rose "To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make any statement to the House as to the action taken by county councils to put in force the Small Holdings Acts, and with what results; and, whether he will call for and lay on the Table of the House, after Michaelmas next, a Return showing the position of affairs in respect to the provision of small holdings in each county to which the Acts apply; and to inquire what is the amount now standing to the credit of the Small Holdings Account, and what further amount becomes due during the current financial year, and to what purpose it has been or will be applied."

My Lards, I have to thank the noble Earl opposite for the friendly way in which he has put his Questions. I can, assure him that we have nothing to keep back, and I will give him all the information I can as fully and succinctly as possible. The noble Earl has asked four Questions—first, as to the action taken by county councils; secondly, as to the results of that action; thirdly, as to the laying of a Return on the Table showing the position of affairs after Michaelmas; and, fourthly, as to the Small Holdings Account. Perhaps I may be allowed to take the action of the county councils first. All the county councils have appointed small holdings and allotments committees, and have in most cases delegated to them all the powers under the Act, saving that of borrowing or raising a rate, which cannot be transferred. Steps have been taken by advertisements, posters, circulars, and the issue of forms to ascertain the demand for land. The committees have worked hard visiting the different districts. I am informed that in one county the vice-chairman of the small holdings allotments committee has travelled over 2,000 miles in connection with local inquiries, and there is an enthusiastic Member of your Lordships' House who told me on the Tuesday in Ascot week that he was on his way to a three days' pilgrimage in a motor car for the benefit of small holders in his county, to see what use he could be to them in getting land. Valuers have been, or will be, appointed in twenty-eight counties in England to assist the county councils in the acquisition of land for small holdings, and, as the noble Earl has said, their fees and allowances will be repayable by the Board of Agriculture under Section 17 of the Act of last year. I am bound to say that the collective agency and the local knowledge of the county councils have been of the greatest possible value to the country. If they had not tackled the work, what would have been the alternative? We should have had to have appointed at least one commissioner in each county, or fifty-two commissioners in all, at £1,200 a year each; and, even if we had done that, I very much doubt whether the work could have been as thoroughly and satisfactorily performed as it has been by the voluntary action of the county councils. On the other hand, our Commissioners and inspectors have, I hope and believe, been of great assistance to the county councils; and, if I may be permitted to say so, I think they have been a little unfairly treated in some quarters. An hon. relative of my own, Mr. Abel Smith, asked, in another place, on 11th June this year, what these men had done in return for their large salaries, and what was the daily routine of their work. Perhaps your Lordships will excuse me for a moment while I answer that Question. The two Commissioners, who, I am bound to say, are exceptionally good men, were appointed at the end of last year, and entered the office at half-past ten on 1st January this year, the day on which the Act came into force. They are well up in their work, and have the interests of both tenants and landlords at heart, and they are determined to make the Act a success. They have both informed me that they do not propose to take any holidays this year. They have arranged conferences, prepared circulars, and have advised on difficult points of law. They have had an enormous correspondence, and many interviews with county councils and individuals, to whom they have explained the Act. They have great knowledge of co-operation, which is so necessary for the success of the Act, and the Commissioners themselves or their inspectors have visited every single county in England except the Scilly Islands, and in most cases more than once. I think, therefore, the Commissioners deserve credit for the work they have done during the last six months. So much for their action. Now, as to the result. One result of this work, and a very important one, is that it has shown how very wrong many persons were who considered themselves agricultural experts when they said two years ago that there was no demand whatever for land. Sir Edward Strachey told the House of Commons the other day that there had been 19,419 applications for 309,000 acres for small holdings. Even that did not seem to be going fast enough to please everybody, and a Metropolitan Member of Parliament asked—

"Does that mean that the land has been provided?"

On reflection that evidently struck him as unreasonable, for he qualified his question by saying—

"I never supposed for one moment that they had all been provided with land."

