman, made its working efficient. And behind his deep interest in that subject there was a glowing patriotism; under the apparently smooth polish of the man there was that deep sentiment, a national and Imperial sentiment, which appeared so convincingly at the time of the War.
I must try to say, if your Lordships will bear with me, one word upon a more intimate subject, upon what I have called his unexampled charm. It was not merely that in conversation everything he said was interesting, showing the interest of a, very able man, but that, as your Lordships know, it was illumined at every moment by an ever-ready penetrating sense of humour and wit. He had the rare quality that in talking with others he was able at once to soothe and to stimulate, to place men at their ease and at their best. That was the man as we knew him. And I think we shall not merely remember, or so much remember, his statesmanship, his dialectic, or his
938
manifold talents; we shall think of something different, of something higher. My Lords, he was lovable. We shall remember while he lived the abiding pleasure of his presence, and now that he is dead the memory will remain to us of a beloved companion and friend.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I venture on behalf of my noble friends who sit in this part of the House to join in the tributes which have been paid to the late Lord Balfour by the noble and learned Lord who leads the House and by the noble Marquess who has just spoken. It is my misfortune that I never had the advantage of sitting in the House of Commons during the time when Mr. Balfour, as he then was, exercised a great influence over its deliberations. I suppose that we should all agree that in the course of centuries different nations have made different contributions to the history of the world. Greece and Rome and France in their turn have made their contributions; but the great contribution of the Anglo-Saxons has been representative institutions; and during the time that he was in the House of Commons there was no man so great in the management of that great representative institution, and in the respect which he inspired there as Lord Balfour. Indeed, in his day he was supreme in his management and influence of, and in his authority over, the House of Commons. It is not for me to speak of what he has done for his Party, but I think we would all of us say that in the House of Commons, than which I suppose there is no juster or more critical audience in the world, he was felt to be a supreme master of that Assembly.
I cannot speak, as the noble Marquess who has just sat down has done, of the more intimate aspect of his character; I can only venture to say something of what he has done nationally and internationally, and of the lasting value of his work. I doubt very much whether there ever was so severe a test of greatness as the immense success which he made of his visits to America, not only of the visit in 1921 to which the noble and learned Lord has referred but also the visit he made in 1917 as the leader of the deputation which went over at the time when America joined in the War. I suppose that few statesmen had a more difficult task than he had to perform and the not unnatural suspicion of what he

939
might have had to say was entirely overcome by what he said and what he did. The personal success of Lord Balfour upon that occasion was of national value to this country. He laid the foundations of the co-operation between that great nation and our own to which many of us look forward as the best hope for the future progress of the world. In laying that foundation he did a great national service to this country. As we have been reminded already this afternoon, he was an enthusiast for the League of Nations and amongst the founders, to his own lasting honour and reputation, he will always rank high. I will venture to say, in conclusion, that he did great things for his country and in return he deserves from us a high tribute of admiration and respect.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I be permitted in a few words on behalf of that section of your Lordships' House which I may represent, to add to the sincere and eloquent tributes which have been paid, and most fitly paid, to the great man who has vanished from our sight. It might have been more fitting that these words should have been spoken by my revered predecessor so long associated in public life with Lord Balfour, and it is his great regret that a passing indisposition has made it impossible for him to be present this afternoon.
It is very difficult for any of us thus swiftly to analyse or describe the impression made upon our own lives and the life of the country by Lord Balfour. When a great tree falls in a garden we all feel that something sad and irrevocable has happened. But it is impossible, when we see something so dear and familiar laid low, to analyse or even record the associations which spring up in our minds. I suppose when we think of Lord Balfour we think at once of the singular independence of his mind and character. Like his great uncle he won in a singular measure, precisely because he took no pains to seek, the esteem and admiration of the people. In his case he won, I suppose we should all agree, perhaps more completely than any public man in our immediate memory, not only admiration but affection. Again and again he recalled to our minds the philosopher-king whom Plato thought to be the ideal ruler. Science and philosophy were the sphere of his own intellectual and inward life, and they gave him a
940
most impressive detachment of mind and spirit. No man, it is true, threw himself with greater zest into Party struggle. No man ever enjoyed more fully or wielded more skilfully the sword-play of debate. But into Party struggle and debate he brought no trace of rancour. Friend and foe alike received his large-hearted courtesy and felt the magic of his incomparable personal charm. But these philosophic studies gave him a great sense of patience and a great sense of proportion in public affairs.
In his later life, as we all know, he devoted himself mainly to the larger issues of the life of his country. As we have just been reminded, with his clear mind he foresaw, with his special eloquence he vindicated, the new stage in international life which was marked by the League of Nations. He foresaw the importance for the whole future of the world of the closer understanding and fellowship of the great English-speaking nations. I followed him in the United States in 1917, and I cannot sufficiently express how everyone in the United States with one accord acclaimed him as the most impressive public man who had ever entered that country from the older life of Europe. No words can describe the immediacy and the depth of the impression which Lord Balfour made upon the imagination of the United States.
Nor shall we ever forget the way in which in 1926, with his incomparable clearness and force he made plain for the whole of the future history of the world the outlines of that unique political achievement which he had himself done so much to foster—the British Commonwealth of free and independent nations. Again and again he proved the truth of the words of Burke that magnanimity in politics is the truest wisdom. There is something strangely solemn and moving in the passage from our midst of so great and conspicuous a figure. As he passes all Parties lay at his feet the homage of their gratitude and their admiration. As we think of him now are there any words which can better describe our thoughts of him than the words of Socrates?—"Having zealously applied himself to understanding and having adorned his soul not with any foreign ornament but with her own proper jewels—temperance, justice, courage, nobility and truth he awaits, thus prepared, his journey to the unseen world."

