Lords Sitting of 4 February 1931

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD HYNDLEY.
Sir John Scott Hindley, Baronet, having been created Baron Hyndley, of Meads in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD RUTHERFORD OF NELSON.
Sir Ernest Rutherford, Knight, O.M., having been created Baron Rutherford of Nelson, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridge—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NEATH CANAL NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ROYSTON AND BRODSWORTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CADET CORPS: CERTIFICATE A.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to call attention to the injustice inflicted on boys educated at schools where there is no officers training corps by the withdrawal of the privilege of gaining an A certificate through their school cadet corps; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will remember that last year, although a sum of £10,700 was provided for in the Estimates for the grants

805
to cadets, and in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State for War, in the usual Memorandum which accompanied the Estimates, quoted with pride and satisfaction—so it seemed to me—the success which had attended the efforts of the cadets during the year preceding the issue of the Estimates, a sudden volte face was executed before the Estimate was actually presented to the House of Commons and the grant was withdrawn. The cadet corps was condemned by the Secretary of State for War on educational and moral grounds, and every kind of recognition was withdrawn from it as from November 1 last. I do not want to raise again the whole of that question, because it was fully discussed in your Lordships' House last March. I will only say that the condemnation which your Lordships gave to the action of the Government on that occasion has been fully confirmed and endorsed throughout the country since, especially by those who have anything to do with, or know anything whatever about, the training and education of boys.
Of course, the noble Lord who will reply for the Government on this Question had nothing whatever to do with the action of the Secretary of State for War, because he did not then fill the responsible post which he now holds; another noble Lord stood in his place. So I would appeal to him for his sympathy towards these unfortunate boys and I hope I shall not appeal in vain. When the noble Lord entered on his career he chose, voluntarily as we all do, to be an officer. He joined one of the most distinguished corps in His Majesty's Service, and in that corps during peace and war he earned great distinction. I hope, therefore, that he will do all he can to help these unfortunate people who have been penalised by the action of the Secretary of State for War.
The main point I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is the prejudicial action of the Secretary of State in regard to boys educated in certain schools. A certificate of proficiency, generally known as certificate A, was obtainable until last November, both by boys belonging to an officers training corps and those belonging to a cadet corps. Most secondary schools have either an officers training corps or a cadet corps. There is not, however, any particular reason
806
why a school should have one or the other. There is not enough money to give an officers training corps to every school, and so it happens that some schools may not be able to possess one and have a cadet corps instead. But so far as certificate A was concerned equality of opportunity existed and, whether a boy joined a cadet corps or an officers training corps, he could get one.
This certificate is a valuable asset to any boy. If he is going into the Army he is able to count a certain percentage of the marks obtained in the certificate examination towards the necessary total for admission to Sandhurst or Woolwich. Obviously, a boy who is not at a school possessing an officers training corps will be under a disability in that respect. But that is not the only or, indeed, the main point perhaps in regard to which certificate A itself is valuable. It is valuable to a boy who has it in other openings in life totally unconnected with the Army. I am assured on the very best grounds possible that many business firms regard the possession of this certificate as a great recommendation and give preference to a boy having one over a boy who has not. So there is a differentiation made by the Government against those who are not at a school where such a certificate is obtainable.
It happens in many cases, though not in all, that the schools where the certificate cannot now be obtained are schools where boys are educated who do not happen to be so generously blessed with this world's goods as other boys attending other schools. What is the reason for this differentiation and penalisation of one school against another? Of course, it may simply be ineptitude. If that were the case it would not be unduly surprising, because I think we have heard of cases of ineptitude on the part of a Socialist Government before, and this would not be a singular example. But when, last year, they were thinking of doing this, what regard had they to the principle of equality of opportunity about which members of the Socialist Party prate so loudly upon election platforms? Is that merely an election cry? Is it so thin a principle that the first puff of criticism from some other source is able to blow it away? If so, it has

807
proved a very ragged garment to cover the ugly nakedness of Socialism.
I gave Notice of this Question some time ago, but last night in answer to a Question in another place the Secretary of State gave some sort of indication of what we are to hear this afternoon from the noble Lord opposite. Apparently, somewhat late in the day the Secretary of State has recognised the disparity between platform pledges and administrative performance, and, in order to restore equality of opportunity, he resorts to the somewhat crude method of two wrongs making a right and withdraws the privilege of counting marks for certificate A from those who have passed through an officers training corps. This is a very thin pretence really because, as I say, the certificate itself has an intrinsic value. It is valuable not solely because it helps a boy to get into Sandhurst or Woolwich but because it is a recommendation to him for employment in civil life.
What the Government are proposing to do—namely, to withdraw the privilege of counting marks in the entrance examination—will undoubtedly belittle the value of the training given in the officers training corps. One rather wonders at that. Is the present action simply a dodge to get the Government out of a disagreeable hole which they have got themselves into by want of forethought, or has it a more sinister meaning? Is it a Machiavelian design upon the officers training corps? We know that there are enemies of the officers training corps and that they are the same as the enemies of the cadets. I read in the newspapers that deputations have recently been to the War Office from the Society for the Prevention of War, I think it is called, and from headmasters or those connected with officers training corps who, presumably, know their business and who urge, undoubtedly, the retention of those corps on educational and moral grounds.
From what we have seen in the newspapers and from what was said last night in another place, it would seem that there is in the air an attack on the officers training corps. One wonders whether this action in regard to the certificate is a further example of that attack. Last year the cadets were assassinated from behind an ambush. They were provided for in the Estimates and then they were
808
suddenly slaughtered at the very last moment without any warning. When the Secretary of State was called into question we were presented with a fait accompli. I hope that that will not happen again. If there is to be any attack on the officers training corps I hope that all who are interested therein will do everything they possibly can to resist it at once, and that everybody who wishes to see those corps retained will take every opportunity to raise their voices in protest against the attack upon them.
When they do so I hope they will not forget to read the remarks which were made by Mr. Shaw in another place last year. I think they are so interesting that I might perhaps read a short quotation from them. He said that—
"Officers training corps are really valuable organisations for providing a future supply of officers for the Army. So long as armies exist on a voluntary basis, there will have to be some form of recruiting."
That shows that, at any rate last year, whatever may happen this year, the Government recognised the value of the officers training corps. The matter is a very serious one for the officers training corps. The other day, at the United Services Institute I think it was, there was a lecture on the question of the provision of officers for the Army, and it was stated on authoritative grounds that there were no less than 200 officers short in the Army. I would ask your Lordships whether this is a moment to discourage in any way the training of officers for the Army when they are 200 below strength, if that is a correct figure. I hope when I ask this Question that I may appeal to the noble and gallant Lord and to his own distinguished career as an officer to assist these boys who wish to enter the Army or to enter any other branch of His Majesty's Service, and also to gain training and education in the officers training corps.
VISCOUNT ALLENBY: My Lords, I associate myself with every word the noble Earl has uttered. I think it may be of interest to your Lordships if I say a few words about the present state of the cadet movement. The history of the cadets is no doubt familiar. In 1859 the movement began, received official recognition, grew in power and in favour, and branched out into the Church Lads' Brigade, Boys' Brigade, Catholic Brigade,

