Sitting of 6 March 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
West Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 20th March.
Great Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
Midland Railway Bill (by Order),
Taff Vale Railway Bill (by Order),
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

SOUTHALL, HOUNSLOW, AND TWICKENHAM
  RAILLESS TRACTION (PETITION FOR BILL).
  Order [16th February] that the report of one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills upon the Petition for Bill in the case of the Southall, Hounslow, and Twickenham Railless Traction be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders, read, and discharged. Petition for Bill withdrawn.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—
  1. "That, in the case of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway (New Works), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the

  1. Number of Deaths from Small-pox at each of the following ages, the Death Rate per million births or per million living, and proportion per cent. of Deaths at these ages to total at all ages from that disease:—

  Years.

  Under One Year.

  One and under Two.

  Two and under Five.

  Five and under Ten.

  Ten and all Higher Ages.

  Number of Deaths.

  Deaths per Million Births.

  Percentage of Total Deaths at all Ages.

  Number of Deaths.

  Deaths per Million living.

  Percentage of Total Deaths at all Ages.

  Number of Deaths.

  Deaths per Million living.

  Percentage of Total Deaths at all Ages.

  Number of Deaths.

  Deaths per Million living.

  Percentage of Total Deaths at all Ages.

  Number of Deaths.

  Deaths per Million living.

  Percentage of Total Deaths at all Ages

  1887 to 1910

  parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  2 "That, in the case of the National Electric Construction Company, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that copies of the agreements proposed to be confirmed by the Bill be sent to the Companies supplying gas within the area of supply affected by such agreements, and that the Promoters shall not object to the locus standi of such Companies against the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
  3 "That, in the case of the Saint Pancras Borough Council (Superannuation), Petition for leave to deposit Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed withion:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.

EXPLOSIONS (CLAYKNOWES, STIRLINGSHIRE).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Accident which occurred at the Factory of the M.B. Powder Company, Limited, at Clayknowes, near Bonnybridge, Stirlingshire, on 25th November, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Order [23rd February] for a return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof:—
Return ordered, "showing for each year from 1887–1910, inclusive, England and Wales:—

355

2. Deaths of Infants under one year of age per million births from each of the following causes:—

Year.

Deaths of Infants under One Year per Million Births.

Syphilis.

Scrofula.*

Tuberculous Peritonitis and Tabes Mesenterica.

Skin Diseases.†

Erysipelas.

Pyæmia and Phlegmon.‡

Bronchitis.

Diarrhœa.§

Atrophy and Debility (including Premature Birth).

Total Nine Causes.

Total all Causes.

1887 to 1910.

* With scrofula are including all tuberculous diseases other than pulmonary tuberculosis phthisis (not otherwise defined), tuberculous meningitis, tuberculous peritonitis, tabes mesenterica, and lupus.

† Including lupus, but excluding carbuncle, which is now classed with phlegmon.

‡ Including septicæmia, pyæmia, phlegmon, and carbuncle.

§ Including dysentery."

[Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.]

FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Return ordered "showing the Fleets of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, United States of America, and Japan, on the 31st day of March, 1911, omitting battleships and armoured cruisers over twenty years old from date of launch, and distinguishing, both built and building, battleships, cruisers of various grades, torpedo vessels, torpedo boat destroyers, torpedo boats, and submarines.
Return "to show date of launch, date of completion, displacement, horse-power, and armaments reduced to one common scale (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 142, of Session, 1911.)"

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION (CHIEF STOKER PETTY OFFICER).
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that J. T. Mitson, "whilst serving as chief stoker petty officer in His Majesty's Navy, lost two fingers of his right hand and his left arm, and was consequently invalided from the service; whether he is aware that the injuries which Mitson received involve daily assistance in dressing and feeding, and that the only annual compensation
    356
    which he receives in addition to his pension is the sum of £13 13s.; and, whether, having regard to the nature of Mitson's injuries, he will increase the amount of annual compensation awarded to him?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Mitson was invalided in June, 1910, his injuries being the loss of the right arm and the third and fourth finger of the left hand. His service was nineteen years and 123 days. He had not, therefore, completed his time for a long service pension. The award to him was made under the provisions in the King's Regulations relative to the cases of men injured on duty. The scale of such awards is at rates dependent on the degree of disablement; and the pension which Mitson is receiving, namely, £50 11s. per annum, is the maximum allowable in his case.
    Mr. WHELER: Does not his nineteen years' service qualify him for any pension?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not for a long service pension.
    Sir C KINLOCH-COOKE: Could not Mitson obtain very much better compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act than he has received from the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Sailors and soldiers do not come under the Compensation Act, and therefore the question does not arise.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is obviously unfair.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the contract date for the completion of the battleships "Monarch," Conqueror," and "Thunderer," and the battle cruiser "Princess Royal"; and what are now the anticipated dates for the completion of these ships?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The reply to the first part of the question is 31st March, 1912. The anticipated dates for completion are:—

    "Monarch"

    …

    March, 1912.

    "Conqueror"

    …

    August, 1912.

    "Thunderer"

    …

    May, 1912.

    "Princess Royal"

    …

    August, 1912.

    Mr. BURGOYNE: Are the present labour troubles likely still further to delay these ships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. I am afraid all ships will be delayed if the labour troubles continue. With regard to the question of penalties, I could not deal with that in answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many ships of the "Dreadnought" type are now in commission for the British Navy; and how many of these were completed by the contract date and within two years of the laying down of the first keel plate?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Eleven ships, excluding battle cruisers, of the "Dreadnought" type are now in commission for the British Navy. Four of these were completed by the contract date, or, in the case of dockyard-built ships, within two years of laying down the first keel plate.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: What action will the right hon. Gentleman take in regard to those ships which are not yet completed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If I may answer that in general, we shall press on with them as fast as possible. In regard to particular cases, each will be judged separately.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is there any fine for contractors?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In certain circumstances there are penalties, but each ship must be considered by itself.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is there a strike and a lock-out clause attached to the contract? Do they have it both ways?

    ARMOURED SHIPS, CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many armoured ships, cruisers, and destroyers have in the last twelve months been taken in hand for alteration or repair within six months of the date of their first commissioning; and what is the total cost of such alteration and repair, and by whom is it borne?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that it is found impossible to complete the required information for a few days, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will be good enough to postpone his question for a week.

    H.M.S. "LATONA" (OIL ENGINE).
    Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether the obsolete cruiser "Latona" is to be used for trials with an oil-engine of large dimensions and great power?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; there is no such intention.

    TWO-YEAR COMMISSIONS.
    MR. ASHLEYasked how long the system of two-year commissions for His Majesty's ships has been in force; whether, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, it has proved beneficial to the efficiency of the Service; and, if not, whether it is proposed to revert to the three-year system?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The system of two-year commissions has been in force for seven years. It has been beneficial in the sense that it gave an increase in efficiency over the pre-existing system. I am not prepared at the moment to say whether some more efficient system can be found, but it would in no case be a mere reversion to the system in force prior to 1905.

    TORPEDO DESTROYERS (1910–11 PROGRAMME).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, in view of the fact that all the twelve German destroyers of the 1910–11 programme had been commissioned and completed their trials by the end of 1911, there are only seven of ours of the same programme out of a total of twenty now in service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Eight of the twenty torpedo-boat destroyers named in the question have already been delivered, and apart from any influence the coal strike may have, nine more are expected to be delivered by the end of April next. Apart from the labour troubles of 1910, there is no reason for doubting that all twenty

    359
    boats would have been delivered by the present time ready for service in His Majesty's Fleet.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Why do we take so much longer to build destroyers than the Germans do?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is the case. The dates on which the vessels are laid down of course determine the date on which they are completed. In some cases our boats have been begun later in the year.

    ARMOURED SHIPS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the regulations governing the withdrawal of armoured ships from the commissioned fleets for repair and giving leave, which were issued with the Statement of Admiralty Policy of 1905, are still in force; and, if not, what have been substituted for them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the hon. Member is not satisfied with the answer I gave to this question last week, and has therefore put it down again. I can, however, only repeat that regulations appear to me to be out of place in this matter, and the only standard which can be recognised is that of the adequacy of the available fleet at the particular time.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Then the right hon. Gentleman totally disagrees with the policy laid down in 1905 that we should have some standard on which the Admiralty can work?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the method of calculation of naval strength that we have at our disposal differs from week to week and from day to day.

  Indian Civil and Police Services.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the Royal Proclamation of 1858, guaranteeing to the inhabitants of the territories previously administered by the East India Company that, so far as may be, of whatever race or creed, they should be freely and impartially admitted to offices in the Royal service, the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge, whether he consulted the Indian Government before placing upon this guarantee the interpretation that the
  360
  words so far as may be were compatible with a regulation specifically excluding from the civil and police services all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer is in the negative, but seeing that candidates for appointment as probationers in the Indian police are required to be of European descent, I have no doubt that the Government of India share my view as to the interpretation of the words to which my hon. Friend refers. My hon. Friend has perhaps not realised that the appointments which are confined to Europeans constitute only a very small proportion of the total number of posts in the public service in the Far East.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the Colonial Secretary of opinion that the appointments to the Indian police are limited to persons of purely European descent on both sides?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I said that candidates for the Indian police are required to be of European descent.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are avenues of entrance into the higher offices of the Indian police, and that provision is made for them in India?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not fully acquainted with Indian habits.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: With a view of more adequately discharging his duties, will the right hon. Gentleman inform himself of the practice in India?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I shall make myself acquainted with such matters as seem necessary.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the reason for excluding from the Civil and Police services of Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and the Federated Malay States all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides is that Malays and Chinese dislike and resent officers of alien origin being placed in authority over them unless these officers are of European descent; whether the Chinese and Malays have ever made representations to him on the subject; and whether the Colonial Office has ever taken any and, if so, what steps to ascertain the views of the Chinese and Malays?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Regulation to which my hon. Friend's question relates was introduced on the urgent representations of past Governors, who were actuated largely by the decided views expressed by the Malay rulers and by prominent members of the Chinese communities, who must be regarded as representing the views of their fellow-countrymen.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is only one Chinese member of the legislative assembly at Singapore, and that he is unaware of such Regulations, and has given notice to ask a question in the legislative assembly there, and whether that has been done?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I did not know about it. No doubt the question will be asked.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked why no mention is made in the Colonial Office List of the fact that the Colonial Office has within the past seven years established, a colour bar to the Civil and Police services of Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and the Federated Malay States; and whether he will see that in future issues, so long as the colour bar remains, due mention of it will be made, in order that British subjects in those Colonies may not spend time and money in preparing themselves for the public service only to be informed some months previously to the examination that they are excluded by the colour bar?
  Mr. HARCOURT: As my hon. Friend will see, if he will consult the title-page, the Colonial Office List is not a Government publication. I cannot admit the assumption in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the title-page of the Colonial Office List it is described as prepared by two gentlemen of the Colonial Office, and will he take steps to secure that the authority of the Colonial Office is not used for diffusing inaccurate information with regard to appointments?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think there is any authority for that statement. Valuable assistance is gratuitously given frequently by some members of the Colonial Office.

  Friendly Societies (Chief Registrar's Reports).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say for what purpose the Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for 1910 have been issued fourteen months after the close of that year; why those for 1911 were not put in hand when it was seen that the earlier Reports could not be issued in time to serve any useful purpose; when the Reports for 1911 will be available; and, if not till 1913, in what way they will then be worth the cost of preparing them?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly societies for 1908 appeared in November, 1909, that for 1909 in December, 1910. The Report for 1910 was delayed for nearly two months owing to the work entailed on the office in connection with the National Insurance Act, 1911. If the Report were issued earlier than at a date near the end of the year following that to which it relates, its value would be much impaired owing to the impossibility of embodying in it all the returns which are necessary to make it complete. The Report for 1911 is now in hand, and it is anticipated that it will be published in its complete form before the end of the current year.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. GILLasked if the Insurance Commissioners have decided upon a uniform system of bookkeeping by approved societies; and whether the necessary books will be supplied free to the societies by the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As stated in the White Paper circulated on 28th February, a Sub-committee appointed by the Joint Committee is now considering this question. I hope as soon as possible to give an answer.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is exactly what the Sub-Committee is considering.

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. WHELERasked whether all grades of men employed in His Majesty's dockyards will be called upon to pay the contributions under Part I. and Part II. of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. As regards Part I. of the Act, paragraph (b) of the second part of the First Schedule provides for exceptions in certain cases. As regards Part II. of the Act, the matter is regulated by Section 107, Sub-section (3).
    Mr. WHELER: May we know what the certain cases are?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that off-hand, but I think the hon. Member will find the matter fully set out in the pamphlet prepared for the use of the Army and Navy.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will it be produced?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As speedily as possible.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That was what the hon. Gentleman said last night.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the time for comment. Comments should be made in the Lobby.

    DISSOLUTION OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is refusing to register or advertise the dissolution of friendly societies; and whether the Insurance Commissioners have instigated or requested him so to do, and on what authority such refusal is based?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Registrar of Friendly Societies has not refused to register or advertise the dissolution of any society. He considers, however, that before the members of any society take the irrevocable step of dissolution, which in some cases may be disastrous to their best interests, they should consider carefully the effect of the Act upon them, and, in particular, the effect of Section 72, and in order to give them an opportunity for informing themselve on this matter he is advising them not to persist immediately with steps towards dissolution until they have fully considered their position under the Act.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Member say that the Registrar of Friendly Societies it not holding up applications for dissolution pending the consideration of Clause 72?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I have fully answered that point in the answer I have given. He is endeavouring to see that authentic information is available for the members before they take the irrevocable step of dissolution.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has he not held up applications for dissolution pending the inquiry he is making into the meaning of Clause 72?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on that point. No definite refusal has been given up to the present time.
    Mr. CASSEL: Has the Registrar of Friendly Societies any power to refuse to register?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think he can be mandamused if he does refuse; but that does not arise at present, because no refusal has been given.
    Mr. CASSELasked how many societies or branches of societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts have given notice to the Registrar of their intention to dissolve since the introduction of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Since the introduction of the National Insurance Act, 1911—namely, 4th May, 1911–278 societies and 14 branches have notified to the Registrar of Friendly Societies their intention to dissolve. Of these 113 societies and 8 branches have already been dissolved by instrument. Dissolutions in respect of the remaining 165 societies and 6 branches have not yet been registered.

    SCHEMES AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEMES.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether schemes or supplementary schemes under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, will have to be adopted by societies or branches of societies in the same manner and by the same majorities as amendments of the rules of the society would have to be adopted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Where the adoption of the scheme involves the amendment of any of the existing rules of the society the same procedure will be necessary as in the case of an amendment of rules.

    LECTURES.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the hon. Gentleman will publish with the Votes the names of the conveners at meetings of lecturers held under the

    365
    Insurance Commissioners, giving the date and place of each meeting?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot add anything to the previous answers which I have given to the hon. Member for Colchester and the hon. Member for London University.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If it is inconvenient to give this Return will the hon. Gentleman give a list of the conveners who have paid for their meetings.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is it not unwise to give the names in cases where these societies have asked for a confidential interview in order to lay their own financial position before an adviser, and would it not greatly prejudice them to have this information published?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that point.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it not in order to protect the public who have to pay for these meetings which ought to be paid for by the State?
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, in order to prevent confusion, he will say whether the Mr. F. J. Robertson, journalist, whose name appears upon the list of lecturers under the National Insurance Act for Scotland is the same as a gentleman of a similar name and initials who is a prominent member of the Young Scot Society, or whether he is the same gentleman who acted as a Liberal election agent, or the same as another gentleman who was a free trade lecturer; and, if not, in what branch of journalism is he employed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would ask the Noble Lord to postpone the question. The secretary of the Scottish Commission is inquiring of the gentleman referred to concerning the particulars desired.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Did the Secretary to the Scotch Commissioners make inquiries before he appointed this gentleman?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think he knew whether this gentleman was a member of the Young Scot Society or not.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: At what date will the hon. Gentleman be able to answer the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: To-morrow.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I would like to know whether Liberalism is considered to be a disqualification.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked if the hon. Gentleman will place in the Vote Office for the information of Members copies of the document, entitled "Questions and Answers for Lecturers," issued by the Insurance Commissioners on 23rd January?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The "Questions and Answers for Lecturers" form one of a series which is being prepared of "Questions and Answers" for the use of various classes of persons affected by the Act. They are designed not only for the use of official lecturers, but for all secretaries of friendly societies, etc., and others who wish to impart accurate information concerning the Act. Owing to the enormous pressure of work and correspondence I regret to say that none of these have been completed at present, but I shall be glad to send copies of them immediately on publication to all Members of the House who desire them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the questions and answers which have already been issued to the lecturers, and which were complete on the 23rd of January, cannot now immediately be published, in accordance with the promise given?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No questions and answers have already been issued to lecturers, and none were completed by the 23rd of January. If they had been I should have been only too glad to lay them on the Table.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Will it be possible to have these questions and answers for use at future by-elections?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not a fact that the instructions to lecturers gave directions to answer questions at meetings out of the official questions and answers, and is it not a fact that to do this they must have been in existence?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not a fact. I can assure the hon. Member that they have not been in existence. It was stated that the answers contained in the questions and answers and other publications should under some circumstances be used, and the sooner we produce them the better pleased we shall be.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the other publications now referred to be immediately published?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already stated that owing to the enormous pressure of work none of these publications have yet been able to be prepared. They are being prepared as quickly as possible, and I hope in a very short time they will be in the hands of hon. Members.

    APPROVED SOCIETY (DEFICIENCY).
    MR. CASSELasked whether, in the event of the funds of any approved society proving insufficient to pay the ordinary benefits provided for by the National Insurance Act, 1911, the deficiency will be made good out of additional moneys provided by Parliament if such deficiency arises before the first valuation, or if it arises subsequently?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any overdraft on the society's account with the National Insurance Fund will form part of the deficiency disclosed at the succeeding valuation and will fall to be made good in the manner provided for in Section 38 of the Act. All drafts required by any society for the ordinary benefits of the Act will be met from the National Insurance Fund. No question of deficiency can arise until after the first valuation. If any deficiency is then disclosed it will be made good either by reduction of benefits or increase of contributions. After such deficiency has thus been made good the society may again declare the ordinary or additional benefits at ordinary rates of contribution.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked whether the pension officers in the Clifden, Roundstone, and Spiddle districts of Connemara are able to speak the Irish language; and, if not, will he recommend the replacement of these officers by men who have a knowledge of the language, which is spoken almost exclusively by the claimants for old age pensions?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The three pension officers at Clifden, Roundstone, and Spiddle do not speak Irish. They have no difficulty, however, in finding an English-speaking relative or neighbour to act as interpreter for a claimant who does not speak any English, and I am assured that the interests of such claimants are in no way prejudiced by the officer's ignorance of Irish. The Board of Customs and Excise, in selecting pension officers for
  368
  Irish-speaking districts, do give a preference as far as possible to Irish-speaking officers; but it is not possible to ensure that all pension officers in these districts should know Irish.

  Globe Room, Reindeer Hotel, Banbury.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the sale of the Globe Room of the Reindeer Hotel, Banbury, to an American who intends to transport it to the United States; and whether any funds are available for the purchase by the nation of such objects of historic and artistic value as this room?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen the statements in the Press with regard to this sale. Apart from funds at the disposal of the museums there are no public funds available for the purchase of pannelling and similar objects. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the existence of private societies for the preservation of antiquities.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of placing an Export Duty on these works of art?

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether there is any item of the true revenue of Ireland in respect of which he can give an estimate of the proportion contributed by the province of Ulster?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear that I cannot give an estimate of any item that would not be untrustworthy.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: May I ask the hon. Member where the difficulty lies in giving the estimate of the Income Tax and the Death Duties in the case of Ulster, on the one hand, and the rest of Ireland, on the other?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot reply to that in answer to a supplementary question, but I shall be glad to go into the matter with the hon. Gentleman and show why, in the opinion of the Inland Revenue, it is impossible.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether the Committee on Irish Finance have made any efforts to make an estimate of this kind?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That I cannot say. I have no knowledge on the subject.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what has been the cost of the Committee on Irish Finance; and out of what funds will it be defrayed?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The cost has been approximately £600, and has been met from the Votes for Temporary Commissions, Stationery and Public Buildings, Great Britain.
  Mr. MOORE: Have public monies ever before been spent on a secret Commission?

  Land Valuation (Reference Committee).
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the instructions given by the Reference Committee that valuation cases should be heard by the referees in private; whether this would apply to cases where the appellant has no objection to publicity; and, if not, will he give instructions accordingly?
  Mr. CASSELalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owing to the exclusion of the Press and public from the proceedings before the referees, under Part I. of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, important decisions remain unknown to persons interested; and whether he will take steps to enable such decisions to be made known to the public?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am aware of the instructions referred to, and I am considering whether it can be arranged that the records of proceedings before referees should be made available to persons interested in the administration of the Act.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every property owner liable to this tax is interested, and may I take it that the only possible means of informing them is through the public Press?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I have answered that by saying that I am considering the question of the publication of these reports. I think there is a good deal to be said for it.

  Mining Royalties.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the amount of money yielded in 1909 and 1910 from the mining royalties tax; what is the total amount received from royalties upon coal in the United Kingdom; what is the average rate of royalty per ton upon coal
  370
  in France, Germany, and Belgium; and whether the royalty money in the countries mentioned is received by ground landlords or is devoted to national purposes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amount of Mineral Rights Duty collected for each of the financial years 1909–10 and 1910–11 was, approximately, £321,000. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question it has been roughly estimated that the annual amount of royalties on coal is £6,000,000, but, as I explained on Monday in a reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield, I have not the necessary material for arriving at an exact and authoritative figure without very laborious research. As to the remainder of the question I regret that I have no information.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he did not state to the House that the amount was £6,000,000. I put a question to him, but he did not answer it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend put another question to me on Monday, but I think it was not reached.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there has been any new royalty leases made since the Royalty Tax was put on, and, if so, whether the Royalty Tax has been increased?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I could not answer without notice.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that the amount of royalties paid to the landlords exceed the total amount of dividends paid?
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion the whole of the royalty charge bears to the whole cost of production?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is obviously a question I cannot answer without notice.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked what is the average rent paid per ton of coal in the United Kingdom to the royalty owner?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that accurate information on this point is not in the possession of any Department for which I am responsible, and could only be obtained by a laborious examination of some 10,000 assessments. On a very rough estimate, based on such incomplete material as is available, the average royalty per ton appears to be about 5½d.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: In view of the Mineral Rights Duty, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps next year to ask the owners of minerals to separate the accounts, so that the Treasury can know what these royalties are?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that suggestion is very well worth consideration.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will also separate the Land Taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what the Noble Lord is referring to. As a matter of fact, they are separated now.

  Super-tax.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if it is held by the Commissioners of Income Tax that if a man's income was over £5,000 in 1908–9, but less than that amount in subsequent years, he should be obliged to pay Super-tax under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, although, in fact, his income has never exceeded the limit since that Act became law?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 29th ultimo to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington West, from which he will see that liability to the Super-tax is required to be based upon the statutory income for the year preceding the year of charge.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I asked if this money is actually to be paid, although a man has not had £5,000 a year since the Act was passed, and not if it is to be charged or levied?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely that is the answer. If it is to be charged, that means it is to be paid.

  Erin Assurance and Investment Company, Limited.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ascertain the names of the directors of the Erin Assurance and Investment Company, Limited; the amounts of capital authorised, subscribed, and paid up; the amount held by each of the directors; and where the head office is situate?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): It appears from a prospectus which is filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies that the
  372
  directors of the Erin Assurance and Investment Company, Limited, on 15th February, 1912, were R. Mortimer, C. W. Alison, F. England, R. J. L. Fytche, and Lord Norreys, and that the head office of the company was at Effingham House, Arundel Street, Strand. The authorised capital of the company is £60,000. The last annual return filed by the Company, which is made up to 2nd January, 1912, shows that on that date capital to the nominal amount of £1,000 had been subscribed, that £502 5s. had been paid up, and that the nominal amounts of capital held by each of the persons who were then the directors of the company were C W. Alison £100, F. England £115, D. O'Mahoney Leahy £395, and E. O'Mahoney Leahy £100.
  Mr. GINNELL: In view of this enterprise having adopted a particular name to facilitate its operations in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to allow it to proceed before finding out whether it is or is not sound?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot possibly guarantee the soundness of this or any company. If my hon. Friend will put to me personally any specific question I shall be glad to answer it. Of course, I have no power except to suggest

  Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Navigations.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can hold out any hope of legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Navigations during this Session of Parliament; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Departmental Committee on Railway Agreements and Amalgamations is generally favourable to the elimination of such relics of competition as exists between the railway companies, he proposes to incorporate in any Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee at least the principal recommendations of the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Navigations, 1905–11, and thus afford some support and relief to traders?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think it will be practicable to deal with canals and waterways in the Railways Bill, which I hope to introduce shortly, and I fear that I am unable to hold out any prospect of legislation on the subject during the present Session.
  Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that water carriage is the only really effective competition, with the railway companies in this country?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the Board of Trade given any consideration at all to the Report of this Commission?
  Mr. BUXTON: We are considering it very carefully, but it involves very large proposals, and I see no prospect at all events of dealing with them in the course of the present Session.
  Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the enormous development of inland waterways in Germany has been of incalculable advantage to German, trade, and will he bear in mind—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now making a speech.

  Labour Exchanges (Governesses and Domestic Servants).
  EARL of KERRYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the supply of governesses and domestic servants is being dealt with by the Labour Exchanges; whether it was intended or contemplated that the Exchanges should be so used by persons already provided for toy other agencies, where both employer and employed are in a position to pay the customary fees; whether such State-aided competition is seriously threatening the continued existence of domestic employment agencies; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: Labour Exchange managers have been instructed from the first not to deal with resident vacancies for domestic servants in private houses. A limited number of juvenile advisory committees have, however, recently been permitted, under carefully defined conditions, to find places for girls below seventeen desiring to go into service. I shall be glad to inquire into any specific case in which it is alleged that the existing instructions have been infringed.

  Register of Shipping (Motor and Oil Engines).
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked in what way the power of motor and oil engines is computed for the purpose of entry in the register of shipping; whether a formula assuming a certain steam pressure is still used; and whether, as there is no steam pressure in either motor or oil
  374
  engines, the advisability of devising a new formula for both types, which will give an approximation of engine power, will be considered?
  Mr. BUXTON: Vessels fitted with motors or oil engines and registered in this country are as yet of small tonnage; and the power of the engines given on the certificate of registry is that stated on the certificate supplied by the engine makers. No formula assuming a certain steam pressure is used by officers of the Board of Trade for deciding the registered horse-power of motors or oil engines. It is probable that, in the near future, vessels of considerable size, fitted with internal combustion engines, will be built for registration in the United Kingdom; and, in that case, the necessity of framing a suitable formula for determining the registered horse-power will be considered.

  COAL STRIKE.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked on what date the Government had notice of the possibility of a coal strike taking place; and what period elapsed before they intervened with a view to a settlement between the parties to the dispute?
  Mr. BUXTON: It has been common knowledge for some time past that a dispute existed in the coal trade which might result in a general stoppage. As the hon. Gentleman is aware from statements already made by the Prime Minister, His Majesty's Government from the outset closely watched the developments, but they could not, in their judgment, intervene with any useful result until it became clear that direct negotiations between the parties would not result in an amicable settlement.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he would consider the introduction of legislation designed to substitute in trade unions the secret for the open ballot on questions vitally affecting the interests of the whole nation?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understood it had been arranged that this question should be postponed.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I have already postponed it twice. I think I should now press for a reply.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that as at present advised my answer must be in the negative.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinions of members of trade unions are very often got by bullying and intimidation? Is it not the object and desire of the Government to obtain the opinion of the men themselves, and not that of syndicalist Socialists?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should have used language of that kind. I think the methods adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the opinions of trade unions are a matter of internal regulation, and I have every confidence in the good sense and good faith of my fellow countrymen to whatever class they belong.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that masters and men engaged in the English coal trade are with one exception agreed upon the principle of the minimum wage, the Government will insist that this agreement should come into operation at once in England; and, seeing that the national interests are in jeopardy, whether the Government will appoint a small Commission, armed with drastic powers, to settle the differences in South Wales, Scotland, and Northumberland as purely sectional matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing at present to what I said on Monday.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the representatives of the country an opportunity of discussing the question of the coal strike, which is a matter of the utmost gravity?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer that later.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I put a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to a statement published this morning that he intends to introduce a Minimum Wages Bill for the coal trade to-morrow, whether there is any foundation for that statement, and whether he can now say when he proposes to give an opportunity to the House to discuss the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The statement referred to by the hon. Member is a pure work of imagination. As regards the date at which it will be desirable for the House to discuss the question—I am very anxious
  376
  and the Government are very anxious that the House should have such an opportunity—we shall certainly not impose any delay on our part to the attainment of that object. I do not like at this moment to name a day. The position just now is very delicate. I am hoping now, in the course of the next hour, to see representatives of the miners, and therefore it is very undesirable to say more just now.

  Islands of Eigg and Canna (Telegraphic Communication).
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General, whether it, is proposed to withdraw the telegraphic communication from the Islands of Eigg and Canna; and whether he is aware of the injury this-would inflict on the population and the general interests of these islands?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The maintenance of telegraph communication on the islands of Eigg and Canna entails a cost very much in excess of the revenue. In these circumstances, I should not be justified in continuing the facilities entirely at the public expense and without at least a contribution from the persons directly benefited; and I am now in communication with the respective owners of the islands with a view to their furnishing, a guarantee for one-third of the annual loss entailed.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this telegraphic communication is of great use to vessels in distress on the West Coast of Scotland—the Northern Lights Commissioners say they cannot well carry on their work without it—and whether the Post Office considers it is in the interests of true economy to scrap these cables for the sake of the cost of a few pounds per annum?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am most anxious to maintain this telegraphic station, but I do not think it would be fair to charge the taxpayers of the country with the whole of the loss. If the local authorities, or the landowners, will contribute only one-third, I am willing to bear two-thirds of the loss.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole population of these islands is extremely poor, and that if he lays down the rule that no telegraphic communication is to be maintained with outward parts of the United Kingdom unless it pays, he will expose districts of that kind to inconvenience?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not lay down that condition. I am willing to bear two-thirds of the loss of an unremunerative service. I still hope that satisfactory arrangements will be arrived at and that it will not be necessary to discontinue the service.
  Sir J. DEWAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view the fact that this telegraph office renders a great public service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, I will bear that in mind.

  Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, having regard to the failure of former Home Rule Bills owing largely to lack of knowledge of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, to the fact that this is a public concern for the elucidation of which public money has been spent, and to the rule preventing a Minister using in the House information withheld from other Members, whether the Government still adhere to their purpose of withholding this information from Members generally; and, if so, until what period?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any rule such as that quoted by the hon. Member, and I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given on the subject.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the message received from Ulster in the first instance, and from Manchester yesterday, the Government intend to bring in the Bill at all?
  Mr. MOORE: Is it the fact that the failure of former Home Rule Bills did not arise so much from the financial ineptitude of the Government as from the determination of loyal Ulster Protestants to have nothing to do with them?
  Earl WINTERTON: May we definitely assume the right hon. Gentleman undertakes not to publish the Report of this Secret Committee, and to give it to the House generally?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  University of London.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Government has made itself respon-
  378
  sible for the housing of the University of London throughout its history; whether in the Treasury Minute, dated 16th February, 1899, the liability to provide a dignified and suitable home for the university, and also to make such provision as might thereafter be needed for the full extension and development of the university under the Statutes and Regulations made by the Commissioners appointed by the Act of 1898, was acknowledged; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter, in view of the present unsatisfactory accommodation for the university as disclosed in the Report of the Royal Commission on University Education in London issued on the 15th day of December, 1911?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have, as a matter of fact, provided accommodation for the London University throughout its history. The Treasury Minute cited by the hon. Member was written before the removal of the old university to South Kensington, and refers to the possibility of an arrangement, which was actually carried out, between the authorities of the Imperial Institute and the Treasury. It must not be construed as admitting liability on the part of His Majesty's Government to provide for all possible requirements of the university in the future. The recent Report of the Royal Commission points out that the University must depend to a large extent upon private endowments for its full development. The Government do not think that it would be opportune to take any step in connection with the present accommodation for the university before the final Report of the Royal Commission has been issued.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that a large number of public bodies which are ready to contribute towards the establishment of a building for London University are only waiting to see what action the Government will take in accordance with their promise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that is so.

  Ancient Monuments.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether France and other countries schedule their ancient buildings and other historic monuments with the object of protecting them as national heirlooms and securing them against vandalism or

  379
  destruction; and whether he can promise legislation with a similar object to protect such historic buildings at the Reindeer Hotel, Banbury, now threatened with partial demolition?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the procedure in France referred to by the hon. Member. The First Commissioner of His Majesty's Office of Works proposes to introduce at an early date a Bill dealing with the question of the preservation of ancient monuments and buildings, but pending its introduction I can make no statement with regard to its provisions, nor as to whether the Reindeer Inn at Banbury will fall within its scope.

  Feeding of School Children (Holiday Times).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the suffering caused amongst ten of thousands of poor children by the inability of local authorities to incur the expenditure necessary to feed such children during holiday times; and if, with a view to putting an end to such suffering during the forthcoming holidays, he will arrange for sufficient time being given to allow the House to pass the necessary amending Bill to enable such feeding to take place?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that any Bill for this purpose is before the House. The Government are, however, prepared to give favourable consideration to the principle.

  Gloucester Telegraphists' Duties.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether, when in winter junior telegraph clerks in Gloucester supersede senior postal clerks in day and counter duties on the postal side of the service, thereby reducing senior postal clerks to night and sorting duties, such postal clerks receive any and, if so, what compensation for being superseded by their juniors and compelled to do lower grade work in order to find occupation for the juniors in the superior grade work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No question of compensation arises. The scale of sorting clerks and telegraphists was framed to cover the whole range of duties proper to the class.