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that I have had a message from his home that the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, is unable to be here to take his place in the Chair during Committee owing to indisposition. I beg, therefore, to move: That Earl Beauchamp be appointed to take the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees from illness.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNDEE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BARRY AND SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SEVERN FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS BILL.
Read 2a.
WEST LANCASHIRE RURAL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.

  SWINDON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I move that these Special Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 11st instant, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONWAY AND PENMAENMAWR JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill; Bill reported without amendment.

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL BEAUCHAMP in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 15 and 16 Geo. 5. c. 38, Schedule.
1. No person shall exhibit or train as a performing animal any of the animals specified in the Schedule to this Act or be registered in respect of any such animal.
Clause 1 agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 1:—
Saving for zoological societies.
".Nothing in this Act or in the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, shall apply to the Zoological Society of London or to any other society or association which on application to the Secretary of State is certified by him to have for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes."
The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment which I ventured to foreshadow on the Second Reading, and which I think my noble friend behind me (Lord Danes-fort) did not view with disfavour. Your Lordships will see that it is to enable zoological societies to train animals when necessary without having to undergo the penalties which are laid down in the case of animals performing or being exhibited in circuses and suchlike entertainments.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD DANESFORT: As my noble friend has indicated, I expressed entire concurrence with the suggestion he made that there should be a clause of this sort inserted in the Bill. It was never the

943
intention that the Bill should in any way interfere with the Zoological Gardens or similar institutions, and I welcome the Amendment of my noble friend.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): There is only one small point which His Majesty's Government would like to put to the noble Earl. It is felt that the Secretary of State really has no machinery or any special qualifications for determining this question of whether a society exhibits animals principally for educational or scientific purposes or for some other reason, and therefore he would make the suggestion that the wording of this Amendment should be altered, and that instead of "on application to the Secretary of State is certified by him to have" we should have just the word "has." That would mean that a Court of Law would settle the question and not the Secretary of State.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I do not know if the noble Earl wishes to move an Amendment?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not quite understand how it would read. Would the noble Earl mind reading it?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It would read:—
"Nothing in this Act or in the performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, shall apply to the Zoological Society of London or to any other society or association which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Subject to reconsideration on Report I think I could accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
"Nothing in this Act or in the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, shall apply to the Zoological Society of London or to any other society or association which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (PENSIONS OF CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONERS) MEASURE, 1930.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Pensions of Church Estates Commissioners) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. As your Lordships are aware the duties and powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are regulated by Statute, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act of 1850. There are two paid Commissioners, one appointed by the Crown and the other appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Second Commissioner, technically so called, is unpaid and appointed by the Government of the day, and goes out of office with the Government. The other two are very important members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Their salaries were fixed by the Treasury seventy years ago at the rate of £1,200 a year for the First Commissioner, and £1,000 a year for the Third Commissioner. No change has been made in these salaries in spite of the alteration of values, and in spite of the immensely increased business of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But inadequate in many ways, in proportion to the work done, as these salaries are, they are still more inadequate when it is reflected that no provision is made for any pension when these very responsible persons are compelled to retire from office. Unlike all the officers and servants of the establishment, no provision is made for a pension, and the Commissioners have no power to award any such pension.
This Measure asks that such a power should now be given to the Commissioners. I think it is only reasonable that men who give themselves to work so responsible should be entitled to expect that after their retirement they should receive some such pension. May I be permitted to say that the present First Estates Commissioner, Sir Lewis Dibdin, has served I think for more than 25 years. He has rendered quite invaluable service, he has been responsible for carrying through the great scheme of augmentation of benefices which has really transformed the whole position of the Church throughout