809
Jewish Lads' Brigade, and, so on, touching every class of boyhood, school, club and institution and every phase of the education of the boys of the kingdom. In those days military authority regarded the cadets with benevolence and volunteer Commissions were issued to cadet officers. In 1907 the newly-formed Territorial Associations were empowered to raise cadet units, and Commissions were then issued by Lords-Lieutenant of counties. A small grant was made per company, and in 1910 affiliation to the Territorial Force was adopted. Then the cadet corps of the greater public schools were formed into special training corps for the production of officers, and after that; the main training of Territorial cadets was the business of the public secondary schools.
In 1914 the cadets had a strength of 40,000, and they flowed freely into the Army. In 1915 battalions were formed for the training of the younger boys to go more into the Army as they grew up. The strength of the forces had by 1921 risen to 120,000, but between 1922 and 1930 the movement suffered a series of setbacks and received what was intended to be its death blow on the 31st of October. Some of us representing cadets and cadet organisations had been warned of what was going to happen, and by the time the blow fell we had already taken steps to maintain alive the cadet movement. When the Government withdrew recognition control also ceased, and it stands to reason that without a controlling authority chaos must ensue and the movement must collapse. And this at a time when the physical training which the cadet force gives to the youth of the country is more Important than perhaps ever before.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a paragraph in The Times of January 26 last. It reads as follows:—
"Khilaroff, official spokesman of the Young Communist International, K.I.M., reported to the Congress of the Communist League of Youth on the K.I.M.'s activity abroad. The Congress decided to instruct the K.I.M. to force the pace among the youth of England and other countries."
So we formed a British National Cadet Association to take the place of the central council, bind together all cadet bodies throughout the land and provide a central authority, the Federal Council, charged with representing and supporting the cadet interest. We have been
810
in existence now for a little over three months, but we can already count on the adherence of practically all cadet units throughout the country, and of their counties. Nearly all the counties have established cadet associations affiliated to our Federal Council, and in close accord with us. These county committees are formed in each county. London, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee each constitute a county in themselves, apart from the main counties. Every committee, under its own president and chairman, is responsible for organisation, patronage, administration and maintenance of its units, and each unit decides on the nature and methods of the training to be pursued, subject only to the regulations of the Federal Council and to what is permissible by law. We are nothing if not law-abiding.
We have with us the Church Lads' Brigade, the Public Secondary Schools Cadet Association, the Jewish Lads, the Catholic Cadets, and the Polytechnic Schools, besides others, and we confidently hope that we have, as friends of the cadets, saved them from the assault of their powerful enemies—enemies who, I am happy to say, are not almighty. At any rate the response received from all well-wishers throughout the land has proved that, despite the withdrawal of the Government recognition, we have still in the country, we hope, many powerful and good friends who recognise the benefits which accrue to the youth of the country from the cadet movement, who realise the value of the training, and who appreciate the fact that discipline and the lasting moral effect and enduring influence of combined training in early life, are essential if the youth of the country is to maintain that fibre and morale which have always characterised our British youth.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, no one in this House can appreciate more than I do the remarks that have been made by my fellow Field Marshal. I must take you back to 1907, when, at midnight, I received a huge packet from the Earl of Meath to say: "I have got to go to Ireland at a moment's notice, and you have to take this brief to the House of Lords to-morrow morning." I had to get up at four o'clock in the morning and go to a yeomanry inspection in Hertfordshire and I only got back by the skin

811
of my teeth in time to bring forward the proposal. It was really analogous to the one we have now before the House. Mr. Haldane, as he then was, the Secretary of State for War, had spoken most warmly on the subject, but he had then made a sudden volte face and there was a very important change for the youth of the country. What he said before was:—
"They wanted the youth of the nation to undergo training so that they would keep the reservoir always filled—namely, the national Army of 300,000. They wanted to work the cadet corps into a much more important position than they had been up to the present, and by so doing they would allay fear and give people a sense of security such as they had not hitherto had …. Could anyone look"—
now mark these words—
"upon a first-rate cadet corps without feeling that everyone in it was better and stronger morally and mentally? It helped him in life and in employment. It helped him to be a better citizen, not only for military but for civilian duties. From every point of view, the cadet corps were things to be encouraged in the interests of the nation."
Surely that is our feeling now.
It seems to me in reading that quotation very much like taking for my speech a text from the grave. In addition to that, we had help from Dr. Warre of Eton and many other headmasters, and I had also the support of Lord Roberts and Lord Lansdowne, who was then our Leader, and Lord Rosebery, speaking I think for almost the last time in this House, supported me most warmly. At that time, the Government Bench was rather more crowded than it is at present. The Government had a larger phalanx of supporters. What does the Secretary of State mean by this action? Does he mean economy? With a Government that is so lavish with the money of others, I should think not. Does he ever consult the Army Council? I know perfectly well the feelings of the Chief of Staff and I know perfectly well what the Adjutant-General thinks, because he will be at my Church Lads' Brigade dinner. I may say I succeeded Lord Chelmsford as head of the Church Lads' Brigade until I had to go to South Africa. I was succeeded by Lord Grenfell and the very first thing they did was to make it into a battalion, and that battalion did honour to any brigade it went to, and gained more than its share of Victoria Crosses. I shall be
812
Chairman next May at the dinner of the Church Lads' Brigade and I know I shall have with me at that dinner the Adjutant-General.
We have heard talk about militarism. Well, what is militarism? What harm can it do? We are not a military nation and we never shall be a military nation. We are a warlike nation. We feel that we have the responsibility for the large dependencies of the Empire and that it is our duty to support the honour of our kingdom as it has been in the past. I only want to say further, in reference to the Church Lads' Brigade, that I had on my Committee the late Bishop of Salisbury and that Church and Army worked together thoroughly well with the feeling that no greater work could be done than to support your country and your God. That is the spirit that I want to see in this country all through. It has always been so and it is to be so. It was that spirit which, when I was a boy, induced me to go into the Army, and from 1864 until now in my old age I have held that spirit and shall until I cross the bar. What I am saying now is what I have said before, that it is for your Lordships—never mind what they say in another place or what mistake is made by the Secretary of State for War —to let the country know that your spirit is the spirit of the past, and that is the reason why I have spoken to-day.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I hope you will bear with me for a few moments if I follow the striking speech made by the Field Marshal who has just sat down and who speaks from a fund of experience and knowledge on this subject that I suppose no member of your Lordships' House can equal. The question which is under discussion seems to me to be one which raises issues a great deal wider than those contained in the words of the Question. What is the real meaning, what is the real justification of the action which has been taken in regard to the cadets?—action which undoubtedly has a bad effect upon recruiting at a time when both the regular Army and the Territorial Army are short of men and short of officers. Lord Methuen said with great truth that we are not a militarist nation. We are, I think, as he said, a martial nation, but we are martial only in the sense that we desire to defend our