  Newcastle-on-Tyne Telegraph Superintendent.
  Mr. HUDSONasked whether it has been decided to retain the services of the chief superintendent of telegraphs at Newcastle-on-Tyne beyond the age limit; whether due consideration has been given to the fact that this will retard the promotion of six officers in subordinate ranks; whether there are no fewer than fifty-five male operators, equal to 39 per cent. of the male staff, stagnated at the maximum of the telegraphists' wage scale, and that many of these operators have been in that position for several years; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the customary retirement at sixty years of age will be enforced?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The age of sixty, which will be attained next August by the chief superintendent of telegraphs, at Newcastle-on-Tyne is not correctly described as an "age limit" if it is meant that it is the age at which compulsory retirement is enforced; nor has it ever been customary to compel efficient officers of that age to retire against their will in order to provide promotion for others. I see no occasion to disturb the decision given.

  Post Office Women Clerks.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the-Postmaster-General, whether the Hob-house Committee must be understood to have fixed the scale of salaries of the women clerks in the Post Office in respect of the average character of their work; whether he has recently devolved certain of the simpler clerical or quasi-clerical duties hitherto performed by them upon a new class of assistant women clerks in the money order department; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that he has thus raised the average character of the duties in respect of which their scale of salaries was fixed, he has also raised the salaries of the women clerks?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The women clerks will not be called upon to perform any work of a higher character than that which the scale of pay recommended by the Select Committee was intended to remunerate.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: As the right hon. Gentleman has taken away from these clerks their simpler elementary duties, and evolved them on to another set of clerks, does not that in itself raise the average

  381
  standard of the work performed by these clerks?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that the matter has been treated on the basis of average at all. The Hob-house Committee recommended a certain scale of pay for all the work done by these clerks. Some do higher-grade work and some lower grade. Those who do the higher grade were to be remunerated on a certain scale, and they are, in fact, now being remunerated on that scale.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hob-house Committee did fix the salary in respect of the average character of the work, and was not that admitted in a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to refer to the context of that letter.

  Hollesley Bay Labour Colony.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the actual net cost of maintenance of men sent to Hollesley Bay Labour Colony by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, excluding the cost of maintenance of wives and children in London?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Calculated on the basis indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 26th ultimo, the net cost of maintenance of men employed at the Hollesley Bay Colony, as distinguished from the cost of maintaining their wives and families, is 16.2 shillings per man per week.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are not the questions of the maintenance of these men and of their wives and children connected with one another?
  Mr. BURNS: I must refer the hon. Member to my answer.

  Metropolitan Paupers (Cost).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the average cost per week for the maintenance of an able-bodied man or woman in a Metropolitan workhouse, including establishment charges; what credit do boards of guardians receive for the reduction of rates by the work performed by these persons; the average cost for the maintenance of a child in scattered homes, cottage homes, and barrack schools, respectively;
  382
  and if he can give the average cost to the poor rate of the maintenance of a man, wife, and family of four children in Metropolitan Poor Law institutions for persons, in health?
  Mr. BURNS: It is not practicable to give the exact cost of able-bodied paupers, but if the cost be based on the net indoor expenditure for "in-maintenance," "salaries," "buildings, etc." (but not including "loan charges"), the average cost of all indoor paupers in London is 10s. 9d. a week. The cost of able-bodied; paupers must be assumed to be less. Calculated on a similar basis, the average weekly cost of a child in scattered homes, cottage homes, and other separate schools provided by Metropolitan guardians is about 9s., 11s. 2d., and 11s. 9d. a week respectively. The work performed by inmates of workhouses is not valued. The amount received from sales of garden produce, firewood, broken stone, etc., by Metropolitan guardians in the year ended March, 1911, was about £25,000. I doubt if it is possible to give the average cost of a family such as the hon. Member refers to, since the cost would vary according to the circumstances.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman print with the Votes a statement showing the cost per individual in a Poor Law institution for a healthy person, including establishment charges, based on exactly the same kind of figures as those used in connection with the Hollesley Bay Colony?
  Mr. BURNS: I have done my best to give the hon. Member the information he seeks. If he will put down another question similar to the one he has just asked I will do my best to answer it.

  Coal Mining Properties (Rating).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked on what principle coal mining properties in England and Wales are rated; and whether those who hold them are excused from the payment of rates in respect of them during the time when they are not being worked?
  Mr. BURNS: Coal mines are rated, speaking generally, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I may say that the point could only be authoritatively determined in a Court of Law, and I could not undertake to express, an opinion with regard to it.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the practice is?
  Mr. BURNS: At the present moment I would prefer not to.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked on what principle coal mining properties in Scotland was rated; and whether either the lessors or the lessees of them are excused from the payment of rates in respect of them during the time when they are not being worked?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My hon. Friend will find the information he desires if he will refer to Section 42 of the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, 1854, and to the decisions following thereon, of which I shall be glad to give him a note. The Section referred to contains a provision that "no mine or quarry shall be assessed unless it has been worked during some part of the year to which such assessment applies," but that provision must be read in the light of the decisions in question.

  Circulation of Pamphlets among Soldiers.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked, with reference to the case of Frederick Crowsley, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is proceeding against the Syndicalist newspaper, which first printed and distributed the incriminating and open letter to British soldiers, and against the British Labour Press, which reprinted it, as well as against Crowsley; and, if not, on what grounds subject for prosecution was chosen?
  Mr. LANSBURYasked if the Director of Public Prosecutions has proceeded against the Syndicalist newspaper for first printing and distributing an article, "An Open Letter to British Soldiers," or against the National Labour Press, which subsequently reprinted it, as well as against Frederick Crowsley, who paid for the reprinting of the letter and distributing it; and, if not, why the authorities have discriminated between the publishers, the printers of the leaflet on the one hand, and the individual who is charged with the distribution of the leaflet?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): It is undesirable, in my opinion, in the public interest to say more than that the matter to which the hon. Members refer is at this moment the subject of investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of taking proceedings against those persons who are inciting the Ulster people to riot?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to reserve his comments for the Lobby.

  Labour Disputes (Military and Police).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked what expenditure has been incurred since the passing of the Trade Disputes Act for the provision of extra military and police, other than those ordinarily employed in the district for the maintenance of order, in connection with labour disputes; and what expenditure was incurred for the same purposes for a similar period before the passing of the Act referred to?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have no information as to the cost of military, which can be given, if at all, only by the War Office; nor have I any information as to the cost of extra police employed for the purpose specified in the question. The Home Office does not receive any Returns from police authorities which would give the figures. It would involve much labour to the police to supply them, and any figures that could be obtained would be of very little value. In case of disturbance the cost of extra police is generally a small fraction of the extra cost of police.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say on Monday last that if I asked for the extra cost he would endeavour to give it?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I was only giving one of the reasons why I could not give the figures then asked for by the hon. Member. I am now only giving a reason why I cannot give the answer he asks for to-day.
  Earl WINTERTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman write to the districts involved and ask them to give him the figures. Would there be any trouble and expense involved?
  Mr. McKENNA: Those are the very points we have inquired about. I am informed there would be great expense, considerable trouble, and no value.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman right in stating that the figures

  385
  I have asked for would be of no value to the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe so.

  Conviction of William Henry Thompson (Chelmsford).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of William Henry Thompson, who on 18th December, 1911, was convicted at Chelmsford Quarter Sessions for obtaining horses by means of worthless cheques, and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour; whether he has since that date received information that this man was wrongfully convicted; whether, in consequence of this information, he has issued instructions for the apprehension of another person in respect of the same crime; whether Thompson is still undergoing his sentence; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to this case, and, having made inquiries into the statement made by another prisoner to the effect that Thompson was not his accomplice, I have referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal, under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act. As the matter is now sub judice, I can say nothing further with regard to it at present.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether Thompson's case has already been before the Court of Appeal, and whether they refused to give leave to appeal?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not say without notice.

  Suffragist Outrages.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether the disorderly conduct of the prisoners remanded on a police court summons for window smashing on Friday last has necessitated the suspension of the prison rules relating to the admission of visitors at Holloway Prison by the Home Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. The rights of prisoners to visits are subject to the maintenance of order and discipline in the prison; and, in consequence of the disorderly conduct of a number of remand prisoners on Sunday morning, all visits, except those of their legal advisers, had to be suspended. Those remand prisoners who have not been guilty of serious disorder in prison are now receiving the ordinary visits.

  Single-School Districts (England and Wales).
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the present number of single-school districts in England and Wales; how many schools in such districts are non-Provided schools; and what proportion of these is the property respectively of each denomination?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The number of parishes in rural districts, urban districts, with a population of under 20,000, and boroughs with a population of under 10,000, within which there was only one public elementary school on 1st August, 1911, is 7,602. There are in these areas 5,528 Church of England schools, 26 Roman Catholic schools, 11 Wesleyan schools, and 141 other non - Provided schools, making a total of 5,706 non-provided schools, and 1,896 Provided schools. The number of such areas in which there was more than one public elementary school of one type only, is 896. There are in these areas 516 with Church of England schools only. There are 17 urban districts over 20,000 and boroughs over 10,000, being authorities under Part III. of the Act of 1902 which have either only Provided schools or only non-Provided schools. In 15 out of the 17 there are non-Provided schools only, and in these 15 there are 119 Church of England, 10 Wesleyan, 16 Roman Catholic, and 8 other non-Provided schools.
  Mr. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the number of children in attendance at these schools?

  Oxford Street School (Swansea).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the managers of the Oxford Street school at Swansea have incurred very large expenses at the special inquiry ordered by the Education Department, and afterwards before the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords; whether the managers were successful on each of those occasions; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government, will repay to the managers the costs to which they have been put?
  Mr. PEASE: An appeal has been received from the correspondent of the school referred to for payment to the managers of the costs of the public inquiry and of the differences between the taxed costs and the solicitor and client costs of

  387
  the legal proceedings to which the Noble Lord refers. The Government, however, did not consider that any case had been made for imposing a further charge upon the public, and the correspondent was informed on 2nd February last that the appeal could not be entertained.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these managers have been put to the expense of some £24,000 in order to comply with the demands of the Department and the local authority, and does he think it fair, in these circumstances, that they should be fined heavily in addition for litigation in which they were successful and which was forced upon them unjustly?
  Mr. PEASE: I was not aware that the sum was so large as the Noble Lord asserts. At the same time, we have given consideration to it, and, although we admit that the case may be a somewhat hard one, we do not think we should be justified in making the payment.

  Indian Land Acquisition Act.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will grant a Return setting out the provisions of the Indian Land Acquisition Act or Acts, and the terms of the notification recently issued thereunder in relation to the purchase of about 180 square miles of land in the neighbourhood of Delhi?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I propose to place a copy of the Indian Land Acquisition Act and of the "Punjab Government Gazette" of 22nd December, 1911, containing the notification in question, in the Library.

  National University of Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the calendar of the National University of Ireland does not contain information corresponding to that comprised in other university calendars and that the university officials do not supply information asked from them; and whether he will have placed in the Library a statement of the number of lectures given in the last scholastic year, and the number prescribed for the current scholastic year, in each subject by each professor in the National University at Dublin and in the Queen's University at Belfast, respectively?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have nothing to say to the officials of the National University and have no control whatever over its calendar.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing that this Nationalist University does corresponds with anything that the other university does?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is the precise contrary.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to the period for payment of interest in lieu of rent, which purchasers understood to be a temporary arrangement for months only, now through no fault of theirs extending to years, with a consequent increase in the total payments, how many quasi-purchasers have been paying this interest for eight, seven, and six years, respectively; and in what year each of these classes may at the present progress expect to be relieved of this extra burden by the vesting of their holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am unable to give the figures in the classified form asked for. There are in all 134,437 cases in which interest is in collection pending the completion of the sale to the tenant in each case. In some instances the cases have been on the Commissioners' books since 1905. The order in which advances are made is governed by the provisions of Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, and the Regulations made under that Section.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Estates Commissioners to furnish an estimate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are very busily employed in carrying out their functions, and, having regard to the great delay there is already, the task of preparing the Return would make the delay much greater than it is.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Could the right Gentleman give us some rough idea of what is the yearly loss of these 134,000 tenants, owing to the non-completion of their bargain by the State?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The bargain by the State fixed no limit of time. The bargain had to be carried out, and is being carried out. I will, however, try to ascertain what the hon. Member asks.
  Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion in Ireland is unanimous that this delay has been occasioned by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite impossible that public opinion in Ireland should be unanimous on any question.
  Mr. GINNELLasked why the Return of estates for sale in the Land Judge's Court in Ireland, which this House ordered in March, 1911, has not yet been produced; whether it is now proposed to make it up to the present date; and when it will be available?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Return referred to (No. 269) was presented to Parliament on 14th August last, and has been printed and circulated.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Congested Districts Board have received a memorial from the tenants on the estate of the late Captain M'Ternan, Barnameenagh, Drumshanba, county Leitrim; and whether, having regard to the congested state of the district and the amount of waste land available, the Board will take steps to acquire the estate and relieve congestion.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board received a memorial from four tenants on the estate of the late Captain Hugh. M'Ternan in the district referred to, and they are making inquiries with a view to entering into negotiations for the purchase of the property.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that an agreement was entered into by the owner of the Nicholson estate, Balrath, county Meath, and the occupiers of small holdings whereby it was agreed that the uneconomic holdings should be enlarged to any extent, that an inspector from the Commissioners should recommend; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the case and to the fact that both the vendor and the purchasing tenants are desirous to settle the matter, an inspector will be sent at an early date?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the matter referred to by the hon. Member will be inquired into when the estate is being inspected in order of priority.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired the Alexander estate, situate at Cruice-
  390
  town, county Meath; and, if so, whether a distribution scheme is in course of preparation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply, given to his question on this subject on the 11th May last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners received a memorial from local applicants that the Barlow estate, situate at Drumrone, near Nobber, county Meath, be divided among them; whether, if their prayer is not conceded, there is any more untenanted land in the district to satisfy their needs; if it is proposed to give almost the whole of the estate, with the dwelling-house thereon, to a Mr. Patrick Gunning, Carlton House, Tuam, county Galway; if this man is an ex-policeman; whether any inquiry has been made as to his capacity to work a farm in a county with which he is unacquainted and where he may be regarded as an unwelcome stranger; and under what section it is proposed to give the farm?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received a number of applications for parcels of land on the Barlow estate, county Meath. The Commissioners have allotted a farm of some 120 acres on that property to Patrick Gunning, who has arranged with the Commissioners for the surrender of his farm in county Galway to enable them to relieve the acute congestion in that district. The Commissioners understand that Gunning formerly served in the police, and they are aware that he is a practical farmer, and fully capable of working lands allotted to him. The lands in question are not, in the opinion of the Commissioners, suitable for sub-division.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether Thomas Cruise, of Mullinstoghan, Moynalty, county Meath, who was offered a farm on the Farrell estate, at Robertstown, and declined it because of its un-suitability, will be considered in the distribution of the Blake estate, at Cormeen, if it be acquired by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received applications for reinstatement from Thomas Cruise and William Cruise, who are respectively the brother and son of Patrick Cruise, whose former holding on the Hussey estate is now occupied by a tenant purchaser. The Commissioners proposed to allot another holding jointly to Thomas and William Cruise, but

  391
  Thomas Cruise refused to sign a joint agreement, and the Commissioners decided to take no further action in the matter of his application.

  National Works (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he can conveniently state what works in Ireland of a large national character, such as arterial drainage and revival of industries, are overdue and urgent but deferred to an Irish authority; and what portion of the £330,000,000 restitution, due to Ireland in respect of excessive taxation since the Union, do the Government propose to ear-mark for each of these purposes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I cannot conveniently state anything of the kind.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that this £330,000,000 is a correct figure?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; I do not.

  Alleged Intimidatory Language (County Mayo).
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Joseph Conroy, of Turlough, county Mayo, has been summoned by the Crown to attend in the King's Bench Division, Dublin, on 11th March instant, to answer for a certain misdemeanour whereof he was indicted; whether the misdemeanour alleged is the use of intimidatory language at a public meeting in Straide, county Mayo; whether the accused appeared at last Mayo assizes to answer the charge, which was not then proceeded with, and received an undertaking from the Crown that if the case was taken out of the county his expenses would be defrayed; is he aware that the accused is not professionally represented or defended in the case; and can he state whether the Crown will now advance to him the funds necessary to defray the expenses of his attendance in Dublin in obedience to the writ of the King's Bench Division?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. Joseph Conroy has been summoned to attend at the King's Bench Division, Dublin, on the 11th instant, in a proceeding against him for entering into a criminal conspiracy to prevent James and Joseph Gallagher from exercising their legal rights. Mr. Conroy did attend at the last Mayo Assizes to
  392
  answer this charge, but the matter was postponed on the application of the Crown. I am advised that no such undertaking as that referred to was given by the Crown, but in the circumstances of the present case the Attorney-General has approved of the payment of Mr. Conroy's expenses which will be occasioned by his journey to Dublin in obedience to the summons served on him.

  Diesel Engines (Russian Navy).
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the Admiralty has taken notice of the information published in the January and February numbers of a technical paper concerning certain gunboats of the Russian Navy fitted with Diesel engines; and whether the information now published was in the possession of the Admiralty before January and February of this year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The substance of what was published has been in the possession of the Admiralty for a considerable time prior to January last, and the articles in question generally corroborate and amplify in some details our previous information.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the Admiralty sent a representative some time ago to Russia to make inquiries as to the working of the Diesel engines fitted in certain vessels on the Caspian Sea and on the Volga; whether the sought-for information was refused by the owners of the vessels; whether letters of introduction, which would have facilitated matters, were offered to the Admiralty; and whether such letters, which would have thus led to the Admiralty receiving the information they sought, were refused?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that nothing is known at the Admiralty of any such visit.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export of Cattle).
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state at how early a date the Argentine ports will be open to receive pedigree cattle from this country, and whether he has kept the Argentine authorities informed that there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease since December last.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question on his behalf. The Argentine Government were officially informed by telegram on the 5th of last month that the last case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred on the 8th December last; that the disease was extirpated on the 11th December by the slaughter of all animals infected or directly exposed to danger of infection; that the precautionary measures which had been imposed locally were withdrawn on the 10th January last; and that no sign of foot-and-mouth disease then existed in any part of the United Kingdom, a state-men which holds good at the present time. If I may judge from previous experience, it is not likely that the restrictions on the importation of cattle from this country to Argentine ports will be maintained for a longer period than six months from the date of the last outbreak, if so long.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (WOMEN) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To enable Women to Vote at Parliamentary elections." Presented by Mr. DICKINSON; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Henry M'Laren, Mr. Charles Roberts, and Mr. Whitehouse; to be read a second time upon Friday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
  PURCHASE OF LAND (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To provide facilities for the sale of land to occupying tenants, and to extend the system of peasant proprietary in England and Wales." Presented by Mr. JESSE COLLINGS; supported by Mr. Goulding, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. Eyres-Monsell, Mr. Jardine, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Stanier, Mr. Mildmay, Sir Herbert Roberts, Mr. Courthope, and Mr. Lane-Fox; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  "To promote agricultural education and nature study in public elementary schools." Presented by Mr. JESSE COLLINGS; supported by Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Harry Hope, Sir Hildred Carlile, Colonel Bathurst, and Mr. Cave; to be
  394
  read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

  SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.
  "To amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908." Presented by Mr. JESSE COLLINGS; supported by Mr. Hunt, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Philip Foster, Mr. Hamersley, Major Morrison-Bell, Mr. Mason, Mr. Peto, Sir Reginald Pole-Carew, and Sir John Spear; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law regarding the Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Price, Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Whyte, and Mr. Acland Allen; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  ADMIRALTY ADMINISTRATION.
  This day fortnight, to call attention to the administration and organisation of the Admiralty, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Gretton.]
  On an early day, to call attention to the increased price of coal, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. T. Richardson.]
  PROSPERITY OF IRELAND.
  This day fortnight, to call attention to the continued prosperity of Ireland under the Act of Union, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Craig.]
SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed [Tuesday, 5th March], "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 186,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. LEE: Before coming to my main argument I should like, if I may, to enter a protest against the attempted veto of criticism coming from this side of the House with regard to military topics. After all it is the business of the Opposition to criticise, and the impropriety of criticism has been urged in so many quarters, all more or less favourable to the Government, that I have naturally formed a strong suspicion that there must be a good deal to criticise. Whilst we all agree that the Army and Navy, in fact the whole question of national defence, should be treated essentially as a non-party question, the safety of the country is, after all, more important than the interchange of bouquets between the two sides of the House, and I venture to think that the time has been reached when the military policy of the Government well deserves any reasonable criticism that we can offer regarding it. There is one objection in the way of criticism to which I particularly demur, and that is, that we have got on this side of the House to accept the Government policy as a chose jugêe, that it holds the field, and that it is the duty of all of us to assist them in submitting it to the most rigorous examination. We are also told that we have no right to criticise unless we have a full-blown alternative scheme to offer in place of that of the Government. Well, I think that is absurd. We are not in the position of responsibility. We have no means of gathering all the information in possession of the Government, and it will be time enough when we are in possession of responsibility for us to produce a scheme which, I hope, will be in many respects superior.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, whom we are all glad to welcome in his new position, and who, I think, must excite our sympathy because he has a very difficult position to defend, adopted the line, with reference to the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that it was most unfair on his part to take any line of criticism which might alarm the British soldier with regard to weapons, and then, in order to try and correct the situation, he himself asserted roundly that the rifle of our soldiers was the very best in the world, although the Secretary of State for War (Lord Haldane) and, I think, every hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the
  396
  House who rose to speak on the subject, have admitted that it is conspicuously deficient, and that it is of the utmost importance it should be replaced at once.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely) indicated dissent.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that all existing rifles are bad, that none of them are fit for war, but that ours are less bad than those of other countries. If he can maintain that position I will make him a present of it. He went on to deprecate what he called that passion for self-depreciation which he thinks is affecting not only the Opposition but the British nation as a whole. I do not think that anyone will suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is himself suffering from that particular complaint. I think that in the exuberance, I might almost say the fanaticism, of his optimism, he surpasses even his official chief. Having made that protest, I feel compelled to neglect the advice which has been addressed by the right hon. Gentleman and others who have spoken in that sense. While I have no hesitation whatever in expressing the real admiration which I feel for the industry, enthusiasm, and the amazing ingenuity of the Secretary of State for War, I have none the less a deep-rooted and very strongly increasing disbelief in the main lines of his military policy. He has had six years in which to develop it, and during that period he has-been almost immune from criticism; he has been almost the spoiled darling of politics as far as party warfare is concerned, and yet while he has had those chances I venture to assert that recent events have proved that the scheme with which his name and reputation are inseparably bound up and his system are entirely unsuited to the most vital and most likely emergency which this country may be called upon to face.
  The Secretary of State for War has not recognised that the situation has completely changed during the last few years, and that the military system which was admirably suited in ways for what I may call our ordinary Colonial wars, which was suited even for such an unusual emergency as the South African war, is entirely unsuited for the sort of European emergency which we have to consider at the present time, and which I am afraid we may have to confront in the future. The former kind of war, what I may call the

  397
  Colonial war, is very seldom absolutely vital. But a great European emergency, if it comes at all—and it is not likely perhaps to come more than once—will come like a bolt from the blue, and will be a matter of life and death. The whole problem which our military experts and advisers should be considering is the problem which has completely changed during the last few years, and I see no signs whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's policy to show that he is adapting our military system to the altered conditions. Consider for a moment what is the situation in which we may be placed, a situation with which many think we were actually faced in the course of the past summer. It is not necessary to enter into delicate international questions, but it was possible—without going into that—that our first line, our Expeditionary Force, consisting of six divisions of Infantry and a Cavalry division, 160,000 men, all Regulars, might have been called upon to start immediately for the Continent in the course of last summer. When I say immediately, I do not mean at a time when our second line has been sufficiently trained and has been made ready, and when it would be considered safe for the first line to leave. By immediately, I mean that it would have to leave so quickly as to have to be on the scene of action ready to fight within three weeks. I do not believe that I have overstated the case when I state that unless our Expeditionary Force was ready to do that, so far as emergencies are concerned, it would be practically useless and it would be better for it not to start at all.
  Many of us are grateful for every reason that our Expeditionary Force and our military system were not put to that test. I not only admit but I commend the efforts which the Secretary of State for War has put forward, resulting in, I believe, increased though not absolute efficiency in organisation and the possibility of rapid mobilisation of our Expeditionary Force. I make that admission in the full remembrance of the very weighty and so far unanswered, if not unanswerable, indictment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), which was delivered yesterday, which showed that in many respects our Expeditionary Force is not fit for duty that necessitates an immediate start. I admit that the Secretary of State for War has done a great deal, though on certain of the points in regard to the rifle, of which we have heard a great deal, there is a very grave
  398
  indictment to be made against the Government; and with regard to the more debateable point, the ammunition, about which the right hon. Gentleman has not given us any real satisfaction, there has been, I think, a suggestion made—I have no means of knowing whether there is any truth in it—that there was a shortage of ammunition of the kind which had to be used for the Expeditionary Force last summer. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he could not give the figures, but he would show them privately to any Member of this House who wished to see them. I hope he will excuse me if I say that I would be glad if he would afford us that information in private on the distinct understanding that if, in our opinion, the provision made should not be of a satisfactory character, should not be up to what is commonly the accepted standard of war, we should be at liberty to push the matter further. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an hypothetical case. Suppose he told us privately that there were only 150 rounds per rifle available, will he claim that we should not be in a position to call him publicly to account?
  Colonel SEELY: It is a very difficult matter. No one has ever given information in this House with regard to stocks of ammunition. So far as I am aware it was always considered most inadvisable. The Secretary of State in another place repeated the statement which I made here, that our stocks of ammunition for the rifles to be used were almost three times as great as that of the whole expended in the South African war. It is still the case, or even more so, but I repeat that I will give the information privately to anyone. Of course, if hon. Members still disagree, and if they bring an indictment against us, we welcome the attack, but I wish to enter the caveat that it is undesirable, for obvious reasons, that the precise stocks which we consider necessary should be announced to the world.
  Mr. LEE: I make no accusation, because I have no means of knowing, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking is a perfectly fair one. I say this with regard to what has been the rule, and a salutary rule, that the giving of confidential information with regard to equipment, ammunition supply, etc., at any given moment is perhaps not in the public interest, yet when it deals with matters of past history that objection does not apply. I pass from that point, as the right hon. Gentleman has met us very fairly, and

  399
  come back to the main argument in regard to the readiness of the Expeditionary Force for service in a European emergency. Even assuming, for the purposes of argument, that it is ready in every respect, I still say that the military system for which the Secretary of State for War is responsible really makes it impossible for that first line of the Expeditionary Force to leave the country as soon as it would be necessary without exposing the country to risks, either real or imaginary, which the people of the country would not tolerate when the time came. The military system of the Secretary of State for War provides two lines, and it seems to me that these two lines are almost perversely designed to neutralise and paralyse each other. You have the first line, on which so much effort has been expended to keep it up, and put it in a position to start at once. We all know that if it cannot start at once it is useless for it to start at all. All these very meritorious efforts have been expended, and yet this force can only take the field—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that—by to a very large extent denuding the second line of officers, horses, and other things which are essential to the existence of the second line.
  Coming to the second line, admittedly in times of peace it is untrained and unfitted for war. The second line, in this scheme of things which the right hon. Gentleman produced, requires the first line to stay at home until such time as public opinion or the Government considers that it is safe for it to leave the country and entrust the defence of these shores to the Territorial Army, and what remains behind? By that very fact the second line necessarily stultifies the raison d'être of the first line as an Expeditionary Force, which is ready at all times to start. The necessity of the first line staying behind is almost inevitable in existing conditions, because it is impossible to ignore public opinion. I do not believe that public opinion would permit the whole of a Regular effective Army practically to leave these shores when they perceive that the second line of defence upon which we have to rely is not only not trained for war, but is actually under a process of mobilisation. The Secretary for War has admitted that. The Under-Secretary of State for War has also admitted it when he was Under-Secretary for the Colonies. He was a very prominent, and important Member of the Government.
  400
  He dealt with that very point in the course of the Debate on the 9th April, 1907. He said:—
  "If it be remembered that it is most unlikely that we should embark 160,000 men with all their provisions, stores and artillery, until at least six weeks should elapse, it will be seen before the danger of an invasion should have been met by the Territorial Force, it would have piled up the six weeks service which is given in the Swiss army, which is admittedly such an extraordinary success."
  At the same time that the Territorial Force will be ready in six weeks, he contemplates that the Expeditionary Force will not be called upon to leave this country in six weeks. We know that if the Expeditionary Force is put in use at all in a great European war, not only will it have to leave this country, but it will have to be in action within three weeks. That is a dilemma which has never been faced by the Secretary of State for War, and it is a dilemma which has to be met so far as a great European emergency is concerned. I admit, of course, that it is a situation which is possible, and perhaps tolerable, in the case of a Colonial war or in the case of a war like the South African. The words "South Africa" I believe lie at the root of all the trouble. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire (Major M'Micking), in defending this scheme, told us that the Secretary of State for War had stated that it was all based upon the Report of the Elgin Commission on the South African war, and that it embodied the lessons of that struggle. I do not necessarily deny that, but I do suggest that the Government or the War Office are affected with an almost fatal obsession with regard to the South African war. The Under-Secretary for War (Colonel Seely) played a very distinguished and gallant part in that war, but I am afraid that he believes that it was the beginning and the end of all things military—
  Colonel SEELY: No, no—
  Mr. LEE: Whereas, as a matter of fact, it is extremely improbable, if not impossible, that a war of that nature within the British Empire will ever occur again. And yet it has exercised, and is exercising, a fatal domination over our military policy. It has given us a system which, as I have endeavoured to prove, is entirely unsuited to a European emergency and to the sort of life-and-death crisis with which we are threatened under modern conditions. In addition they have given us the Territorial Army. I know that it is a very delicate and in

  401
  many respects a thankless task to criticise the Territorial Army. When such criticism as that is brought forward we are always accused of attacking a force that is doing its best, a force composed of gallant men deserving of credit. That, of course, is entirely begging the question. What we are doing is not criticising the Territorial Force but its creator. It is always difficult to criticise what is called a popular force, because we are told we are unpatriotic. I would submit, however, that it is much less unpatriotic to criticise when we think it is in the interest of national safety than it is to use the language of the Secretary of State for War, who, in September last, said that whilst the Territorial Force might not be fully trained for war immediately on mobilisation, at the same time he would not hesitate to use it for all it was worth on the very first day of a war. "For all it was worth!" What would it be worth? Food for powder, and nothing else.
  Colonel SEELY: The Boers.
  Mr. LEE: There is the fatal obsession. It is like the Boers. This Territorial Force, which is to prevent the invasion of this country, it is thought would be similar to the Boers in the South African war, though without training. But the Boers in many respects were trained men of war before any outbreak of hostilities in South Africa. When we are accused of lack of patriotism in putting forward criticism we think necessary in regard to the Territorial Army, I say it is more patriotic to do that than to delude the country into the belief that all is well with our second line of defence. I do not wish to weary the Committee with a list of figures in regard to this matter, they are all contained in the Government's own official returns, but let us take the salient facts. Here is a force, which, according to the official returns, is short by 800 officers and 45,000 men in strength. These figures were given to us only in January of this year.
  Colonel SEELY: I gave later figures which make a very great difference.
  Mr. LEE: I doubt whether there is any great improvement in the Territorial Force between the 1st January and now. We can only go by the latest official Returns. Then you have the training, which, even at best, is absurdly meagre, and only 58 per cent. of the force attended the full training during last year, which was so
  402
  exceptional, and 32,500 men of the force never attended any training at all. Then you had the standard of musketry, in respect of which only 53,000 men qualified out of 179,000 for the musketry course, and about 80,000 were not examined at all. You have, therefore, a force which has increased in cost from £7 to £11 per head, compared with the old Volunteers, and it costs in round figures £1,000,000 more than the old Volunteers, while it has an actual strength of 8,000 men less; and you have a force of which the armament is inferior to that of any enemy with which it is likely to be confronted. We heard some remarks on the subject by the hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire. I do not wish to remind the Committee too accurately of his extraordinary remarks with regard to artillery, but, at any rate, this force is armed with the rifle that the Regular Army has discarded.
  Colonel SEELY: No.
  Mr. LEE: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. The Territorial Army was originally armed with the rifles which were discarded by the Regular Force.
  Colonel SEELY: It is not desirable that we should be at cross purposes in regard to this matter. What the hon. Gentleman said was that the Territorial Army is to be armed with the rifle which the Regular Army discarded.
  Mr. LEE: I said "is armed." I was not talking about the future. I do not know what is going to happen. I was only taking his words up, and I think I am justified in the remarks I made. I am convinced that it is a profound fallacy to think you can arm amateurs, comparatively untrained troops, with an inferior weapon.
  Major M'MICKING: Would the hon. Gentleman have suggested that the Territorial Army should have been armed with the 18-pounder?
  Mr. LEE: I should not have done so for this reason, that I did suggest, and suggested in most emphatic terms, that the Territorial Army should have no field artillery at all, but, if they were to have artillery, then they ought to have the very best. On this point I may venture to speak with some little authority not possessed by other Members of this House. My experience of war is extremely limited, but on