945
England, and yet, though years are multiplying upon him, there is no provision for any pension. We ask for the present and for the future that power should be given to the Commissioners to award such pensions to the First and Third Estates Commissioners, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament recommend that the Measure should be passed and have the force of law. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Pensions of Church Estates Commissioners) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (SODOR AND MAN) MEASURE, 1930.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I now beg to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Sodor and Man) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. I think it may be said that this Measure is entirely uncontroversial. It passed the Church Assembly without a single note of dissent and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament recommend that it should pass. As your Lordships are aware the Isle of Man is not legally part of the United Kingdom. It has a history and independence of its own, justly prized by the inhabitants of the Island, but by long custom and usage the Island is part of the Province of York. Its Bishop and Proctors are summoned to Convocation, it has its place in the Church Assembly, and, therefore, it has a place of its own in the life of the Church of England.
But it is at present not entitled to receive any benefactions whatever from the resources of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The reason is that the Commissioners have no estates in the Isle of Man and no part of their funds is derived from that Island. Consequently the twenty-nine benefices in the Isle of Man have been deprived of any of those resources which are being so freely given through the Commissioners to the
946
parishes within the limits of England. Inasmuch as these parishes are in great need and are very inadequately endowed, and inasmuch as the Diocese of Sodor and Man has its place within the life of the Church of England, the Commissioners, if you will be pleased to permit them, are most willing to be allowed to pay out of their resources for the augmentation of the benefices of the parishes in the Diocese of Sodor and Man. The amount which will be necessary in comparison with the very large sums which are administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be very small, but that amount, though small itself, will give the greatest possible encouragement to the people of the Island. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be pleased to allow this Measure to pass.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Sodor and Man) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal As sent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to call attention to the condition of the Army, especially in regard to the diminution in strength, and to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. What their policy is in regard to the mechanisation of the Army;

2. What the present position is as regards the Officers Training Corps and whether any alteration is contemplated in regard to them;

3. Whether the establishment of cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich is full;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a few weeks ago the noble Earl opposite in answer to a question which I put to him was able to give us a very satisfactory assurance, if I may say so, on the attitude of the Government towards the Territorial Army. During the course of that debate several other matters cropped up which were not perhaps quite germane, or if germane were not exactly

947
specifically directed to the Question which I asked. The noble Earl dealt with a great many of those matters—he was very generous in his reply and we are very grateful to him—but he told us that as the Army Estimates had not then been settled he was not able to give specific replies on all the various matters that were raised. The Army Estimates have now been published, so perhaps I may be allowed to ask for a little further information about the Army. The noble Earl told us that the Government adhered to the statement of intentions as to the Territorial Army which was made by my right hon. friend Sir Laming Worthington-Evans to the Central Council of Territorial Associations in 1925. That was very satisfactory. In the Estimates this year we see that the very considerable economies which they have made do not show a reduction in units. That seems to me—and I hope the noble Earl will be able to confirm it—to indicate that His Majesty's present Government hold the view that the existing number of cavalry and infantry units must not be cut clown. I trust I am right in my deduction.
But in spite of that there are two matters which seem to me rather disturbing in the Memorandum which accompanies the Estimates. The first of these is that in order to make the reduction a very heavy cut has been made in stores and in transport and supplies. I do not wish to be unduly critical in regard to this matter, because it is only the Government and the Army Council and their military advisers who are in full possession of all the facts and can say definitely whether such a heavy cut is really safe. And it is a very heavy cut. There is a reduction of £243,000 on Vote 6, for supplies, transport and remounts; £91,000 on Vote 8, for general stores, and no less than £540,000 on Vote 9, for war-like stores. That, of course, is a matter which is entirely within the responsibility of the Government and it is for them to decide whether such cuts are safe and right or whether they are not. I would like, however, to say one word on the subject—one word of warning, if I may. I know very well indeed what a temptation it is to try to make do for the year, to say: "We will put off renewals and replacement of stores for a year." But this may be false economy, because you
948
have got to make good the loss in the end. That is inevitable. If you do not it is a downright danger, because you have not stores adequate to meet your mobilisation needs, and if by any chance the unfortunate necessity arises for mobilisation you would not have the equipment ready and it would be impossible to mobilise the whole of your forces. So I do earnestly hope that in making these economies the Government have taken these matters into consideration.
There is another point. If we are assured that this cut is safe and that the Government have been quite correct in making these economies, I hope they will give the most careful consideration to store-keeping. I am a little bit afraid that there is a tendency in some quarters to economise in store-keeping, but the intricate and valuable and perishable articles which now form so large a part of our war-like stores render it most necessary that adequate and careful and skilled store-keepers should be employed to look after them. That is really true economy. I must say for myself—I am speaking now more of the Territorial Army—that I think storekeeping does require, especially in regard to such articles as leather, harness, instruments and so on, men who are skilled store-keepers; and I hope that, when my noble friend comes to look into his economies, he will spare the storekeepers as far as possible.
I turn to the second matter which gives me some cause for disquietude—a disquietude which is shared, as they have told us, by the Government themselves. I refer to the falling off in recruiting. We are told that the shortage amounts to some 10,000 men, and that, although an intake of 2,500 more has been estimated for, yet, if these actually materialise, they will not be sufficient to make good the shortage. I think this is an extremely serious state of affairs. We are told that you cannot allow the lowering of the physical standard, either dental or medical, so we are actually at bedrock and we cannot open the doors to recruiting by altering the medical standards. I sincerely hope the Government will do all they can—I am sure they will—to encourage recruiting during the next year. It seems rather peculiar that recruiting should have fallen in this way