813
own country and our own Empire; aggression is very far indeed from our thoughts.
There is something mysterious about the whole of this action and I do not think the country has ever been told upon what grounds it has been taken. Are we to take it as a hypothesis that training to arms in a very rudimentary form induces a desire for war and makes people inclined to be brutal and bloodthirsty? I would venture to say that the lower class of cinema may have such an effect, but that no training afforded by a cadet corps or an officers training corps makes the slightest contribution towards that end. But if it be the hypothesis that cadet training militarises people and makes them aggressive, it would be a good thing, I think, if your Lordships had the evidence on which that opinion rests. It is true, of course, that some countries have militarist traditions. There are countries where the old hereditary habit of every man being against his neighbour and every tribe being antagonistic to the next, where the feeling that it is a man's business to fight, primarily if not solely, still prevails. But we have got a long way from that in these countries of the West of Europe. Let us take, as an object lesson, Switzerland. Switzerland is a country where military training is universal. Training of the citizens is limited only by what the Government can afford. The training begins when the boys are taught to shoot with the cross-bow even before they are allowed to handle a rifle. The training of citizens is universal and has been so for hundreds of years, and yet Switzerland has never been aggressive. If military training made people aggressive and inclined to encroach on their neighbours, surely Switzerland would have been the cockpit of Europe before now, instead of the Low Countries.
In this country the professional soldier has been nurtured and trained to arms and to all that war implies ever since he was a boy, and if the hypothesis that I have suggested is to be taken as a true one, what are we to expect of our Generals and our General Staff? Surely, they must be fire-eaters of the most terrible description, and we can picture to ourselves the Secretary of State, as, I suppose, a pacifist, like Daniel in the den of lions, with no protection from the fire-eaters except that which he might
814
get from the Civil Service. I venture to think that we all know the humanity and tenderness of the officers and men of the British Army, which have always been notable both in war and in peace, and that there is no brutalising tendency at all in such training as is given for military purposes in this country, least of all the training in a rudimentary form, and even with dummy weapons, such as the cadets are allowed to have. Accordingly I think that it would enlighten not only your Lordships' House but the country if we might be told what is the justification for this idea—if it indeed is this idea, and not a mere idea of economy—which has produced the action that has been taken by the Government.
There is additional interest in knowing more about it because we do not know how far it is proposed to extend this principle. If such training, if playing with dummy weapons, is demoralising to boys and children, surely we ought to stop the importation of lead soldiers and toy guns. It is not clear that the officers training corps will not be interfered with; and yet we know that at this particular moment those corps are most valuable to that expansion of the Regular Army which it is most necessary to provide so long as we have an Army which may, in a distant but not impossible emergency, be called upon to fight. If this principle is to be extended, if there is to be an attack first upon the junior officers training corps and then upon the senior, I think it is desirable that the country should know what is in front of it. We are all, I hope capable of being convinced by good argument based upon good reasons, but it appears to me that so far no case has been made out for the action that has been taken, while the mysterious way in which it has been taken can only be a cause of anxiety to those who are interested in the officers training corps as well as in the cadet corps.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, I think that no more words are needed to convey the general feeling which, I realise, runs throughout the House at the present moment, but I should be sorry if, owing to the sparse occupation of these Benches, no further voice were raised from among those who habitually occupy them to express the feeling which I hold most strongly, and which is shared, I

815
think, by many of those who act with me on these Benches and equally feel the desirability of expressing in the strongest possible terms our condemnation of the action of the Socialist Secretary of State for War in this matter of the cadets and —for it appears that the same policy is to be continued—the officers training corps. I have had some experience, though I hesitate to put it forward after the distinguished officers who have already spoken, both in this country and in a great Dominion in the raising, training and organisation of cadet corps, and I can only say that I have seen the most admirable results arising from the organisation of these corps, and I have realised the value that has been placed upon them in the great Dominion in which I served for ninny years.
To speak of this as militarism is absurd. Is it militarism to know how to behave like gentlemen? That is the first thing that we try to teach cadets. It seems an extraordinary idea that, because boys have been put into uniform, they must be spoken of as soldiers and have attached to them that stigma which I thought had long ago been wiped out in this country. As I listened to this debate my thoughts went to the Secretary of State for War himself. It so happened that in the latter part of the War, when we had after an unconscionably long period of hesitation adopted a system of National Service, he and I were serving the nation in the same capacity in different parts of this country. I often had to meet him in connection with the work of raising recruits under the National Service scheme. I wonder if he ever found in his district what I know was the case in mine—namely, that with all the cadet corps the difficulty had been to prevent the boys from going before they had reached the proper age. In many cases when they should have reached military age and we looked for them, they had already died at the front. Those are facts that I know, and they show that the training was a training which brought out, as my noble friend Lord Methuen has said, the finest ideals of citizenship, those of sacrifice for King and country.
I can only say that, from my experience as a soldier, it is the finest training that can be given to boys, because from the very beginning a certain amount of self-sacrifice is involved. There may be other
816
amusements which are more attractive to boys than going through their regular duty as cadets, but they do it willingly, and there grows up amongst them a comradeship which is most valuable to them in civil life, and a feeling of mutual assistance which is of the greatest value to the country. I sincerely hope that the efforts of the noble Earl who raised the Question may have some influence on the authorities.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I will try to deal with this question from the point of view of giving the maximum possible information to the House. May I say at the beginning that I am quite sure that I interpret the opinion of the House when I say how very glad we are to have the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Methuen, amongst us again. He is remembered throughout the Army with much affection by all those who have known him in the past. The Question on the Paper deals specifically with the cadets, and I am quite certain that the noble Earl who put this Question will not expect me to follow him in his interpretation of the action of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State in connection with the cadets. It was, if I may say so, not an accurate picture of the attitude of my right hon. friend, as, of course, the noble Earl knows. Surely the whole question at that time was the question solely of the military value of the cadets, not of their value as a national asset, and the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Allenby, who told us a number of exceedingly interesting facts about the present organisation of these cadets, knows that members of the Government have done their best to assist him in adding to the amenities of the boys in their annual camps, and other matters. We who have had anything to do with the training of youth in the country know that these cadets corps and similar organisations, such as the Boy Scouts, are of great value, and we wish them all success.
The question we are dealing with today is another question—namely, the question of certificate A. It may be convenient to your Lordships if in the first place I read the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a Question on this subject in another place. The reply runs as follows:—