  403
  one occasion when it was my duty not only to be present, but to study the war, to see the lessons afforded for our own Army in the operations of another army, I saw the most striking illustration that has ever been afforded in the history of war of the folly and of the wickedness of arming comparatively untrained troops with inferior weapons. In the course of the Spanish-American war not only was this very policy tried, but the American War Office sent the very best volunteer regiments down to Cuba. They told them the opinion of the experts—and the men absolutely believed it—that when they were armed with the old Springfield rifle they were armed with a weapon better suited to their requirements, and that it was in all respects an efficient weapon for war. These volunteers went with the utmost confidence into action. What was the result? The very moment they came under the fire of the superior rifle in the hands of the Spaniards a spectacle was seen which I hope no one in this House will ever witness. I saw with my own eyes that volunteer regiment become paralysed and demoralised under the fire of the superior weapon, and they had to lie down in the roads until the Regular troops marched over their backs to the front. It was no fault of these men, for they were as brave as any men, but the fault was due to their being armed with an inferior weapon. It was because of this that men, who were not trained to iron discipline, became demoralised, and inevitably demoralised.
  When one has seen a spectacle of that kind it is burned into one's consciousness and is never forgotten. I say that this is the time, when we have the opportunity, to protest against this measure of economy, for it is nothing else, of arming the second line of comparatively untrained troops, who, as the Government contemplate, may have to face the best trained men in Europe, with a weapon which would be inferior to that of the enemy. It cannot be denied that the Territorial Army is badly armed and equipped, that it is dwindling in number, that it is increasing in cost, and that it is unsuited to the only vital European emergency with which we are likely to be faced. The whole policy of the Government with regard to this question is one long refusal to face the facts. The Territorial Army is not fitted for war; it is not even ready to preserve our homes in the case of a great war. It is expressly
  404
  excluded from the duty for which it is peculiarly fitted, and there is a general conspiracy to ignore the truth with regard to the situation, while it is said that it is ungracious and unpatriotic to criticise that force. We hear a great deal of foolish compliments about the Territorial Force. We are told that they are "wonderful considering," and that they have made extraordinary progress. Progress from what to what? We are told that they are gallant fellows. We all know that they are gallant fellows, and they deserve every possible credit for what they are doing. It is not their fault; the fault lies upon the heads of politicians and administrators at the War Office, who lead them to suppose they are fitted to undertake responsibilities of warfare. I say this complacent attitude towards the Territorial Force is either politics or it is nonsense, and I am not sure it is not both. At any rate I am quite sure it is unfair to the Territorials themselves, and might perhaps, in a great emergency, be fatal to the country.
  If this system is to be maintained, then I venture to say that there is no argument whatever and no reply whatever to the advocates of compulsory service. Their arguments are logically irrevocable on this question, and politically impregnable. I am not a member of the National Service League, but this question of compulsory training, I do not care what party is concerned, is not, and never will be, made a party question. It is not, and will not. I do say this to the advocates of compulsory service, the National Service League, and I advise them to go ahead and to endeavour to educate public opinion on this question, because their opportunity will come with the first compulsory embodiment of the Territorial Army. If it lasts more than a month it will, for good and all, destroy the Territorial Army so far as the voluntary system is concerned. Meanwhile, if the amount of expenditure upon national defence is limited, and I do not admit it is limited by any consideration except of the minimum necessary for national safety, then I say we are bound to devote every penny that we have, first of all, to our primary line of defence, the Navy; and, secondly, to our Regular Army, or the first line, the Expeditionary Force; and, thirdly, or perhaps two and three should go together, to provide the very finest armament that any army in the world has to compensate for our inferior numbers. Lastly and fourthly, and only then if there is a surplus. I think that we should devote that to that portion of our

  405
  military forces which are non-effective. The policy of the Secretary of State for War is exactly the reverse of that. He is reducing, or has reduced, our only effective fighting force, and he has started of late to provide funds for the popular army, the Second Line. I say that that policy, root and branch, is one which we are entitled to condemn.
  I pass from that lo another point of very much less importance, and one to which I am exceedingly sorry to have to refer at all. It is a somewhat unpleasant subject, but a great question of principle is involved. I refer to the strange and irregular position which is occupied at the present time by the military correspondent of the "Times" newspaper. I say that a serious question is involved in this matter I am sure there is no precedent for it, and I am equally sure that there is grave objection to paying, or partially paying, a newspaper representative out of public funds, and giving him an official post in the War Office, where he is in a position to secure information which is not available to other papers or to other people. We have had an example of that power to secure information only recently in regard to the premature publication of the Annual General Report of the British Army. Here is a newspaper correspondent who is shown actually on the strength of the Imperial General Staff in the Estimates, and who has accommodation inside the War Office. Whilst on this point I must refer to the extraordinary denial of the Secretary of State for War in another place when he stated that this gentleman had no office, no room in the War Office.
  Colonel SEELY: He did not know.
  Mr. LEE: All I can say is, he ought to have known. If he did not know, why did he state that there was no accommodation? Why did he not say that he did not know, instead of which he told us that this gentleman had no room at the War Office. Then the unfortunate Under-Secretary has to get up here, and has to explain, in order to cover the mistake of his chief, that this gentleman had no allotted room in the War Office in the sense of a room with his name on the door. Really I think the Secretary of State's equivocation in regard to this point deepens the ugly impression which the whole incident has caused.
  Colonel SEELY: May I ask what the hon. Gentleman means by the word "equivocation?"
  Mr. LEE: I mean the difference between saying that an official has no room and no room with his name on the door.
  Colonel SEELY: If there be blame in that respect it is my blame, and not that of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said this officer had not got a room because he believed he had not got a room. It was not surprising that he did not know he had a room, because he had not any room in the ordinary sense in which other people have rooms, and the Secretary of State could not be expected to know every room in the War Office. It was my equivocation, if there was any, and not that of the Secretary of State who made a mistake.
  Mr. LEE: I do not wish to allot the responsibility between the two. I say that the statement was an equivocation, and that the statement made in the first place that the gentleman in question had not a room—
  Colonel SEELY: I know it was a mistake.
  Mr. LEE: It was not true anyhow. In criticising this arrangement I do not wish to suggest that it is any discredit to the "Times" newspaper. On the contrary, from their point of view, it is most commendable piece of journalistic enterprise, and it is the envy of all their contemporaries. But I do think there is a real and very serious objection from the public point of view. The Secretary of State is a profound student of Continental conditions, and he knows that the Press correspondent who is under financial obligations to the Government is one of the most objectionable features of European bureaucracy. Whilst I do not suggest that the military correspondent of the "Times" writes his eulogies of the Secretary of State for War or his attacks upon the Unionist party to order, at the same time I do say that the fact that he is a paid servant of the War Office does deprive those remarks of any weight they might otherwise possess. I admit he is in a very difficult position. He is called upon to ride two horses at once, and everyone knows you cannot do that without keeping them very close together. The arrangement which has been made is admittedly an excellent one for the "Times." I think it is an exceedingly fortunate one for the Secretary of State for War. But where do the public come in? They only pay. Whilst everybody recognises the great ability of the military

  407
  correspondent of the "Times," and whilst we are always glad to listen to any of his criticisms in so far as they are independent and impartial, yet I venture to say it is not compatible with public interests, and I will go further and say it is an administrative scandal that whilst a gentleman should be occupying that ostensibly impartial independent position that he should be actually in the pay of the very Department which he professes to criticise. I do consider some explanation is due from the representative of the War Office with regard to this anomalous and, as I think, exceedingly objectionable position.
  I pass to my last point, which is less contentious, but I hope equally interesting, the subject of aviation. We on this side, and I am sure hon. Gentlemen in every quarter of the House, must welcome the substantial though lamentably tardy action which the Government have taken with regard to this matter. The Government blindness and indifference in the past with regard to military aviation, with regard to this new arm which may quite conceivably revolutionise modern warfare, have gone so far as to become a national peril, and but for the action which has been taken by the Government in the present Estimates there would undoubtedly have been a concentrated and determined attack by all who are interested in this question. Particularly so is that the case when we realise what the situation would have been last summer if our Expeditionary Force had to go to war. It would have been the only one of the armies which would have been likely to have been engaged which would have been without eyes. I say deliberately without eyes in the modern sense. They would have been able to send practically no flying men with that Army for the purpose of gaining information, and that would have subjected our Army to a handicap which might have been fatal. I know the right hon. Gentleman himself is not to blame in this matter, and we have been particularly lenient towards him about it. I know he has done his best, at least since he was inoculated at Hendon, and that without his help and pressure we should never have got the scheme which we have got to-day. To that extent we thank him sincerely. I wish to say one or two words with regard to the scheme itself. In the first place I should like to recognise the broad national framework which has been
  408
  adopted. Apparently the intention is to institute a service which is not to be a mere appenage of the Royal Engineers. And fortunately it does away with the air battalion which really has become a farce, and which I am very glad to hear has been taken off. Then I am sure that it is perfectly sound that in this matter there should be a National Flying Corps with the Army and Navy to co-operate rather than make it a purely War Office concern. On this occasion we are not permitted to discuss anything but the Army side of it, but as far as that is concerned, the Government I am sure is proceeding on right lines; that is to say, that before anything else they are trying to get a sufficient strength and reserve of flying men. That is the point which the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee ventured to urge, namely, that whilst you are waiting for the best aeroplanes and the best instruments, at any rate get men who are able to fly. I am glad to see that that scheme has been put first. There has been no excuse for the delay which has taken place with regard to this most important matter.
  I come to the Central Flying School and its accessories. All that seems to be admirable as far as one can judge from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I would like to know why it is that £90,000 has got to be spent on land for this school in view of the very large holdings which the War Office already possess on Salisbury Plain. The sum told off for aviation seems to be large, but out of it £90,000 goes for land and £38,000 for building, and I do not know how much more for the school and various accessories. The result is that very little is left for the provision of actual flying men and flying machines which are essential. When we compare the provision which has been made with that of Germany or France—France is voting over a million pounds, of which £300,000 is devoted to the purchase of aeroplanes alone—our Vote does look unsubstantial. But, at any rate, I may be permitted, on behalf of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, heartily to approve of the Government's action in undertaking the immediate purchase of a considerable number of aeroplanes of any make, British or foreign, that happen to be efficient. After all, what is wanted is to give our Army the necessary eyes at the earliest possible moment, and particularly to give those eyes to our Expeditionary Force. In that way the Government are

  409
  proceeding on sound lines. They have evolved a scheme by which the Expeditionary Force is to be equipped as soon as possible with a complete aeroplane corps or a series of aeroplane squadrons. I am sure that that is right, and I hope that they will spare no effort to complete that equipment at the earliest possible moment. But do not let them forget that the Army will need eyes in this country also. The closer the country the more need of them. We need sufficient equipment for Home defence also. I hope that that will not be forgotten.
  It is also satisfactory that the Government are doing something to encourage private enterprise in this matter. After all, the pioneers who have risked their lives and (heir money in bringing this business to the practical point where the Government can take it up have deserved well of the country. I think the Government is doing a good deal to encourage them. I would ask, however, that the Government should not limit the number of the officers who may be permitted to get the Aero Club certificate at any of these flying schools and to receive the £75 indemnity from the Government as the result. At this stage you cannot have too many flying men. It is not sufficient merely to fill up the ranks of your flying corps. When you consider Home defence and the necessities of the Army abroad, it is of the utmost importance that you should get every man able to fly that you can. The wastage in case of war would be enormous. Therefore I hope the Government will place no restrictions on the amount expended in that way. I hope also, that although the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to make a statement in regard to it at present, adequate remuneration will be given to the officers and men who take part in this Service. We always have our difficulties in getting money out of the Treasury, whatever Government is in power, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will press this point. These men who take part in this extremely perilous service deserve just as well of their country as those who take part in another Service, which is occasionally perilous, I mean the Submarine Service in the Navy. They ought to be treated at least as well, and I hope we shall have an assurance on that point. Finally, I trust that the independence of this new Flying Corps will be secured; that it will be taken out of the hands of any vested interest in the War Office; that it
  410
  will have some representative of the War Office who is a whole-time chief, and that it will be taken out of the hands of any overworked officer such as the Master-General of Ordnance, who really has not time to attend to a matter of this importance. I hope the commandant of the new school will be an officer of sufficiently high rank and prestige to command the attention of the military public. What is wanted at this stage is not only prestige, but daring, enterprise, initiative, and, particularly, no tethering of the aeroplane or the Flying Corps to the apron-strings of the War Office. I venture very respectfully to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his personal efforts as chairman of the Committee which produced this scheme, to beg him not to rest on his oars in regard to this great matter, and to assure him that if he requires or is willing to accept any assistance from this side of the House in regard to the establishment of this picked and essential Army Service he will receive it in no small measure.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Lee), who has a large and intimate acquaintance with the Army and matters military, has made an interesting speech. My knowledge of the Army is neither large nor intimate, but there are two or three points made by the hon. Gentleman to which I think I ought to reply at once. The hon. Gentleman opened his attack upon the policy of the present Government by saying that, since the South African War, conditions of warfare generally had altered enormously, and that we had taken no steps to meet those altered conditions. I absolutely challenge that statement. I am informed by my advisers that at no period in the history of the British Army were we able to mobilise so quickly as we should be able to do at the present moment. That is an enormously important step. I do not wish to go into the number of hours and days; I do not think that would be in the public interest; but it is of vital importance that we should know that we are better prepared and better equipped for mobilisation now than at any previous period. Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has had a shot with our rifle, so that I feel inclined to load it and have a shot myself. The Noble Lord opposite said, I believe, that our rifle was an obsolete weapon.
  Mr. BAIRD: Which one?
  Mr. TENNANT: The short rifle. I know that the Noble Lord and the right hon. Member for Dover tried to make merry of the fact that there are three rifles with which our troops are armed and two sorts of ammunition; but the right hon. Gentleman omitted to inform the House that both kinds of ammunition fit all three rifles, so that there is really not much to be alarmed at in that respect. It is true that re-sighting is necessary for certain distances. I do not want to drag up controversial matters, but I may remind the House that it is not only at distances of 800 or 900 yards that you may have to shoot with any rifle. There are other distances, as perhaps the Noble Lord is aware. When you get to greater distances, such as 1,500 or 2,000 yards, the existing rifle with which our troops are armed is very much superior in both striking force and energy to that of any Continental army.
  Mr. BAIRD: Then why is the right hon. Gentleman changing it?
  Mr. TENNANT: We do not think that we have got the best rifle the world will ever see; that would be an absurd proposition. Although the bullet belonging to a great Continental nation always has the highest velocity up to 1,500 yards, at 1,600 yards Mark VII. .303 catches it up, and beyond that range has the higher striking velocity. So that when you get to 1,600 yards our Mark VII. .303 has a velocity of 808 f.s., the same as that of a great Continental nation; while when you tome to 2,000 yards, our figure is 693 f.s., as against their 677. Not only that, but in regard to striking energy up to 900 yards, that of the Continental nation is better than ours, but at 1,000 yards ours is 408 ft. lbs., against their 396; while at 2,000 yards ours is 185 as compared with 157. These figures show that our rifle is a very useful weapon. There can be no doubt about that.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: To which Continental Power does the hon. Gentleman refer?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is desirable to mention names. But passing from rifles to ammunition, I may inform the House that our provision of ammunition at the present moment is, I believe, greater than it has ever been before. I am also instructed to inform the House that the full requirements of the military advisers of the Crown are provided for in
  412
  this year's Estimates. The hon. Member brought a long indictment against the Territorial Force which, if it meant anything at all, means that it was not equipped and ready to fight against the pick of the Continental troops that might be arrayed against it. I do not know whether the hon. Member will answer these few questions. Was it possible ten years ago for the third line of defence to meet the picked troops of the Continent? Is it the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite so to equip and train their third line of defence that it will be able to meet these same troops? If it is, they will have to embark upon a very much larger measure of expenditure than anything that has yet been contemplated.
  Mr. LEE: The hon. Gentleman asks me a definite question. My answer is that unless the Territorial Force has to fight against the best picked troops of the Continent, it will never have to fight at all. Nobody else can invade us. Therefore it will never have to fight against anybody else. Unless your third line, as the hon. Member calls it, is fit to take part in such a war it is perfectly useless to spend any money upon it at all.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot think that it has ever been contemplated that the Territorial Force would have to meet the troops of a Continental Power by themselves without training. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long."] I do not know how long it would take. That is a military matter in which I cannot attempt to instruct the House. I pass now to the question of the military correspondent of the "Times." There may be a good deal to be said against any gentleman acting in a dual capacity. I dare say there is, but I think the hon. Gentleman went too far in his recriminations against the Secretary of State, and against my right hon. Friend the I Under-Secretary. Surely none of us are infallible, not even hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the House, that this gentleman, who is the military correspondent of the "Times," and who, the hon. Gentleman says, habitually criticises and attacks the party which he adorns—
  Mr. LEE: I did not say "habitually."
  Mr. TENNANT: I rather gathered that the hon. Member said that the attacks were mainly directed against the Liberal party. In point of fact, I rather think

  413
  that the attacks are pretty equal against both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend near to me is going to reply to the whole of the Debate later and with this and some other points that I have referred to. Perhaps, however, I may be allowed to deal with one or two observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Melton (Colonel Yate). He dealt with the question of officers' allowances, etc. This question, I think, ought to be taken up as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for State has made a promise, and I think it would have been fulfilled if it had not been for the extraordinary services that we have had to provide for. This is a lean year. We have made in these Estimates large provision for forage, ammunition, and various other things. I think I may use a phrase which is in the first paragraph of the Memorandum, which says, "These things have only been accomplished by the exercise of the strictest economy in other directions." If it had not been for this we should not have failed to deal with this most difficult question.
  With regard to officers' furniture, I remind the Committee that when, the War Office took over the furniture of the mess rooms, and of the officers generally, they paid hard cash for it. The 2d. a day for field officers and the 1d. for company officers, which is now charged, is rent and maintenance charges merely. I assure the House that the War Office does not make a profit on this transaction. The Noble Lord is not convinced.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The statement hardly squares with the hon. Gentleman's predecessor last year; but I will refer to the matter afterwards.
  Mr. TENNANT: I will give the Noble Lord the figures I possess. With regard to married officers' quarters, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Melton made a complaint that there was £10,000 only put aside in the Estimate. On the preceding line he will see that there is £25,000 to provide officers' quarters on Salisbury Plain. There are several other items. Curragh officers' quarters are mentioned twice; Lichfield, and another one. Then there is hut accommodation for officers.
  Captain FABER: If that is at Tidworth, will the hon. Gentleman tell me where the hut accommodation is?
  Mr. TENNANT: This is for the improvement of the huts generally.
  Captain FABER: It cannot be for deterioration.
  Mr. TENNANT: There is here £20,000 for hut accommodation. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member about the cost of the coal and gas, I shall be very glad if he can furnish me with details and the name of the regiment, and I will have the matter looked into. I cannot help thinking it must be a mistake. In regard to bands, there was a Committee under Lord Stanley, now Lord Derby, in 1903. That Committee went most fully into these questions. I have the report of that Committee here. It is Command Paper No. 1421, 1903. It is a very interesting report. They found that the necessary working expenses of a band of twenty-six performers came to £160 per year. The Government had previously been giving an allowance of £80. One hundred and sixty pounds was then-given. It was considered quite sufficient. That is the sum now given. I should like to recommend a perusal of the Report of this Committee to hon. Members considering these questions.
  As to the employment of ex-soldiers, I may inform the House that there is a Committee now sitting, under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Ward, to consider how particulars of ex-soldiers and their characters are to be recorded for the information of civilian employers, and I hope that the proceedings of that Committee may be very useful. It is very important that civilian employers should know for what duties ex-soldiers on their discharge may be fitted, and whether his character is really as good as it seems to be on paper.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: No offences, I suppose, will be taken account of which are merely small military-offences.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not able to give a promise, but the whole of this question is being gone into by the Committee, and I have no doubt that as the Noble Lord has asked that question in public, it will be taken into consideration. The hon. and gallant Gentleman rather charges us with doing nothing in this matter of the employment of ex-soldiers. On the contrary, I find a great deal is already being done. He made a comparison with France. Of course we cannot expect to do as much as France. We have not got the kind of arrangement that exists between a Conscript Army and the

  415
  Government. France has so many more Government appointments; but we are doing our best. Out of 69,000 persons holding appointments in Government Departments on 31st March, 1911, as messengers, postmen, caretakers, and park keepers, etc., 16,800, or 24 per cent., were ex-soldiers and sailors. What I want to tell the House is that not only is there 24 per cent. now, but that that number is an increasing number. It is only within recent years that the Departments have been asked, almost cajoled, to employ ex-soldiers. Considerable pressure has been brought to bear upon them, and perhaps in the course of time, not two or three years hence, but ten years say, the present number will be considerably enhanced.
  With regard to the numbers employed in other Government Departments, I would rather refer the Committee to the Army Annual Report, page 14, where the hon. Member will find all these figures. He will find that of twenty-six vacancies for park keepers in the Royal Parks during the year, all were filled by ex-soldiers. That is an illustration of what we are doing, though I admit it is rather a good one. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at this report they will see that a great deal has been done. We are trying to stimulate Government Departments to employ ex-soldiers so that we may not have this really bitter cry, as we have had in the past, of men who, having served their country, have no means of livelihood.
  Earl WINTERTON: There is one point I should like to refer to—that is the subject of the employment of Colonel Repington. I fully agree with even word that has been uttered by my hon. Friend as to the unpleasantness of this subject, and I do not intend to refer to it at any length. But I think it will be the opinion of the Committee that the hon. Gentleman's reply did not meet the case at all. The point is this: that for the first time in the history of the War Office and of our military administration, a gentleman, I do not care how great his services in the past may have been to the British Army, how great his knowledge of military law and tactics, is being employed in the dual capacity of Pressman and Government official. If the Government think it desirable that there should in this country be started an office of this kind as a military Press vehicle we have nothing more to say. But we are entitled, what-
  416
  ever may be our opinion as to the personal merits of Colonel Repington, to protest to the utmost of our ability against this dual appointment of a man who is already a Pressman to represent the Press office, and to be an official of the Government.
  The position, as one of my hon. Friends has said, may be successful. The War Office may possibly consider the appointment in the public interest. I do not think it is. It certainly detracts from the value of the views expressed by Colonel Repington in the public Press, and I do not envy Colonel Repington his position. Previous to this office he held in this country a position as a Pressman and writer on military subjects which I am quite willing to admit was a unique one. No military writer of our day expresses his views more clearly and lucidly, though I do not always agree with him. He has been in the happy position of being an independent Pressman, writing with full knowledge of military affairs. He is now nothing more or less than a Government official, employed by the Government, and his views cease to have the value they once had. We are entitled, I think, to protest against that position.
  There are other matters which have been raised in the course of this Debate, and in the course of the Debate yesterday of far greater importance to hon. Members than the case of Colonel Repington. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend, if I may say so, pursued a line which has been pursued in these Debates for perhaps the first time—certainly it is the first time so far as I remember—while the Army Estimates or Vote A has been in Committee. I have been here now for eight years. For the first time we have had a full and frank discussion, not of mere details, but of the primary and fundamental questions of military expense and equipment. I must say on that point I was rather surprised to see to-day in one of the newspapers that support the Government a statement to the effect that it was almost a farce in this time of national crisis that the House should be discussing military Estimates. I cannot imagine a greater confusion of thought than that statement showed. Last August this country was nearer to a European war than it has been in the memory of hon. Members of this House, or indeed any man of our generation. The circumstances which caused that crisis have only been very partially removed. Many of them remain to-day. To say that a discussion

  417
  of our military policy as a whole—and that is the discussion, I am glad to say, that we have had in these Debates—is almost a farce in this time of national crisis, is absolutely to ignore the circumstances of our times. I can only say that should war unhappily take place, the numbers out of employment would be far more than 1,000,000 under a coal strike, and would be something more like 15,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If that is denied by hon. Gentleman opposite, it is not denied by any competent authority in the country. We must remember there are 45,000,000 people in this country. One thing has been established in the course of this Debate, and that is that what might be called for all practical purpose the policy of intervention in the European land war is not only possible but probable. The possibility of it is recognised by the creation of the Expeditionary Force. The probability of it came very near in the events of last August and September, and although obviously it is not in the public interest to discuss the circumstances under which that intervention might take place, it is most certainly in the public interest to press the Government to the fullest extent in our power to tell us whether this policy has been fully considered in all its bearings and its eventualities. I think the very weighty speeches which have been made in this Debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) yesterday, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Lee) this afternoon have not at all been answered. It is true that the Under-Secretary of State for War has not yet had an opportunity of replying to these speeches, and the Financial Secretary has told us that he has left many of these points to the right hon. Gentleman to answer.
  I should like to refer to one or two matters that have not been specifically referred to in the course of this Debate. The first of these is as to the mobilisation of the Reserve. I ask whether, in considering this eventuality and policy, the Government have fully prepared themselves for such a state of affairs as that which I understand existed last August or September, when many regiments quartered in England had their reserves scattered all over England, Scotland, and Ireland, and regiments in Ireland had their reserve scattered over England and Scotland, seeing how long it would take to mobilise the reserves and bring the battalions and regiments up to strength. I ask whether the War Office have con-
  418
  sidered that point, and whether they recognise that it is absolutely essential, as I suppose will be admitted by every authority on military matters, that the Cavalry should be ready first if an Expeditionary Force is to be dispatched. It is very useful and important to refer to the crisis last August in this connection, and I ask whether at that time the Cavalry had sufficient horses, whether they could be mobilised, and whether it is not a fact, as I have been informed in the last two days by two high military authorities—I will not mention their names—that the Cavalry were not ready, and that it was impossible to dispatch them in time with the Expeditionary Force, whereas they would have to be sent first? I should like to quote the words of Colonel Repington, whom we have been so much discussing. He said, in an article on the Cavalry, that last August we could not have mobilised our Cavalry properly with trained horses, and that of those horses that were boarded out not more than 40 per cent. were effective for immediate work—the House will remember that there was a scheme for boarding out Cavalry horses with farmers and others—and if these facts are true they are very serious. It is true that since then I believe thirty horses have been added to the peace estimate in Cavalry regiments.
  Mr. TENNANT: Twenty to each regiment.
  Earl WINTERTON: The very fact that that number, which I regard as ridiculously inadequate, is added to each regiment indicates that the Cavalry was not ready last August, and I think this is a matter that can be very usefully criticised without affecting the public interest. There is another point. I see from the Memorandum published with the Estimates for 1912–13 it is stated that the recent manœuvres brought prominently to notice the large number of horses in the ranks of the Cavalry regiments at home which would not be fit, at the outbreak of war, for the hard work they would be required to do. This Expeditionary Force is in existence for six years, and many of ns understand it is part of our obligation to assist a foreign Power with the Expeditionary Force which should be ready for dispatch at short notice. It is only now, after six years, we discovered that in one of its most important branches there is a very great deficiency. Who is responsible, and who is to be made responsible in future, to see that this does not happen again?

  419
  There is even a more serious point not referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover in the course of his speech yesterday, and that is the case of what might be called the screen Cavalry in connection with the Expeditionary Force. I refer to the brigade which is made up of Mounted Infantry. This Cavalry has been referred to by the "Times" military correspondent, and he makes this point against it which I believe to be absolutely true—namely, that it is unfit for European warfare, that it is one of those unfortunate legacies of the South African war, and that it is an unfortunate obsession of the lessons learned in the South African war; secondly, that it is untrained, as I know from experience, because the Mounted Infantry is trained near where I reside; thirly, its mobilisation would deprive the Infantry of some of their most valuable material in physique and men. The "Times" correspondent stated it was the weakness of our Expeditionary Force that it had to rely on these mounted brigades. I think the time has arrived either for bringing home some Cavalry regiment from South Africa or else establishing another Cavalry regiment, o-r for making some other provisions. To continue that Mounted Infantry for screen Cavalry is really to rely upon a very broken reed. All these points mentioned, and many more, shows the inexhaustible trustfulness of the Government to luck should a war break out, and show the incredible optimism of the Secretary of State for War. After six years' experience, he does nothing but continue to praise the progress already made. I thank that no answer has been given from the Front Bench opposite or by other hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken to the points made that our Reserves are absolutely insufficient to stand the strain of six weeks or two months in a European war.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover referred to the case of the Special Reserve, and he pointedly asked the Government what in case of war are to be his functions. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why it is that the medical statistics as to the Special Reserve with regard to age, height, and weight are not given, although they are given in the case of the Regular Army. There is a report published by the Public Health Department, and on page 2 a very exhaustive statement is given as to the height, weight, etc., of the Regular Army,
  420
  but not for the Special Reserve. We know why it is not given in the case of the Territorials; the figures would be so awful that I do not think any Government would dare put them on paper; but in the case of the Special Reserve it is nothing short of a scandal that the country should not have been informed as to the medical statistics. Anyone who has seen the Special Reserve, as I have, at work will agree with me when I say that, judging from their outward appearance, which, I quite admit, is not always a true test, their physique is not very good. We have in the case of the Special Reserve the very worst class and the most difficult class of men that one could possibly have from the point of developing their physique. They are boys taken at sixteen or eighteen years of age, when their first physical growth has ended. They are not kept in many cases long enough to be trained sufficiently to bring them up to the proper Army standard, and I personally think that the physique of the-boy messenger or the boy telegraph messenger is superior. Why? Because they are taken from the ages of thirteen to six-teen. They are very carefully drilled, and their physical health is attended to. I say they would give much better statistics than do the men of the Special Reserve. I do not believe the Special Reserve could possibly stand the strain of a campaign.
  I desire to ask whether there are any reassuring figures to be obtained on a point which is almost as important as the question of the supply of horses for the Cavalry—namely, as to the provision made for mechanical transport. Last year, at the time of the crisis, I happened to be in France, and was privileged to watch the French Army manœuvres. The full war transport was there mobilised, and was following the troops. I do not think the full transport of our Expeditionary Force could be got ready at sixteen days' notice or a month's notice. This is really a most essential portion of the equipment of the Expeditionary Force. Upon all these points I think the country and the Committee would welcome assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that matters are being inquired into and that steps were being taken to remedy defects. I can see no greater benefit which the Under-Secretary could confer upon the country than if he could assure us that these matters are being carefully looked into. It is his duty to do so, and we shall hope to learn from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that something is being done. There is one point to which I desire

  421
  to refer in regard to the rifle, and it has reference to what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite in the course of his speech. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman opposite makes himself responsible for the statement that our ammunition, can be used in all the three rifles?
  Mr. TENNANT: I said the rifles were 3.03 and the ammunition, was 3.03.
  Earl WINTERTON: I thought the hon. Member had taken up a new point, but I find he has not done so, for this is the old point that you could not use this ammunition without resighting, and in time of war there would be absolute chaos, for you would have your men bringing up three different kinds of ammunition. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman opposite has not recognised that the case of the rifle put by the Leader of the Opposition has never been answered, and there is overwhelming justification for what my right hon. Friend said in another place on that subject. I understand that the Under-Secretary for War denies the point made by my hon. Friend that the Territorials are armed with a rifle that has been discarded by the Regular Forces. I say that they are armed with a rifle that has been discarded by the Regular Forces. It may be a good or a bad rifle, but it is not up to the standard of modern rifles. On what possible grounds, either in regard to efficiency or economy, can you justify the fact that your Home Defence Army has an inferior rifle to your Expeditionary Force?
  Captain MURRAY: It is just the same.
  Earl WINTERTON: No, it is the one which has been discarded.
  Mr. TENNANT: It is just as good a rifle as a short rifle.
  Earl WINTERTON: That is not the point. The point is that it has been discarded by the Regular Army because it is not considered to be as good as the short rifle. It has been discarded by the War Office, and that point has never been answered. Upon the question of Territorials generally, I wish to ask, Do the Government still continue to rest their case on the assumption that six months' preliminary training is sufficient to equip the Territorials for war? If that is so, who is going to be responsible for garrisoning this country and putting down civil disturbances when the Ex-
  422
  peditionary Force is abroad, as would have been the case last September if war had broken out, for then we should only have had 2,000 Regular troops left in the country. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Territorial Force is in such a state of efficiency in regard to training that it is fit to undertake the very responsible, arduous and most difficult duties that any soldier can be called upon to perform, namely, the duty of preventing civil disturbances? Who would have garrisoned this country had the Expeditionary Force been dispatched last August? The only possible troops to do this would have been the Territorial, and you would in that event have been in a state very little short of a national disaster. I want to try and clear up a misapprehension on the part of the Under-Secretary for War which he has created on the subject of the number of the Territorial Force, because on two occasions he has stated emphatically and categorically that the Territorial Force has not dwindled in numbers. On 1st January, 1907, which was the last year of the old Militia, the total was 359,620 men of all ranks. On 1st January, 1910, the Special Reserve and Territorial Force of all ranks totalled 342,223. On 1st January, 1911, the total was 330,610, and on 1st January, 1912, the total had fallen to 327,862. How in face of those figures can it be contended, as it has been twice contended, that there is no dwindling in the number of the Territorial Force?
  Mr. TENNANT: May I draw the Noble Lord's attention to the following paragraph which appears on page 3 of the Secretary of State for War's Memorandum:—
  "Although the figures as regards officers are somewhat disappointing, the increase in the numbers on the active list is to some extent made good by an increase of 112 in the Territorial Force Reserve. As regards other ranks, it is satisfactory to note that whilst the total increase for the past year is only 101, that for the quarter ending 31st December, 1911, amounted to 1,816, and this rate of progress shows signs of being maintained."
  Earl WINTERTON: That may be the point which the hon. Member now makes, but it is not the point made by the Under-Secretary for War. His point was that the Territorial Force was not dwindling in numbers, and I took down his words. An hon. Friend of mine said the number of this force was dwindling, but the Under-Secretary for War shook his head, and said, "No," and he gave a similar denial yesterday. I have lumped the Territorial Force and the Special Reserve together,