949
when we see unemployment going up by leaps and bounds. The week before last more than 1,000 people lost their jobs every day, and last week that number was more than doubled. Yet the Army offers not only a means of livelihood and an assured pension, but, to men or ability, a great career—not only a military career, but one which may lead to good openings in civil life on leaving the Army. Although unemployment is rising, however, recruits are not readily forthcoming for the Army. I should like to say that I am very glad indeed that the Government have followed the policy of their predecessors in encouraging vocational training. I hope they will advertise and make as public as possible the opportunities for education which exist in the Army and for vocational training for jobs in civil life that are awaiting soldiers when they leave the Army. I think that, if this is known, it may serve to encourage recruiting.
I think we should all agree that it appears from the various sources of information at our disposal that the Regular Army, as it exists at present, has all it can do to carry out its peacetime functions and to supply the necessary troops for India, Egypt and various Colonial and foreign stations. This being so, if it is adequate at the moment, there is a very little margin for expansion if by any misfortune a considerable emergency should arise. If that considerable emergency were to arise, our sole means of expansion and our sole additional line of defence would lie in the Territorial Army. The more our military commitments grow and the more reductions the Regular Army is subjected to, the greater is the need for improving the Territorial Army. In fact at the present time it is strictly accurate to say that the Territorial Army is our sheet anchor in time of danger. I will return to that point, perhaps, in a moment.
I wish now to draw your Lordships' attention to the three Questions that I have put upon the Paper. The first is to ask what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the mechanisation of the Army. I venture to raise this Question because there have been various statements on the subject which perhaps have left people as obtuse as I am in some obscurity. We had a
950
very interesting debate the other day in which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, took part, and he told us that there was a great field for economy in a wise policy of mechanisation. I entirely agreed with him, as I think did most of your Lordships, and I ventured to indicate my agreement at the time. But my point is this. The policy of mechanisation ought, I think, to be resorted to not merely for the purpose of economy. That is a very important purpose, but I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the Government follow the policy of mechanisation, not only for purposes of economy but also in order to increase the power and efficiency of the Army as a whole.
What they actually say is, perhaps, a trifle vague. They tell us that
"the policy of mechanisation is being gradually extended as experience suggests and money permits."
That is not a very definite statement, but on the other hand, their concrete performances seem to be more satisfactory, because they tell us that the conversion of the 12th Lancers into a cavalry armoured car regiment is being proceeded with, and will be finished, I believe, by the end of the year. What is more important still, we are told that serious steps are being taken towards the mechanisation of the Territorial Army. I must say that those announcements are very satisfactory and seem to point to the fact that His Majesty's Government are in favour of a policy of mechanisation, not only on grounds of economy but with a view to securing the highest efficiency in the Army.
I come to my other points. I ventured to say just now that the more we reduce the Regular Army the more we come to rely for safety upon the Territorial Army. I am therefore glad to see that the Memorandum upon the Estimates re-echoed that which the noble Earl told us the other day—namely, that the Government realise how very important the Territorial Army is. Perhaps a little misgiving has been aroused in the minds of some of the Territorial Associations in regard to the revision of the clothing grant, and also the withdrawal of steel helmets, but that, if I may venture to say so, is not so important as the assurance that the broad policy of the Government is one that encourages the Territorial Army and recognises its great importance.
There is one matter which, I think, is of particular importance. I refer to the reductions in the permanent staff. I will not enlarge upon that point at present, because there is a Motion upon the Paper that we shall have an opportunity of discussing at a later date. If you reduce the permanent staff, I rather fear that the efficiency of Territorial Army training may be impaired. It is the peacetime training of the Territorial Army that is of such paramount importance. Efficient peace-time training is far more important than mere success in recruiting large numbers. If mobilisation should occur, the Territorial Army cannot take the field until they have trained their post-mobilisation recruits. You have to recruit up to war strength and then train your recruits, and, in order to do so (this is particularly important) you must have a number of highly trained and efficient Territorial officers and non-commissioned officers—and this, of course, includes the permanent staff—who must be available immediately mobilisation takes place, in order to train their men who are actually in the ranks and the post-mobilisation recruits, so that they can take the field in the shortest possible space of time.
This brings me to my other two Questions. Admittedly we depend largely on post-mobilisation recruiting and training, and we must have ready for the emergency of mobilisation the best available brains and the highest military ability and talent in the officers of the Regular Army, because they supply the Higher Command, the General Staff, the Administration Staff and so forth. They must be of the highest quality that we are capable of attracting to the Army. We also require a potential reserve of junior officers to enable the Army to expand rapidly and supply drafts in ease of casualties. Of course, the former type of officer, the Regular Army officer or man, passes through Woolwich and Sandhurst. Of course we have the University officers, but the main number of them are from Woolwich and Sandhurst, and for expansion we go to the Officers Training Corps. As regards Woolwich and Sandhurst, there are disquieting rumours abroad, and that is why I have put down a Question to ask about numbers. It seems that the numbers of young men who wish to join the Army are not so
952
great as some years ago, and I am afraid that the public schools will be a rather less promising field for recruiting young officers. Generally speaking, there seems to be a lack of public interest in the Army. It is reflected also, perhaps, in the recruiting figures to which I have alluded, and that lack of interest may be not unnatural as a reaction after the War. In these days of industrial depression and crushing taxation, also, parents are perhaps not quite so keen that their sons should go into the Army. It is not a profession which brings much money, and they may prefer that their sons should follow some calling where they will earn better salaries.
Then there is also the fear of being "axed" some day. In spite of that fact, even that danger of being "axed," I say that the Army offers a magnificent career to the young man who wishes to join. There is also perhaps the fear that if he is "axed" he will have no prospect in civil life afterwards. I have spoken to friends of mine who left the Army after the War and they tell me that they have found no difficulty in getting useful, interesting and valuable employment in civil life, and I think possibly that noble Lords who have been in the Army and have had experience will agree with me that the Army is no bad start for a young man. I am glad to see that Lord Thomson agrees with me. I have a small suggestion to offer, although I do not know whether it is new. If there is difficulty in getting young men to join the Army through Woolwich and Sandhurst, would, it not be possible to develop University candidates? I think the noble Earl will agree with me that they are equally good, and my suggestion is that if you have difficulty in getting young men for Woolwich and Sandhurst you should offer Army scholarships at the Universities to young men, to encourage them to join. If you did that you would, of course, require them to pass an examination and to give an undertaking that they would serve for a certain number of years in the Army. You would follow the lines of the system of training Engineer officers at Cambridge. I do not think that the State would lose because, as I have said, the University officer is on a par with the other officer, and I think perhaps the fear of being "axed" might be lessened, because a man would have a general