817
"At the only examination held since the withdrawal of recognition from cadet corps on 31st October last no candidate from schools having had such corps has, so far as I am aware, been excluded from these colleges because of the fact that he had not certificate A. As regards future examinations for these two colleges, all present holders of the certificate and those who are already on the way to obtaining one and do so by 31st March next, will retain for competitive purposes the privileges of the additional marks which certificate A has up to now given. But apart from present holders and those who obtain the certificate by 31st March next, the privilege of counting extra marks in respect of certificate A will be withdrawn."
He then goes on to deal with the question of candidates who will not have certificate A, and he points out that full particulars will be published in the Press and communicated to the schools concerned as soon as possible. I am dealing, of course, with the cadets.
EARL PEEL: Not the officers training corps?
LORD MARLEY: I am dealing with the cadets. With regard to the policy of the officers training corps, I do not propose to deal with that, to-day, except to say that the question of policy with regard to the officers training corps must be dealt with by my right hon. friend in another place in his Estimates announcement, and therefore I cannot trespass on the announcement which he will have to make in that connection. For that reason I must confine my remarks to the cadets. However, I do think that in preparation for the expression of feelings which noble Lords may have in connection with any future policy, or with the position at present, noble Lords may like to have some accurate information as to what certificate A is. I have got here a copy of certificate A, which certifies that officers of certain contingents have fulfilled the necessary conditions as to efficient service, and have qualified in the syllabus examination as laid down in various Regulations. Certificate A is given on passing a written and a practical test in certain military subjects, and can be obtained by members of the officers training corps who are sixteen years of age and have two years' efficient service in that corps.
In the past it could be obtained by members of recognised cadet corps with similar qualifications, but since the with-
818
drawal of recognition from the cadet units members of these units can no longer obtain certificate A. The point of the Question is the injustice which is alleged to arise by reason of the fact that holders of certificate A will no longer be able to get the marks they used to obtain in the entrance examinations for Woolwich and Sandhurst. It will, I am sure, be information to many of your Lordships that holders of certificate A are credited with certain additional marks under the regulations for admission to Woolwich and Sandhurst. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the precise amount of the addition is 25 per cent. of the marks obtained in the certificate A examination. This means in practice a credit of a maximum of 100 marks, as against the total of 1,700 for Woolwich and 1,400 for Sandhurst, the general range of marks credited being from 40 to 65 or 70. It is true that the withdrawal of official recognition from the cadet units has technically withdrawn an advantage from the schools which had cadet corps, in that boys who go up for the Woolwich and Sandhurst examinations will not in future be able to obtain the credit of marks in respect of certificate A.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not technically, but actually.
LORD MARLEY: I agree, but I think it is possible, if I may say so, to exaggerate the importance of this injustice. We find that out of some 18,000 members of school cadet units, which prior to October last were in receipt of grants, approximately 170 in 1929 and 220 in 1930 gained certificate A. That, to begin with, is a very small proportion, but when we go further and enquire how many of these boys are interested in the Army entrance examination the results are even more surprising. The number of candidates for Woolwich and Sandhurst in 1929 was 566 altogether, and in 1930, 534. So far as we have been able to ascertain, and we have had a very, very careful examination of the records, only three of these candidates in 1929, and only one in 1930, were boys from cadet schools holding certificate A. In other words, this injustice is limited to the equivalent of one boy this year and three boys last year; and, in point of fact, I think I am right in saying that of course these particular boys were not

819
affected in any way by this alleged injustice. It is not as large a matter in any case as has been suggested by the speakers to-day. In 1929, I may say, five other candidates not holding certificate A came from the cadet schools, while in 1930 there were no other candidates from the cadet schools.
I do not think, therefore, we can say that this problem of inequality is one which has been seriously accentuated by the withdrawal of recognition from the cadet schools. But, in so far as there is an inequality, that inequality is removed by the announcement made by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War yesterday, when he pointed out that in future, with safeguards for those individuals concerned, marks for certificate A would not be given at these examinations. That, I may say in passing, removes an even greater inequality, to which no reference has been made. The noble Earl who put this Question said that most secondary schools have either an officers training corps or a cadet corps. I am informed that there are over 1,100 secondary schools, of whom only 174 have officers training corps and only 177 have cadet corps. The injustice surely was to the other 700 or 800 schools, who never were able to obtain these marks at the entrance examinations, which were confined in the past to the boys from the 300 or 400 officers training corps schools, which did in fact provide a serious proportion of those who went up to the examinations, and cadet corps schools supplying the one boy last year and the three boys the year before who went up from the cadet corps schools. These were the boys who had the advantage, while the 700 or 800 other schools were deprived of that advantage, because by no means could they obtain any marks towards the aggregate marks necessary for passing the entrance examination.
The only other point I want to make is the question of the value of certificate A in civil life. We are told that firms give special facilities to those who hold this certificate. It is exceedingly difficult to consider that as a serious proposition, when we realise that of 18,000 of these cadets only 170 last year and 220 this year obtained the certificate. That is an exceedingly small proportion, and therefore I would submit that in point of fact it is not a serious matter. And,
820
in any case, certificate A is a military certificate. It is not a certificate of efficiency in civil life, it is a military certificate, and, as such, we do not feel that the War Office is seriously concerned with its effect in civil life.
I have tried to put the position clearly as regards the Question on the Paper, which says that there is an injustice inflicted upon boys educated at schools where there is no officers training corps by the withdrawal of the privilege of gaining an A certificate through school cadet corps. I have tried to point out that the injustice has been very greatly exaggerated, limited as it has been to such a very few boys. Such as it is, however, it will in any case disappear as between one school and another since no marks will in future be allocated for certificate A; and the injustice which was done to 700 or 800 schools up to the present time will be removed when no further marks are granted for certificate A. I have no Papers I can lay. I could lay a copy of certificate A, but I have no other Papers to lay, because the information I have given is the fullest at my disposal, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will withdraw his Motion and accept the explanation.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I must say I am glad that I raised this subject this afternoon, for two reasons. The first is the effect which it has had in drawing speeches, especially from the two noble and gallant Lords who sit upon the Cross Benches—Lord Allenby, who described to us the efforts which his organisation had made towards remedying the injustices done by the Government to the cadet corps, and Lord Methuen, that veteran of His Majesty's service and the service of your Lordships' House, who, in the interesting speech and the reminiscences he gave us of the foundation of these corps, called that distinguished member of the Government Bench, the late Lord Haldane, to witness in his favour. Then we heard an interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, from the point of view of the Territorial Army, and one from the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, from the Liberal Benches. I think we must congratulate ourselves on this side of the House, and those noble Lords above the gangway also I hope, on the whole-hearted condemnation which