  423
  but my point is proved if I take the Territorial Force alone. I will give the figures of the Territorial Force alone. On 1st January, 1910, the Territorial Force numbered 271,757. On 1st January, 1911, the total was 266,852, and on 1st January, 1912, the figures were 265,911. Is that dwindling or is it not? These figures were given by the Under-Secretary in reply to a question on the 22nd February. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having deliberately misled the House, but I do say that his figures were most misleading. He did not give the latest figures, which show that the Territorial Force is dwindling and has been dwindling ever since 1910, and there was a serious decrease in 1911 and 1912.
  How are you going to stop that? You reached long ago the booming time of recruiting in the Territorial Army, and you will never have that boom again. There seems nothing whatever really done to arrest the progress of decay which is going on at the present time. What is the policy of the Secretary of State for War to deal with the rot which has set in? My hon. Friend beside me has referred to the kind of eulogies which have been passed on this force by inspectors, generals, and others in official reports as to the keen spirit which animates all ranks. All that is absolutely futile and beside the point, because nobody denies that these men are keen, because if they were not they would not give up their scanty leisure to do the work of others who shirk their duty. That does not affect the main question, which is whether this force in adequate for your second line of defence. If it is not improving, but as a matter of fact is dwindling in numbers, as I think we have shown, what is the use of maintaining this Force any longer on its present basis? The Financial Secretary made a remarkable admission, because he said that he admitted that the Territorial troops cannot fight Continental troops by themselves.
  Mr. TENNANT: I said "at once."
  Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member said by themselves. Admitting my premise that last September the Expeditionary Force had been dispatched, you would have had the Territorials alone to defend these shores. They would have had very little training, and it is quite true that they will never fight Continental troops by themselves while their method
  424
  of training is what it is at the present time. I will quote on this point from the Report of the Inspector-General on the Territorial Force which will prove what I am going to say. I think we are entitled to ask the Government what they are going to do with regard to this shortage of numbers, and the obvious defects in training and organisation which has been pointed out by their own Inspector-General. In his last Report the Inspector-General said:—
  "Squadrons are much hampered during their annual training by recruits who are without the elementary knowledge necessary to fit them for the ranks. … In my opinion, the Territorial Mounted Artillery is the arm which will be the most difficult to bring to a high standard of fighting efficiency. For this purpose a longer period of continuous training after embodiment than for the other arms will be necessary."
  The Inspector-General further goes on to say of the Territorial Artillery:—
  "It would be of great advantage if the services of Territorial artillerymen were not accepted for less than the total fifteen days' training. Eight days, when trenched upon by Sundays, wet days, etc., are too few to be of much value, and many eight-day men fail to be present at the practice of these units. The above was strongly recommended at the meeting of Territorial Commandants, Royal Artillery, held last year."
  What has been done to remedy that state of affairs? The Inspector-General goes on to make other equally damaging references to the training of this force. And what has been done to remedy all this, and what is being done to prepare for the greatest national crisis this country has ever had to face—namely, the growing possibility of a European war within the next five years? Nothing at all is being done. Books are being written by Sir Ian Hamilton, and other literary generals have made contributions, but nothing has been done to remedy this state of things. It has been suggested within some quarters, and I have seen it suggested in the Liberal Press, that we on this side of the House should be prepared to bring forward a scheme to take the place of that which is at present in existence. It is no part of our business to put forward an alternative scheme. The Government are responsible for the defence of the country. They are in power, and they have been in power for six years. It is their scheme, which was heralded with such a flourish of trumpets. We were told that at last we had a Heaven-born War Minister, and that for the first time in our history we had a man who understood military problems. We were told that he was such a thinker, and that he congratulated himself that he had time to study in his room while others were only drilling, fitting themselves for the defence of their

  425
  country. What is the result? We have this Territorial scheme, which is breaking down. We say to the Government, they must put something in its place or stop the great leaks which have occurred. I do not think they will be able to do so. It is not much use stopping one hole in a sieve. Even if they are able to do away with the present defects, the force will still be fundamentally unfitted for the purpose for which it is intended. We on this side of the House will support the Government in any effort which really carries out that purpose. It is no part of our business, however, to suggest an alternative. It is the business of the House and of every patriotic man to point out the defects which exist, and I am very pleased a strong line has been taken on this subject. I hope the country will realise the real danger that lies in the existence of this sham force.
  Mr. W. CROOKS: After the speech we have just heard one wonders whether there is any England at all, and whether there is any Army. It was an excellent speech to make our flesh creep. I wonder what the Army generally will think of the expressions of opinion about them. There used to be a time when if we got 100,000 men everyone was full of their praises, but now all we hear is that they are absolutely unable to do anything. I have heard speeches about horses in this House before, and I have seen some marvellous returns submitted to committees on accounts. They were described as "chargers," but the only "charger" about them was the man who took the money for them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power when that happened. I remember a Bill which will be historic for all time, showing how even one hundred mules were purchased and sent out because they could not get horses enough. Then there was a return about them. Eighty of them were drowned, and the other twenty were never found. All the House knew was that it paid for them. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite, therefore, to say that other people are wanting in their duty. I believe, in spite of the pessimistic speeches which have been made, that there is absolutely no difference in the desire to defend the country in the best possible manner. If one selected little portions of the speeches that have been made and put them into a fairy tale, it would read awful. It would make our flesh creep, and we should imagine we
  426
  should get no breakfast to-morrow morning. I want to bring hon. Gentlemen back to the ground. I want to ask one or two questions about the domestic happiness of the soldier. We hear a good deal about the officers and the married people's quarters, but it is always the married officers' quarters. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] You see the moment I mention officers, down you come to the ground where I want you. Married officers are allowed 100 per cent., the percentage allowed to non-commissioned officers varies from 50 to 10 per cent., and the private soldier is only allowed 4 per cent.
  I want to appeal to the Under-Secretary to see whether he cannot increase the percentages and give better opportunities to the married soldier whose regiment is removed from place to place of conveying his wife and children and furniture free. After all, the strength of the Army depends on the happiness of the men. We want the men contented. If you get a corporal or a sergeant who does not get on with the men you say there is something wrong with him. You always try to make them as happy and contented as possible. I want the War Office to go a little further, and see if they cannot increase the percentage, and say to the commanding officer, "Just make it as easy as you can for the men to convey their wives and furniture from one place to another." There was an order issued a little more than a year ago under which men married on the strength who were within the postal area of London were allowed 6d. per day extra. They welcomed it, and were glad of it. When the garrison in Woolwich asked that they should be allowed the 6d. per day extra they immediately got the answer that Woolwich was outside the postal area. No one would say Woolwich is in the provinces, or that a man in Knightsbridge is any more in London than a man in Woolwich. That is a hardship, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that the extra allowance should be extended to the soldiers at Woolwich. We are now within the postal area, and I think you might reconsider the position and extend the allowance to them.
  When I heard of more money being allowed to the officers, I thought the private might have a portion. I know how exceedingly generous some officers are in making their men comfortable, but they cannot do everything, and they ought not to be asked to do it as a charity. A year ago the Government promised they

  427
  would submit a scheme in the next Army Estimates by which certain servants of the Government under the War Office were to be included in a pension scheme of a contributory character. Very little has been heard of that scheme, and the men are getting anxious and want to know whether the Government are going to do anything or not. I would put in a plea whether the time has not arrived for the right hon. Gentleman to say he is not only considering the matter, but is actually going to do something. I have never heard of a Government Department that has not been "considering." I wish somebody would wipe that word out of the dictionary. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would say, "We are not considering; we are going to do it." I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will not forget these men who have themselves been endeavouring to work out a scheme. That scheme has been sent to the War Office, and the War Office have sent it back to them. The men are getting older and are still praying for something to be done. Do not give us any more sympathy; give us some help.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. C. LYTTELTON: We are told we are going to have a new rifle. That expression is not entirely an accurate one. It is merely a new adaptation of the old rifle. You will never get a new rifle until the automatic rifle is produced. As regards new rifles, we have only had three great changes—the muzzle-loaders, the breech-loaders, and now the magazine and small-bore rifles. I think a great deal too much importance has been given in the controversy now going on touching the rifle to the trajectory and the muzzle velocity of the rifle. It is rather curious, but, if you take every great war that has been fought in one of those groups I have mentioned, you will find the victory always rested with the nation that used the rifle with the lower muzzle velocity and the higher trajectory. In 1857 the Austrian rifle was infinitely superior to the French musket. In 1864 the Danish rifle had a flatter trajectory and a far higher muzzle velocity than the Prussian needle-gun. In 1866 the Austrian Laurenz gun was sighted up to 1,400 yards and the Prussian needle-gun up to 400 yards. Of course I am only dealing now with muzzle velocity and trajectory. If you take other considerations, of course they put a very different complexion on the merits of the two rifles. For instance, the Prussians could fire their
  428
  needle-gun from cover. What made the difference in the Austrian and Prussian war more than anything else was that the Austrian generals were devoted still to the system of shock tactics for Infantry, and never throughout the whole of that campaign made use of the far greater range of their rifle. Then, of course, in 1877, the Turkish rifle was a far superior weapon to the Russian weapon. In that one group, before you really get to the development of the breech-loading rifle, you see the armies that used the lower trajectory and the higher muzzle velocity invariably on the losing side. When you get to the development of the new rifle, the magazine and the small bore, no comparison can be made. We have only had one instance of that in the Chilian war in 1894. I have spoken of this craze for muzzle velocity and low trajectory, and I want to point out where we are going to. There are pros and cons for and against this system of lightening the bullet, increasing the muzzle velocity, and increasing the charge behind the bullet. In favour of the higher charge and the smaller bullet, and the smaller bore, you get a higher muzzle velocity and a lower trajectory. These give a greater point blank range and an almost continuous danger zone up to 800 yards. Possibly you may get the advantage of greater penetration and perhaps accuracy. Against this new system of making the bore smaller and the bullet lighter you must have a larger cartridge and a larger charger. I do not know if the War Office has worked it out, but it seems to me it means that a lesser amount of ammunition can be carried into the firing line. Then you have the necessity of so constructing the breech mechanism as to withstand the very much higher charge in the breech. During the course of this Debate reference has been made to three different sorts of cartridges. But are there only three? You have the short rifle; it fires with somewhere about fifteen tons per square inch pressure on the bolt; it is tested up to twenty tons, I believe it has been shot up to twenty-four tons, and you get this high amount of velocity with a very low trajectory. You have the rifle under a strain of between twenty and twenty-four tons. The right hon. Gentleman did not say if the cartridge with pointed bullets supplied for use in the old rifle would give as much as twenty tons pressure to the square inch on the bolt or whether that cartridge exerts as great a pressure as that

  429
  designed to be fired out of the new rifle. Of course this tremendous shock on the bolt cannot be taken regularly on the old bolt; it is obvious some change must be made in the new rifle to take this tremendous discharge. There is only one way in which it can be done with the present bolt to make it a safe bolt. You must carry the shock of discharge right up against the cartridge. That is the system in the Mannlicher and the Mauser. But then you introduce some of the objectionable features we have hitherto withstood, and one of those features is in connection with the difficulty which would arise when the soldiers come to clean the rifles.
  In connection with this point I may mention the subject of penetration. It is claimed for the new pointed bullet the Spitzkugel, that it has a penetration far greater than the round-headed bullet. On the other hand, it is claimed that the Spitzkugel bullet turns over on impact, and if that be the case, of course, it eliminates the greater stopping power of the round bullet. If it turns over on impact you have no great penetration. You cannot have both these advantages. You cannot have great penetration and also stopping power attaching to the bullet; you must lose one or the other. My final point is that, under this tremendous velocity, you are wearing out the rifle quicker than would be the case with a more moderate amount of velocity. I have no means of knowing whether the cordite is exactly the same for the new rifle as it was for the old rifle. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am glad of that. In the old rifle you had a high temperature and a great fouling process after discharge, and if you put a higher charge still behind the bullet in the new rifle the destruction of the bore of the rifle must be very much quicker than in the case of the old rifle. With regard to the accuracy of the Spitzkugel bullet, I have tried extensively both kinds of bullet, and I cannot get anything like accuracy at long ranges out of the pointed bullet. It is affected far more than the round nose bullet by differences in temperature and atmosphere, and particularly if you put the sword on the rifle. I believe it to be the fact that one nation—I will not mention its name—which re-armed its troops, very much more recently than the German 1898 Mauser, with rifles with a big muzzle velocity and comparatively small bullet, found that by reducing the size of the bore of the rifle and bringing down the bullet to a
  430
  ridiculous weight, they could not get any accuracy in shooting.
  I said a little earlier that the next stage would be the automatic rifle, but before we get to that stage there is a very important thing to be thought of. One of the points the right hon. Gentleman made in speaking of the new rifle, was the speed at which it could be fired. You can carry that very much too far. In South Africa, on more than one occasion, it was found if ever the men were at all flurried they let off their rifles as quickly as possible at a time when there was no possible chance of getting a fresh supply of ammunition, should it run short. I believe the authorities have since given attention to that matter. It certainly deserves very careful consideration, because it is a very serious thing in modern tactics to run short of ammunition, and when you have these great distances and low trajectory it is almost impossible to get fresh ammunition from the supports into the firing line. I do not suppose I can hold out any hope to the right hon. Gentleman that even his new rifle will be received with unanimous applause. I do not believe there is a rifle in the world to be produced at the present time, when we are undergoing these extraordinary evolutions in the type of the rifle, the size of the bullet and the strength of the charge, that will absolutely satisfy everybody. You are bound to get criticisms with regard to the size of the magazine and the system of the sighting. In the few remarks I have been privileged to make I have merely wished to emphasise to the Committee the fact that muzzle-velocity and low trajectory are not by any means the only important points. If you have a rifle in more or less the same class and same category as those of foreign nations you find that these points are not by any means all important. The shooting of an army in battle depends upon the skill of the general in giving his men targets that they can scarcely miss, and on the mobility, endurance and discipline of his troops being sufficiently high to carry out his designs.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I do not propose to deal with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member who last spoke. I wish to confine my observations chiefly to the point of the supply of recruits to the Territorial and Regular Forces. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that his efforts to fill the Regular Army have been so

  431
  successful. I allude to the arrangements made last year for taking in men over the establishment in order to enable men to go away to the Reserve in larger numbers than ordinarily, or than was possible under the special conditions which prevailed some years ago. But this satisfactory state as regards recruiting for the Special Reserve is not maintained in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State. We see that this year there are 1,800 less than last year. Referring to an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman himself on 21st February last, in this House, I find that the Special Reserve then was 28,000 men below the establishment. This falling off in numbers has gone on increasing in the last four years since the Special Reserve was formed, and I think we can fairly deduce from these facts the view that the Special Reserve is dwindling. The right hon. Gentleman dissents, but I would point out that these figures as regards the Territorial Army are actually proved by the figures he himself gave in this House. During the four years 1909 to 1912 there has been a gradual rise in the decrease of men on the establishment. In 1910 the falling-off was 39,000; in 1912 it was 45,000. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that there has been a great improvement in this matter. There has been a greater increase in the decrease, based on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  Colonel SEELY: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said is quite true. I do not wish to have any misapprehension. I have said it is an increasing force, because there has been a most gratifying increase during the last few months. During the first week of this month the increase has been most remarkable. It was much greater than in any previous year.
  Colonel HICKMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is taking credit for a matter for which he has no right to take credit. If there are periods of the year when recruiting for this particular force becomes more prevalent, and when a certain number of men are leaving, and colonels are allowed to take in more recruits, this would undoubtedly account for the increase to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Colonel SEELY: It is better this year than last year.
  Colonel HICKMAN: It may be, but all we can take, as reasonable men, are the figures given on 1st January in each year. However the Under-Secretary of State may deal with the figures for the last two months, the fact is that the decrease of the Territorial Force has gone on from year to year, until it is now 40,000 under establishment. It is no good for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us in regard to the Special Reserve that emigration and the labour market have helped to make up the deficiency, which is greater this year than last year by 1,800. What we want to have is some method of helping us out. Then there are 304 officers deficient in the Territorial Force. I think those figures are very significant. I do not see how you can have an Army efficient in any sort of way where there is such a large number of officers deficient. As regards the training, if you have only 148,000 men out of 259,000 who go out for the full period of this training, when the whole establishment which the Secretary of State has laid down as requisite for our national safety is 300,000; when only 148,000 out of the 300,000 can actually give fifteen days' training in the year—that is to say, only one-half; when only 75,000 are able to give another eight days' training, and when you look at the number of men actually belonging to the force, I think it is 32,000, or something like 14 per cent., who have actually no training whatsoever, I think these results are most unsatisfactory. The remarks made in another place by Lord Roberts, and the letter which he wrote not very long ago bear out absolutely his conclusions that the Territorial Force, both as regards numbers and as regards training, does not in any way fulfil the necessities of the case.
  I should like to allude to what Lord Haldane has said in reflection on Lord. Roberts. He said, in a speech not very long ago:—
  "Lord Roberts has commanded and led troops with unbroken success; but leading troops is one thing and the dull dreary business of organising war in time of peace was another."
  As a soldier myself, I am bound to say that these words of Lord Haldane were, to say the least, impertinent. For him, with his limited experience of six years at the War Office, to pretend to sneer at the experience of Lord Roberts, is very cheap swank. For a man who has done more organising and seen more of practical warfare to be compared with a legal gentleman who has had six years' experience at the War Office is perfectly ridiculous. It

  433
  reminds me of what I heard on one occasion during the South African war. A certain general had just relieved one of the beseiged towns. Another general, who spent most of his time in an office, and who had never been in the field at all, made this remark about the successful general. He said:—
  "Oh, General So-and-so! We do not think much of him. He is merely a leader of men."
  That, I think, goes on all fours with the criticism of the Noble Lord against the gallant Field-Marshal. I think I have sufficiently shown that in regard to necessary numbers and as regards training that the Territorial Force is absolutely broken down. Notwithstanding the efforts of the commanding officers who have given of their zeal and their patriotism to fill the Force, notwithstanding the zeal of the men themselves, and the patriotic efforts of the employers of labour in the different districts who have striven to fill the regiments and bring them up to establishment, we are still 40,000 men short, the men are not half-trained, and, in the opinion of the greatest soldiers of experience, they are nothing like sufficient to meet any force that may be likely to land here against which they may be called upon to fight.
  I do not wish, for one moment, to depreciate the patriotism of these men who join the Territorial Force, or to say one word against the employers of labour who so generously allow their men every possible facility to join the force and to go through the necessary training. We cannot say anything sufficiently flattering about these particular people, but I maintain that it is not fair that a patriotic few amongst the men and a patriotic few amongst the employers should bear the burden of the State. Why should any particular class of employers of labour handicap themselves in their particular businesses as against the unpatriotic employers who do not allow their men to join the Territorial Force? Why should they not all be on the same footing? That brings us to the question whether the time has not arrived when we want some change in our system. Lord Haldane himself has on several occasions said that if this Territorial Force and its organisation was not a success there would have to be some sort of compulsory service. Whenever we have advocated anything in the way of national or compulsory service we have had jibes from Ministers, who have said that if we will only adopt as a party principle compulsory service on the top of Tariff Reform
  434
  we shall stop out of office for ever. I have heard those jibes from the right hon. Gentleman who has gone upstairs and from the present Under-Secretary.
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, no.
  Colonel HICKMAN: They were used last year. These are very poor arguments and very poor jibes, for we have heard the head of the War Office himself say that if this Territorial Army is not a success we shall have to come to something in the nature of compulsion. We have shown that you do not get the men and the training, and that the time has come when we ought to consider compulsory service. It is a time when all parties should combine together on this subject and should drop all party politics and try to get an Army that is strong enough, which contains men of sufficient physique, who are old enough and who can spare the time to go through the necessary training in order to enable them to take their proper part in the defence of the State when necessary. I am quite sure that the temper of the British people is such that if the two great parties in the State combined together they would find they would be backed up throughout the length and breadth of the land, and that the question of national safety would be solved.
  Mr. HOLT: I want to take this opportunity of again drawing attention of what I consider to be the altogether excessive garrison in South Africa. I had intended to move a reduction in Vote A in order to focus a discussion on that point, but it was represented to me that it would be more convenient to raise it as part of the general discussion, and therefore I do not propose to move my reduction. The number I should have proposed to take off would be 15,000 men. This subject has been, discussed on several previous occasions, and we have had two, I will not say contradictory, but wholly different explanations as to why this garrison is maintained in South Africa put before us. We, first of all, had the purely South African reason, namely, that the garrison was maintained there in the interests of South Africa. I should like to examine that argument. It was put forward in 1909, in 1910, and again last year. In 1910 Lord Haldane told us that it was our duty to assist South Africa with troops while they were organising their own forces. Exactly the same argument was brought forward last year. In 1909 this matter was also

  435
  discussed in the House, and then we were told that the troops were there to please the inhabitants of South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary took part in that Debate when he was representing the Colonial Office. That was the year in which the garrison was reduced from 16,000 to 11,000. My right hon. Friend on that occasion said:—
  "Owing to events there, I think Members of all sections of the House will agree now that the maintenance of a large force there for the purpose for which they were sent there six or seven years ago is no longer necessary."
  Mr. Mackarness interjected the remark:
  "Why 11,000 men?"
  My right hon. Friend went on:—
  "My hon. Friend knows that one reason is that the troops are so exceedingly popular with the population. It is with the greatest difficulty that my right hon. Friend can withdraw any troops, owing to the protest of the leaders of South African opinion."
  In other words, in 1909 my right hon. Friend was telling the House that troops were to be kept in South Africa simply because they were popular. We all know perfectly well that it is a very popular thing to keep soldiers in any particular place. It does not matter where you propose to send them, because they are always popular socially, particularly as it means that large sums of other people's money are going to be spent in that neighbourhood. South Africa wanted to have the soldiers because it meant a considerable expenditure of British money in South Africa. That is a wholly unsatisfactory reason for keeping these troops in South Africa. If that is the only reason put forward, I can hardly believe that my right hon. Friend will have the courage to stand at that box and tell us that that is his reason for imposing taxation upon the people of this country.
  Then we have another suggestion, that these soldiers are to be kept in South Africa in order to protect our South African dominions. I should like to know against whom it is intended to use these soldiers. Is it intended to use them against a possible rising by the natives? No one can contend that the dangers of a native rising are getting greater, or that while the white population of South Africa is increasing in numbers, while railways are spreading and means of communication are getting better in every way, that is going to increase the dangers of a rising amongst the coloured population. It is clearly absurd to suggest that. Twenty years ago, when the dangers of a native
  436
  rising must have been very much greater than now, it was considered that 3,325 were quite sufficient to maintain peace in South Africa. Even in 1898–9 the year after the Jameson Raid, when anyone might have anticipated that serious trouble would take place, the numbers then in South Africa were only 8,662. So that now, with 11,485 men, we have a garrison out of all proportion to anything which was thought reasonable before the days of the war. There are now no European white Powers in South Africa outside our British dominions. In 1898 there were independent Dutch Republics against which it might be thought necessary to protect ourselves by force. But that does not exist to-day. As far as I understand there is no conceivable danger to South Africa except from the coloured persons. Why on earth are we to maintain this enormous garrison, for I am quite sure my right hon. Friend is not going to tell us that there is a greater danger of a rising among our white-coloured population than there is in Canada or in Australia, in neither of which countries do we keep any troops at all. Therefore it seems to me there is really no case whatever for the maintenance of a large British force on purely South African grounds. If the House thinks it necessary that troops should be kept in South Africa to allow the South African Government a little more breathing space to perfect their arrangements, I submit that South Africa ought to pay in precisely the same manner as India pays for her troops. Even Egypt is made to give a contribution to the cost of maintaining the Army. Four thousand men, which I am quite ready to see left in South Africa, is 700 more than were necessary twenty years ago, and that should be ample for all reasonable requirements of the South African Government, and anything more they require they should supplement out of their own resources. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell us what South Africa has been doing in the last two or three years, whether they have been sponging quietly on the British taxpayer all the time or are really making serious efforts to organise a force of their own which will at an early date relieve us from the necessity of keeping any garrison there at all.
  I will turn to the other argument, the general Imperial argument, which was put forward by Lord Haldane, that it was a good thing, in the interests of the Empire as a whole, to keep a large number of troops in South Africa for emergency.

  437
  Where are these emergencies going to occur? It was partly suggested that they might be in Egypt, but surely England is a very much more convenient place in which to keep troops required for an emergency in Egypt than South Africa. Egypt is much nearer to this country than to South Africa. The other possibility is India. The number of troops in India has remained pretty steady all along. In 1892 there were 72,600, and at that time 3,300 were quite sufficient to be kept in South Africa for any possibility of danger in India. Now we have 76,000 troops in India. Surely India does not now require a greater amount of help from South Africa than she did twenty years ago. Twenty years ago there was considerable difficulty with Russia, and there were considerable threatenings of danger with Russia on the frontier of India. Only the other day the Secretary of State was telling us that we have concluded an arrangement with Russia which has been most faithfully kept. These are his words:—
  "The Russian Government have done nothing since that agreement was made to disturb the Indian frontier, to intrigue so as to make disturbances on the Indian frontier, to push railways across it, or to do any of those things which they undertook in the agreement that they would not do."
  In other words, the position of the Indian frontier is better and safer than it was twenty years ago. Why, then, have we got to keep a larger number of troops in order to provide against dangers which are more remote than they used to be? Comparing the present with, the past, as regards the possibility of moving our troops about we are in a better position than we were. The bugbear that was always held out to us was Germany. Germany is a much leas serious danger to us as an Empire than France and Russia, who were the bugbears twenty years ago. Anyone who looks at a map can see for himself that Germany has less chance of interfering with our inter-Imperial movements than France has. That is an obvious geographical fact. In Germany it is a case of overwhelming this country or nothing at all. I think I can suggest what is the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman has carried forward no further reduction in the Army. The fact is, and it is very natural, that once the War Office have got a large Army they do not want to see their importance reduced by a diminution in the number of men in the Army. They do not want to be principals in a dwindling business. No person wants to see the business he is carrying on getting less and less important. I honestly believe this is
  438
  absolutely the only sort of reason which can really be advanced for not making these reductions. A few days ago a Motion was proposed from the other side of the House in the following terms:—
  "That this House is of opinion that national expenditure has been increased by His Majesty's Government in contravention of their pledges."
  I could not vote for that, and I could not in the least support this style of argument nor the character of the expenditure which was attacked in that resolution. But upon my word I do not consider that we have had anything like the reduction in military expenditure which the Government and their supporters promised when they went to the polls in 1906.
  Colonel SEELY:It may be a convenience to the Committee if I now offer some reply to the remarks which have been made in regard to the Estimates which I introduced two days ago. I will first deal with a detail, but a very important detail, brought before us by the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks), who asked whether we can see our way, now that Woolwich is in the London postal area, to extend to the men there certain advantages which were denied to them because they were outside the postal area. I did not know until this moment that Woolwich had two days ago been placed within the London postal area, and it is impossible for me to make a definite announcement without consultation with the Treasury. You must make some boundary line, and the London postal area has been defined as being the area for various purposes. If any community suffers through being put in a postal area, not being the postal area which it might naturally suppose it would belong to, which is included in the postal area, justice demands that unless some fresh fact arises it should get the advantage of the change. I will at once consult with the Treasury and with my hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant), and unless some fresh fact has arisen to alter the position we may take it that the drawback under which Woolwich suffered when it was outside the postal area is likely to be made good to them as soon as may be, now that they are inside.
  I turn to another very important detail, namely, the question of the education of officers. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Craik), speaking with much emphasis—indeed, he used the word "solemnly"—said last night that he wanted to assure us that

  439
  largely under pressure from the War Office he, as chairman of the Army Qualifying Board, had been obliged to lower the standard of education, with the result that men were being admitted as officers who had not reached a proper standard. I am sure everyone would regret, if it were the fact, that the officers in the British Army were below the standard which was considered necessary in education and learning. I have inquired into the matter this morning, and the hon. Gentleman is in error in supposing that pressure has been put on his Board to reduce the standard—at any rate during the last two years. Conversations took place on the subject in November, 1907, as to what the standard should be. I have inquired from the Director of Military Training, who has made the most careful inquiries, and the whole thing is a delusion so far as they know, and they are the only responsible people who could have made the suggestion. So much for the actual suggestion that the War Office put forward a proposal that the standard should be lowered—at any rate during the last two years, which is the only period to which I am now referring or to which we need pay serious attention for the moment, because we are dealing with actualities.
  As to the question whether, in point of fact, the officers have a proper standard of education. The hon. and learned Gentleman sees a good many of these officers, but he by no means sees all, and he sees those who are the least well educated. During the last five years, of 689 candidates admitted to the Royal Military Academy 347 had leaving certificates and 306 had qualifying certificates. It is only those 306 who have qualifying certificates whom the hon. and learned Gentleman sees. The 347 who pass the more difficult examination of leaving certificates he does not see, so it is the officers who are the most highly educated whom the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak about. Therefore I think it is only fair, in justice to the officers as a whole, whose education has been called in question, to point out that more than half the officers who passed into Woolwich in the last five years were officers he has not seen, but who have the higher standard of education. With regard to the Royal Military College the number obtaining leaving certificates—that is, the more difficult examination—
  440
  was 512, and 1,305 had qualifying certificates, so that in one case the majority of highly-educated men he did not see, and in the other case there were 512. On the whole question my advisers on this matter tell me that they are satisfied with the education of officers who now pass into the Army from Sandhurst and Woolwich, and, of course, these represent, the overwhelming majority. There are smaller categories which I do not mention in detail. The standard of education is higher and better than it has ever been. Of course, they are devoted to their task and they naturally take a pride in their profession. Speaking for myself from inquiries I have made at every source of information, I am disposed, and I think hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will be disposed, to agree with this, to say that the standard of education and the educational attainments generally of officers in the Army has increased, is increasing, and I trust will continue to increase still further. So much for that point. I trust that nothing I have said will offend the hon. Member (Sir H. Craik). I fully realise that when he said we had put pressure on, it was a pure mistake, such as anyone is liable to make.
  I come now to matters of more general policy, and I will deal with the very important matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham). Yesterday he made what seemed to me an extraordinarily interesting speech—one of the best speeches in an Army Debate it has ever been my privilege to listen to. There were points in it from which I dissent entirely, and I will try to meet his argument. One matter of general policy I wish to touch upon—and on this I speak particularly, not so much for myself as for the Government as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to take into account the relative superiority of our Navy in considering the question of foreign garrisons. I fully admit that any country, and most of all this country, must keep a most vigilant eye on the distribution of their foreign garrisons. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are, to the best of our ability, keeping a careful watch upon the strategical necessities of this country, but I wish to say—and I hope that this is a phrase which will commend itself to everyone in the House—this is the policy of the Government: We do not base our military strategy on the assumption of waning sea supremacy now, and as long as we hold office, we never will. The right hon. Gentleman named many points, notably Hong

  441
  Kong, Singapore, the Mediterranean, Gibraltar, and Malta. In all these questions there is much to be said on the lines he laid down. I cannot accept his conclusions, nor can I go into the whole question now, because it is essentially one to be discussed in connection with Naval policy. I fully agree that it is a most unsatisfactory plan to discuss the Army Estimates alone, especially in matters of broad policy like this. Some years ago I took part, along with other more eminent Members of this House, in asking the Government to set aside a day for the discussion of the Committee of Defence so as to enable problems like this to be dealt with as a whole, and I trust that may be the case this year. But it would probably be the best plan if that discussion could precede the discussion of the Estimates. Everyone in the House will appreciate the very great difficulty of getting a plan like that adopted, because of the necessity of getting through the necessary business by a certain date. If by general agreement we could take the discussion of the Navy and Army as a whole before we take the Estimates, I have no doubt the Prime Minister would favourably consider the view which is put forward. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not dealing with his suggestion for increased garrisons.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my conclusions. If he rejects the conclusion that it would be a mistake to reduce the number of troops we have in foreign garrisons, may I ask if he rejects the conclusion that seventy-four is the minimum?
  Colonel SEELY: I am afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As to whether I accept his conclusion, I will not say "Yes," and I will not say "No," for this obvious reason. Circumstances may alter the case. I am at this moment about to refer to the point put forward, that there might be a reduction made in the South African garrison. Suppose I were to say that the South African garrison was to be reduced this year, obviously that might lead to the view that other garrisons abroad were not to be altered, unless others simultaneously required more men. Therefore, I cannot accept that view. I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not dealing fully with the question of foreign garrisons. We are satisfied that they are now adequate, but everyone must admit that circumstances
  442
  may arise to render reinforcement necessary at one point or another. I see no evidence to indicate reinforcement being necessary. When I say that they are considered adequate, I must not be taken as saying that the present numbers are fixed for all time. An important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) about South Africa, and here, I fear, the policy of the Government does not commend itself either to him or to hon. Gentlemen opposite, or possibly to hon. Gentlemen in many parts of the House. I state at once that we do not propose this year to withdraw the garrison from South Africa. I know that many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House consider that when any Colony—I will not say Colony—when any Dominion has full self-government it should assume full responsibility of defence, and that the keeping of this number of troops in South Africa, except so far as necessary for a naval base is undesirable. To these arguments I reply that no doubt it is the ultimate destiny of South Africa that it should take full responsibility for its own defence, and that possibly we should maintain a garrison at Simonstown as a great naval base.
  My hon. Friend says that the garrison should be withdrawn now. I frankly say, "No, not now," for this simple reason. On this very day, certainly the day before yesterday, the South African Union Parliament was discussing and attempting to perfect their own defence scheme. It would be a wrong thing just at the moment when South Africa is beginning to do the very thing my hon. Friend asks them to do, namely, to take up the whole burden of her own defence, to say, "We want to save money, and we are going to bring the whole of our force home," thus completely altering the problem which they have at this moment to consider. What we will do is to keep in full touch with the Union Government, whose policy in this matter seems to be proceeding, not fast, but certainly towards the goal we all have in view. We shall not miss the opportunity of pointing out what is necessary for South Africa, as in the case of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but at the same time we shall not hurry South Africa, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest we should do. We should wait until South Africa has had time to look round and perfect her own system of defence. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Protectorates?"] I