953
University education to fall back upon if, for any unfortunate reason, he was deprived of his career in the Army. I venture to put that forward for consideration.
Now I come to the Officers Training Corps, which costs, I see, £161,000 a year. Do we get full value for that money? The object is to provide a reserve of young men available in case of expansion, if necessary, and also to provide a certain number who join the Army or the Territorial Army every year. We have satisfactory evidence that they do so join to a certain extent, because no fewer than 1,000 passed through last year. I am, however, a little disturbed at what I hear about the Officers Training Corps. I have asked public school-boys what they think about it. Some have given a satisfactory answer, but others say they do not think much of it. It would appear to depend upon the tone of the school and upon the boys. I wish to know whether the noble Earl has any information on that point. If we could encourage the Officers Training Corps boys to take their service seriously, then I think we should have rendered a service to the Army. Then as to the question of figures. We are told that the reduction in the Estimates is £605,000, but it is really rather larger, because it does not take into account the cessation of receipts from Germany and Egypt. The noble Earl tells me that comparable figures of gross expenditure are available, which show that the amount for last year was £48,881,000, and this year the Estimate is £47,538,000, and therefore the reduction is £1,343,000. I thought it well to make that perfectly clear with regard to the economy made in the Estimates. I beg to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be suspended for the Royal Commission.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills, and Measures passed according to the provisions of Section four of the Church of England
954
Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, received the Royal Assent:—

Poor Law,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Gosport Extension),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Fylde Water Board),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bradford Extension),

Rothesay Tramways and Omnibuses Order Confirmation,

Parsonages Measure, 1930.

Archdeaconry of Surrey Measure, 1930,

Marriage Measure, 1930.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE ARMY.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of the Earl of Onslow for Papers regarding the Army.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of my noble friend. I fully agree with what he said about the shortage of men. The shortage of 10,000 men in the Regular Army cannot but be regarded, I think, as a very serious matter. When we know that the Territorial Army is also 3,000 men shorter than it was last year the matter becomes of rather great importance. My noble friend wanted to know, and I think he asked the noble Earl opposite, what were the main causes of this shortage in recruiting last year. I might save the noble Earl the trouble of replying and answer my noble friend myself, because I think the answer is to be found on page 5, in paragraph 2 of the Blue-book "The General Annual Report on the British Army for the Year ending 30th September, 1929." The first item in the second paragraph, which deals with factors affecting recruiting, is—
"Expectations of a large increase in the unemployment benefit."
Other reasons are given as well, but I think that is most likely to be the principal cause of shortage. I must say that I believe that is one of the bad effects which the recent legislation of this Government will have.
I should like now also to bear out what my noble friend said about the Officers