821
the action of the Government has succeeded in obtaining from all of your Lordships.
I turn to the reply of the noble Lord who answered for the Government. The noble Lord did not deny in any way the injustice which his Government had inflicted upon certain people, but he sought to excuse himself in the way that the lady described the baby as only a little one. He did not deny the injustice, but said it was only a small one. It seems to me that it is very undesirable to inflict injustice at all, even a small injustice, and it is not a sign of good government or good administration that injustices should be inflicted. Now we come to the question of the reply read in the House of Commons. The noble Lord said that nobody had been excluded from Sandhurst or Woolwich because of not passing the examination for certificate A. Well, but they cannot be excluded. They are only allowed to add marks. The noble Lord opposite said that an average of 40 to 65 marks was, in his opinion, a negligible amount. All I can say is that many of their Lordships have sat for and have passed examinations, and if they could have gone in with 40 to 65 marks in hand they would have been exceedingly pleased. That, perhaps, would not be necessary for noble Lords opposite.
Turning to the next point, the noble Lord says that an injustice is inflicted upon schools which have neither an officers training corps nor a cadet corps. They can always have a cadet corps. They could have one now if they wanted it. There may be a difficulty in obtaining an officers training corps, but there is no bar to a school obtaining a cadet corps. Injustice is inflicted on the cadet corps as a whole. There is no injustice inflicted upon schools which can have one and do not choose to organise one. Then the noble Lord says that the injustice, which he admits, is to be withdrawn by withdrawing the privilege in future from boys who have obtained certificate A in officers training corps. As I said before, when I foreshadowed what would be said to-night from the answer made in another place, two wrongs do not make a right. Because you are going to withdraw this privilege from boys who are educated in a school with an officers training corps you do
822
not do away with the injustice you have done to the boys who are educated in a school which has a cadet corps.
The noble Lord also said that he would not follow me into the interpretations which I appeared to place upon the Government's possible future action as regards officers training corps. Of course, I did not expect him to do that, but I was very much encouraged when he said that my possible interpretation was an inaccurate one. Therefore we may hope and trust that no further attack is contemplated upon the officers training corps. He qualified the statement a little later by saying that he really could not say anything very definite until announcements were made upon the Estimates. I hope that as my interpretation is incorrect it will remain incorrect.
I do not think I have anything further to say except about the general value of the certificate. My information is to the effect that the general value of the certificate is regarded as high in civil life. The noble Lord says that it is not the business of the War Office to provide certificates for boys in civil life. That may be the case; but, by withdrawing the certificate and doing away with that advantage, the noble Lord has put a great deal of disability upon people who have never done anything at all to deserve it, and I think that his Government have acted in a most ill-judged, hasty and unjust manner. The noble Lord said that there were no Papers to lay. He also said that he was going to publish something in the newspapers. I do not know why he cannot lay that.
LORD MARLEY: I do not think I said that I was going to publish anything in the newspapers.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is what we understood—that he was going to publish the whole of the particulars in regard to the new regulations for certificate A in the newspapers. I should have thought that was a Paper to lay.
LORD MARLEY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. What I did was to quote from the reply made in another place by my right hon. friend, who said that full particulars, that is to say the details, regarding the alteration of the examination for the schools concerned will be published in the Press and communicated to the schools concerned as soon as pos-

823
sible. That is a purely technical publication in connection with the regulations for the examination.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I suggest that that should be laid.
LORD MARLEY: I have no objection to that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, is it really necessary that regulations about examinations should be printed and published at the expense of your Lordships' House and thus reach the parties concerned? Is it not much more desirable, much more expeditious and pro tanto less wasteful of public money that the publication should be made in another manner?
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, it is, of course, a pure waste of public money. It is only a regulation for the examination, and I do not think there is very much to be gained by having Papers containing the mere technical details of an examination laid in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Having regard to what my noble friend Lord Crawford said and because of what he said about expense—one does not, of course, wish to put any unnecessary expense upon the taxpayer, especially at the present time—but simply and solely on that ground I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) 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 Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to lend objects belonging to British Museum and National Gallery for exhibition overseas.
1.—(1) The Trustees of the British Museum and the Trustees and the Director of the National Gallery shall, in their dis-
824
cretion and subject to such regulations as they may respectively prescribe, have power at any time to lend for public exhibition in places outside Great Britain on such terms as they think fit any objects which are vested in the Trustees of the British Museum and the Trustees and Director of the National Gallery respectively:
Provided that no object which has become vested as aforesaid by virtue of any gift or bequest shall, except with the consent of the donor or of his personal representatives or of the personal representatives of the testator, become subject to the powers of this Act if—

(a) the lending of the object for exhibition in places outside Great Britain would be inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest; or

(b) fifteen years have not elapsed since the date on which the object became vested as aforesaid.

(2) The powers of the Trustees and the Directors of the National Gallery under subsection (1) of this section may, as respects any objects vested in them and forming part of the collection of the National Gallery at Millbank known as the Tate Gallery, be delegated by them, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, to the persons who are for the time the Trustees and the Director of the Tate Gallery.
LORD HANWORTH LORD HANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "objects," to insert "being objects representative of British arts or crafts." The noble Lord said: I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with anything like a speech in moving this Amendment; but it might be useful to noble Lords who were unable to be present on either of the two occasions when this matter has been before the House if I ventured to remind them that the purpose of the words I propose to insert in this clause is to restrict the powers conferred upon the Trustees of the museums and galleries concerned. They are not framed for the purpose of preventing what is called reciprocity. We are anxious that it should be possible, within reasonable limits, to return the hospitable action adopted by Belgium, Holland and Italy in sending their pictures over here. But it will be remembered that, broadly speaking though not altogether, the pictures they sent were from the national schools of painting of those countries respectively. As the Bill is drawn it allows and permits the Trustees not merely of the National Gallery but of the British Museum to send overseas any of the treasures under their guardianship. That is a very wide power. There are many treasures in the

825
British Museum which, in the opinion of the Trustees, ought not in any circumstances to be allowed to leave these shores.
On the other hand, if the Bill was left as it stands, the responsibility for refusing to allow a particular object to go to a foreign country or to the Dominions would lie entirely upon the Trustees. That this is so was made clear by the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, a week ago. Standing at the Table in your Lordships' House he said that in his view if a request were made by a foreign Ambassador or Minister to our own Foreign Secretary it would not be the duty of the Foreign Secretary to act upon his own judgment; he thought it would be the duty of the Foreign Secretary in any event to pass that request on to the Trustees of the gallery or museum concerned, with the result that the onus, it might be the odium, of refusing the request would lie upon the Trustees. The Trustees at the present time are not people to exercise a discretion. They have to keep their treasures in their own custody, and they cannot consider the question as to whether or not it would be wise or prudent, or whether under some political pressure they ought to be able to send away some of these objects to foreign countries.
A long time back, as I have told your Lordships, the Trustees considered this matter, and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to add the words, which are the words of my Amendment, to the Bill. The matter has been considered not merely by the Standing Committee of the Trustees, of which I have the honour to be one and on whose behalf I am acting, but also, not once but more than once, by the general body of Trustees, which, perhaps rather curiously, includes the Lord Chancellor and all the members of His Majesty's Government who are responsible, of course, collectively under Cabinet responsibility for proposing the Bill in the terms in which it stands. I need not add more. It is for these reasons I ask your Lordships to insert these words in the Bill, and, if I gather aright from the words used by the Lord President on the last occasion, there will no longer be any opposition from the Government Bench to the insertion of the provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, afer ("objects") insert ("being objects representative of British arts or crafts").—(Lord Hanworth.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: With your Lordships' leave, I should like to move the Amendment standing in my name at this point—that is to say after the noble Lord's Amendment. I have given private notice of this to the Lord Chairman.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: My noble friend was good enough, as he has told your Lordships, to inform me that he desired to move his Amendment at this early stage. I explained the matter and he agreed it would be better to dispose of Lord Hanworth's Amendment first. Immediately that is done I will call on Lord Mersey to move his Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): I regret the absence through sickness of my noble friend, the Leader of the House, who has this Bill in his charge. The Government have given careful consideration to the Amendment, and also to the views expressed in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. May I remind your Lordships that the Bill in its present form seeks to confer on the Trustees of the British Museum and the National Gallery, subject to such regulations as they may themselves prescribe, a discretion to lend or refuse to lend any object of art in their collection for public exhibition in places outside Great Britain. Similar powers are already possessed by the Victoria and Albert Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Galleries in Scotland.
The Bill is permissive and not mandatory, but it is also subject to certain provisos which restrict the exercise of the discretion of the Trustees when they consider any proposition put before them for lending any object of art. These provisos deal with the question of any object which has become vested in the Trustees by virtue of any gift or bequest, in which case such object cannot be lent abroad without the consent of the donor or his representatives, and in the ease of bequests, of the representatives of the testator. There is a further provision that that must not be inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest and that the object in question has not been for fifteen years in the