  443
  purposely used the word "Dominion." I understand that Dominion means a self-governing Dominion. The question of the Protectorates of Nyasaland, Swaziland, and the rest must require other considerations, and these were present to my mind when, after using the word Colony, I corrected myself and substituted the word Dominion. We feel that, following out her ultimate destiny, South Africa should undertake responsibility similar to that of the other Dominions. I am glad the hon. Gentleman drew my attenton to this matter, and to what must be in the mind of this or any other Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it intended to bring back some of the Cavalry to this country?] I am not in a position to make any statement as to the withdrawal of troops from South Africa. If at any time it becomes possible to make any rearrangement of the Cavalry, I will be glad to inform the House at the earliest possible moment, but for the present I must confine myself to a statement of broad policy.
  7.0 P.M.
  I come next to questions in relation to other branches of the Army, which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and I trust that in answering him I shall be able to answer many of the questions put by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The first question referred to numbers. I was anxious to make quite plain when I said that the numbers were increasing that I was referring to the last few weeks. It is satisfactory to know that in the last few weeks the increase has been almost 1,000 greater than at this time last year. I think the numbers have increased rapidly in the last three months—more rapidly than they did last year. I do not pretend that we are satisfied, and I frankly appeal to those who have power to recruit the Territorial Force up to strength to do what they can in this matter. There are those who are deaf to the appeal, because they frankly do not believe it is any good. We have heard that view expressed by only one or two. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) frankly avowed a preference for 70,000 being added to the Regular Army, and for the Territorial Force being abolished altogether, and although he did not say so quite so definitely, I think the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) is of the same opinion. We are all very much affected by environments, and especially by moments of crisis and peril, and the hon.
  444
  and gallant Gentleman has never got over that moment which he had in Cuba, and I do not suppose he ever will. One of the first things that I remember in this House was a speech made by an hon. Gentleman who happened to be telling us what dreadful things happened to our trained troops when they went to war, and he instanced this affair in Cuba, I thought we should hear of it again, because it is an obession of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that unless troops are trained as fully as those they meet and for as long a period, it is criminal to put them into the field against others.
  Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point of my story. The point of the story is that it is criminal to arm less trained troops with inferior weapons.
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman of course objects to their being armed with inferior weapons, in which I entirely agree with him, but he has also frequently pointed out, and did to-day, that troops trained so long as the Territorial Force have no chance against the highly trained troops of Continental Powers. If that view be correct, it can easily be seen to what dilemma we are driven. If you once accept the view that the home garrison of this country is open to immediate attack from the most highly trained troops of the great Continental Powers, and that those highly trained troops are to come in large numbers, the only possible thing we can do is, in addition to having an Expeditionary Force, to have an Army trained for as long and as thoroughly as theirs. Therefore you must adopt conscription, not in the modified form of four months, but conscription of at least two yeans. I do not see any possible answer to that. If you admit that your home defence Army may be exposed at once to the onslaught of a large Army of a hostile power, you must have your troops trained for as long a period, and you must then adopt Continental conscription in its fullest sense and to its fullest period. The answer to that argument is that we do not accept that thesis. The people who think in that way have-forgotten the elementary fact that we live in an island, and that living in an island we have to maintain a sea supremacy, and that having that sea supremacy and living in an island, it is almost impossible for any great military power to pour any great force into this country. We believe that

  445
  to be impossible, and we base our whole strategy on that principle, that it is impossible. Of course almost all things are conceivable, but if one were to guard against every conceivable danger, however remote, every nation in the world would go bankrupt in its preparations in a few months. You must take that which is most probable, and you must guard against that, and you must guard as well as you can against every probable or possible danger. But we do not believe, and none of our advisers can be got to say that they believe, that the descent of half a million men or more upon these shores within a short period—
  Mr. LEE: Seventy thousand.
  Colonel SEELY: I am not talking of 70,000, but that will shorten the discussion. Are we, then, to say that all our critics of to-day admit the thesis that we need not expect, at any rate for a long period, more than 70,000 men, who cannot have large quantities of artillery, the disembarkation of which is a problem so difficult that no nation attempting a raid would take a large complement of artillery? As was pointed out with much force by an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, there is the obvious and elementary fact that a raid of 70,000 men must be carried out almost entirely by Infantry, who have got to jump into this sea and get ashore as best they can. That is what we have got to guard against. The question is: Is the Territorial Force, as we see it, fit to cope with that kind of descent? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The real question is: Is it possible for 263,000 Englishmen, trained as the Territorial Army has been, with Artillery which, although it may have its faults, has shown an extraordinary improvement in shooting, as I have reports here to show, and as every commanding officer commanding these batteries will testify, is it possible for them to defeat these 70,000 men from another country?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will they all be there at the same moment?
  Colonel SEELY: The Noble Lord must not assume that in order to make my case I find it necessary to suppose that the whole force would be concentrated exactly where the enemy lands. But the Noble Lord will also have to reflect that in the nature of the case this force cannot be reinforced at the point of landing. Therefore we are dealing with 70,000 men
  446
  for this purpose in the air. Before they can do anything vitally injurious to this, country the opinion of every responsible person whom I have had the opportunity of consulting is that the Territorial Force of 263,000 with its Artillery, let alone the large number of Regular troops which remain in this country after the six divisions are gone, would eat them up. Taking these various forces, which anyone reading the various documents can see amount to 400,000 Englishmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Welshmen"]—Yes, and there are Scotchmen and a good number of Irishmen, too; but the suggestion that the 263,000 who are fully organised, though the training may not be so perfect, and who, with the others, will number 400,000, are going to be unable to cope with 70,000 men, nearly all Infantry, who cannot be reinforced is one which I do not believe that a single hon. Gentleman can get up and defend.
  Captain FABER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why originally he laid the number down at 310,000, while now he is satisfied with the total of 263,000.
  Colonel SEELY: That raises another point. I am most anxious to give way to any interruptions as it helps Debate. I did not say 310,000. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I said 263,000, the numbers we have. I ask the question: is there anyone prepared to get up and say that this great force of men, together with the immense number of men of the Regular Army, who will still remain in this country, are to expect disaster at the hands of 70,000 foreigners, mostly Infantry?
  Mr. AMERY: How many of the remaining Regular soldiers are included in the drafts that have to go abroad on six months' notice, or are in bad health, or under twenty years of age?
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman wishes the full details of the Regular Army left behind in this country when the six divisions are gone, I will refer him to the very full statement made by the Secretary of State in the House of Lords about three weeks ago. But a very large number are left, and although I know it is the fashion in these Debates to try to assume that an Englishman is far inferior to anybody from any other country, I deny it. I assert to the Committee that the proposition which I put forward that 400,000 armed Britishers and Irishmen will eat up the 70,000 foreigners, mostly infantry, is

  447
  one that will commend itself to the common sense of the country at large. That is what the Territorial Force is for. It is to prevent this raid, be it small or great, from doing the great damage which it would do if there was no army to oppose it. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who will support the suggestion that you should abolish altogether the forces outside the Regular Force and add so much to the Regular Army. I do not believe in that as a proposition which will ever commend itself to any responsible Minister, or will commend itself to anyone here. I will now turn to the question of the rifle. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) will give me his attention for one moment, because I am more anxious than I can say to clear up this question of the rifle now from the point of view of what the British soldier is going to think of what is being said on the subject.
  The question has been brought down now to a very fine point. The right hon. Gentleman when he said "armaments or weapons" was referring specially to the rifle, and, although he would not admit our universal superiority in guns, he still does not wish to make the gun, either big or little, the basis of criticism. No suggestion of utter inferiority applies to them. With regard to the two sorts of rifles we can go along together. There are, as the House knows, the short and the long rifle. I am glad to say that I have cleared up two points which were left in doubt on the last occasion. The first point was: Is the figure of merit accuracy which put our rifle at the top applicable to the Mark VII. or Mark VI. ammunition—that is to say, the old or the new? As I thought at the time, I find that it applies to both. When the tests were made the two came out the same—at .55 above the other Powers. Another point is with regard to the long rifle and the short. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that trajectory is very important indeed. If we may assume for the purpose of the argument that his view is correct, I had a test made from which it appears that the trajectory of the long rifle is considerably better than the trajectory of the short. It is a few inches better owing to the sixty seconds increase in the muzzle velocity owing to the length of the barrels. Therefore, when the whole Army has been re-armed with
  448
  this new ammunition, as it will be with all possible speed, the question of the long and the short rifle does not arise, and meantime the question of accuracy is applicable to both. I think we can go still a step further together. I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will interrupt me if we do not go together, because I do want to restore confidence in the soldiers if I possibly can.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: You say that the long rifle will have as good an effective trajectory with the new ammunition?
  Colonel SEELY: Better.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: And you will have to resight it?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: But is it not the fact that people whose opinion is worth considering think that the breech will not be strong enough for the new ammunition?
  Colonel SEELY: That cannot be so, because I myself have fired I do not know how many rounds. Thousands of rounds have been fired from it, and I have a definite statement here that there is absolutely no difference in that respect. I sent to the proper branch, and inquired on the very point, Was it quite clear that it was perfectly simple; was the long rifle just as simple as the short one? The answer was "Yes." My experts so informed me. I have seen the thing done often enough myself, and I really think the right hon. Gentleman must be wrong; I cannot believe that my experts were wrong. It only comes to the question of what are the real and vital merits of a rifle. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman disputes that our rifle is a reliable rifle. The Director of Artillery said our rifle is thoroughly reliable; that failures of mechanism are almost unknown, and, apart from the wear of the barrel, our rifle practically never wears out. Of course it is most necessary to put in the word "barrel," because every barrel wears out. The question is whether the barrel of our rifle wears out faster or slower than the barrel of other rifles. We have reason to believe that it does not wear out any faster, because although our cordite has a slightly worse effect on the barrel than a powder used by the French, our lower muzzle velocity greatly prolongs the life of a barrel, and is in this respect a great advantage. The accuracy

  449

  point, I think, is cleared up, and in that we have the advantage; it cannot be disputed. It is a matter of fact, further, that our rifle is the lightest, and therefore the handiest. So it comes to this, that the only point of substance in which our rifle is at all inferior to other rifles is the trajectory. I think anyone who has seen the rifles in the Tea Room, and who has studied the question, will not dispute—certainly still more so if he has gone into the subject fairly—that in all essentials of a rifle ours is as good as any, except in trajectory. "Trajectory," says the right hon. Gentleman, "is a vital thing, and if we fail in trajectory, then the whole rifle fails."
  I have only two remarks to make on that. The first is that we had a most interesting speech, which I was surprised and delighted to hear, from the hon. Member for Droitwich, who knows more about a rifle than most Members of this House, and who showed it in his extraordinarily lucid speech, a speech which was devoted to warning us against the craze for low trajectory. I am sure he was right in saying that you can carry it too far, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's lucid argument appealed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, though the right hon. Gentleman may be able, when he gets the opportunity, to say that he thinks the Government are the worst Government of modern times because they adopted the high trajectory and the pointed bullet, and they deserve to be hung—with which I do not agree. Why do they curse us by bell, book, and candle, bearing in mind that all the gold in the Indies would not get us a new rifle—even if they were to begin now—for fully three years to come, and, if there be this inferiority, we have got to suffer it, whatever we spend, for at least three years to come. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to say what he means is that our failure in not providing the ammunition required last August is a criminal thing. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Droitwich that the power of a high trajectory is equal to the power obtained with a low trajectory, but he might have gone on to and cited the experience of the war in which we were engaged twelve years ago with the Boers.
  We were armed with the present rifle, or substantially the same rifle, the Lee-Metford, with a maximum trajectory of about twelve feet. The Boers were armed with the Mauser, whose trajectory was, I am
  450
  informed, between seven and eight feet. Therefore our trajectory was ever so much higher than that of the Mauser. In that war, the striking difference between it and other wars is that Artillery played so little a part, owing to the fact that the enemy had very few guns, though they were skilled artillerists. We suffered a series of disasters which we are not likely to forget; they burnt themselves into the mind of every soldier, and all those disasters were caused by rifle fire. The Government of the day set about putting our house in order, and they said they would spend whatever sum was necessary to give our men the best rifle. They knew very well that the Boer rifle had a trajectory very much lower than ours; yet after all this talk, and with the fullest determination, the party then in power decided not to spare a copper in providing the best rifle, and they deliberately adopted a rifle the trajectory of which was far higher than that of the Boer rifle. What is more, they deliberately so constructed the chamber, that they knew and asserted they knew, that while others might get higher velocity they would be unable to increase it appreciably. It was stated then that they considered other things more important and that to increase the velocity might incur a very great danger of increasing weight and damaging the mechanism owing to the immense pressure. Another point raised was that it was especially dangerous for us to adopt very high velocity in a hurry and without the greatest care, because we are a Power whose soldiers have to fight alternately in very cold countries and in very hot ones.
  Foreign Powers who have to fight in a more equitable climate, who turn over their ammunition very rapidly, and never have to fight in hot places, are able to use nitro-celluloid powder, which gives a far less violent and sudden pressure than our own cordite. We do not use it because it does not keep in a hot climate. These and other considerations weighed with the Government of 1903, who decided to adopt a high trajectory rifle. I am here to say that I believe the Unionist Government were right. It may be that the Unionist Government were wrong, and it may be that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is quite convinced that they were wrong, but, at any rate, I think I have convinced him that there must be a doubt, because if there is not a doubt we are to assume that for once the great men, the great soldiers, who advised in 1903 on the

  451
  question of a rifle with a high trajectory more than 4ft. higher than that of the Boers were all stark, staring mad. They were not mad. The then Government were advised very much by the same then who will advise the right hon. Gentleman when he comes into power. Of course I do not suppose that will be for many a long day. All these distinguished men to whom I have referred to-day will have retired perhaps before the right hon. Gentleman comes into power. But if, on the other hand, he came into power to-morrow he would have the same experts to consult, and if he had the courage his only course would be, to use a homely phrase, "to sack the whole lot" for their adoption of the high trajectory rifle.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman invited me to reply, and I would like to ask two questions which will satisfy me in regard to this matter. He has convinced us that the high trajectory is better than the low trajectory, but by altering the rifle, as he is doing now, the main gain is a low trajectory. Why, then, does he do it? The other point he put to me is one to which I am bound to respond. I do not want our soldiers to think that their rifle is worse than it is, and I am willing to meet him to that extent. But when I spoke our soldiers were armed with the old rifle without adaptation, and therefore I am perfectly ready—and I hope this will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman—to say to him that I am ready to admit that the rifle which they will have after the adaptation is complete, is a very much better rifle than the old one, and approaches much more nearly to the level of that of foreign armies, on condition that he will admit that for the delay in adapting the new rifle he, and still more the Secretary of State for War, do deserve the severest reprehension of this House.
  Colonel SEELY: This is a most fortunate circumstance. I can reply to both questions in the one answer. I will not admit the fault of delay in the change we are making. The low trajectory is an advantage, as everyone must admit, if it is unaccompanied by other and great disadvantages. The Member for Droitwich is of opinion, I think, that the low trajectory cannot be obtained in our rifle without compensating disadvantages. In my view a low trajectory is only one element. If we could get the advantages of low trajectory without drawbacks, namely, diminished
  452
  rapidity of firing, diminished accuracy, a greater danger of jams, then we are bound to do it. But we set to work to make experiments, and we met with great difficulty. We got so far as to manufacture and to get the machinery for manufacturing the cartridge, but when we began to test it it either jammed or gave inaccurate results, so we had to keep pegging away to get a really serviceable thing. We have been experimenting with this infernal thing the pointed bullet, for it is an infernal thing, ever since the first Power adopted it. The first moment we got one that would really fulfil the test we set to work to manufacture it. I admit the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make the point that we ought not to have been so long, but then the experts were engaged in the problem and we could not solve it sooner. A great many other nations have had the same difficulty, and we have reason to believe that a great many of those who adopted it in a hurry now regret that they did not take rather longer time about it. That, therefore, answers the second question, and both questions are answered. Why did you do it at all—because it is an advantage, if you can get rid of drawbacks, and we have got rid of the drawbacks, as I have endeavoured to show the House by showing that the accuracy is as great and the rapidity of fire is not impaired. The reason we did not do it sooner was because we could not get a satisfactory one. If we had attempted to do it too quickly we might have been landed in disaster.
  Captain FABER: May I ask if the new cartridge is jamming in the rifles at Aldershot?
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I presume, is referring to the tests recently made at Aldershot?
  Captain FABER: Yes.
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad the question has been asked, because it is just as well to make this point public. We decided before we used this ammunition to have elaborate tests with a considerable number of lots fired under ordinary Service conditions. We sent a number of different sorts to Aldershot to be tested. Three lots were jammed, not completely, but it was difficult to get the bullet up. You could hardly get it up. One lot was entirely satisfactory, and one not completely so. The whole of the Army ammunition that is now issued is of that lot that was entirely satisfactory and gave fewer jams than the old

  453
  ammunition. I am glad to have been asked the question, because rumours got about that this was not the ammunition issued.
  Captain FABER: We may take it, then, that it is not jamming?
  Colonel SEELY: No, not from the information I have got, and I have reports from all the commands of a highly laudatory character.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I infer that success attended these efforts since 20th February, because the Secretary of State on that date said he hoped to overcome the difficulty as to the rapidity of firing?
  Colonel SEELY: The reports from the command have come in since that date, and though they show very satisfactory results, I do not suppose, taking them over a series of practices, that the rapidity of fire would be quite so great. The rapidity of fire, as I am advised, will be probably as great if you take the rifle from the shoulder. But, holding the rifle here (indicating another position) it will not be quite as great. When it was tested it was as great, but I should imagine that probably this greatly increased pressure, which exceeds all the pressures on the breeches in foreign Powers, may have the result over an extreme range of fire of slightly increasing the liability, not to jam completely, but to force you to bring the rifle from the shoulder, as you must do in the case of every other rifle. I do hope I have made this point clear. I thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having made his position quite clear, and I think we may take it, although we are a wicked Government for not having gone about it quicker, at least the weapon which our soldiers are bound to use for the next few years, even in his view, is not a bad one, and it is a good deal better than anybody else's.
  There remains a question as to the National Reserves and a question about the promotion of officers in the Royal Garrison Artillery, and a question about aviation. With regard to promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery, I fully admit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is a real hardship to the officers in the slowness of promotion. We fully admit the hardship. It is not a question of money only that is standing in our way. There are inter-Departmental difficulties connected with India and other parts of the world which would presumably have to bear a share of the cost. Those difficulties I hope
  454
  may be overcome. I must not be taken at all as giving a pledge, but I can say that we are anxiously considering the question, of the postponement in the Royal Garrison Artillery of promotion caused by the number brought in in time of war, and we are considering it in a hopeful spirit as to meeting the hardship.
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have raised this question, I think for four successive years, and that the Secretary of State gave precisely the same answer which has been given to us to-night four years ago, and three years ago, and two years ago, and one year ago, and still those unfortunate officers are being forced out of the regiment and their prospects in life destroyed? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that now, after all this time, we might have a more favourable and definite announcement?
  Colonel SEELY: We might have, and I wish we could have. All I can say is that nothing that we can do to facilitate the deliberations of the Inter-Departmental Committee now considering it shall be left undone. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that although all those statements in previous years appeared to be the same that the matter has progressed, and that we are much nearer a solution one way or the other than we were last year or on previous years. With regard to the National Reserve, the numbers are now 76,000. I was asked what they were for. The National Reserve will be of great value, I have no doubt, in time of national emergency. We are considering with those who are specially concerned as to what would be the best way to bring them into the national organisation. We have had the greatest help, amongst many others, from one who generally disagrees strongly with the views held by people on this bench, namely, Mr. St. Loe Strachey. It is only fair to say that this great force owes its inception more to him than to any other one man. He is helping us and advising us in the matter of how best we can utilise the National Reserve so as to take advantage of the splendid spirit shown by those gentlemen who are willing to give their services to the country. It will, I may presume, be considered best to divide it into two classes, namely, those ready for immediate service, and those who are past that time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is there any idea of mixing up the Territorial Reserve with the National Reserve?
  Colonel SEELY: The two subjects are akin. I am thankful to the Noble Lord for mentioning the matter. I was going to say a word on the subject. Although this has a bearing on the Territorial Force Reserve, I am not in a position to make any definite announcement only to say that we are considering it with people like Mr. Strachey, Lord Esher, and Lord Roberts, with a view to putting it on a more satisfactory footing; that is, satisfactory for the men themselves and satisfactory for the country in time of emergency. With regard to the flying ground the question is asked, Why are we spending £90,000 on buying it, and the answer is that it was the best flying ground we could find. It is about 4,000 acres in extent, and a very fine ground. I may say that we did badly want an extension of ground in the neighbourhood of Salisbury Plain. I think everybody knows that that is so, and although this flying ground is primarily for aviation, and nothing must be done by other troops to check this new science, part of it may be useful, provided it does not interfere with its use for aviation. In addition it sets free the area which was hitherto rather unsatisfactorily used by those flying on Salisbury Plain. I was asked about the pay. I am not yet in a position to name the precise sum except to say this as an indication, that it is settled that the commandant, who will be the senior officer of the flying corps, shall have the emoluments, and, on the question of rank, shall have the general status of such officers as the Chief of the Staff College, the Chief of the Royal Military Academy, and the Chief of the Royal Military College. That, I think, will give an indication of the spirit in which we wish to approach this important question. I trust I have dealt with most of the points raised.
  I have not dealt with the question of the military correspondent of the "Times," because it has been my privilege to speak on the subject so very often at Question Time, and, indeed, on other occasions, that I really have nothing to add. It is quite true that it is not a usual arrangement. I fully admit that. But although I found it at the War Office before I got there, I do not wish in the least to say that I do not think it a very good arrangement, because I do. It is not a good plan to have in itself a gentleman connected with the Press also holding an official appointment. That I fully admit. But if you want to get the very best man to edit the "Army
  456
  Review," I do frankly say I am convinced that Colonel Repington is the very best man.
  Earl WINTERTON: Why not make him give up the Press position?
  Colonel SEELY: It would be a waste of this brilliant writer's opportunities to give him nothing else to do except to edit the "Army Review." It, is enormously important, in my view, that the "Army Review" should be the best possible publication, and I think it compares favourably with similar publications of foreign. Powers. It cannot take up a man's full time. It is what is called in other ranks, of life a half-time job, and I doubt if it is quite so much as that. So if we were to get an officer with his attainments to give his whole time we should have to give him an immense salary, and I do not think the House of Commons would approve of that arrangement. If there is an objection that he is far too likely to have access to secret or confidential documents, I would point out that although he is a gentleman connected with the Press he is an officer who knows thoroughly what is and what is not confidential and secret, and there is less risk in his case than in the case of almost any other man you could name. I do believe the "Army Review" is a good publication. I do believe we have a good editor. I am only sorry circumstances are such that we cannot have unanimous consent in approving of his appointment. I think I have dealt with all the questions I have been asked, and I shall be very glad to reply to any further question.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I wish to say a word on the question of ranges. In the Secretary of State's Memorandum there was a statement showing that out of a total of 263,000 officers and men in the Territorial Force, only 142,435 have qualified for shooting. As I understand, very few of these men have been more than once on an open rifle range. Nearly all of them have qualified by the use of miniature ranges and thirty yards ranges. Neither of these qualifications, in my opinion, can possibly fit anybody to be a good shot in time of war or any other time. In answer to questions it has been stated that there are now fifty-two fewer rifle ranges than there were when the Territorial Force was started. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State in his Report says that fifteen open rifle ranges have been acquired during the last year, but he fails to state that there have been fifty-two

  457
  abandoned, so that we are no better off in the matter of rifle ranges than we were when the Territorial Force started. There were 833 rifle ranges when the Territorial Force started, fifty-two have been taken away, and only 416 are in England. I submit that, whatever rifle you may have, and whatever opinion may be held as to a low trajectory or a high trajectory, it is absolutely essential that the men should be given every opportunity to learn to shoot accurately. Without accuracy of shooting it does not matter what arm you put in their hands. I would also suggest that there should be more targets placed on the existing rifle ranges. Many ranges have a much smaller number of targets than they should have. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to do what he can to encourage Territorials to learn to shoot and to qualify as good marksmen by giving them greater facilities for travelling on Sundays to the rifle ranges that are available. Could any harm possibly be done, in fact would not a great deal of good be done, by providing means of transport to take men to rifle ranges on Sunday afternoons under a proper organisation, knowing as we do that they cannot reach them on any other day of the week? Unless these facilities are given, unless more rifle ranges are provided, unless the Territorials are given every encouragement to become good marksmen, all the arguments and statements as to the comparative value of rifles, and as to discipline and efficiency, go for nothing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that in the future, especially in this next year, this matter will be attended to. The Secretary of State, in his Memorandum, says that the delay is not due to any financial consideration. I presume, therefore, that the finances are forthcoming. It is due to the difficulty of getting ranges near big towns. I believe that difficulty arises very largely from golf courses being near the towns. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not take the proper steps that I submit ought, for the good of the nation, to be taken, to put the provision of rifle ranges far in front of the provision of golf courses.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very clear and lucid manner in which he dealt with the large number of questions put to him in the course of the Debate. I wish to refer to an answer which he gave to
  458
  my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). It appeared to me that my hon. Friend made out a very clear case for the reduction of the payment for troops in South Africa. I called attention to this matter in 1906, when we had some 20,000 men in South Africa. A very considerable advance has been made, as the number is now about 11,500 only. But why did this process of reduction come to a sudden standstill in 1909? The Secretary of State for War promised that there should be further reductions. My right hon. Friend said that we must give South Africa ample time to put its house in order in this respect. I am entirely with him. But have they not had time? It is now six years since self-government was given to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, which are the only parts of South Africa that have any special action to take in the matter. Surely that is time enough. It may be said that the Union has since been formed, and that they waited until the Union had been consummated before they took definite steps. But the Union has been in existence three years. The Secretary of State told us last year that South Africa had asked for the troops to be retained for a further period. This is a very simple business proposition. If that suggestion was made, why did he not say at once, "Certainly; we are very ready to meet your wishes, but this costs money, and it is the money of the British taxpayer. Therefore I must ask you to make a contribution towards the cost of the maintenance of the troops." That would not be without precedent. It is exactly what was done by our self-governing Colonies when troops were maintained in them, and it is what is done to-day. If hon. Members will look at Appendix 20 they will see that several Colonies are doing their duty in this respect. Some of them are apparently doing more than their duty. The cost of troops in Ceylon is £93,500, and Ceylon pays £94,500, so that we make a profit there. Again, in the Straits Settlement the cost is £187,000, and they are actually paying £217,000. So that I think the right hon. Gentleman has very good ground for asking South Africa to make a contribution towards the payment of the troops. I cannot understand on what principle it is not done.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us that provision is being made for the establishment of a defensive force for South Africa. What ground is there for our

  459
  maintaining this large number of troops in South Africa, when provision is actually being made for an adequate defensive force The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that there is any Imperial necessity for maintaining troops there. The Navy is amply supreme, and there is no European enemy whom we have any need to fear. The native situation is perfectly calm and peaceful. The greater part of the federation is already provided with defensive forces. What is the reason for the reluctance to ask for a contribution? On ordinary business principles I cannot understand it. Surely the burden on the taxpayer in this country is heavy enough. From the point of view of the taxpayers, and in view of the promise made by the Secretary of State for War, I think that greater diligence might be exercised and a more business-like principle applied in reference to this matter. There should be a reduction of troops—I do not say that they should all be taken away at once, but there should be a reduction within a reasonable time. We have spent £30,000,000 on the troops in South Africa, since the war. That is a very large amount for the people of this country to pay. From 1902 to 1900 we were paying an average of five millions a year. Since 1906 the amount has been about two millions a year. That amounts to about thirty millions since the war, the burden on the taxpayers of this country is sufficiently great to demand that some attempt should be made to put in practice business principles and to get a proper contribution from South Africa, if we are keeping these troops there for South African purposes and not for our own. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the matter into consideration and see if something cannot be done.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: I was somewhat struck by an argument used by the Under-Secretary of State in regard to the Territorial Force. As far as I understood, his argument was that there are 260,000 officers and men of the Territorial Force to repel a possible raid of 70,000 officers and men, and that there would be no very great difficulty, because the 70,000 would bring no artillery with them.
  Colonel SEELY: I did not say "no" artillery, but "not much."
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: I think that statement requires a certain amount of
  460
  investigation. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of 260,000 officers and men. Does he mean to say that amongst those 260,000 there would be no recruits not fit to take their place in the field? Does he mean to say there would be no sick?
  Colonel SEELY: The 70,000 from oversea would be very sick.
  8.0 P.M.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: That, no doubt, is extremely funny, but it does not touch the point. A Continental Power would have a large number to pick from, and they might select 70,000 men who would not be sick even in crossing the Channel or the North Sea. You have to deduct the sick from your 260,000. The argument is that you have only 260,000, with a certain number left from the Expeditionary Force, to depend on. Out of that number you have to garrison your arsenals and your bases of supply. You have to distribute your men very carefully throughout the United Kingdom, including Ireland. You have to prepare for false raids, perhaps in two or three different parts of the country. You must admit that a number of these men would be untrained, because no Continental Power attacking this country would give time to allow the troops to get that six months' training which Lord Haldane acknowledges is absolutely necessary to fit them for the duties which they have to fulfil. It is an extraordinary statement that the right hon. Gentleman should solemnly declare that there are 260,000 officers and men available to contend with the 70,000 who would be sent over with a raiding party. After all, there might be a great many more than 70,000, and it is no use burying our heads in the sand like the ostrich. I want to deal with a few points which have not been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in respect to some more homely details. Is it going to be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers to do something for those unfortunate men who join the Civil Service after they have done their full term of service in the Regular Army, and who are not allowed to count their service in the Army towards their pension If there is nothing to be done for them you are doing them a great injustice. So far as I can see, and I have heard some responsible opinions on the subject, there is no reason whatever—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it—why these men should not be given this privilege except, of course, the reason, which I admit he considers a

  461
  strong one, that it is difficult to get the money out of the Treasury.
  The privilege is a perfectly legitimate one. It is the more legitimate when you take into consideration the fact that only recently you have taken over into the Post Office Service the National Telephone Company's concern, and you are going to allow the service of the civilians in the National Telephone Service to count towards their pensions. These are men who have been serving a private company now taken over by the Government. You deny the privilege to these ex-soldiers, whose only fault it is that they have served their country before going into the Civil Service! They have a real and legitimate grievance. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself admits it is a sound grievance, and I only hope he will do all he can to bring his influence to bear to remedy this grievance, which is felt so strongly throughout the country. In the Memorandum which we have been given by the Secretary of State there is a statement made as to the Territorial Forces. It appears that privates of the Territorial Force are going to be allowed—and very rightly, I think—a separation allowance. I think it ought to have been allowed long ago. I am very glad indeed to see it there. But there is another branch of the Service quite entitled to the same consideration at the hands of the Secretary for War. I refer to the privates of the Special Reserve. Why should they not have the same consideration as privates in the Territorial Forces? Both privates of the Special Reserve and commanding officers, too, have a very serious grievance. As many as 70 per cent. of the men who have joined, in some cases 65 per cent. and in many others 50 per cent., never do any training at all under the commanding officers of their regiment. The men in the Special Reserve get their bounty of 30s., and they then go straight into the Regulars. I grant you it is an excellent thing for the Regular Forces, but it is very hard on the commanding officer of a Special Reserve regiment, who has to do his best to train his men, and who, after having done his best to obtain the number of men, and to keep his regiment up to its establishment, so that as time goes on the men are capable of taking their places in the ranks, finds them going at once.
  After all, we must remember that the whole object of the Special Reserve is to take their place in the ranks of the Regulars. I feel convinced that the hon. Member for West Somerset
  462
  will support me in this particular point. He is a Special Reserve officer. I repeat it is very hard on the Special Reserve officer, when, having done his best to obtain his full number of competent men, he finds he is simply training recruits for the Regular Forces. You would be doing a mere matter of justice if you could see your way to extend the privilege of separation allowance to those men of the Special Reserve who do attend a training, as you have assented to the grant to the Territorial Force. As regards the Special Reserve, I think the situation is not a very satisfactory one. We have this splendid optimistic spirit of the Secretary of State for War. We keep on shifting from our position as regards our defensive forces. We keep on whittling down the conditions of service, which are even now on a dangerously narrow basis. I do not know where we are going to end in the long run. We do all this simply in order to have a number of men on paper, and so that we can issue a report in optimistic terms and say that we have so many men. What about the authorities claiming that we are only 1,800 men shorter than last year? What are the real facts of the case? We are short of our establishment of Special Reserves by no less than 27,962. Instead of trying to mislead the Members of the House of Commons—although I do not think they are easily misled—by stating that we are only 1,800 men less than last year, it would be far better to say that we are 27,900 men short. It would save hon. Members looking out figures, and from the necessity for examining these statements. Then again a statement is issued in respect of the Special Reserve saying it requires only five months' training for recruits, with one month for musketry, and only twenty-seven days in camp, and this on enlistment for six years? Surely this is the very limit that we ought to expect from the Special Reserve if they are to take their proper place in the field. Why have we now a new statement issued which allows recruits six months on joining on enlistment for six years? What does it say besides: that they can have only two weeks' training, one week at a time, under any commander, and in any place? I think the policy pursued here is a foolhardy policy.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not rise to continue the Debate, but to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, accompanied by an offer, which, in the opinion of the