955
Training Corps. Like him, I talk to boys at public schools about the Officers Training Corps, and I cannot think that the conditions are altogether satisfactory. From what I have heard, I am inclined to think that sometimes the work is—I do not like to say such a thing—really a little too hard, especially in the hot weather in the summer, if it happens to be very hot in the month of August when they go to camp. At other times, I have talked to boys who, instead of treating the Officers Training Corps as a serious military force, appear to treat it rather as a joke. That is all right up to a point, but if it is carried too far I do not think it is a very good thing. One objection to the camp—and I should like the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) to take notice of this if he will—is that it is always in the first week of the holidays. I think, possibly, if it were held in the last week of the term that it would be more popular with the boys, but I quite understand that the War Office probably are not free agents. They might have to get the permission of the headmasters, which might be difficult to obtain. That is all I want to say on those matters.
There are, however, two points about which I desire information, and of which I have given the noble Earl private notice. I hope he will be able to enlighten me upon them. First of all, I should very much like to know—and a good many noble Lords would like to know—details about the new curriculum of the Royal Military College. I do not know anything in detail, but I hear that the riding has been reduced by 50 per cent., the drill has been reduced by 50 per cent., physical training by the same amount, and musketry has been abolished altogether. In place of these things there are a great many more lectures, I fancy on subjects like history and political economy. In fact, the whole trend is to make the Royal Military College more like a University. I am not saying this is wrong. One gets out of date in these things, but to my mind it is rather a revolutionary proceeding. I should very much like to know from the noble Earl if he will tell me what induced the General Staff to make this radical change in the curriculum at the College, and for what purpose it is done. It may be all very well to make the Royal Military College less of a military institution and
956
more of a University, but I hope very much that it does not mean that discipline is going to be relaxed, because when boys go to Sandhurst at about the age of seventeen and a-half to nineteen that is the very time at which they mostly want discipline. I do not think it would be at all a good thing if they were allowed too much freedom. The old military discipline, after all, turned out exceedingly fine officers, and it would not be a good thing if it were to be relaxed now in any serious degree.
The second point that I should like information about is this: On what system does the War Office go in ordering battalions of foot guards on foreign service? As your Lordships may know, during the last thirty-five years battalions of foot guards have from time to time been sent on foreign service. There was one time when there was supposed to be a brigade of three battalions always at Gibraltar. It is some time ago, and I think that was interrupted by the South African War. After that, the experiment was tried, which has gone on ever since, of sending a brigade to Aldershot, I think with very good results. Then, about 1906, a battalion of Coldstream Guards went to Egypt. They were relieved three or four years later by a battalion of Scots Guards, and after the War a brigade was sent to Constantinople. That was under special circumstances, and when they left Constantinople, the 1st Battalion Irish Guards was detained at Gibraltar, where it did service for one year. Since then the system seems to have lapsed, and three or four years later the 2nd Battalion of the Coldstream Guards was sent to Shanghai. That again was a special purpose. Last year the Welsh Guards were sent to Cairo, and I hear they are going to be relieved in October by the 1st Battalion of the Grenadiers.
I do not say that is a bad thing; I think it is a very good thing; and I am quite sure that the majority of the officers and men of the Brigade of Guards like going abroad and seeing foreign countries. I think it is good for the brigade to see foreign garrisons and see troops of the line and other arms, and know their difficulties. I also think it is a good thing for those other troops to see these magnificent troops of His