That is the question with which, with your Lordships' permission, I now propose to deal. The Act came into force on 1st January last, and your Lordships, knowing all about land, will realise that the earliest possible time at which notice to a six months' tenant could be given was Lady Day, 25th March. To-day is 13th July, so Michælmas Day, 29th September, is the earliest opportunity you have of getting the laud, unless it is obtainable by private agreement between the landlord and tenant-farmer and the county council. That is unless you choose to adopt the methods of the Barra islanders or those unemployed gentlemen who wanted to seize Windsor Park—proceedings which, I think, would hardly commend themselves even to any Metropolitan Member. Some of those who are opposed to small holdings on principle say that no doubt there is a great demand for land, but it is mostly made by unsuitable persons, and that in one county only eighty applicants had been approved out of 174. That, to my mind, requires some inquiry, for I think the comity council in that instance must have been rather too inquisitive. The suitability seems to vary in different parts of England. In Cambridgeshire 673 applicants were approved out of 865; in the Isle of Wight every one with two exceptions has been accepted as suitable; and the general opinion in all parts of the country is that the applicants are just the sort of men we want, while their capital is far greater than advocates of small holdings had any reason to anticipate. I will take four counties. In Dorset 206 applicants have £14,000 in cash, besides stock and implements; in Herts 140 have £11,000; in Herefordshire 130 have £9,000; in Cheshire 180 have £26,000; while in the Holland division of Lincolnshire 490 applicants have between them money that would enable them to put £6 an acre into the land. When the unsuitable applicants have been weeded out it is estimated that in these four counties the people can put down at least £5 an acre on the 14,000 acres for which they have applied. So far so good. Now comes the great difficulty. The heaviest part of the work is now before the county councils. In the past they have shown tact, patience, and great public spirit in making their inquiries. I hope and believe that they will in the future show courage and enterprise, and I can promise them that they can count most certainly on wholehearted Government support. Now, what is the situation to-day? Applications for about 1,000 acres, more or less—it is very difficult to be absolutely accurate, but I think I am understating it—in Rutlandshire, Montgomeryshire, the West Riding, Worcestershire, Lancashire, and Devon, have been satisfied by private arrangement between landlords and the applicants. Your Lordships will say that that is a mere flea-bite. But it proves two things—that after six months working of the Act 200 more acres have been obtained by private arrangement than were obtained in sixteen years under the well-known Act of 1892; and that all this magic of property and wish to purchase is more or less a myth, for there have been no requests to purchase to any extent. The people merely want to hire the land and to have security of tenure. Now I come to the schemes that have been approved. Radnorshire leads the van, having obtained 280 acres of land, and the men are on the land at the present moment. Gloucestershire has obtained 188 acres, the Isle of Wight, 142; Wiltshire is negotiating for 250, and in the Holland division, where 1,200 acres have been offered, they have arranged to purchase 286 acres, and to buy farms as well. The Kesteven division of Lincolnshre are offered 600 acres; in Cheshire they have obtained 250 acres of Crown land; Cambridgeshire hopes to have 1,000 acres at least ready by Michaelmas; and Somerset has purchased 26 acres for £2,400. This seems a large sum, but the land is all let, and readily let, at £4 an acre. In Buckinghamshire the council have an offer of 500 acres of land in two parishes at a price of £13 per acre to buy, or 13s. per acre to rent. The land is ready for the county council at Michaelmas, not only that, but all the men are ready to go on the land if the county council choose to accept it. The whole of these schemes comprise 2,000 acres of land; and, in addition, there are schemes provisionally approved relating to 261 acres and 147 acres respectively in Cambridgeshire, and 156 acres and 82 acres respectively in Norfolk, making a supplementary total of 646 acres. In many other counties negotiations are proceeding, but are not sufficiently advanced at the present moment to be brought into view. The noble Earl has asked me to present a Return showing the position of affairs in respect to the provision of small holdings at Michaelmas in each county to which the Acts apply. I have, I think, somewhat anticipated his request, for I have prepared a Return up to 30th June, and that is practically ready and will soon be published. It is an interim Report showing the state of affairs up to the end of the first six months. Up to the present the Board have received seventeen schemes for the provision of small holdings, thirteen of which have been already provisionally approved. I should like to be allowed to thank those landowners, not only Members of your Lordship's House, but landowners generally throughout the country, who have provided land for small holdings or have offered it to county councils for that purpose. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who has taken a warm interest in the subject, and whose services we all so gladly recognise, offered on 23rd June, in a letter to the Press, to let his present small holdings to the county councils at reduced rents. I should like to be allowed to say that we do not want any charity rents at all. We do not want landlords to let their lands for small holdings at reduced rents. If people cannot make small holdings pay without charity rents, they are not worth putting on the land. What we wish is that land should be obtainable for small holdings, not at the outrageous prices which have been formerly charged—I have known the price to go up to £20 an acre in Scarborough—but at approximately the same price as a farmer would give in the open market. Then the noble Earl went on to say that he was not prepared to let any land at present to the Surrey County Council unless they could assure him that they had the consent of the sitting tenant. He added—