  463
  regular Opposition, would not delay voting either the men or the money for the Army for a day longer than they thought necessary for a proper discussion of Army policy. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there are still a number of hon. and gallant Members whom the House would like to hear on the general question. Although we thank him for his full replies, there are also certain points upon which he has not yet replied to questions raised. My appeal is that he will give us on an early day next week half a day, that is a Morning Sitting, to discuss the general question. If he will do that my offer is that we will then give him Vote A (for numbers) and Vote 1 (for pay). I am perfectly prepared to get rid of other Votes of not so interesting a character, such as for works and the three non-effective Votes. Another appeal—and with this I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree—is that we must have a full day for the discussion of the Territorial Forces, in addition to the half-day on the general question.
  Colonel SEELY: I can say at once, although one is disappointed for the moment in not getting the Votes to-night, that I realise that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak on the general question. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should allot a Morning Sitting, that is until 8.15, some day next week. I know the Opposition do not wish to delay the necessary Votes on the Paper, A and 1, the Vote for buildings, and the non-effective Votes. I make an appeal to them to allow us to get Report without any long discussion, because it is so great a convenience in regard to the payment of the Army. I trust that appeal will be favourably considered, unless, of course, some particular point arises. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me if we might have a day for the Territorial Forces. I think that is an allotted day. I think that is a reasonable request. The matter is very important, and I therefore, on behalf of the Government, agree to that.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Hunt]—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
Order read for Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. WARDLE: I had put down an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, on the ground that this railway company is now virtually the only railway company in the country that does not give Sunday pay to its clerks. Since I did so, I had an interview with the general manager of the railway, and I understand that the reason that this payment is not given at the present time is because of the financial position of the company. I am told that as soon as the financial position of the company will allow, the directors are agreeable to the payment for Sunday duty, and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

LOCAL RATING.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present method of raising local revenues ought to be changed, inasmuch as it unduly favours some ratepayers and unduly penalises others, obstructs industry, causes unemployment, and prevents the healthy growth of our cities, towns, and villages; and this House further declares that local authorities should be given the power of raising local revenue in such a way that the existing obstacles to the employment of labour and capital are removed, and rates imposed instead on the value of the privilege enjoyed by those who benefit from the performance of public services, namely, upon land values."
In moving this Resolution I am bringing forward one of the points emphasised in the memorial sent out by 177 Liberal and Labour Members to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. There were two main points in that memorial, one was to obtain relief for the local ratepayers in the bearing of these burdens, which are really national in character, by a uniform tax upon land values. That I do not wish to touch to-night, although it has an intimate connection with the Resolution on the

465
Paper, and the Resolution on the Paper would not be complete without some such general reference to land value for the relief of local rates. The Resolution gives to all local authorities the power, if they choose to exercise it, of levying rates upon land values instead of upon land and buildings together, instead of upon the annual value of the combined hereditaments. This question of giving additional powers to local authorities to levy rates upon land values is of exceptional importance at the present time, because the Town Council of Glasgow have recently passed a resolution upon this subject, and have circulated that resolution to all the local authorities in the country, including boards of guardians, with over 10,000 population, with the result that resolutions have been passed by local authorities here, there, and everywhere, and the resolutions have been forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and local Members of Parliament. The question, therefore, is very much alive at the present time in the local Press, and it is all-important that this House, too, should discuss the question with a view to seeing that the change is both just and in the interests of the public.
The resolution draws attention, in the first place, to the inequity of the present incidence of the rates, to the inequity of the present system of taxes, and you cannot have the inequity of the present, system more perfectly exemplified than by the case in the different parts of London at the present time. In the year 1910 the poor rate in Poplar amounted to no less than 3s. 5d. in the £, while the poor rate in the parish of St. James', Westminster, amounted to a penny in the £, as against this 3s. 5d., and in the City of London to decimal .41 of a penny in the £. There you have an extraordinary difference in the incidence of the present rates, the poorest districts having a heavy levy to pay, and the rich districts the smallest rate to pay. The fact is that these heavy rates borne by the poorer districts are becoming an overwhelming burden upon those districts. The people working in the city work in places where the rates are low and land values high, and they go back to sleep in these districts where the land values are low and the rates extortionately high. One of our chief objects is to readjust that, to equalise rates upon the only fair system by calling upon those to contribute who enjoy land value made by the people's work. Then as to the inequity
466
as between persons, we have another striking example from London. No. 7, Aldersgate, in the City, a site of 10,000 square feet, is rated at £2,677 a year, whereas the next shop, No. 4 and 5, a site of 12,700 square feet, is rated at nil, because there are no buildings upon it, yet the land value of both these sites, whether built on or not, is maintained and created by the expenditure of public money in the shape of rates and by the work of the community. We maintain that is inequitable as between both those owners, and that both those owners should contribute to the rates according to the benefits they receive themselves, according to the land value which the rates created for them.
Therefore, the proposal we put before the House is that there should be a change in the standard whereby rates are levied, and in making this proposal we are merely following out the Report of the Select Committee on the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, which reported in 1907, and which sat under the chairmanship of the present Lord Advocate. Upon that Committee there sat, not only the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), whom I see opposite, and who, I believe, is going to oppose this Resolution, but also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox Division (Mr. McKinnon Wood), who is now in the Cabinet, and several other distinguished men, such as the present Lord Dewar. The Committee reported exactly upon the lines that we are proposing this Resolution to-night. They desired to set up a new standard of rating, and I will read the exact words from the Report of the Committee:—
"The setting up a standard of rating whereby the ratepayer's contribution to the rates is determined by the yearly value of the land which he occupies apart from buildings or improvements upon it, the object being to ensure the ratepayer's contribution, not by the value of the improvements on the land to any extent, but solely by the yearly value of the land itself."
And they went on to say that they were going—
"to select a standard of rating which will not have a effect of placing the burden upon industry. Hence the proposal to exclude from the standard the value of buildings, erections of all kinds, and fixed machinery. To include these in the rating tends to discourage industry and enterprise: to exclude them has the opposite effect."
And they gave as a justification for the adoption of the new standard of rating the fact—
"that land owes the creation and maintenance of its value to the presence, enterprise, and expenditure of the surrounding community."
So that they laid down quite wisely, not only the expedient results which were

467
bound to follow from the taxing of land value, but also the justification in that it was recovering for the public that value that public created. One other quotation from the Report:—
"If the value of bare land, apart from improvements, be chosen as the measure by which to fix contributions to local expenditure, the ratepayer will be merely restoring to the exchequer of the local authority part of that which he has derived from it."
There you have in the clearest language the considered Report of the Select Committee representing both Houses, and presided over by a distinguished lawyer. I do not think that any words of mine can possibly improve or make clearer the objects they have in view or the justification of the Report they make. What I want to do is to get the House to endorse the Report of that Committee, and thereby urge upon the Government the adoption at the earliest possible moment of legislation which will have the effect of translating this Resolution into law, giving local authorities the power they do not possess to rate land values, and to exempt from rating all buildings and improvements upon the land. An Amendment is to be moved to this Resolution by the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), who has strongly opposed the taxation of land values, both in season and out of season, just as I have supported it. The hon. Member for Holborn opposed this system of rating of land values during the Conservative administration of 1906 just as he does now, but it is noticeable that under the Conservative administration of 1900–6 he had behind him by no means the unanimous support of the Conservative party of that day. A Bill was introduced Session after Session and was carried in that Conservative House by increasing majorities as years went on. I think no less than thirty-five Members of the Conservative party voted in favour of the rating of land values, and it was ably supported in the House and outside by the hon. Member for West Toxteth and the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool, by the late Sir C. Bartley and Sir Albert Rollit.
I do not think the Conservative party are solid in their opposition to the rating of land values, or of giving local authorities the option of rating land values. Ever since the purchase of 1909–10 we have had statements from responsible members of the Conservative party supporting the rating of land values as opposed to the taxation of land values. I hope we shall
468
have to-night from some Conservative Member representing the Liverpool district some support for the principle which the Members representing Liverpool supported in the old days, and which circumstances still demand they should support with even greater emphasis than they did ten years ago. If the conditions of housing were bad ten years ago they are worse now, and if the conditions of Liverpool was unknown then to the general public it is better known now. The only way to improve housing satisfactorily is to take the taxes off houses, and make the building of houses as free as possible. I wish to emphasise this appeal to Conservatives by putting to them the statement, first of all, of the right hon. Gentleman the late leader of the Tory party; and, secondly, a statement made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). The senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) speaking on 17th November, 1909, at Manchester, after the Budget had been introduced, said:—
"Taxation of land values for rating purposes is legitimate if it can be shown that the land or the values which you desire to rate are values which are not paying their fair share of the local rates. … The taxation of land values is really no interference with security—it only means that that which does gain by the rates should contribute to the rates."
At the present time we have before us a proposition to spend £875,000 of the ratepayers' money upon making the great new avenue to the west of London by the extension of Cromwell Road. It is true that the Government and the Road Board Fund is finding £875,000, and the ratepayers are also called upon to pay another £875,000. As every business man knows perfectly well, after declaring that such a road will be made and that the Government is prepared to find money for the creation of it, the immediate result is to increase the value of land not only along the line of route, but also over the vast district tapped by the new road at its extremity. This is an obvious case where the expenditure of ratepayers' money will increase the value of land, and surely, if ever there was a case for the rating of land values this is one. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin is known as an economist, and this is what he says:—
"You have already the principle that land contributes to the local rates, and the question is whether the rates should be levied upon the improved value or upon the site value. This is a fair subject for discussion, and I do not think anyone would suggest that the alterations from improved value to site value is Socialism, or any extravagant or novel proposition."
I cannot, of course, claim the Noble Lord as a supporter of mine, but I can claim

469
him as a fair supporter of a system which approves of a change, and as a justification for a change. Both these points are made clearly in the Report of the Select Committee presided over by the Lord Advocate which I have read to the House. There are other Amendments down in the names of Members of the Conservative party voicing the usual Conservative way of shelving the issue by pleading urgency. Hon. Members opposite know there is no arguable case against this change in the basis of rating, but they argue very speciously that the valuation under the Budget of 1909–10 is not complete and cannot be complete until 1915, and, therefore, they say something should be done immediately to relieve the immediate difficulty, knowing full well that anything which is done will prejudice the case and make it more difficult to bring about this change in the basis of rating satisfactory when the valuation is completed. The only answer of hon. Members on this side of the House is that the valuation must be hastened and must not be allowed to go on until 1915. The valuation is going on at the present time, perhaps at a slightly accelerated pace, but no hope has been held out, and under the existing system I do not think any hope can be held out to us that there will be any great anticipation of the date which has been mentioned, namely, March, 1915.
The real point which I and the 170 hon. Members who signed that memorial wish to urge upon the Government is that this valuation should be simplified, and thereby the date when it should be completed would be anticipated. We do not want the buildings, machinery, and factories values, but we want to get the full site value, and if we only ask for the full site value, and if the valuers only seek to obtain that, we shall get it in six months instead of four years. You want to simplify the system of valuation, and if the Government are seriously going to support us in this question, the only satisfactory answer they can give to the ratepayers and hon. Gentlemen opposite is to show that they are going to hasten this valuation. We had a promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year extracted by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) that there would be some sort of inquiry into the existing system of land valuation and land taxation to see if the present system could not be simplified. The present system can be simplified by leaving out all questions as to improvements. The question of taxation can be
470
simplified enormously if we drop these irritating and unsatisfactory taxes like the Increment Duty, the Reversion Duty, and the Undeveloped Land Duty, and go for one straight tax on land values. You are merely making difficulties and making hard cases by persisting in these extremely unsatisfactory half-way houses towards taxation. What we want, what the people in the Land Union want, and what all property owners want is a perfectly simple and straightforward tax, and for that we only want a simple and straightforward valuation. I want to remind the Government that any remission of rates whereby the money is found out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of the pockets of the general taxpayer, is really a present to the landlord at the present time. It is merely an extension of the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896. It is a reduction in rates coupled with the increased taxation of the whole community, and it is going to be of no assistance to the community in the long run. I will quote, in support of my statement, the view of Professor Marshall, after all the leading economist at the present time in the country, if not in the world. He says in his evidence, before the Royal Commission, reported in 1901:—
"Any remission of rates on agricultural land would be a present of public property to the owners, a small part being caught by the farmers on the way."
That is the view of our leading economist, and it was the view also of every Liberal statesman in 1896, when this Agricultural Rating Act was before the country. I think it is necessary to remind the Government of it at this day, when all these different suggestions of assisting the ratepayer are being made. There is only one honest way of assisting the ratepayer, and that is by raising the money to provide the relief by a uniform tax on land values. I hope the Government will give the Resolution their support. I believe from the point of view of the Liberal party it is essential they should take up sound Liberalism such as this: the relief of industry from taxation and the breaking down of monopolies. Along these two lines Liberalism will prosper in the country, and so will the country prosper under such Liberalism.
Sir W. BYLES: I have risen to second the Motion ably moved by my hon. Friend and redoubtable advocate of the cause that he has been pleading. The subject is one not only worthy of discussion in this House, but one which calls for a speedy

471
remedy. There is a pressing need for a speedy remedy. In the borough of Salford, which I have the honour to represent, we have a population of 235,000 or so, mostly poor people, and our rates are 8s. 10d. in the £. There are many grosser cases than that. Our poor rate alone is 1s. 10d., although we are singularly fortunate, because, besides the benefit of old age pensions which we enjoy, we have the advantage of a very rich charity, Booth's Charity, which brings in £18,000 a year, and which is distributed to the poor of Salford. The land from which that income is derived was left by a Mr. Humphrey Booth two or three centuries ago.
Mr. BOOTH: There are two of them.
Sir W. BYLES: The land then brought in £19 a year. Now our income is £18,000 a year. Notwithstanding this large charity and old age pensions our poor rate is 1s. 10d. in the £. This weighs very heavily on our poor people. Manchester, of which we are practically a part, have in one area demolished a lot of cottage slum property and has built large warehouses, which of course have a much higher rateable value. The effect of that has been to pull down the poor rate in that area 1s. in the £. It is at any rate 1s. in the £ less than we have to pay in Salford, but the poor who were housed in that area of Manchester have come to live in Salford. Therefore, we have not only a much lower rateable value, but we have many more poor to keep. The poor rate is only one of several national services which have been imposed by Parliament upon local authorities. The incidence of these charges, many of them new or increased charges, falls very unequally on different rating areas. The Royal Commission in 1901 distinguishes between national and local services, and quotes the poor rate, the education rate, and the maintenance of main roads as services which are national. The cost is thoroughly unequal owing to the fact that the rateable value of these different areas varies so much. This affects poor boroughs much more than rich boroughs. I may mention as one example the difference between Manchester and Salford. The rateable value per head of population in Manchester is 6.48 per cent., and in Salford it is only 4.26 per cent. The duties we have to discharge are practically the same in proportion to the population, but the effect upon the rates is very unequal as against Salford. One might take
472
another illustration, referring this time to education and not to the Poor Law. In Bournemouth the education rate is only 9¼d., whereas in Salford it is 1s. 7½d. This difference is due to the greater rateable value per head of population. There are far fewer children in richer towns like Bournemouth to educate than in poor towns like Salford. Therefore, we have greater obligations imposed upon us with a much lower rateable value, and the Exchequer Grants-in-Aid which we are supposed to receive should be in the inverse ratio to that which they are at present. They should be less to the rich and more to the poor district. The effect of a high rate on a borough like Salford is very serious. For instance, a large shop, or a large business establishment which is assessed at a very high figure, gets comparatively little value for the money it pays to the rates, because the municipal services, such as education, police, and lighting and cleansing, are in very much smaller proportion than those rendered for a row of cottages, where, for an equal assessment, much more has to be done. A business establishment has no children to be educated and the lighting and cleansing it requires are proportionately small. The result is that men who want to build up a large business establishment go outside the district in order to avoid the rates, and they go to some district where the rateable value per head is higher while the burden per head is lower. I maintain that the municipal services should be measured by some other standard than the rateable value of the premises. The professional man, the doctor or the lawyer, although they earn a very large income, are only rated on the value of their houses, whereas the large business establishment pays a much higher rate, although the income may be less than that made by the professional man. To avoid these inequalities and to mitigate the burden of the rates the municipality refrains from doing that which would be for the benefit of the borough. It is, in fact, deterred from making the improvements and advances which it is desirable should be made.
I know there is a Committee sitting on the question of local and Imperial taxation, and I am anxious that it should report promptly, but I do not think that that need deter me from suggesting some remedy. First of all, I will deal with certain services which I have mentioned, the poor rate, education, etc. These are essentially national, and ought to receive

473
help from the Exchequer on a much larger scale than they do at present. That is particularly so in the case of education. Parliament is putting upon us the medical inspection and feeding of school children, and this is imposing a burden on the ratepayers which in many cases is becoming positively unfair. I have always been in favour of much greater autonomy for the large municipal bodies in this country. Why should we not be permitted to try experiments? For example, why should Birmingham—which has very large sums to raise—not be permitted to try the experiment of imposing a municipal income tax. Other boroughs might profit by such an experiment, and Birmingham could drop it if it did not like it. Again, what harm would there be if Manchester, in order to carry out its more ambitious schemes of municipal development, should tap a new source of revenue in land values—values which its own municipal enterprise and expenditure have created? Town planning schemes, slum destruction, and extended educational advantages cannot be undertaken rapidly enough unless new sources of revenue are found, any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to frame his 1909 Budget without touching Licence Duties, Land Taxes, mineral royalties, and so on. The power to rate land values is most important. New sources of revenue are necessary. Very large sums are taken away every year from our borough: wealth which is created by local industries is taken away by persons who contribute nothing whatever to its creation. Tens and hundreds and thousands of pounds are taken away from the borough of Salford every year by large landowners, by noble lords and great ecclesiastics; it is wealth which has been created by the citizens of Salford, and it is taken away by those who contribute nothing towards the great municipal developments which are enriching them. This is a monstrous and gross injustice which Parliament ought to set to remedy. I do not want to speak ill of the landlords. I have no doubt, if I were fortunate enough to be a landlord, I should act in the same way as they do, but it does always seem to me that the system is wrong, and the rent receiver and the rent payer should in justice change places. We have to live on the land, and the man who takes a piece away and encloses it should pay for the privilege. But it is much less than that we are asking for to-day. At any rate, we are only asking for a contribution. I hope we shall go on. If you tax houses you make
474
them dearer; if you tax land you make it cheaper. The one leads to scarcity: the other to plenty. In proportion as you pub it on to the land and take it off the houses the result is more houses and more land. You get both an increase of houses and of land—I mean, of course, available land. I could give illustrations from New Zealand and New South Wales, where the thing has actually been put into operation, and where the official authorities are able to report upon it as a complete success. In conclusion, let me say that the nation is at this moment, and I am sure we are painfully aware of it, confronted by very grave perils arising from the discontent of its working population. May I tell the House the most solemn political conviction that I have arrived at at the end of a long life? It is that private property in land is the root of all these troubles. As long as the land is maintained by our laws, tied up by the lawyers' parchments, defended by our soldiers and sailors, it will ensure the serfdom or semi-serfdom of our population. If the land on which we live and on which we must live and must work—it is as necessary to us as the air we breathe—belonged to us instead of to a handful of us, each man would get the just reward of his skill and labour. There would be no need for Insurance Acts or Old Age Pension Acts, there would be freedom and plenty for all. Some day the nation will, in the favourite phrase of Mr. Henry George—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I am glad to hear my hero's name cheered from the other side—"see the cat," and then it will enter into its rightful heritage.
Mr. REMNANT: I beg to move as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to insert instead thereof the words, "this House, while recognising the claim of ratepayers to substantial relief, is of opinion that such relief should be sought in the provision of new sources of local revenue, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and not in increased taxation of that form of property which already bears an excessive share of both Imperial and local burdens."
9.0 P.M.
All who have listened to the hon. Gentleman who Moved and Seconded this Motion must agree that they have put their case in more moderate language than the advocates of the single tax and the total taxation of land are accustomed to do. I do not propose to go too much into detail on reference to this important matter

475
because it would take too long, but if I may refer to one or two points mentioned by the two hon. Gentlemen, it would be to dispute what they have said rather than to enter into serious argument against it. The Mover of the Motion referred to the Select Committee on the Taxation of Land Values for Scotland, of which I was a member. I was one of four representing our side of the House, as against more than twice that number of hon. Gentlemen from the other side, nearly all of whom were members of what is now the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values, which is the only Committee in existence which seems to carry out the principles laid down by the late Mr. Henry George. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the report of the majority. I do not admit that I agreed with that report. If we had been allowed to introduce our report, the hon. Gentleman would have seen, what he can see now, what we thought upon the subject we were appointed to discuss. Coming to my Amendment I cannot help remarking that although one profoundly disagrees with the conclusions and arguments of the Mover, we cannot but admire the consistency with which the hon. Member always comes back to any attack on the rating system of this country. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that this is a singularly inappropriate time to bring forward such a Motion. He knows perfectly well a Departmental Committee was appointed in April last year, and is still sitting, to deal with this matter. The terms of reference to that Committee were:—
To inquire into the changes which have taken place in the relations between Local and Imperial taxation since the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in 1901, to examine the several proposals made in the Report of the Royal Commission, and to make recommendations on the subject to His Majesty's Government with a view to the introduction of legislation at any early date.
We may disagree, as a good many of us do, with the composition of that Committee, but that is no reason why we should ignore its existence. This is not the first attempt of the hon. Gentleman to prejudge that matter. As recently as the Debate on the Address, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) moved an Amendment, to which the hon. Member tried to add a further Amendment, urging the Government to hasten the valuation of these site values. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not forget what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
476
in reference to his procedure on that occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
"My hon. Friend will not expect me to express any opinion on the latter part of his Amendment as to the question of local taxation. I am anxious not to express any definite opinion until the Committee reports. It would not be fair because that would be expressing an opinion on the whole case before we have got the report of the Committee that has been appointed expressly to advise the Government on that particular subject."
I do not say the hon. Gentleman did it intentionally, but surely he is now asking the House to take a course which has been condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so recently as last month as being a course which was not fair under existing circumstances.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Member is moving an Amendment which commits the House in the same way.
Mr. REMNANT: And if I could have done so I would have moved an absolute negative to the Motion. But we have this matter to deal with to-night, and it is an inappropriate time to do it. I agree with the hon. Member in desiring that some revision should take place of our present rating system, but upon entirely different grounds. The outstanding injustice is to-day that an unduly large share of our local, as well as Imperial, taxation is levied in respect of land and houses. The Royal Commissioners on Local Taxation, in their Report presented in 1901, pointed out that, while personal property subject to Imperial taxation is about three times as great as real property so taxable, yet non-rateable property contributes to local objects, if elementary education is excluded, only a little over 6 per cent. of the whole expenditure, and nearly 83 per cent. falls upon the rates. The Report goes on to say that in order to relieve this inequality the Commissioners propose that there should be an increased payment for Death Duties on personalty for local purposes, that the transfer of trading licences and of establishment licences shall be made complete, and that power shall be given to increase their amount while the assignment to local purposes of a fixed portion of the Income Tax is said to be deserving of consideration. That was the Majority Report. If we go a little further we shall see that the Minority Report on ground values proposes on owners site value rate only as a make-weight to accompany "increased provision made by the State in aid of services locally administered," and it goes on to justify such a rate on the ground that it would be "counter-balanced by the relief proposed to be granted in the shape of

477
increased subventions." I think I may fairly claim that both the Minority and the Majority Reports of the Commissioners in 1901 support the principle embodied in my Amendment. It seems to me that the theory on which the hon. Member proposes to reconstruct our rating system would by no means justify his own conclusions. The theory is itself unsound, and it has been abandoned by modern economists of repute. The theory of taxation now recognised as correct is not taxation according to benefits received but according to ability to pay. The fundamental principle of our taxation, if I may borrow the definition of a well-known economist, Professor Smart, would be that the present system is an equal sacrifice of payment by every citizen for general services rendered to him. The hon. Gentleman and his Friends propose, instead of taxing people in proportion to their means to tax some and to exempt others, for the simple reason that their money happens to be invested in different ways. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution said that all property owners want a straightforward tax. I agree. Those whom I know want a straightforward, fair, equitable and logical tax, and they do not see why one form of property should be practically free while another, which has always been considered commercially interchangeable with another form of property, should have most of the burden thrown on it. The owners of capital invested in land, according to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, however poor they may be, are practically to pay everything, while the owners of capital invested in other ways, however rich they may be, are practically to pay nothing. It would take a great deal to persuade the community that that is anything but a scandalous scheme.
May I give an instance of a man who, out of his savings, leaves to his three daughters £1,000 each. To the first he leaves a house of the estimated value of £1,000, half of which is supposed to represent the site value. To the second he leaves £1,000 in Consols, and to the third dEl,000 in foreign bonds. On what principle of right or justice can it be urged that practically half the value of what he gives to one daughter is to be confiscated, while the others are practically exempt. The two daughters who escape taxation enjoy a privilege which is enjoyed by every millionaire who happens not to have invested his money in land, but in other forms of property. A defence of such an
478
injustice would hardly be made outside Colney Hatch. The levying of rates according to benefits received would, if logically applied, instead of being illogically applied, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, produce results which he and his Friends would not desire. May I take the Education Rate, which is levied for the purpose of providing schools for the working classes. On this benefits theory the working class ought to find the whole of the cost. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do."] That is the first time I knew it.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: They pay it in rent at present.
Mr. REMNANT: If you take the Poor Rate, the same would happen there, and none of the owners of property would be in the employment of the so-called privilege. The adoption of this principle might indeed lead to one result which I should approve, and that is that we should get an end to the demand for the rating of vacant land. After all, rates are spent in satisfying the needs of the inhabitants of houses, and in so far as land is vacant there is scarcely any need for rates. Building land has no population requiring lighting or repair of streets, the provision of a police force, and the support of the poor. The hon. Member's principle, if correct, and if fairly applied, would tend to exempt a class whom he and his Friends were most anxious should not escape taxation. No doubt the hon. Member will say that vacant land owes what capital value it has to the existence of the neighbouring population. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the expenditure of rates."] Yes, Sir, and exactly the same thing may be said of any form of property. There is no form of property, existing or imaginary, which does not owe its value to the public. Without the public there could be no demand. I hope the House will reject the Motion on three grounds. In the first place, it is contrary to the Royal Commission Report of 1901; secondly, this is an inappropriate time to bring forward the Motion, while a Committee appointed to deal with the subject is actually sitting; and thirdly, the Motion is based, as I believe, upon a theory which is economically unsound and ethically unfair.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I rise to second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. If we were discussing rates as apart from taxation, we should have a very complicated question before us. But when we come to the views put forward by

479
the Seconder of the Motion, dealing with matters of taxation and singling out what he calls the restoration of public property due to the public, then we are dealing with an entirely different matter—a matter so different that if I were answering the Seconder only I should say, "You are simply bringing forward a method of confiscation, pure and simple, and not dealing with the principle of rates and taxation at all." I say so because exactly the same argument which he applies to land might be applied to a vast number of other sources of wealth in this country, with the result that you would seek to begin confiscation where you thought it was most popular, and you would have to carry on the process against others if you are to be in any sense logical at all. Suppose the State does take away all rates—I am taking the extreme case which the hon. Member desires to be the ultimate result of the Resolution—the effect would be to relieve capitalists and business people undoubtedly of a burden they are bearing at the present moment, and the inevitable result would be the raising of the argument that that benefit derived from the confiscation of landed property is a benefit not due to their action or energy, but to the action of the State, and the next step would be to confiscate this advantage, because it was not due to their action or energy but to the action of the State.
When we really come to the question as between land and other classes of property and deal with that, I ask hon. Members opposite what is the distinction? We are told that land is a monopoly, and that it is a limited quantity in the market. The answer to that is that you cannot have property of any kind without the element of monopoly and scarcity. That applies to what the workman earns by the labour he gives. It applies exactly as much to what the capitalist gains by his industry, because whether in the one case or the other, would it have value unless you have monopoly or scarcity? I ask any hon. Member to suggest any form of property which can possibly exist except when based on monopoly or scarcity. That is true of everything, and when these terms are used in relation to land alone, they are mere terms of prejudice. They might be used by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) as regards every class of property in this country, whether derived from rents or industrial occupation. When we come more immediately
480
to the question of rating. I agree that we are embarking on a very complex problem. It is a problem that ought to have been tackled long ago by one Government or another in this House. I am not passing any reflection on the present Government. The reason why it has not been tackled and dealt with by one party or another, is that it is an extraordinarily complicated problem. Directly you touch it, you deal with the principle of vested interests and matters of that kind. But we ought to have the courage, to deal with this complex matter on a scientific and economic basis.
A great deal was said by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution with which we might perfectly agree until we come to the remedy. He referred, for instance, to the equalisation of rates. I am strongly in favour of that as between the richer and the poorer parts of the town areas. That does not apply to the rating of rural areas. I am in favour of the Agricultural Rates Act, and I would point out to the hon. Member who referred to that measure that it was an Act not passed by one side only. Originally it was passed by the Unionist Government, and it was afterwards adopted and put in force by the Liberal Government Upon this point I think there was a mistake made by the Seconder of the Resolution. He raised a cheer on both sides of the House when he said you might have a professional man or a rich man occupying comparatively small chambers or premises and not paying an adequate contribution to the rates. I entirely agree, and one of the real problems as regards rating is the putting of a fair charge on a man under these conditions. But that is absolutely inconsistent with the Resolution now before the House. The Resolution would take away from that man even the comparatively small burden he bears at the present moment. I think that is grossly unjust and unfair.
When we were considering this matter on the Royal Commission, I do not go too far in saying that I believe we were all agreed, if we could do so, that a heavier and not a lighter burden ought to be put on business or professional men under those conditions. But how can the hon. Member say that this would be done when, under the terms of this Resolution logically carried out, the existing burden on the occupier of these premises or chambers would be taken away, and they would not pay a penny of burden as regards the rates

481
of the locality in future, though they might benefit to an extraordinary extent? They might be people who used the roads with motor cars, and possibly rich people, people who got an enormous advantage out of the town population as doctors or professional men; but I cannot conceive primâ facia any scheme more directly opposed to the true principle of spreading local taxation so that those who receive the benefit should share the burden than by seeking to put all these rates on one class of property only, namely, site values. When I come by and by to say what I have got to say on the constructive side, I want the House to remember a distinction which, in my view, must be borne in mind between taxation and rates. Taxation ought to be imposed in proportion to ability to bear. Rates ought to be imposed in proportion to benefit received. But where I join issue is that it is absurd to say that the only person who receives a benefit is the landowner or the owner of the site value. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution entirely gave the go-by to what is the principle, and, I think, the right principle, of rating at the present time—that is, you rate the occupier on the ground that it is the occupier who receives the benefit. And if we think what the benefit is which is received in Salford or any of these other large towns, it is directly received by the occupier. I would not for a moment say that the owner of the land or the site value should not contribute his share. But what I want to impress on the House is that, accepting the general principle of rates in proportion to benefit, you cannot escape the conclusion that the occupiers who live in one of these town districts are the people who immediately receive the direct benefit, and therefore so far from it benefiting them, in my view, if you are to put rates on a proper basis, you would increase the burden and not relieve the burden altogether.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do not they pass it on when they pay rent to the landlord?
Sir A. CRIPPS: I give this answer. It is the answer which Lord Goschen gave. When you are considering who pays the rate, it is utterly impossible to lay down the proposition that it is paid either by the occupier or the owner. All we can deal with is the person upon whom the law puts the immediate obligation. You may have a great demand for houses in a particular locality, but because of the bond
482
between the owner and the occupier the owner can probably put the burden on to the occupier. Now take the other case, where there are a great many houses and a small demand. I think it perfectly clear that in the bargain between the owner and the occupier the owner cannot transfer the burden to the tenant. There is another point to which I wish to call the hon. Member's attention. In taking site values alone he is diminishing enormously the assessable site value of each district. At the present time site values bear their proportionate share. As everyone who is cognisant with rating knows, and the Attorney-General will know, under our present system you rate the site value as well as the building. You rate the whole property. The result is that both interests must bear their burden. It may be well said, but you are to put a special burden on the owner of the site value. That, of course, is the argument that was used. I do not take that argument except to the extent which I am going to explain in one moment. But it must not be forgotten that if you tax the site values only the assessable value of a number of our most important boroughs would be enormously diminished, and in many of our country districts it would disappear altogether. In fact, that did happen in the old days in the case of a district in the county I belong to where the burden of the rates exceeded the whole site value, with the result that the whole parish became a waste. That is what happened before the reform of the Poor Law in 1832 and 1833.
I will give an illustration. The rentals were about 10s. an acre. I take the case of a farm I know of 120 acres let for £60 a year. The farm buildings alone cost £4,000, and if you were to add to that the value of bringing the land out of prairie into cultivable condition, there would be another £1,000. There was £5,000 spent, and the total income derived was £60 a year, out of which there were various outlays. What is the site value in cases of that kind, if you were imposing rates in a district were you have conditions of that kind or were going to impose them, and what is going to happen when you have rated all your site values up to the hilt and find you have not got enough? You have got to face that, and the notion of having either a single rate or a single tax, as soon as you come to close quarters, is manifestly and evidently unjust in the sense that it lets off persons who ought