827
possession of the Trustees. It seemed to be assumed by your Lordships in the course of the debate on the Second Reading that the Trustees would not have the courage to refuse to lend in cases where, in their judgment, they ought not to lend. We do not take that view of the Trustees in the performance of their public duties. We are satisfied that the Trustees would, in every case, act upon their own unfettered judgment, and would not be diverted from their duty by any outside influence, however powerful.
I learn that there is in contemplation an exhibition of French art to be held in London, and, if this exhibition materialises, the bulk of the exhibits will come from France. Already those concerned in the exhibition are scouring countries outside France with the object of obtaining specimens of French art for the exhibition in London. It seems to me it is an undignified position to take up, almost amounting to a lack of international courtesy, that while we invite for a public exhibition objects of art of a particular country, whether from that country or elsewhere, we refuse to reciprocate in lending other than objects of British art to a similar exhibition abroad. I need not repeat the arguments which were adduced when the matter was before the House on the last two occasions. While, after careful consideration, we have not altered our view that the Bill, which embodies the recommendations of the Royal Commission, should be accepted, yet, bearing in mind what my noble friend said on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House, we do not feel that we should resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY moved, in subsection (1), to insert after "objects," "and produced subsequent to the year 1600." The noble Viscount said: I should like to add to the words which Your Lordships have adapted the words "and produced subsequent to the year 1600." I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time. I believe a very large majority of your Lordships in the House this evening are in favour of this very moderate Amendment, but perhaps it would be better, in order that it may be on record, that I should just put the points again, as some of your Lordships
828
who are here to-night were not here on the last occasion. We know that the Trustees were never in favour of this Bill at all. I believe there was a very close division among the Trustees of the two bodies as to whether they should accept it; but they have to admit a certain degree of reciprocity, and their suggestion is that the best examples of British art should be lent abroad—that is to say, the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth century canvases. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, whose expert knowledge and very great weight are admitted, I imagine, by everybody, laid particular stress upon the danger to panel pictures. That is one class of thing I wish to protect—the old panel pictures. He mentioned the danger of some of the old galleries; and the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, mentioned the danger of the new galleries abroad, through damp. The most rev. Primate, and in fact everyone who spoke, referred to these dangers. I will not develop that point.
The objects I wish to protect are the very early English things which have not only an artistic but also an historical value. Perhaps the Trustees sometimes give that quality a second place, but to many of us it has a first place. Many of your Lordships in your own houses possess objects on the walls or on the shelves which are perhaps not of very great artistic or intrinsic value, but which to your Lordships, for family reasons or reasons of sentiment, have a very real value indeed. In England there are many such things which we do not wish to go abroad. I will take two instances only: they are neither of them things that can go abroad. Take the Coronation Stone in Westminster Abbey. That, I suppose, is of no intrinsic value at all, but it would be a very great trouble to many people if it were sunk in a ship. Luckily it is in the custody of a cleric who, I understand, is an absolute autocrat and takes orders from no one. The other instance is Domesday Book. The custodian of Domesday Book is the Master of the Rolls. I do not know if he is an autocrat in this particular instance, but I believe that he is precluded from lending it. That is an object which I am sure it would be a terrible risk to send abroad. There

829
are the early panel pictures of the Kings of England, of no very great artistic value but of great interest; there are a few plays of Shakespeare, the very earliest productions of Caxton's press and the stained glass windows at Fair-ford church. It is a few things of that sort that I am thinking of.
I did propose to the most rev. Primate and to the noble Earl in the first instance a schedule, but they said the difficulties of framing a schedule were very great indeed and I expect that they know a great deal better than I do. My point is—and I hope your Lordships will sympathise with it—why should the British things be sacrificed in order to save the foreign things? Save both if you can. I have got a sheaf of letters in my pocket sent to me by noble Lords who could not come to the House to-day. Some of them are against the whole Bill. They do not want to lend any of these things. This Amendment takes a more moderate course. It only asks that these early English things—documents, panel pictures, ivory carvings, the sort of things which are absolutely unique, quite irreplaceable and bound up with the oldest and most intimate history of this country (not so much of the British Empire as of England) that these things should not be subject to the very great risk to which they would undoubtedly be subject if they were to travel through different temperatures overseas, to go to galleries where people, though they may care for them, know very little about their custody.
I had collected some extracts from the speeches of the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate and the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, but I do not think it is necessary now that I should quote them. They are nearly all in support of what I am saying to your Lordships now. The Trustees have made a gesture in agreeing to send abroad the seventeenth and eighteenth-century canvases, which means those of Romney, Reynolds and Gainsborough. This Amendment does not traverse that at all. I personally am quite willing that those things should go. All I want is to save our early English objects, which probably might not be asked for by foreign countries but would certainly be asked for by the Colonies and Dominions. It would sometimes be a very difficult request to refuse, and these loans, as your Lordships know when
830
you lend your own things, though they are supposed to be temporary loans, have a very great tendency to become permanent. Then you would break up the entity of a single collection in the British Museum or the National Gallery, and when somebody has travelled half across the world to see something, he would be told: —"Oh, it is on loan to Australia," or "It has been sent to the Sandwich Islands—it is a Captain Cook's relic, and you cannot see it." Of course, the Amendment does not protect everything which it ought to protect. It is difficult to find a form of words that would do everything.
The only other point is one which I made on Second Reading—that I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships that people should come to this country to see these things. Travel is very cheap and we want people to come here. Let them come and look at these marvellous collections in Trafalgar Square or Bloomsbury. People do not hesitate to lend to London: naturally, it is the best advertisement in the world to lend to London. I have a fairly complete knowledge of foreign galleries—not so complete, of course, as that of the noble Earl and the noble Viscount—and it would be a joke to lend to some places. Here things are safe: it is quite different when you send things abroad. There is a great volume of public opinion—opinion not only in this House but all over the country—on this subject. I dare say many of your Lordships read The Times newspaper, and you may perhaps have noticed a leading article this morning in support of this Amendment. I do not think there is anything more I need say, and I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given the Lord Chairman notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("and produced subsequently to the year 1600").— (Viscount Mersey.)
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, and I will give my reasons in a very few words. Your Lordships have now accepted the principle that authority to lend shall only extend to works of British origin. That is satisfactory, but I think the noble Viscount has made a reasonable case for exempting works prior to