957
Majesty with their smartness of turn-out and drill, and their glorious record, second to none in the world, whom otherwise they might never see except in pictures. I think it is a very good thing; but I want to know on what system the War Office are working. Are we to understand that in futurs there is always to be a battalion of foot guards on duty in foreign stations? I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time any further, and I shall be much obliged if the noble Earl can give me an answer to the points I have raised.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to a number of subjects, and I will do my best to answer him on all questions of fact. He will, of course, realise that on questions of policy I cannot at the moment tell him very much, because, owing to the tragic happening that has already been referred to in your Lordships' House today, the debate on the Army Estimates that was to have taken place yesterday in the House of Commons has been postponed until, I think, Monday. The Secretary of State will then naturally make his pronouncement on general questions of Army policy according to the conclusions to which he has come during his nine months' period of office.
The first question to which the noble Earl refers in his Notice is the diminution in strength of the British Army. There are two points upon that. The first is that establishments have been reduced by 1,600. The reason for those reductions are really fourfold. The first is due to reductions of administrative services owing to the recall of the Army from the Rhine. It is found possible to administer them much more cheaply and with fewer services in this country than abroad. The second is the completion of the disbandment of horsed-transport companies—the Royal Army Service Corps. The third is the diminution of the additional number of troops that were needed on account of troops that were employed in China, and the fourth is the automatic reduction that goes on from year to year as a result of the continuous revision of Army establishments which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be acquainted with. As regards strength—and I take it that is the point of the noble Earl—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Recruiting.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. Actually at the present moment the Army, including the Army in India, is short of its establishment by 10,000 men.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Is that including the Army in India?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. No less than 6,000 of that shortage is in the infantry units at home. This question of recruiting is always a very difficult one to discuss and to give any specific reasons for. This question was alluded to the other day with reference to the Territorial Army and one noble Lord—I think it was Lord Templemore—seemed to imply, I think, that the reduction had taken place in recruiting since this Government came into office.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: No, no. I never said anything of the kind.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, I think somebody else did. As a matter of fact it really is almost impossible to say why recruiting is sometimes good and sometimes bad. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has made one suggestion, that it is due to unemployment insurance.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It is in your Report.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, it is, but whether that is true or not I would not like to say. It has been suggested as a possible reason.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It is the first reason there.
EARL DE LA WARR: It has been suggested that it may be, but there have been periods of good recruiting and periods of bad recruiting before, and certainly as far as I can see from the figures recruiting was no better before the passage of this Act than after, so probably you may say that it is possible to put too much stress on that point.
The other point that the noble Earl has raised is as to the policy of the Government in regard to the mechanisation of the Army. The noble Earl has asked whether the primary object of mechanisation is efficiency or economy. I think I can answer that question. The primary object of mechanisation is the efficiency of the Army.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: Of course the fact that to a certain extent it sometimes leads to economy will naturally affect the pace at which it will be possible to adopt mechanisation in particular cases. At the present moment we have steps taken—I think the noble Lord has already referred to this—for the completion of the mechanisation of the 12th Lancers. Experiments have been proceeding during the past three years designed to ascertain the equipment which is most suitable for military needs, and the organisation and tactics best suited, because obviously it would mean otherwise going in for a very large-scale adoption of mechanisation before we know exactly what is needed. Those experiments are being carried on at the present moment, not only in research establishments and on special testing grounds, but actually with troops in the field. Those experiments are being continued.
The next point to which I think the noble Earl referred was the Officers Training Corps. The present position of the Officers Training Corps is that its strength on October 1, 1929, was 39,878, as compared with 38,929, an increase of nearly 1,000. During the year ended December 31, 1929, the number of officers supplied by the Officers Training Corps was 1,052 as compared with 1,026 in 1928. There were 406 who went to the Regular Army, ninety-five to the Supplementary Reserve, and the remaining 551 to the Territorial Army. As to the future policy in regard to this Corps, I cannot anticipate the speech of my right hon. friend when he introduces his Estimates on Monday.
Another point the noble Earl referred to was the question of Woolwich and Sandhurst, and whether the establishment of cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich is full. I think the noble Earl is probably aware that there is not a fixed establishment for either Woolwich or Sandhurst. The number of vacancies thrown open to competition is decided on the occasion of each entrance examination, having regard to various considerations including the probable number of vacancies in the establishment of officers of the Regular Army which the incoming batch of cadets will be required to fill. At present there are 195 cadets at Woolwich and 523 at Sandhurst, as compared with 225 at Woolwich and 480 at Sandhurst last year.
960
You will see that there is a decrease at Woolwich and an increase at Sandhurst and the aggregate is slightly in favour of this year. There are thirteen more this year. Of these, 185 from Woolwich and 389 from Sandhurst will be going into the British Army compared with 217 and 401 respectively a year ago.
Regarding the new course and curriculum at Sandhurst to which Lord Templemore referred, the object of the new syllabus at Sandhurst is, as he said, to increase the general education that is given. That aim is really, I think, in accordance with the suggestion that was put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in favour of an increased number of University entrants into the Army. The idea—and I understand it is favoured by many soldiers—is to have a greater number of men in the Army with a good general education. That is the idea behind this new syllabus at Sandhurst. As the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, said, parts of the technical military instruction such as musketry courses—I think he referred also to riding—have been either abolished or decreased and arrangements have been made for young officers to receive this technical instruction later on when they join their units or at extra-regimental courses. Time has also been saved by reducing the number of end-of-term examinations, and by some reduction in drill periods. In order to make better use of the instructional personnel the old company system has been retained only for administration and discipline. I think that touches on another point to which the noble Earl alluded. The officers have been put according to the subjects of instruction under chief instructors in charge of groups. Those really are the main features of the alteration in the course at Sandhurst.
There is one other point to which the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, referred, and that is the employment of Guards battalions abroad. At present the position is that we have more battalions abroad than we have at home. It is necessary, therefore, to keep some home service battalions on duty in the Mediterranean and in Egypt, and it was considered reasonable—and I think the noble Lord agreed—that the Guards battalions should take their turn. With regard to the future, it is difficult to say what will happen, because it really depends on the