483
to contribute. I think that is quite as unfair as putting on an undue burden on a special form of property, which in this country is very largely owned by poor people, because my experience is, as regards the investments of poor people, that there is nothing more popular than small plots or pieces of local property, as the case may be, and you will find that the result would be to put an enormous burden on some of the poorest owners of property who exist in this country at the present moment. That is not right. I think that every man ought to contribute in proportion to his means, but you do not bring about that result by isolating your charges to landowners. You bring about exactly the opposite result. You bring about the grossest inequality, both as regards rating and taxation, that you can possibly imagine. Everyone who has studied the question as between rating and taxation will agree with what has been said by one hon. Member opposite, that there is a large number of charges at the present moment placed on the rates which ought to be borne by the National Exchequer. We shall never get the proper reform of our rating law until that distinction is logically and scientifically followed.
I have seen more than once a criticism of what has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that so far from any step being made in the direction of logical scientific reform as regards our rates you have obstacles put in the way of reform by throwing upon the rates charges which ought to be borne on all principles by the National Exchequer. National charges are in the main more onerous in character, and a national charge is a charge to which everyone ought to contribute. I do not want to throw imputations on anyone, but what I put is this, that in the case of services of education, of course the limit of education is determined by the House; the extent of education is determined not by the local authorities but by the Education Board in Whitehall. More than that, education is not for the district, it is for the nation; it is to produce a good citizen, not merely a good local man. We know that 1d. Income Tax produces three or four times as much as the 1d. rate. I will take it at three times the rate. That means that if you put a charge on the rates you are letting off two-thirds of property which you could bring into your net if the charge were put on the Income Tax.
484
In a matter such as education, I should put it on the Income Tax, so that those who pay the Income Tax would have to contribute, because it is a question of a national charge. Where it is put upon the rates they escape, and that, surely, is grossly unjust. They may be getting their income from foreign investments, or settled funds, or non-industrial sources, yet, I say, as citizens they ought to contribute their full proportionate share as regards all national services, the charges for which ought to be put on the National Exchequer. I think if that principle is not recognised and completely enforced, the existing chaos, which leads to nothing, but extravagance and unsatisfactory results, cannot but continue. Just the same principle applies, according to what was said in the Report of the Royal Commission, as regards Poor Law, Police, and Main Roads. Supposing the proper charges were made on the National Exchequer, you would immediately get an enormous relief as regards the ratepayers, of this country—a relief to which they are immediately and properly entitled. If, instead of a wild-goose chase, as I call it, after land values or site values, hon. Members opposite joined with us in enforcing upon the Government the immediate necessity of carrying out the reform indicated in the Report of the Royal Commission as to local taxation, then you would put the burdens on the right shoulders and give the relief to the ratepayers to which they are entitled at the present moment. There is only one way of dealing with this question: if it is true that land values are specially advantaged by particular local expenditure, then let them pay in proportion to the benefit they receive. I do not dispute that proposition for one moment, and I never have disputed it. But outside and beyond that, do not specialise rates, but make them as equally as you can in proportion to the benefits received, and, when you come to charges of a national character place them on the National Exchequer, which, after all, is intended to obtain revenue raised in proportion to the ability to bear the charges made.
Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT: I desire most heartily to support the Motion. I was very much struck by a sentence in the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), who moved the Amendment. He seemed to think that under the scheme of taxation of site values vacant land somehow or other would escape taxation.
Mr. REMNANT: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. R. LAMBERT: I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. At all events, the very reason why I am anxious to support this Motion is because vacant land will not escape taxation under this scheme. If I may be allowed to refer to what is happening in my own Constituency, I think perhaps the House will see that there is a good deal of room for reform in this direction. I represent the constituency of which the principal town is Swindon. That town, as everybody knows, is the seat of the works of the Great Western Railway Company, who employ about 10,000 or 12,000 men. It has been the custom of the company in years past to allow their employés what are called "requisition cards." That is to say, the workmen who live at a distance of some eight or nine miles from Swindon can get tickets enabling them to go to and from their work at a very cheap rate. Recently it has dawned upon the railway company that they are very large ratepayers in Swindon, and with a view of preventing empty houses in Swindon, and I suppose with a view to lightening the burden of the rates upon themselves, they have decided in future not to allow requisition cards to be issued to their workmen. That is a very great hardship to the men, because it prevents them from living with their families outside the town where they can live more cheaply and obtain small holdings of land. I wish to be perfectly just to the company, for it is quite true that they have not taken away the privilege from those who already possess it. I understand that those who already have the privilege are to be allowed to retain it, but outside that limitation no more requisition cards are to be issued in the future. Supposing we had a system under which site values were taxed instead of houses, the result would be that there would be no temptation at all to the company to refuse these requisition cards. It would not make any difference to the company whether the houses were occupied or not. It would not make any difference to them whether the land was built on or not. All would pay an equal amount on site values according to the value of the land. When we know the way in which, in some of our towns, the rates at present inflict injury upon commerce and trade by the taxation of machinery, and putting a heavy rate upon industry, I think we ought to consider
486
whether the taxation of site values would not be a fairer and a juster way. It was said just now that we ought to tax according to means. I agree with that partly, but I think you want to add something to it. You want to say you must tax not only according to means but according to opportunities. I think when you find people getting a monopoly, as they do get it in a piece of land which cannot be taken away, that you are entitled to say they ought to pay their full share towards the rates for the privilege which they obtain from the community. All wealth is derived from land, labour, and capital. Capital is nothing more or less than stored up labour working on the land, and if you have no land you cannot have labour to work upon it. The one essential for the production of wealth is land. Land is the foundation of everything, and therefore when people obtain privileges which leave them monopoly rights over the land, in common fairness we are entitled to go and ask them to pay more than those who are deprived of that privilege.
Mr. PERCY HARRIS: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution spoke as if the only question before the House was whether the present basis of assessment should be changed from the present rateable value to that of site value. That, of course, is a perfectly arguable question, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that the hon. Member and his friends are not seeking such a reform of local taxation as the municipalities have asked for and the Royal Commission has approved. They are seeking the more or less complete confiscation of land values. The contention of the municipalities has been twofold—first, that the ratepayers are unduly burdened in respect of services which are of national rather than of local importance, and that owners ought to make a direct contribution towards local expenditure. The first of those contentions was unanimously approved of by the Royal Commission. The other contention, though not approved by the majority of the Commission, undoubtedly was recommended by an important minority, of which the chairman of the Commission was a member. All who are interested in local government hoped that the way was paved for reform, but the hon. Member and his friends have taken in hand a very different policy. They are agitating, and it is idle to ignore it, for the confiscation of land values. Their object is clearly stated in a leaflet published by the English League for

487
the Taxation of Land Values in these words:—
"Since land values are the outcome of the presence and energy of the community, by taking them we shall be securing for public use what is essentially a public fund."
That is an absolutely different policy from the proposals put forward by the municipalities or those approved of by the Royal Commission. As I understand, the ultimate object of the hon. Member and his Friends is to put all rates and taxes upon land values. The immediate proposal, as the hon. Member said, is to be found in the memorial which was presented to the Prime Minister by a considerable number of Members of this House. That proposal was first to place all rates upon land values; and, secondly, to levy upon land values a Budget Tax for two purposes—first to provide a Government Grant for such matters as education, Poor Law relief, and the like, and to provide a fund equal to that now provided by food taxes, which it is proposed to abolish. I believe the Lord Advocate goes even further, and proposes to abolish all Customs Duties. There occurs to one the happy thought that that might relieve the Government of one Irish difficulty, because if it is right that all Customs Duties should be abolished then there is no need to discuss who shall control them in Ireland.
What do the proposals put forward by those Members in the memorial to the Prime Minister mean? A leading surveyor (Mr. Saville), in a recent lecture at the Surveyors' Institute, tried to answer that question. He pointed out that it is not possible to get reliable figures as to the unimproved value of land, but he estimates it at three thousand millions. The local rates amount to £69,000,000, Government Grants £25,000,000, and food taxes £10,000,000. If you assess those on land values you get a total of £104,000,000, and in order to raise that sum on three thousand millions, as Mr. Saville points out, you have to levy your rate of 8d. in the £. That does not sound so alarming at first, but when you realise that it is an annual tax to be levied on capital value then 8d. in the £ means, as Mr. Saville stated, that it is equal to an Income Tax of 16s. 8d. in the £. It must be perfectly clear that that is not a proposal for taxation in the ordinary sense of the word, but that it is a proposal, as the hon. Member no doubt would put it, for the absorption by the State of what is considered a public fund.
488
How is that justified? I find that the leading proposition by which it is justified by the United Committee for the taxation of Land Values is that the land comes from the hands of the Creator. I do not know whether the hon. Member ever bought a piece of land, as it is against his principle. I bought a piece of land lately, but in extenuation of my crime I may say it was only a little one. But I did not receive it from the hands of the Creator. I received it from the hands of a man who obtained many sovereigns for it. I want to know why my investment in that land is to pay an Income Tax of 16s. 8d., while if I had invested the money in Colonial stock, or something of that kind, I would have got off with 1s. 2d. in the £, or something less.
I hope the cause of the reform of local taxation is not going to be prejudiced by this wild and predatory scheme. There is urgent need for reform, and to simplify the present system of taxation, and to put it on a sound and permanent basis. The broad lines, I do not say the exact lines, on which reform must proceed are to be found, I believe, in the Report of the Royal Commission. They are not to be found in the recommendations of the hon. Member who moved this Resolution. The Royal Commission held that services which were locally administered, but national and onerous in character, ought to be assisted out of national funds. The reason they gave was that Imperial taxation presses upon all classes of property and persons less than by any contribution from, and works more evenly than by, local taxation. The Royal Commission indicated the national services which ought to be assisted out of Imperial funds, but the hon. Member and his friends reject the findings of the Commission and propose to put on one class of property—namely, land—the whole burden of national services locally administered. That is surely to ignore altogether ability to pay. As regards local services, the Report of the Royal Commission shows that funds for purely local services have to be levied upon property which is localised and rateable. Opinions differ as to whether the basis of assessment should be the present rateable value, or whether site value should be partially or entirely substituted for it. The minority of the Royal Commission were of opinion that site value might be introduced, not for all rates as the hon. Member proposes, but only for a special rate of a limited character.

489
The Minority Report pointed out that to confer upon occupiers, even indirectly, in their capacity as voters the power to impose or increase a rate payable by owners is a measure which ought to be accompanied by stringent safeguards, and they proposed various safeguards, such as limiting the rate and dividing it half and half between owners and occupiers. But the hon. Member proposes to place at once upon site value the whole of the rates, with no safeguards whatever. The effect of substituting site value for rateable value would be to increase the amount levied from premises where the site value is a large proportion of the rateable value, and to reduce the amount levied from premises where the site value is a small proportion. That is not a change which can be effected suddenly without gross injustice. As Mr. Harper, the late statistical officer of the London County Council, who is now adviser to the Government, has very soundly said in one of his reports, a change of that kind must be carried out by prudent and well-calculated steps. But the hon. Member proposes to carry it out by one rash step. It is perfectly true that he does not propose to interfere with existing contracts, and so the first result of his proposal will be a gross injustice to the existing occupiers and ratepayers, for which they will not thank him. The final result would be as leases expire to place the great mass of municipal electors in exactly the position in which compound householders are at the present time. They would in no sense feel that they were putting their hands into their pockets to meet the rates. Even if site value were adopted as the sole basis of assessment it would be essential to make those who call the tune in municipal elections feel that at any rate in some measure they pay the piper. Otherwise you would get the most hopeless extravagance in local administration.
Really the fallacy which underlies a good many of the arguments of the hon. Member is that the interests of owners and occupiers are absolutely divergent. Mr. Harper, who has written very much of an extremely sound character on these subjects, in one of his reports, says:—
"The relief of the occupiers at the expense of the owners was no doubt originally the main object—"
—that is, of the scheme of taxing land values—
"but this idea has been shown to be largely a mistaken one. Owners and occupiers thrive alike in industrial centres and suffer alike in neighbourhoods which are deteriorating. Their interests in the sense of taxation are parallel rather than the opposite."
490
10.0 P.M.
I object to the hon. Member's proposals because they are contrary to the interests of owners and occupiers alike. It is not fair to place upon property which is localised and rateable not only large burdens of local expenditure, but large burdens of national expenditure. It is not in accord with any fair principle of local taxation. The question whether site value should be introduced as a basis of local taxation is a perfectly arguable one. I may not agree with it myself, but it is an arguable question, and one upon which no doubt the Government will be advised by the Committee of experts now sitting. Provided no interference with existing contracts takes place, I see no objection in principle; but if that valuation is introduced, and if a direct levy is made upon owners, it is absolutely necessary to introduce some such safeguards as have been recommended by the minority of the Royal Commission. Otherwise you will get a system of local taxation which will be grossly unfair and lead to monstrous; extravagance. For these reasons I hope the Resolution will not be carried, and I cannot help thinking that it would be better that this House should not pass any Resolution on this subject until the Committee of experts have reported.
Mr. ALBERT SMITH: The hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), in moving his Amendment, rather complained of the time being inopportune for raising this question, because a Committee is now sitting in reference to the subject. I would remind him that a Royal Commission on Local Taxation sat in 1901, so that there have been eleven years in which to shape the recommendations of that Committee. The Seconder of the Amendment (Sir A. Cripps) and the last speaker (Mr. P. Harris) spoke about confiscation. I claim that in this Motion we are seeking, not confiscation, but restoration. We may agree that rating ought to be for those who get the most benefit. But what do we mean by benefit? Simply the benefit of the local services that are given. There are benefits of quite another character. If an owner lets his land for building purposes, for the erection of either factories, workshops, dwellings, or business premises, and as soon as it is built upon goes away with the money, leaving the other people herded together in the town to pay all the expense, who will receive the most benefit—those who have to ive in the town, or the man who goes away and

491
perhaps lives amid surroundings far better than those of the people he has left behind? Like many other hon. Members I have devoted a good share of my life to the service of the community in which I live. More than once I have attended in this city conferences on the subject of local government when resolutions in favour of the rating of land values have been passed by large majorities, and I have often wondered how it was that those resolutions, passed by the great local authorities by such large majorities, have not been carried into effect.
I am inclined to think that at the bottom of it all, apart from the benefit the community will receive, there is too much selfishness or else too much political partisanship. In my career as a member of a local governing authority I have often been struck as to how it was that this system of rating under which we have been living for years and years has been allowed to continue. I just wish to draw the attention of the House to a very humble authority, because its history is not long, and this borough, which is in my Constituency, shows my case perhaps better from my point of argument than any other town. I know there are in great cities abnormal instances of land values. These are greater, perhaps, than the ordinary working man or working woman can understand, but they can understand, and do understand, their local conditions, especially when their rates are getting pretty high.
In 1850, in the borough to which I refer, the gross rental received from the whole of it was about £14,000. Just over £7,000 came from agricultural land and farm buildings. In December, 1911, the gross rental from that township was £206,800. Out of that area 604 acres only are built upon, leaving 2,791 acres unbuilt upon. The approximate gross rental of that 604 acres was about £200,000, and the 2,791 acres unbuilt upon accounted for the £7,000 remaining. I think that that gives a considerable illustration of what that 600 odd acres is worth, compared with what we may practically call agricultural land. The whole income for the government of the town, practically speaking, is borne by those people who either own factories, business premises, or live in humble houses. The main factors of the contribution of this £200,000 are those who have shops, houses, banks, offices, etc. Those over a £10 rateable value contri-
492
bute £93,266; houses of £8 and under rateable value contribute £33,204; weaving shops contribute £41,107, this bringing the total up to £167,570, out of the £200,000 from the whole area. I am not mentioning this town because I think there is something exceedingly abnormal about all this. I believe there are other towns in this country which can equally show my case as well as this town. But I am sure that hon. Members will agree at any rate that those 604 acres must be worth tremendously more per acre than the 2,791 which is being used for agricultural purposes.
In arguing this point I do not for a moment advocate any process of rating that will hinder at all the progress of agriculture. I do not think that the system of rating suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will in effect do any harm to the farmer or his fellows; rather the reverse. Out of all the money I have mentioned the town does not receive one penny from the ground landlords by way of relief to the burdens of nearly £59,000 which the occupiers have to find in rates. I believe honestly that this system of rating is neither just nor defensible. It is a system which the working classes particularly and occupiers generally are finding to be unbearable. We are seeking some system of rating whereby these community created values will pay their share towards the local governing services. In the borough to which I have referred there are approximately 8,000 houses. The average ground rent for these houses is 30s. Thirty houses, I suppose, will be built on an acre of land—perhaps more. This means that in ground rent £45 per acre is being paid for the ground landlord. At twenty-three years' purchase that is over £1,000. Employers of labour and their men put into their industry a great deal of work to attain these financial results.
This value is one which has been created by the industries of the people and the community, and it is that value that we think ought to pay its share to relieve the local services of the borough, of the urban authority. That land, as agricultural land, would not fetch any more than, say, £1 to £3 per acre in rent. The difference is very remarkable. It is inconceivable that some system has not been devised whereby it can contribute its fair share. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke on the other side referred to the difficulty of the situation. I am aware certainly

493
that there will be difficulties to surmount in the readjustment of these rates. These difficulties of readjustment are not to be compared with the difficulty of these poorer people in the towns in meeting their rates. The worst of it is the more the property is improved the more you have to pay in rent, and the more you pay in rent the more you have to pay in rates. Whether it be by means of a dwelling-house, a shop, a factory, or by any other business premises, the occupier has got to be penalised for the improvement he puts in, and at the same time the whole value underneath his building is to be swept away by another man who escapes rate free. There is another peculiar feature about this. When we have discussed these matters with various representative people from various local authorities at our meetings, we have found a universal opinion that these difficulties are difficulties that all have to contend against. Practically, too, all have always agreed on the remedy to be applied to them: something has to be done by Parliament before very long. This system is becoming too glaring.
It is very hard on people who are day after day, week after week, and year after year saving what money they can to buy their own homes. There are a large number of people in this borough who have bought their houses outright, and who are paying ground rents for these houses; they have to pay from the centre of the front street to the centre of the back street; they have to pay to keep in order flags, channels, sewers, both in front street and the back street. When the street is made to the satisfaction of the borough surveyor to the local authority he may report it is fit to be taken over as a public street, and then to pay 7d. in the £ for the upkeep of the public streets for ever and ever. Surely the man who is drawing the ground rent for the ground upon which these houses are built and through which those streets run ought to pay his quota towards the burden of taxation. As soon as ever that street is paved and made good you will see another builder marking out another plot of ground for another street in the same way. All that tends to increase the value of the land every time. If ground rents were subjected to the same basis of rating as houses they would yield in this borough a 1s. 3d. rate, which would be a very great consideration indeed to the local authority where rates are getting up to 7s. or 8s. in the £.
494
There is something else of importance in regard to houses and land which applies not only to this local authority, but to others as well. Houses are being put up just in sufficient quantities to demand sale, and the occupying tenant who has got the house into comfortable living order will some day suddenly find the landlord suggesting that he had better buy the house because someone else is inquiring after it, and the result is that the builder gets a good price or houses have to be taken at heavy rents. If the tenants cannot see their way to buy, their rents are increased, as we have had several examples recently. The great harm in that is this that once the rent is increased it is increased practically for all time, whether the house is worth the rent or not. I cannot help but think if there was a system of rating land values of this kind it would give the people in the community a really fair chance of buying a house or of renting a decent habitable house. It would open up, especially in rapidly extending boroughs, work, and it would provide labour, and you would hear very little about outdoor workers being unemployed, because it would encourage people to extend their factories and workshops. In the long run, although they may have to pay a proportion of the rent received from the land in rates, there would be more land let out, and the owner would be a financial gainer rather than a loser. It is quite feasible that, by adopting some plan of that sort, you would draw agricultural rent for the same land. Those of us who have had experience of corporations know how these values go up. Only recently, in the very same borough I have mentioned, the corporation wanted to buy for street-widening purposes a certain strip of land, and it is within the memory of living burgesses there that that land was sold for a few shillings. The corporation had to pay £27 per yard for it for making that land more convenient for the public, and after that they were asked to pay again for it. Besides this, there is all the expenses of the fire brigade, town hall, lighting, educational services, main roads, and policing, and if they are not fortunate enough to be a county borough they have to meet the county charges as well. Whatever else may happen I feel sure that the poor ratepayers of the borough, the people who are creating continually this wealth, have certainly a good claim to it. This is a feasible system of rating, and if it is adopted will not only lead to the extension of employment, but

495
tend to relieve the burdens on industry and also the burdens of those who have to work very hard day after day for a living.
Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: A good many of the subjects for which rates are now paid are national matters. For instance, education is paid for half by the rates and half by the taxes. The total expenditure upon education is something like £14,000,000 from the rates and £14,000,000 from the taxes. Those who bear that burden pay taxes according to their means, and, as to the rates, they pay according to their rental value. What can be more absurd than to pay for education on two plans—one according to your means, and the other according to the value of the house you occupy, which is no criterion of anything. With regard to Poor Law administration, it has been hinted that that is a matter of national concern, because some £6,000,000 are contributed in the way of Grants by the State. There is, however, £17,000,000 besides which is paid out of the rates, and no one will pretend now to argue that Poor Law administration is not an entirely national matter which ought to be provided for by the taxes. There is another matter or two. Who will pretend now that the parishes ought to pay for the main roads which go through their districts? A road goes from London to Edinburgh, and motors rush over it at fifty miles an hour, or at the legal limit of twenty-five miles, and it is paid for in sections by towns and parishes in the most unequal and foolish manner. We all recognise the roads ought to be paid for on some national plan. Then how can it possibly be supposed that the registration of voters is a matter which is not national? I venture to say those four subjects ought to be taken wholly off the rates and put on the taxes. I have been at some pains to get some figures from the kind-hearted officials at the Education Office and at the Local Government Board, and I total it up, roughly, that £30,000,000 has been spent on those subjects which ought to come out of the taxes. A penny on the Income Tax represents £3,000,000, so that you would be able to pay for them by an Income Tax of 10d., and the burden would be in proportion to the means of those who paid. The rateable value of the whole Kingdom for these purposes is, roughly, £220,000,000 per annum, and, if £30,000,000 came out of the taxes, it would give a relief
496
to every rate in the Kingdom of 2s. 10d. in the £. You thus see how equitably it would deal with the matter. The rates vary in the most distracting way. They vary in towns, as in Poplar and the West-End of London, from 11s. 4d. down to 4s. in the £, and in the rural districts from something like 16s. 8d. per head of the population down to 11s. In the towns and cities, county boroughs, and urban districts generally the average rate is 6s. 10d. in the £—exclusive of the Exchequer Grant. You take off that 6s. 10d. the 2s. 10d. and you have the rate reduced to an average of 4s. all over the urban districts. The rural districts are under a burden of rating averaging 4s. 3d. in the £. If you take 2s. 10d. off that it leaves 1s. 5d. in the £ as the average rural rate all over the country. Let me point out one curious effect of that. The Agricultural Rating Act of 1896 was passed by a Conservative Government and we have been waiting our chance to do away with it altogether. But why should we? The average rural rate is 4s. 3d., and of this the farmer pays only 2s. 1½d. on his agricultural value. But instead of having to pay 2s. 1½d. he would only have, under my plan, to pay 1s. 5d., and he would then stand on a level with his fellow ratepayers, and there would be fair play all round. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that if this burden were put on the taxes, instead of there being an inclination on the part of the local authorities to keep expenditure on economical lines, it would lead to extravagance. The local authorities must necessarily be used in this matter. But this scheme would have something like the effect of making an internal and external budget. You would have the budget divided into two heads—one dealing with the ordinary services of the country and the other dealing with education, Poor Law, and other matters of that kind, which would be the internal burden of the taxes. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw any difficulty in dealing with such a plan it would be the first time, I should say, he saw a difficulty in anything. A Minister who has had the courage and endurance to pass an Act like the National Insurance Act surely is not likely to be defeated by a proposal such as this. Under these conditions you would use your local authorities. You would establish under the Local Government Board and under the Education Department an average expenditure reasonably right and economical for all these

497
matters of internal taxation, and if any local authority in sending in its requisition for money is found to have exceeded the average it can be called upon to pay the excess out of the rates, or, if if it has kept within the amount of the average it will be entitled to keep the saving in reduction of the rates. I want to say one word as to the effect this would have on local authorities in their administration. What would remain to be paid for by rates would be street improvement, sewage, gas, water, and other things, which bring in revenue, but there will be a margin, which will amount to about 4s. in the £ in the urban districts. What remains to be paid for out of the rates in rural districts are comparatively small matters which will not average more than 1s. 5d. in the £. If local authorities have spent more than they ought out of the taxes they will have to pay out of the rates. I have said enough to indicate that there is a plan and a system by which local taxes may be fairly and squarely adjusted without the necessity of doing what is called for by this Resolution, namely, dealing with site values, except in relation to local matters. The taxation of site values will be a fair subject to be exploited for local matters after Imperial matters have been disposed of.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Those who have been in the House during the course of this Debate, as I have been, from the beginning, must have realised the magnitude of the subject with which we are dealing, and also its vast complexity. I was struck during the course of the Debate not only by the thought in the speeches delivered to the House, and the amount of study that has been given to the subject, but also by the diversity of opinion expressed on both sides of the House. What has particularly impressed me is that I have not heard one speaker express the same opinion as any other. The hon. Member who moved the Motion did so in a speech of great force and great moderation. He has always brought to this subject much zeal and enthusiasm. He put his case briefly and well. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), who during the course of his speech, was, if he will permit me to say so, carried away by his own enthusiasm, and travelled, I think, farther than the Motion which he seconded. I do not find fault with him for
498
that. The speech that was made by the hon. Member for the Holborn Division (Mr. Remnant), at once struck a different note. He found fault with both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for bringing this matter forward at this particular time, and he said it ought not even to be discussed in the House, because there was at present a Committee sitting—a view with which I cordially agree. Then I find the hon. Gentleman himself proposing an Amendment, which, if carried, would go much further to negative the effect of the Committee's deliberations than this Resolution. He was followed by the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps), who has considerable knowledge of rating. He certainly did not agree with all that had been put forward by the Mover of the Amendment. Here, again, it seems perfectly natural, because the moment you begin to discuss this subject there are so many ramifications and so many complications in it that it becomes almost impossible to limit it to one particular theme only. The real problem which we are discussing, which is at the root of this controversy, is how to raise revenue for local purposes, subject to local control, so as to induce efficient but economic administration, and without penalising local enterprise, and once we understand the various points which have to be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion, again, I think, it only explains how natural it is that there should be so many varieties of opinion upon the subject.
The hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) bases the whole of his proposition upon the principle that you must charge those who benefit by the public service, and that you must not adopt the principle which was advocated by others, to charge according to the ability of the person to pay. That, again, strikes very vitally at a root principle in economics. This question has formed the subject of many inquiries and of the Report of a Royal Commission in 1901, but since that time much has happened. A complaint was made by the hon. Member (Mr. Albert Smith), who made a most useful contribution to the Debate, that we have been waiting eleven years since that Report and nothing has been done. That is perfectly true, but there has been a variety of causes for it. It amounts to this, that in 1912, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer discovered in 1911, having travelled very far, as we have, in that period along the path of social reform, we have realised that in almost every step that you

499
take in social reform you impose necessarily a further burden upon the ratepayers of the locality. It has been stated rightly that the burdens have become almost intolerable, and that something must be done to relieve them. I think I am speaking for the whole House when I say we are all agreed that some change must be made, that we must pass from the old system which has done duty so long, and that we must have some new system, and probably, I should imagine—of course I do not profess to speak for anyone who may have to decide this hereafter—a combination of systems will have to be brought into play in order that we may have a full new system to take the place of the old system. A Committee has been and is still sitting inquiring into the subject. It is a Committee of experts, appointed for the express purpose of giving the House and the country the benefit of its assistance in arriving at a conclusion as to the new system, or combination of systems, which you are to substitute for the old system at present in existence. That Committee had to be nominated for the reason that since 1901?so much had been done that before you could legislate on such a vast subject as this you must have some further assistance and some further information in order that we may have a scheme founded on greater expert knowledge. Evidence has been called, both of well-known experts on the subject-matter of the Motion before the House and equally of those who take the opposite view, and who put forward their particular version of taxation and rating. The result is that you have on the Paper to-night a whole series of different proposals, every one of which would form the subject of inquiry, and some of which are already forming the subjects of inquiry, before the committee of experts appointed to assist the House. I would ask my hon. Friends, how is it possible under these circumstances for the Government, which has nominated this Committee, to accept the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend, however much they may agree with him in principle? How can it accept this Motion, which declares not only in favour of the principle, but of a system of getting money for your local revenue by rates upon the land value, and put that forward as a system to be adopted? If the Government were to accept that it would be really pronouncing its view and giving its judgment before it could have the report of the experts.
500
The view we are forced to take as a Government in this connection is that it is impossible for us to support the Motion brought forward by my hon. Friend. But I do think the House is indebted to him for having brought forward that Motion. However much we may find ourselves unable to support him, it has given us a very useful Debate. Certainly a number of points have been discussed and considerable light has been thrown on the subject. Speaking for myself, and I think for the Government, I can say that it is very useful to have had this discussion. I think that at the back of my hon. Friend's mind is the thought that this Committee will take some time to report. I think I am right in saying that valuation is proceeding, though slowly. With the view of hastening it, my hon. Friend would desire to substitute some simpler and different system of valuation. That hardly enters into the motion we are at present discussing, but I agree that it is desirable that there should be a hastening of the valuation in so far as you possibly can, provided, of course, that you have a proper valuation.
I am in a position to tell the House now that the valuation is being accelerated and will be more accelerated. March, 1915, was put forward, I think, as the earliest date on which the valuation will be completed. I am now in a position to tell the House, from the information of those who can best know, that we fully expect the valuation to be completed before that date, and at the rate at which we are progressing now it may be considerably before that date. [HON MEMBERS: "When?"] That is asking a little more than I can possibly tell. So far one-fifth of the task has been completed. The first part of the valuation is far the most difficult and takes the longest time. We have had the forms, and all the information from the forms has been tabulated and is available for the valuers and will enable them to work very much faster. Further, every day the valuers acquire more knowledge and are in a better position to determine as a result of their experience what is market value without making so many inquiries as when they first started. It stands to reason that the longer they are at it the more information they get, and the greater the experience they bring to bear in a particular town or agricultural district the more quickly they will be able to make the valuation. That is what is now happening. Another point to be

501
taken, into account is that the valuer in a particular place or town is able to standardise deductions. He gets to know without making particular inquiries as to each house in the town what is to be deducted for water rate, parish rate, and so on, and consequently he can make his valuation, very much faster than he has hitherto been able to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he has got some information with regard to valuation which will satisfy him, though I quite agree that it does not give him anything like the full extent of his demand. I doubt very much whether there is anything further that I can say to the House on behalf of the Government, because I do feel, however one might be tempted to take part in the discussion and put forward views in answer to some of the arguments from both sides of the House, that there is always this difficulty confronting us, that this question is now being inquired into by this Committee. We do feel that as a Government we have no right to declare any opinion, and we have no right to take any view in this House when we have appointed that Committee, and are awaiting its Report. I cannot help thinking that the result of this Debate has shown how necessary it was to have a Committee of that kind and how impossible it is to come to any conclusion without going into a vast body of evidence, and without making full inquiry and bringing expert minds to bear upon the subject. For these reasons, I am afraid, on behalf of the Government, I am unable to support the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry I was unable to be here during the Debate, having had a long-standing engagement to speak in the country. I only want to make one or two points on the Attorney-General's speech. I cannot help thinking the Government must recognise that the legislation of 1909–10 was the very kind of legislation which the Attorney-General has just told us ought not to be undertaken until the Report of this Committee has been received. What is the legislation of which this valuation forms part except legislation in anticipation of any expert opinion upon the whole question? What would be the use of this costly valuation if the Committee issues a Report in which they do not advocate this particular form of taxation as suitable for the purpose. It does not seem to me at all improbable, from the way in
502
which this legislation is being carried out, that that will be their Report. I do not know whether we are entitled at this time even to go so far as to assume that this valuation would be for that further purpose. With regard to the acceleration of the valuation, I think the Attorney-General has left out of account one or two facts. It is assumed very often by the valuers, and by the Government that they have to value according to what the value is to-day, but the valuers are not set to value the property according to what it is worth to-day, but according to what it was worth on 30th April, 1909, and that, of course, increases the difficulty of making a fair valuation as at that date. Further than that, as the methods of valuation proceed they are being constantly subjected to investigation by referees and by Courts of Law, and, so far as these cases have been heard, they have almost invariably resulted in a change of the proposed valuations now being adopted. I assert that the valuations or the methods of valuation must be subject to very considerable change, and the Attorney-General must recognise that one-fifth of the valuations which are stated to be completed are all subject to alteration as these cases come before the Courts of Law and are decided, and it is a very sanguine statement to make on the part of the Government that any of the valuations may be regarded as really settled.
Mr. WEDGWOODrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member who has addressed the House does not seem to have remembered that the question of site values or land values also includes the question of mining royalties.
Mr. WEDGWOODrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. BOOTH: I am quite sure that if the hon. Member, who put his case with great moderation, had only seen the application of this to land value—
And it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Adjourned at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIA (SCOTLAND).
  SANATORIA (SCOTLAND).
  NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSIONERS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSIONERS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  CASUAL LABOUR.
  CASUAL LABOUR.
  MATERNITY BENEFIT.
  MATERNITY BENEFIT.
  AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.
  AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.
  Application for Building Grant (Dunleer).
  Application for Building Grant (Dunleer).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Trim Industrial School.
  Trim Industrial School.
  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund.
  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund.
  Military Manœuvres, 1911 (Abandonment).
  Military Manœuvres, 1911 (Abandonment).
  Army Reserve.
  Army Reserve.
  Circulation of Pamphlets among Soldiers.
  Circulation of Pamphlets among Soldiers.
  War Office (Civil and Military Employés).
  War Office (Civil and Military Employés).
  Russian Navy (Motor Vessels).
  Russian Navy (Motor Vessels).
  Women's Suffrage.
  Women's Suffrage.
  Boards of Guardians (Case Paper System).
  Boards of Guardians (Case Paper System).
  Parcels Post.
  Parcels Post.
  Fishery Cruisers.
  Fishery Cruisers.
Preamble
The LORD STANMORE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
  AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  MANCHESTER ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL. [H.L.]