831
the date 1600. There is no special virtue in that date, but works which are much earlier are either so extremely rare that they ought not to be lent at all, or they are exceedingly fragile. I will only refer to two categories. It is well known to your Lordships that this country was celebrated in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries for its production of alabaster figures. Those figures had great reputation not only in this country but all over Europe. They are exceedingly fragile. It is very rare indeed to see one that is not broken. They are obviously of a material and of a kind that would be almost bound to suffer if sent unnecessarily on travels. That is one class of object. Then there are the exceedingly rare English paintings on panels of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Those also are extremely delicate.
I may perhaps be permitted to say that I have in my own possession one of the late fourteenth century which is so delicate that it was not considered safe—and the authorities of the Victoria and Albert Museum entirely concurred—even to send it from my own house to the exhibition of English mediaeval art which was held recently. These objects are not numerous and I do not for a moment believe that they would be greatly desired for exhibition abroad, but I think the Amendment would relieve the Trustees of the undesirable responsibility of refusing demands for the loan of these objects, if unfortunately such demands were made, and, after all, what is wanted abroad, and what we are willing and anxious to display abroad, is English painting subsequently to the year 1600, and particularly eighteenth century pictures. There are certainly some English painters of the seventeenth century, such as William Dobson and Mary Beale, whose works could very well be sent and which would help to round out the exhibits of English painting. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will be willing to look with favour upon the noble Viscount's Amendment, and in any case I wished to say these few words in support of it.
EARL PEEL: I desire in a very few words to support the noble Viscount's Amendment. I think it is a very modest
832
and moderate Amendment. I should have preferred the 1700 limit to the 1600 limit. There is no doubt that a great many people are reluctant to lend these objects if the loan involves great risks. I quite understand the attitude of the Trustees of the British Museum, who feel that there should be some reciprocity, but I really think the Government might willingly agree to this limitation. We want to assist the Trustees as far as possible, and it is much easier for them if they can say that they are not permitted to lend these particular objects. After all, we are at the centre of the Empire, and in these days of easy travel it is perfectly right that anybody who wants to see these objects should come here. I would urge the Government and your Lordships to allow these more ancient relies, if I may so call them, to rest in their shrines, secure from all dangers and vicissitudes of air, sea and land travel. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: I do not know that there is very much difference between the desire of the noble Viscount, as expressed in his Amendment, and the actual provisions of the Bill. The Bill gives power to the Trustees to prescribe regulations, and those regulations may, if the Trustees think fit, limit such objects as they may lend to articles subsequent to 1600 or to any other date. If, therefore, the Trustees should wish to draw the line at some particular date, they are at liberty to do so. The whole purport of the Bill is to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was set up for this purpose by the late Government. That Commission reported substantially in the terms of the Bill now before your Lordships, and the view that they took was that regulations should be made from time to time. The making of regulations from time to time makes the power of the Trustees more elastic and escapes the rigidity that would otherwise be imposed upon them by Statute.
This is what the Royal Commission reported on page 34 of the Report:—
"We do not think the Act itself should attempt to define the class of objects which should be excluded from the purview of the Act, e.g., fragile objects, panel pictures, unique or type specimens, as we think that such definition can be accomplished better by

833
regulations promulgated and, if need be, modified time to time by the governing authorities."
The view that we take of the matter is that the object of this Amendment would be more effectively accomplished by regulations prescribed "and, if need be, modified from time to time' by the Trustees. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment, since the Trustees have ample power to deal with this matter.
LORD HANWORTH: I am afraid I cannot agree with the interpretation of the Bill that has been given by the noble Lord in charge of it. If that is the right interpretation, he mast put in a good many more words to make it plain. Your Lordships will observe that under Clause 1 the effective words are that the Trustees shall—
"have power at any time to lend for public exhibition …. on such terms as they think fit any objects which are vested in the Trustees."
Those are the operative words. It is quite true that this is subject to such regulations as they may prescribe, but I do not hesitate to say that as those words stand everybody who reads them, all lawyers who read them, would say that they mean that the Trustees have the power to lend any object at all that is vested in them. It is quite true that they can make regulations to say that the objects are to be lent only for a certain time, or to be hung in a certain place, or that they are not to be moved from one place to another, or that the transit is to be effected as far as possible by land and not by sea; but those are the minor points that, can be dealt with by regulation.
I do not think that it would be possible for the Trustees to make a regulation limiting the power that is imposed upon them of lending any objects that are vested in them, or to curtail that power by saying that they will lend only objects which are not earlier than a certain date arbitrarily fixed. If that is what Lord Amulree thinks the Bill does, he must alter the terms of it very drastically. As the matter stands I am quite certain—no, I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I ought not to say that to another lawyer —but at any rate I venture to offer a different opinion from that which has
834
been expressed by the noble and learned Lord who has given the House the benefit of his reading of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert:—
"or to lend any such objects (being pictures) for display in the official house of a British Ambassador or Minister in a foreign country, or in the official house in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain of a representative of His Majesty or of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Parmoor, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in his name. The object of the Amendment is to enable the Trustees to lend, not objects of art generally, but only pictures, to the Embassies abroad, and also to Governors and so on. Galleries have more pictures than they can exhibit at one time, and among these may be some suitable for the purpose. The Trustees will, of course, have complete discretion to permit or refuse to permit the pictures to go, and to attach any conditions as to the length of time of the loan and such matters. The Amendment is desired by the Departments concerned, the Office of Works, the Foreign Office and the Dominions Office. I submit that this Amendment would be a very friendly and useful act, and that it would be an improvement of the Bill if some such provision were inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("respectively") insert the said wordy.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Prima facie the Amendment appears to be attractive, but I think that it deserves rather closer consideration than the noble Lord has given to it. He was good enough to say that the Trustees would retain complete discretion whether to lend or not to lend pictures to British Embassies, Legations and other official houses abroad. I think one must contrast his view about this Amendment, with the statement which he made about the first Amendment on the Paper, where he adopted a very much more censorious attitude towards the Trustees, expressing surprise that they should not have the courage to refuse. Now, when he wishes to extend the power under the Bill, he says that the Trustees have complete dis-