"Nor am I prepared to exercise any pressure or influence on existing tenants to give up land."

I think the most noble Earl must be in an unique position, and that there are no single fields on his estate that could be taken without virtually affecting the remainder of the farms. I suppose that there is no tenant who is not farming his lard satisfactorily, and I suppose, also, that in no case is there a tenant farming two, three, or, perhaps, four farms, residing on one and placing labourers or caretakers in the occupation of the other farm houses. That, of course, is an evil influence. A Mr. Baylis, in North Berkshire, wrote a letter to the papers informing the public that he farmed 7,000 acres of land, and he boasted that not one of the labourers on that enormous I tract of country was in a position to take I one of the smallest of small holdings. May I give a couple of examples? There is an estate called the Swine Estate in Yorkshire, comprising 4,500 acres, in the possession of the Crown. I went down to see that estate. When we entered the village in a motor car we scattered a good many cows that were grazing on the road side, and they galloped off in all directions with their tails in the air. I asked the boy who was with them who owned the cows, and he replied that they belonged "to the gentlemen in the village." I inquired if it was necessary to keep them on the road side, and he replied that it was, as there was nowhere else for them to go, these men not possessing a single acre of land on which they could turn out their cattle. I afterwards discovered that the blacksmith of the village kept his cow in the coal shed. There was no other place for it. I found it possible to take a piece of land from 3 to 14 acres for each of five tenants. It met the demand at once, and satisfied the hardworking people in the village without inflicting any hardship upon the tenant farmers. The second instance is also in Yorkshire. The Crown owns an estate there of 7,000 acres of magnificent land. It is cut up into twenty-seven farms, and on one farm of 576 acres there was formerly a small holding of 22 acres which had been absorbed by the tenant. I have taken that out of the farm and added a little more to it, giving the small holder 37 acres of land. I ask your Lordships whether anybody can say that that can possibly be construed into a hardship upon that tenant farmer, who is still left 539 acres of splendid land. I most respectfully submit that a pleasant word from a landlord to his tenant would often bring about a far more satisfactory solution than would be reached by the exercise of the compulsory powers granted by the Act. There is very little evidence that landlords would refuse to let or sell land; but the lion in the way seems to be the large farmers, who are not very sympathetic to the movement. I hope it will not be necessary to resort to compulsory powers on a large scale; but if land cannot be obtained in any other way, compulsion is contemplated by the Act, and must, and no doubt will be exercised. The Board of Agriculture have been informed by several county councils that they will not hesitate in the matter. An application for a compulsory hiring order has been received from Carmarthenshire, and the Northumberland Council are considering whether they will apply for an order to take an unoccupied farm of 500 acres which the landlord declines to sell or let on any terms whatever. If it were clearly understood that the county councils all over England would not hesitate to apply for such orders where attempts to obtain land by agreement failed, I think negotiations would be successful without compulsion being resorted to. In regard to that portion of the question relating to compensation, I understand that the noble Earl means compensation for disturbance.

Yes.