    MIDLAND RAILWAY (LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY PURCHASE) BILL. [H.L.]
    WOKING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  BIRKBECK SHARE AND DEBENTURE TRUST BILL. [H.L.]

    BORDON AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    YORK UNITED GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    WAKEFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

E. Crewe. (L. Privy Seal.)

D. Bedford.

D. Marlborough.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Salisbury.

M. Bath.

E. Chesterfield. (L. Steward.)

E. Derby.

E. Denbigh.

E. Jersey.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Cadogan.

312

E. Howe.

B. Camperdown.

E Dartrey

E. Lytton.

E. Carrington.

E. Cromer.

V. Knutsford.

V. Churchill.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Colchester.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Belper.

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Kinnaird.

L. Hylton.

L. Fermanagh. (E. Erne.)

L. Reay.

L. Newton.

L. Welby.

L. Ludlow.

L. Ritchie.

L. Ilkeston.

L. Emmott.

All Petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following, viz.:

E. Crewe. (L. Privy Seal.)

D. Bedford.

D. Devonshire.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Camperdown.

V. Churchill.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Granard. (E. Granard.)

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Belper.

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Herschell.

L. Hindlip.

L. Newton.

L. Colebrooke.

with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Northumberland.

M. Bath.

M. Cholmondeley.

E. Chesterfield. (L. Steward.)

E. Clarendon.

E. Essex.

E. Stanhope.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Mount. Edgcumbe.

E. Beauchamp.

E. Camperdown.

E. Carrington.

E. Halsbury.

E. Plymouth.

V. Gordon.(E. Aberdeen.)

V. Cross.

V. Peel.

V. Knutsford.

V. Churchill.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Colchester.

L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

L. Poltimore.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Belper.

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Macnaghten.

L. Welby.

L. Burghclere.

L. Sanderson.

L. Colebrooke.

MANCHESTER ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Manchester Royal Exchange Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
NORTH KIILINGHOLME PIER BILL. [H.L.]
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.
  (Petition for Bill.)
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON COUNTRY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVMENTS) BILL

    DUBLIN AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
    NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.
    Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday next.

NORTH ORMESBY, SOUTH BANK, NORMANBY AND GRANGETOWN RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
  BRODSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON CORPARATION BILL. [H.L.]
    HOVE CORPORATION RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILAILLESS TRACTION BILL.[H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ashton of Hyde be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Hastings; read, and agreed to.

THE ARMY.
THE. DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE. DUKE OF BEDFORD rose to call attention to the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for War on 6th March, 1911—
That the total number of Regular Infantry officers required for the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force is 2,461, exclusive of those required for Staff appointments.
That the number of Regular Infantry officers serving at home in the 82 battalions, and who were by the January Army List of 1911 not seconded, was 1,998.
That the number of Infantry officers required for the four battalions remaining at home after the departure of the Expeditionary Force is 112.
That these figures show a deficiency of 575 Regular Infantry officers, exclusive of Staff and of any allowance for temporary unfitness;
and to ask the Secretary of State for War how the deficiency of 575 Regular Infantry officers for the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force will be made good on mobilisation.
The noble Duke said: These figures are now a year old, but there is no appreciable variation. I have referred to the Army List of last January and find that the number of Regular Infantry officers serving at home and not seconded is almost the same. There are still six Divisions in the Expeditionary Force, so that the demands made upon that number remain unaltered. I therefore use precisely the same table of figures as that given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for War on March 6, 1011. It is to the deficiency in the numbers of Regular Infantry officers trained with their battalions for the requirements of the Expeditionary Force to which I beg to draw attention. The War Office figures show a shortage of 463 Regular Infantry officers, and to this number must be added 112 officers required for the four home battalions, as mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State for War, making the total deficit 575 for the Expeditionary Force. This number must be an underestimate. No allowance is made for temporary unfitness for active service. If such unfitness amounted to but one per cent. of the 2,500 officers, the deficiency would be more than 600. Again, a number of company officers—I cannot give the exact figures—must be employed on mobilisation as Brigade Majors, as Brigade Signalling Officers, as A.D.Cs., and on other extra regimental duties, thereby creating vacancies in their battalions. In short, the deficiency of Regular Infantry officers on mobilisation for the requirements of the Expeditionary Force, as shown by War Office figures, must be well over 600.
I should explain that this large deficiency in Regular Infantry officers arises in great measure from the fact that the noble Viscount has not got Regular Cavalry sufficient for his Expeditionary Force, and consequently is compelled to employ Regular Mounted Infantry to act as Divisional Cavalry—that is in place of the Cavalry attached to an Infantry Division. The noble Viscount is compelled to deplete his Infantry battalions of both officers and men in order to create makeshift Divisional Cavalry. On the average the 78 battalions of the Infantry of the Expeditionary Force will find themselves 6 Regular officers short on mobilisation—that is a deficiency of one-quarter of the total complement of company officers per battalion. The noble Viscount, in dealing with the
316
Army Estimates on March 14 of last year, said—
"There is no difficulty at all in mobilising as far as officers of the Expeditionary Force are concerned. But, of course, you would deplete to a very considerable extent the depots and the home estublishment."
But when we come to go into details and take the Infantry arm by itself we find, by figures supplied by the Under-Secretary of State for War, a deficiency of at least 600 Regular Infantry officers. I am anxious to learn from the noble Viscount himself how— mean from what sources—he proposes to supply the deficiency of 600 Regular Infantry officers as shown by the figures given last year by the Under-Secretary.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): The figures given by the noble Duke are substantially accurate. They are a little old, but the figures to-day, as he stated, are not materially different from those at the date he takes. The question which he asks is, in substance, this—How on mobilisation is the deficiency of officers, which, of course, will exist, to be made up? The peace establishment of officers is different from the war establishment. That state of things is true, not only in the British Army but in every Army, anti I think it always has been true of every army which has moved from a peace to a war footing at all times. Napoleon filled up his deficiency from non-commissioned officers, and, of course, if you do that you can do easily what is required. In the Peninsular War we had to make up a deficiency of officers on mobilisation, and we promoted a large number of non-commissioned officers in those days. In the South African War so many people came forward from all sources that it was not necessary to promote noncommissioned officers to fill up the deficiency, but that source always remains.
What I propose to do is to answer the noble Duke now for the moment apart from that source of supply, which is one that we undoubtedly should reserve to ourselves full liberty to resort to, getting as we should some extremely competent company officers from those who had passed through the ranks and had become noncommissioned officers. The Infantry officers in the General Reserve of Officers—which the noble Duke, of course, has not

317
taken into account, because that exists only for mobilisation—number at present 791, after allowing 40 per cent. for officers who for various reasons may not be forthcoming. That figure by itself would wipe out his 575. But then ho would say, and say truly, that a number of these officers are of rather senior rank, of rank senior to the subaltern officers who would be required, and therefore you must not treat the whole of them as if they were readily available. But after deducting 40 per cent. there are 791 there. We are taking steps to increase this number by offering General Reserve commissions to ex-cadets of the Officers Training Corps. We have the more encouragement to do this because those who take commissions from the Officers Training Corps are now beginning to come in fairly fast. Already not far off 300 of the cadets of that corps have taken commissions in the Special Reserve—a very great change from the state of things eighteen months ago. The Infantry officers in the Special Reserve number 1,540 of all ranks, and allowance has been made in their establishment to admit of four subalterns per battalion passing to the Regulars on mobilisation. There are, outside those referred to in the noble Duke's question, 780 Regular Infantry officers with the Special Reserve battalions. These are the Infantry officers who were posted to those battalions to look after the training at the depot. If an order to mobilise were given, we should certainly take the course which we have always taken before of giving commissions to members of the senior class of Sandhurst, and that will probably provide between 100 and 200 Infantry officers. These sources, taken by themselves, will give enough to provide for mobilisation, but we still have behind that the possibility—a very practical one—of resorting to the class of non-commissioned officers; and, further, we have what proved to be a great resource in the South African War—I refer to the number of people who came forward without being under any obligation to do so, and many of whom rendered very useful service.
There is no difficulty in mobilising the Expeditionary Force. I admit that to do so we should have, in the first instance, to draw very heavily upon the Regular officers who may be left, but their places would be filled up from the General Reserve and from the other sources of which I have spoken, and there will also be a good provision for wastage. Mobilisation so far as officers are
318
concerned is a ragged business in all armies. It is true that Germany is better off in this direction because of the system under which it gets the one-year trained officers who have gone on to the Reserve. Germany can use Reserve officers freely, but I think that is the only country which can put its hand on the exact number of officers required on mobilisation. In other countries you have to draw upon other classes. I will give the figures of the cadets of the Officers Training Corps who have taken commissions in the Special Reserve. Virtually the Officers Traning Corps had not become operative for this purpose until the end of 1908, but between July 1 of that year and March 31, 1911, 128 came forward and took commissions; between March 31, 1911, and July 1, 1911, 52 more had come in; and between July of last year and February 29 of this year 103 more had come in; so that 283 in all have taken commissions in the Special Reserve. Besides that there are a large number—well on to 500—who have taken A and B certificates and who have left the corps but who are on our list, many of whom will come forward in time of emergency although they do not want to train specially in the Special Reserve. The exact number of Infantry officers serving at home on January 1, 1912, was 2,788, which is rather more than the figure in the return quoted by the noble Duke. Though, as I have said, mobilisation is always a troublesome business, as regards officers we are better off than, so far as I know, we have ever been before; and behind all that we have the power of resorting to that most valuable class of non-commissioned officers on whom we have drawn in the past, and on whom we can draw, and no doubt always shall draw, if emergency requires it.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The noble Viscount mentioned the fact that all armies need expansion on mobilisation, but that fact will not supply us with 600 Regular Infantry officers. Then the noble Viscount relies on the Reserve of Officers. I see by the Army List that more than half of these are Lieutenant-Colonels and Majors— that is, Field Officers. Then there are many senior captains who have retired from the Army years ago and are now no longer young. These Field Officers and senior captains are elderly warriors who have been on the shelf for some years and are impossible for company duties. Of the remainder

319
many are now serving in the Yeomanry, in the Special Reserve, and in the Territorial Army. Others are seconded for service abroad. Others, again, are ex-Militia and ex-Volunteer officers who have passed to the Reserve on the abolition of these forces by the noble Viscount. These are not liable for foreign service.
Then the noble Viscount comes to the officers of the Special Reserve, which includes officers from the Officers Training Corps. By the Return of February 27, 1911, of Special Reserve subalterns, the number ought to be 1,915 but it is nothing of the kind, because the Return shows a shortage of 1,267. The number actually serving is given by the Return as 648. The January Army List shows no appreciable variation. By the Army Order of December 23, 1907, each Special Reserve battalion must send one subaltern to the depot on mobilisation. This means the withdrawal of 74 Special Reserve subalterns from their battalions for depot duties, leaving available 574. But 600 officers are required—result, a deficit of 26 and no Special Reserve subaltern left in any one of the Special Reserve battalions. As a source of supply the Special Reserve is insufficient, even if you chose to take every single subaltern away from the Force.
I have mentioned Special Reserve subalterns because to employ Special Reserve captains with the battalions of the Expeditionary Force would be not only most detrimental to the efficiency of the Army but grossly unfair to the Line officers. The Special Reserve officer is to rank on joining the Line as the junior of his rank—that is to say, a Special Reserve major would rank above the senior captain in a Line regiment, a Special Reserve captain above the senior Lieutenant in a Line regiment. In the latter case the senior subaltern in the Line will be deprived of the promotion which is due to him and for which he has qualified. That is hard lines on him. The Service will suffer by the supersession of a professional soldier by an amateur who has not served as many months continuously as the man over whose head he goes has served years.
Some substitutes for the Regular officers deficient from the Expeditionary Force
320
may be obtained, but not in sufficient quantity. Now as to their quality—I mean their value as officers of the First Line. No one would deny that it is quite impossible to make good to our Regular Infantry on the very eve of battle the lack of 600 Regular officers who ought, under any proper war organisation, to have been trained continuously with their companies. Sir John French, commenting on the Infantry training in 1909, stated that—
"The absence of officers during company training when employed on signalling and mounted infantry duties was most injurious to efficiency."
But the noble Viscount proposes to supply the Infantry of the Expeditionary Force with 600 non-Regular officers, strangers alike to their regiments as well as to their duties, without any knowledge of the interior economy of a battalion and absolutely- ignorant of what the discipline of the Regular Army means. By the plan of the noble Viscount 600 non-Regular officers are assumed within three weeks or less of joining the Infantry of the Expeditionary Force to be capable of commanding a company in a decisive battle on the Continent. Now this is to assume an absurdity. I know it will be said that of course such non-Regular officers will only be employed as junior subalterns and that they will certainly not be put in any place of responsibility. That may be; but we are dealing with war and not peace conditions, and a junior subaltern may find himself commanding his company within twenty minutes of going into his first battle. Does the noble Viscount really suppose that the serving-non-commissioned officers and men of a Regular battalion would have any confidence in the leading of an officer just conic from some non-Regular contingent, about whom they know nothing save that he is obviously incompetent? In no concern outside our Regular Army as at present organised by the noble Viscount would experienced men and foremen who know their work well be expected to take their orders at a moment of supreme crisis from a boy who knows nothing at all about the business.
During the South African war, officers of the Regular Army were continually reproached, and most unjustly, with a lack of professional knowledge. Now it seems that the moment you go outside the Regular Army it is impossible to find a

321
boy, though he has scarcely studied soldiering except as a pastime, who is not fit straight away to command a company of Regular Infantry in a general action. We spend millions a year on the training of the Regular Army and its officers because we say that training is essential, and then we send the Infantry battalions of our. Expeditionary Force into action with 600 non-Regular and untrained company officers, if they can be obtained, and even that is doubtful. Moreover, we are expected to accept them as of just the same value and as perfect substitutes for Regular officers. If that is not the organisation of defeat I know not what is.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Viscount has told us that a certain number of the officers to go abroad will be those trained in the Officers Training Corps. As the noble Duke said, 600 of them will be officers of the Special Reserve. Would the noble Viscount tell the House whether there is any limit within which officers of the Special Reserve may attain the rank of: captain, or, rather, whether there is any limit before which they may not attain the rank of captain; also what would be the minimum service in the Special Reserve which would enable a man to go abroad as a captain commanding subalterns in the Regular Army?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The question of the noble Viscount has arisen, I think, through my not having made myself clear. There is no deficiency in the peace establishment of Regular officers for the Expeditionary Force at the present time. The deficiency arises on mobilisation, and you would make that up by sending the best officers you could get. You would not, at any rate to any large extent, take officers from the Officers Training Corps of the Special Reserve for that purpose. What you would do would be to draw upon the Regular officers belonging to the other establishments at home. There are 780 of them with the Special Reserve battalions. You would make your Expeditionary Force as perfect in officers as possible. For stationary work, such as training and so on, you would get a certain number of older officers from the General Reserve of officers, of whom there are 791 available after allowing 40 per cent. for those who would not come up. Then for the rest you would put officers who had
322
gone through the Officers Training Corps and taken commissions in the Special Reserve. Some of those who are not attached to battalions but are on what is called the unattached lis—that is to say, they have been trained with Regular battalions at times of the year which suited them, and they have got their promotion and their commissions in the Special Reserve though not attached to the battalions. You have in that way a reservoir to draw on of those officers for Special Reserve work. There are already some 283 of them; and besides there are nearly 500 who have taken their certificates and are, therefore, to a certain extent trained, many of whom would be ready to come up in time of war, though they have not taken commissions, and would be available.
The effect of that would be that you would put the cream of what you had available into the Expeditionary Force. You would fill up according to the necessities, using the best men for the more important places and using your less trained men for the less important places; and where there is a shortage we intend to make use of some of these highly trained non-commissioned officers in whom the Army of this country excels. There is no doubt our non-commissioned officers, what ever our deficiencies are, are very good indeed, and many of them are admirably fitted to be promoted. The substance of the whole thing is that mobilisation is always rather a ragged business and would be so with us, but not more ragged with us than it is with other countries except Germany—which, as I have said, has an admirable system of Reserve officers—and certainly much less ragged than it used to be in the old wars which we managed successfully and in which we relied entirely on promoting non-commissioned officers. The Army Council has been at work hard on this problem for eighteen months past, and we are satisfied that we can mobilise and supply wastage. This answer is subject to the reservation that there is that amount of raggedness which I admit arises on the figures and organisation which I have given, and which is not peculiar to the army of this country; it applies to the army of almost every other country, and is due to the fact that there is a difference between peace establishment and war establishment. I have stated to the House the way in which the difference is to be made up.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The answer of the noble Viscount, then, amounts to this, does it not? That in order to supply the gap in the Regular Army it will be necessary to do by the Special Reserve just what was done by the old Militia with regard to men, and to take some of the best of the officers in order to fill up the gap in the Line.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Viscount is right about that. But the battalions of the Special Reserve from which they will be taken will be the 74 battalions which do not go abroad. They will be the 74 battalions at the depots whose function is largely that of training, though they do defence work. It is not like taking them from a unit which is going abroad.

OVER-INSURANCE OF SHIPS.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH LORD ELLENBOROUGH rose to call attention to some of the Reports of Courts of Inquiry into the causes of the loss of ships insured above their value, and to ask the Government whether they will order the Reports of the Courts of Inquiry into the causes of the loss of the "Carnedd Llewellyn," "Oxus," "Cadoxton," "Idle-wild," "Kingswell," "Gunford," "George," "Ouse," " Selworthy," "Cardiff Hall," "Hasland," "Everest," "British Standard," and "Dunsley," the judgments of the Admiralty Courts in the cases of the appeal of the owners of the "Idlewild," and of Paul Braun, who had been master of the " British Standard," and the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of the "Gunford," to be laid before the House.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the evils of which I am about to complain have, I think, been in existence since the time of Queen Elizabeth. There are traces of them in the "Merchant of Venice." What was Shylock thinking of when he used the words—
"Ships are but boards, sailors but men: there be land-rats and water-rats."
Had he said this in the nineteenth century or in the early part of the twentieth century I should have thought that he was thinking of taking out P.P.I. policies on Antonio's ships and then arranging for their destruction. I am about to call your Lordships' attention to the proceedings of some modern two-legged rats. That they
324
existed in the time of George II is shown by the Preamble of an Act of Parliament passed in 1746, which states that—
"It has been found by experience that there are in existence many pernicious practices whereby great numbers of ships, with their cargoes, have been either fraudulently lost and destroyed, or taken by the enemy in time of war."
And that—
"By introducing a mischievous kind of gaming or wagering, wider the pretence of assuring the risk on shipping and fair trade, the institution and laudable design of making assurances hath been perverted, and that which was intended for the encouragement of trade and navigation has in many instances become hurtful and destructive to the same."
There is, therefore, nothing new about the crimes to which I am about to refer, but the methods of perpetrating them have been greatly improved upon.
My attention was first called to this class of fraud by a case that occurred when I was in Bombay in 1870. Two English shipbrokers, who were well connected and personally known to many of my friends in Bombay, made a pretence of loading with cotton a vessel called the " Aurora." which lay at anchor close to my ship. Bills of lading were signed in advance for cotton that had not been put on board, and money was raised on the security of these bills of lading. As it was clear that if the "Aurora" reached England the fraud would be detected, the two ship brokers agreed to pay the captain£1,500 and the carpenter£600 on condition of their sinking the ship. The "Aurora " left Bombay on April 11, and was set on fire by the carpenter on the 12th. The captain made no attempt to extinguish the fire, but got a boat out at once. The sea was calm. On the return of the crew to Bombay suspicions were aroused which resulted in a trial that caused a great sensation in that city. Eventually all four culprits confessed their guilt. The carpenter was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, and the captain to fifteen, the chief conspirators, the two shipbrokers, receiving life sentences. Compared with present-day practitioners, who have raised barratry to a fine art and who manage to avoid punishment for their crimes, these men were mere bunglers.
Take the case of the "Selworthy." At about 5 pm. on March 17, 1910, when about eighty miles from the Canaries, a violent explosion took place in her after

325
hold and a column of water rushed into the ship. The sea was calm. The crew took to the boats. After drifting about for about forty-three hours they were picked up and landed at Genoa, whence they travelled to Cardiff. Major Cooper-Key, His Majesty's inspector of Explosives, held art inquiry at Cardiff. and came to the conclusion that the explosion was due to a charge of high explosive, such as dynamite, which had been deposited in No. 4 hold, and that in his opinion the explosive could only have been so placed and fixed by a member or members of the ship's company. Now comes the question, Who was likely to profit by the crime that was committed? The managing owner gave evidence that the ship cost£8,000 in June, 1909, of which about two-thirds were left on mortgage. The total of the insurance amounted to£15,750. Major Cooper-Key, while acquitting the owners of any attempt to over-insure by misrepresentation, stated that the fact undoubtedly remained that the total loss of the vessel would be very profitable to them. Now in the case of the "Selworthy" it is evident that a crime was committed and that more than one person had a hand in it. Yet it was so skilfully planned that there was not enough evidence to convict any one.
I now come to the case of the "British Standard," of which most of your Lordships have probably heard, because it has been well reported by the Press. She was owned by Brown, Son and Company, who occasionally called themselves by other names, thus leading to confusion. They had previously lost the "Albion" and the "Duffryn Manor." The "Albion" was lost in May, 1908. The total insurances were£32,000, including disbursements, freight, &c. The outside value of the vessel was£16,500, exclusive of disbursements, freight, &c., the value of which is not stated in the report. Also, in addition to the above there were P.P.I. policies for£12,600. So that she was worth a great deal more at the bottom of the sea than on its surface. The cause of her loss was said to be that her steam steering gear jammed at the entrance to the harbour of Corcubion. The Court did not blame any one, but expressed a strong opinion on P.P.I. policies. The "Duffryn Manor" was wrecked on an island off the coast of Ceylon in May, 1909. An inqury was held at Colombo. The Court said"—
"An attempt was made by one of the witnesses called at the Inquiry to prove that the ship bad been deliberately wrecked."
326
The Court did not accept this view, but, strange to say, their report did not touch on the all-important question of insurance. Mr. Brown originally intended to appoint Captain Vigers, who had lost the "Duffryn Manor," as master of the "British Standard," but as the underwriters objected the agreement with him was cancelled. The firm of Brown, Son & Company, consisting of Frederick Brown and his son Thomas, contracted to purchase a steamer at a cost of£32,500. As they had not got enough money to pay for her,£26,500 was left on mortgage to be paid off by instalments in four years' time. Their previous losses made it difficult for the owners to insure the "British Standard" at normal prices, but eventually an insurance was effected for£32,000 on hull and machinery, at eight guineas per cent.—two guineas above the average. Further insurances were effected which brought the amount up to£55,300, though, according to the owners' statements, the value at risk was only£46,378, so that£8,900 was to be gained if she went to the bottom.
The financial arrangements connected with this ship were exceedingly complicated. Frederick Brown was of German origin and was born in Heligoland. His brother Paul was a naturalised British subject and had originally been a German. Messrs. Brown on March 13 described Captain Paul Braun as a man with a long experience and a clean record. One of the underwriters objected to this statement, saying that Captain Braun had got the "Haxby" and the "Glenroy" on shore, and had had a collision when in charge of the "Lexington." At the inquiry it came out that Captain Braun had lost the "Frankfort" many years previously, and that his certificate had been suspended six months for losing the "Rook." The crew of the "British Standard" consisted of twenty-six men, belonging to fifteen different countries. At the trial evidence was taken through interpreters of Greek, Arabic, Italian, and also of Pigeon English for seine of the coloured men. One wonders what has become of the language test that was recently made compulsory in British ships! On May 25, 1911, when about fifteen miles from Cape Negro, not far from Rio Janeiro, the captain and some of the crew declared that she struck something. Others heard and felt nothing. The Court was of the

327
opinion that the "British Standard" did not strike either a derelict, or submerged wreckage, or a rock, and gave reasons for this opinion that appear to me to be conclusive. No attempt was made to save the ship, either by using pumps or by closing watertight doors. Boats were ordered out at once. The Court said—
"If the master had promptly taken the measures available to keep the water out, the Court is of opinion that, whatever the cause of the water may have been, there is a strong probability that she would have been saved. The conduct and the omissions of the master and the chief engineer to make some effort to save the vessel indicate an absence of desire to save her."
They also stated that the evidence clearly established that she was prematurely abandoned. The Court also said that the master offered money to the second officer in order to induce him to support the master's story as to the loss of the vessel. Not being a criminal Court, it could only deal with the Master and chief engineer by fining them and suspending their certificates. The chief engineer's certificate was suspended for twelve months, and that of the captain for eighteen months. The former was fined fifty guineas; the latter 1,000 guineas.
Captain Paul Braun appealed against this decision to the Admiralty Court. According to The Times of February 8, the Admiralty Court stated that the conclusion was not unreasonable that the master was not sorry that the vessel was likely to sink if all efforts to keep her afloat were avoided, and that this attitude of mind was induced by the existence of the various insurances detailed in the report. The Admiralty Court found that the Court below was fully justified in finding that the ship was abandoned by the wrongful act and default of the master and in suspending his certificate. But, for technical reasons, the Admiralty Court reduced the 1,000 guineas that he had been ordered to pay towards the expenses of the trial to£350. At the Court of Inquiry at Cardiff, after passing sentence in the case of the "British Standard," Mr. Lewis said—
"Being of opinion that grave malpractices arise from, or are connected with, the over-insurance of vessels, I repeat, with the full concurrence of the able and experienced gentlemen who assist me, the observations that I made at this Court at a previous Inquiry. Over-insurance is not exclusively a private matter between insurers and insured. There are other parties affected whose interests are not protected and whose lives may be endangered
328
—i.e., the members of the crew. Where a vessel is over-insured, one of the most powerful incentives for keeping her in good condition and seaworthiness is removed, and over-insurance also offers a dangerous temptation to persons and agents of persons who will gain by the loss of the vessel; whether lost through negligence, unseaworthiness, or foul play, the lives of the crew are imperilled. The effectual prevention of an unnecessary peril to seafaring men is worthy the attention of the Legislature."
Mr. Lewis, the Judge, then quoted from the Courts of Inquiry into the cases of nine over-insured ships lost under suspicious circumstances.
The " Guilford " had paid no dividends for seven years. The total of her insurances was£35,000, of which£6,500 were P.P.I. policies on the personal account of the managing owner. The Court found the value of the vessel to be£9,000 and of the freight£5,000. The managing owner, Mr. Briggs, appointed a man named Sember, who was originally a German, to command this ship. His chief qualification appears to have been that he had been ashore ever since his certificate had been suspended for the loss of the "Perthshire" twenty-two years previously, and that he might, therefore, have been expected to have forgotten how to navigate. Sember ran the ship on shore on three different shoals near the South American coast on three different days, and eventually lost her. Ten of her crew of twenty-six died in consequence of having been landed at an unhealthy place, after exposure. The managing owner said that he did not know of Sember's record. If what he said was true, it was culpable negligence on his part, negligence which was the indirect cause of the loss of ten lives. It was a duty that the owner owed to the crew to have known more about Captain Sember. There has been litigation as to whether the underwriters should pay the insurances in the case of the "Gunford." As that litigation reached this House, I think it would be presumptuous on my part to comment on it in the presence of noble and learned Lords who know so much snore about that part of the matter than I do. I have no sympathy with either of the litigants. All that I have to spare is expended on the ten men, who would not have lost their lives had their ship not been wrecked by an incompetent captain.
I now wish to call attention to the "Rowe" Steamship Company. This company had paid no dividend since its formation in May, 1905. On May 31, 1910,

329
this company owned four vessels. It had the misfortune to lose two vessels on two consecutive days—the "Hasland" on March 29, and the "Everest" on March 30, 1911. As both vessels were over-insured the shareholders are much to be congratulated on their good fortune. The "Dunsley," over-insured to the extent of£9,800, was lost on August 30, 1911, off Bardsley Lighthouse, on her way from Appledore to Birkenhead. The Court of Inquiry was held at Cardiff and presided over by Mr. Lewis. I had intended to say a great deal about the "Dunsley" but as Mr. Buxton recently stated in another place that an application had been made for a re-hearing of the case, I shall only mention the sentence of that Court, which was that the master's certificate be suspended for twelve months; that Mr. Shotton, the superintending engineer, should pay£50; Edwards, the engineer,£100; and the managing owner, Mr. Hannibal Thomas, of Cardiff, was ordered to pay£1,500 towards the expenses of the Inquiry, which had lasted for twenty-one days. There is, of course, great difficulty in obtaining evidence at these Courts of Inquiry, as they are like inquests without a postmortem; but if in cases like the "Selworthy" and the "British Standard" convictions are unattainable, the law certainly requires alteration.
If a modification of the two clauses in Mr. Chamberlain's Bill relating to over-insurance had become law in 1884, the position of the owners of these ships would have been very different, as the over-insurance would have been forfeited to the Crown and the shareholders would have made no profit at all. Secondly, the underwriters would have been fined treble the premiums received by them. Another remedy would be to extend the scope of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Inquiry. They have at present the power to prevent a master mariner from exercising his pro-session by suspending his certificate. When a ship is lost in consequence of the misconduct or false economy of an owner, the Court might be given power to make him abandon his profession by ordering him to sell all his property in shipping within three months under penalty of its being forfeited to the Crown. Or sea insurance might be put on the same footing as fire insurance, which disallows claims above the actual value of the losses incurred. The reason why underwriters often insist on a
330
high insurance is that old ships are now more liable to accidents than new ones, and that policies are free from particular average up to 3 per cent. Thus, if a ship is insured for£10,000, all average above£300 is paid by the underwriter, whereas if she is insured for'£20,000 the underwriter does not pay until it amounts to£600. In his speech in 1884 Mr. Chamberlain said that partial losses were to total losses as 20 to 1. I do not know what the present proportion may be. It has been suggested that underwriters and shipowners should agree to insure on the basis of full declared value on ordinary claims when dealing with old and worn-out ships, but only to insure up to 50 or 75 per cent. of that value for purposes of total loss. On the whole, however, I think it would be better to scrap such ships.
In proportion to our commerce, I believe that there are very few criminal cases similar to the "British Standard" and the "Selworthy," but there are, unfortunately, a much larger number of ships owned by men who, though taking no illegal steps, are indifferent as to whether their ships sink or float, who save too much money on repairs, and who over-insure crazy ships that ought to be scrapped. The latter class of owner is really the more mischievous. For instance, take the case of the "Carnedd Llewellyn," insured for nearly double her value and lost with all hands; whereas in cases like the "Selworthy" and the "British Standard" those on board take care that so-called accidents shall only take place in fine weather, with a minimum of risk to captain and crew. It may be urged that the number of ship-owners of this class is comparatively small, and that therefore legislation is unnecessary. I do not agree with this. There are other crimes that are seldom committed, but yet there are laws to check them. The loss of over-insured ships must fall on some one. As most underwriters flourish, they must get recouped for their losses by putting higher premiums on honestly run ships, so that the honest ship-owner has eventually to pay for the frauds of the dishonest wrecker. As long as the law imposes no check on the purchase of crazy and worn-out ships by single ship companies run by men of straw as managing owners, there will be some ships that are run dishonestly.
One of these men of straw, the owner of the "Queen Olga," recently swindled four

331
master mariners into giving him£600 apiece for the privilege of commanding that ship. As, however, the ship herself was seized by mortgagees, their hard-earned savings disappeared. The former owner of that ship was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment, but there is nothing to prevent him from resuming his profession of ship-owner when he comes out of gaol. Ship-owners may possibly object to the proposed extension of the powers of the Courts of Inquiry. I therefore suggest as an alternative that they be empowered to deal with malpractices themselves, through the instrumentality of a committee elected by ship-owners and shipping companies, with votes in proportion to the tonnage that they own. Such a committee should have power conferred upon it by Act of Parliament to order any shareholder or owner found guilty of misconduct to dispose of all his shares and property in shipping within three months, under penalty of forfeiture to the Crown. Magistrates and Law Courts should have power to refer such cases as the "Selworthy," "British Standard," and "Queen Olga," to this committee, much in the same way that they call the attention of the Law Society to the conduct of solicitors. Barristers can be disbarred, solicitors can be struck off the Rolls, medical men can be interfered with by what are practically committees elected by their own profession, and I think that similar powers might with advantage be entrusted to ship-owners, who would then be able to get rid of the black sheep who disgrace their calling. My object in asking that these Reports should be laid before the House is to put in an accessible form the case for changes, either in the law or in the customs prevailing between owners and underwriters, changes which would put an end to what has been a disgrace to Great Britain for a period extending from the reign of George II to that of George V.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Board of Trade will be very pleased to grant the Return asked for by my noble friend, and it may be of interest if I state in a few words what has been the effect of the measure passed in 1909 with regard to the insurance of ships. Undoubtedly before that time there was a great deal of abuse in connection with the insurance of ships by persons who had no interest whatever in them, but since that has been made a criminal act it is believed that there has been very little insurance of this kind. As your Lordships are aware, under the Act of 1909 there is no attempt made to deal with over-insurance of vessels by owners themselves, but this question has been considered on several occasions by the Board of Trade, and even as lately as last year the Board wrote to four underwriting bodies asking them for their observations with regard to the "Gunford" judgment and the over-valuation of vessels for insurance. The replies sent to the Board of Trade were to the effect that more time was required to estimate the effect of the "Gunford" judgment. They also thought that underwriters should have a free hand as regards the valuation of vessels. The Board, in view of these replies from the different underwriters, were of opinion that at the present moment it would not be well to bring in any legislation. It may be pointed out that in none of the cases that have come before a Court of Inquiry has it been found that loss of life has been caused as a result of over-insurance. The reports of the different inquiries to which the noble Lord refers will be published and laid on the Table in, I hope, a couple of days.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.