961
future of our commitments abroad and how far it is going to be necessary to maintain the existing balance of more battalions abroad than we have at home. I am afraid that this is really all the information that I can give the noble Lord on that point. I have tried to answer all the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, put to me on all points of fact. On questions of policy my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will be making his annual statement on Monday, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will excuse any lack of information on policy in my remarks.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am not quite clear from the reply of the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as to the conditions with regard to the establishments at Woolwich and Sandhurst. The noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, told us that the figures of the establishments at both the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College were moveable. One has always understood that. The authorities state that there will be so many vacancies for gentlemen cadets as each term comes round. What I fancy the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wanted to ascertain was whether those moveable establishments are filled up. In other words, do you get enough gentlemen cadets of the standard that is laid down for entrance? That, I think, is what one wants to know.
EARL DE LA WARR: The question really is whether we are up to our demands. I think it has to be admitted that the applicants for Commissions have not lately been entirely up to our hopes. I cannot go further than that. There is a certain shortage at the moment of officers' establishments. I think the shortage is round about 200 for the whole Army, and it is at the moment not met from the cadets' establishments at Woolwich and Sandhurst.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the various answers that he has given to my Questions. On the subject of recruiting, it seems to me that the most interesting part of the reply was really given by my noble friend behind me when he quoted from the Annual Report on the Army, which says that, among the factors affecting recruiting, one is the expectation
962
of a large increase in unemployment benefit. It is rather alarming, I think, when we find an official document, issued by command of the Army Council, admitting that, in consequence of recent action of the Government, people are refraining from taking employment that is open to them in the Army. I think that this is an admission of which it is almost impossible to exaggerate the seriousness. I can only congratulate your Lordships' House on the wisdom which it showed in insisting that the recent Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill should be temporary in character. An opportunity will be available for revising that measure, if it has brought about the unfortunate result which the Government seem to attribute to it. We are told also that the falling off is due in fact to an increase in employment in certain industrial districts. It would be interesting to know where those industrial districts are, but I will not pursue the point further.
I was very glad to hear what the noble Earl was able to tell us about mechanisation, and I welcome his assurance that efficiency in the Army is the first consideration. That is a very satisfactory reply. Of course, mechanisation does lead to great economy in due course. Possibly the first outlay may cost a little more, but in the long run I think the noble Earl will find that mechanisation leads to economy as well as efficiency. I was glad to hear what the noble Earl told us about the continuation of experiments with mechanised vehicles, equipment and so forth.
When I came to the last two Questions that I had to ask, I think the noble Earl was a little short of information. He was not able to tell me whether I was right or wrong in regard to the feeling in public schools about the Officers Training Corps. He said that more would be said on this subject in the debate on the Estimates in another place. Of course we know that debates on these matters take place elsewhere, but, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, and admitted by the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, we are entitled to ask Ministers, especially Ministers who directly represent Departments, for information on the subject of their Departments, regardless of what may be done in another place. I think that is the in-

963
alienable right of your Lordships' House, and has been admitted by all Parties. In answer to my Question whether any alteration is contemplated in regard to the Officers Training Corps, I only gathered that some alteration is contemplated and that it will be announced by the Secretary of State on Monday.
EARL DE LA WARR: I did not mean to imply anything. I only said that the matter would be dealt with on Monday, in so far as it was going to be dealt with.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Anyhow we shall be told on Monday what is going to be done in regard to the Officers Training Corps and, when we hear what it is, we shall perhaps have an opportunity of discussing the matter in your Lordships' House. What the noble Earl told us about the establishments in the Royal Military College and the Royal Military Academy was not, I think, very satisfactory. The only satisfactory element in his reply was that it elicited a speech from my noble friend Lord Mersey. I think this is the first time that the noble Viscount has addressed your Lordships' House, and on such an occasion your Lordships invariably extend a word of congratulation to a member of the House who makes his maiden speech. It was a very valuable speech and it obtained an answer to my question which shows that all is not well at the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College, and that there is a disappointing shortage in the numbers of cadets coming forward. I
964
hope that the Government will take every step they can to increase the number of people who join the Army. Perhaps they will consider the humble suggestion that I ventured to put forward earlier in this debate.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Templemore, the noble Earl said that the object of the change in the curriculum was to assimilate education at Sandhurst to that of the Universities and to give it a more general character. I did not actually say that I thought it was desirable to assimilate the Royal Military College to the Universities. I am not quite sure that it is, because the officers who join the Army through Sandhurst join at an earlier age than those who join through the Universities. I am doubtful whether we should be well advised in having all the officers trained in the same way on University lines. I think that in all probability we require a certain number of junior officers trained on the lines on which they have hitherto been trained at Sandhurst. That is a personal opinion which arises out of the reply of the noble Earl. I do not think I have any more to say, except to thank the noble Earl for what he has told us. It was very interesting. I do not think that he wishes to lay any Papers, and, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.