835
cretion, asking us therefore to accept the Amendment on the ground that we can refuse, although he scolded us on the first Amendment because he thought we would refuse to lend.
Your Lordships must remember that these official houses of Ambassadors and Ministers abroad are private residences. They are away from this country, and the pictures would be outside all technical supervision and control. If a picture is sent to a foreign country on a temporary loan we assume that the technical people in that country are doing their best to see that the picture is safeguarded. Nothing of the sort can apply to a British Embassy or Ministry, or to what is called the official house in one of the Dominions of the representative of His Majesty. Therefore these pictures would be away from proper supervision and control. They will be in private houses, subject to the ordinary risk of fire. Our national collections in the British Museum, the Albert and Victoria Museum, the National Gallery, Hertford House, and so forth, are all in isolated buildings, and humanly speaking as safe from fire as any buildings in Great Britain. All this safeguarding goes.
Is the noble and learned Lord quite sure that this Amendment in itself is desirable? He says that the Departments concerned, the Foreign Office, the Dominions Office and Office of Works, are anxious for it. It is very obliging of these Departments to take so fatherly an interest in the British Museum, but does Lord Amulree think that first-class pictures are going to be sent to Vienna or Paris or Washington? In my opinion, unless really first-class pictures are sent to the residences of the representatives of His Majesty abroad it would be better to send none at all. To send second-or third-rate examples of British pictures to the Embassies would be a mistake, and before the Report stage I hope the noble and learned Lord will consult those who are in a position to advise him, to see whether this Amendment should not be reconsidered.
I know that in taking this view I lay myself open to the charges made in his first speech by Lord Amulree of "undignified attitude," "lack of international courtesy," and so forth. We have been charged with all sorts of things for taking the view put forward by
836
my noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham and the Master of the Rolls. For my part I am prepared to stand the risk of those charges, because I know, as I said on the Second Reading—I do not think Lord Amulree was then present—that it is a view which is supported by responsible custodians of works of art all over Europe. One other word in conclusion. The words inserted by Lord Hanworth, which entailed the reflection upon him and upon myself and others this afternoon, were not invented by the Trustees of the British Museum or by Lord Hanworth himself. The words which Lord Hanworth moved, and which brought down upon our heads the censorious utterances of Lord Amulree, were in the original draft of the Bill circulated by the Government to the places concerned. Therefore I would beg your Lordships to observe that in taking the view we have we have not been guilty of any frivolous attitude, but that in the original Bill the words which we have inserted this afternoon were present by action of Ministers themselves.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I do not take such a stern view as Lord Crawford of this matter. I think we might very well insert these words in the Bill. The pictures which are in the custody of the Trustees of the British Museum, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, are not, all of them, great works of art. There are many now stored away in the cellars of the buildings which are never seen by the public because they are not of first-rate quality. They may have some historic value, and in the matter of portraiture very likely may have considerable value to the place to which they might be sent. I can well imagine—I do not know—that there may be in the subterranean cellars of our galleries very interesting portraits of British Ambassadors who have played prominent parts in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and elsewhere, which might very well decorate the walls of our official buildings in the capitals of those countries. I do not see why they should not go there. When I inhabited a house at the other end of these buildings a certain number of pictures which belonged to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery were loaned to me, and they were hung there. The same sort of thing might take place abroad.

837
The noble Earl said that there is no official inspection, but I do not think he is quite right. I think the official residences of our Ambassadors and Ministers in all parts of the world are under the control of the Office of Works, and that from time to time the Office of Works send representatives to those distant places to see whether the buildings are in proper order, whether the furniture is properly taken care of and in a good state of repair, and whether the pictures also are in a proper condition. Why, as a matter of fact, the Office of Works do send to almost every one of these official residences pictures which belong to the Office of Works. You will never go into any of these residences without seeing pictures of His Majesty and of Her Majesty, or possibly even of King Edward and Queen Alexandra and other Sovereigns. There are other interesting persons whose portraits, as I have said, lie unseen in the cellars, but which might very well decorate the walls of these residences. For that reason I think that it is not an unreasonable Amendment, and I should be very glad to see it inserted in the Bill.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: I am sure we all listen with great respect to anything that proceeds from the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but I would remind him of this. He speaks of portraits of distinguished Ambassadors which might very well adorn the Embassies which they served in their lifetime. Those pictures, I take it, are mostly to be found in the reserve stock of the National Portrait Gallery, which already has power to lend, if it so desires, and which is not concerned with this Bill at all. The position is not in the least affected by this Bill, so far as loans from the National Portrait Gallery are concerned. Then he gave the parallel, as he claimed it to be, of the Speaker's official residence. But I suggest there is a great difference between an Embassy abroad and an official residence here in London, where the pictures lent by the National Gallery or the National Portrait Gallery are subject to the inspection of the technical staff of those galleries at all times—not of the Office of Works, but the technical inspectors of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery—who can report on their condition qua pictures, which, with all respect, the officials of
838
the Office of Works are quite incompetent to do.
It is a very short cry from Trafalgar Square to the Speaker's House. There is no difficulty about having a consultation when a picture is showing any signs of disrepair. But let us take the Legation in Peru, or Government House in Queensland. Pictures out there will undoubtedly remain practically on permanent loan. The climate may affect them. Blisters may appear. They may be hung in buildings where they are exposed unduly to sunshine or damp. How is a sporadic inspection by a peripatetic Office of Works minor official, who once in so many years visits these places, and has no more knowledge of pictures, probably, than the people who are already living in that house, to afford any protection for pictures under those conditions? And there is really, as I see it, a very great difference between a picture in a private house, even though that private house be official in the sense that it is where one of His Majesty's representatives lives, and an exhibition or a public gallery, where, for the time being at any rate, the picture will be under more or less expert observation, and from which in due course, and very shortly, it will return to its place of origin. In these houses abroad, the pictures, like the furniture, are absolutely at the mercy of the local housemaid.
If it is ruled that we have in our national collections pictures so uninteresting and so worthless that it does not matter what becomes of them, and we do not want to show them, then there might be an excuse for sending them away, but those are not the pictures for which we shall be asked. And perhaps I may also very respectfully join issue when the noble Viscount talks about pictures stored at the National Gallery in cellars. They are not cellars. They are exhibition rooms in a large airy basement, eight feet above the street level. So that the pictures are not in danger of perishing in the damp of cellars. I do really think there is a distinction between the two cases, and I cannot do otherwise than oppose the Amendment which the Government have moved.
LORD NORTHBOURNE: May I be allowed to make a, point which has not

839
yet been made? These pictures which it is proposed to lend, possibly to Embassies and places abroad, are the property of the British public, and should be available, as far as possible at all times, to students and members of the public who wish to see them, and should not be allowed to be put away for indefinite periods in houses or other places abroad.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AMULREE: The next Amendment on the Paper is consequential on this Amendment which has not been accepted.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not moved.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, can give any information to the House about the Education (School Attendance) Bill? Your Lordships will have seen that the Second Reading of the Bill, which was originally down for discussion on Tuesday next, has now been postponed until Tuesday week, February 17. So far as I am able to ascertain, there is likely to be a considerable number of noble Lords who will desire to take part in the debate, and I should think it would be hardly practicable to conclude the debate in one day. Obviously there can be no great urgency, as the Second Reading has already been postponed for a week. In the circumstances I desire to ask whether it is proposed to give two days for the Second Reading, and whether your Lordships might expect the Division, if there be one, to take place on February 18, instead of February 17. I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House if the Government were able to make any statement about that.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for having raised this question. We had proposed to put down the Second Reading for February 17. With regard to the question of whether a Division will be taken on that day or on the day following, I regret that I do not feel able to answer at this moment, but I will have the matter represented to the Leader of the House, and I will undertake that the noble and learned Viscount and the House shall have early information as to whether two days can be given for the debate. I am not authorised to say anything more than that at present. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will excuse me, in view of the sudden and unexpected illness of the Leader of the House. I take it, as a matter of fact, that if so many noble Lords wish to speak that a second day's debate will be imperative, we on this side of the House have no power to resist such a proposal. But I hope the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to consult my noble friends before giving a definite answer.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that seems a perfectly reasonable request, and possibly the noble Lord will allow me to repeat the question on Tuesday next.

BUCKROSE AND DISTRICT ELEC- TRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the urban districts of Great Driffield and Pocklington, the rural districts of Bridlington, Driffield and Sherburn, and parts of the rural districts of Beverley and Pocklington, all in the East Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.