I think everybody will agree that during the progress of the Small Holdings Bill through Parliament it was distinctly understood that no tenant could apply for compensation for disturbance against a landlord who took a portion of a farm in order to turn it into small holdings, though, of course, the farmer would be entitled to a reduction of rent for severance. If that is so, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; and if a private individual does not give compensation to his tenants for land taken from a farm for small holdings, it would be wrong and absurd to expect the State to do so. As to the county boroughs. I have not got the statistics with me; but they have been holding inquiries. I will look into that point and let the noble Earl know exactly what the position is in regard to county boroughs at the earliest possible opportunity. As to the last of the noble Earl's questions, the amount is £100,000. No further amount is due, during the present year; and not one penny of that sum has been spent up to the present time. The salaries of the Commissioners and inspectors are not paid out of that fund, but out of the Agricultural Vote. Payments in due time will be made, out of this £100,000 for the four following purposes:—(1) Fees for the valuation of land and other preliminary expenses; (2) costs of obtaining orders for compulsory purchase of hiring, which I hope will be very small; (3) grants towards organising co-operative societies; and (4) losses incurred by county councils in carrying out the schemes. I have been very generally blamed in another place and outside for not having started experimental farms as proposed in the Report of the Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Onslow, but, as I had an experimental farm ready, I thought it was hardly necessary to go to the expense of buying land for that purpose. When I undertook the management of the 62,000 acres of Crown lands, situated in fourteen counties, there were 993 acres in small holdings and allotments. That number has now increased to 4,187 acres, and, as showing the financial result of twelve months of the new management, I have paid into the bank this year, after deducting all expenses. £44,000, an increase of £13,481 as compared with the average of the three preceding years. Yet we were always told there would be a dead loss on such a transaction. I have tried to make a plain and straightforward statement, which I hope will be satisfactory to the House to which I have the honour to belong, as well as to the country that I have the privilege to serve.

I should like to ask whether the Board of Agriculture have in contemplation the starting of any experimental small holdings under Part 16 of the Act or is that part of the Act to remain a dead letter?

It is very easy to be generous with other people's money. But, having got this experimental farm, I think I should be very sharply questioned if I spent any more money on experimental farms at the present time.

My Lords, I listened with great interest to the statement which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has just made, and I certainly do not rise for the purpose of criticising it. On the contrary, I think we feel generally that his Department is to be congratulated on having been successful in giving effect to the provisions of the Small Holdings Act to the extent which he has described. I merely wish to note, in passing, one, or perhaps two, of the observations that fell from him. The noble Earl paid a well-deserved compliment to the county councils for the manner in which they have seconded his efforts. That compliment was, as I say, a well-deserved compliment, for I am sure the noble Earl is right in believing that the degree of success which has attended him could not have been achieved if it had not been for the co-operation of the county councils. I am inclined to accentuate that point, if I may, because we on this side of the House have always believed that, if anything could be done in the way of popularising small holdings, the proper machinery to resort to is the machinery of the county councils; and your Lordships will remember that we took great exception to another Small Holdings Bill on the ground that the go-by was given to the Scottish county councils and the whole administration of the Act placed in the hands of a kind of improvised bureaucracy. I also heard with satisfaction the noble Earl's admission that the great difficulty in all these cases is, not to find applicants for small holdings, but to find suitable applicants for them. He has evidently experienced the difficulty which we anticipated when this matter was discussed last year or the year before, and when we pointed out how comparatively rare it was to find applicants for small holdings who really possessed all the attributes calculated to make them successful in their vocation. The noble Earl gave a very glowing account of the amount of capital possessed by the persons who had applied to his department, but it is not the possession of capital alone that is necessary in order to make a good small holder, I venture to say, after hearing the statement of the noble Earl, that it goes far to show that we were perfectly right when, at the time of the introduction of this measure, we maintained our opinion that there was no real reluctance either on the part of the local authorities, or of the landowners of England to give facilities for the creation of small holdings. The speech of the noble Earl, I think, demonstrated that, and I am, therefore, very glad to have heard him make it.

My Lords, I am a humble Member of the county council of my county, and have taken a prominent part in the holding of inquiries in Norfolk on the subject of small holdings. All I can say is that I do not think the Board of Agriculture are moving fast enough in this matter. There is an enormous demand in my county for small holdings, but of course none of the applicants, except under exceptional circumstances, can possibly come into possession of land until Michaelmas owing to existing tenancies. We have already purchased two plots of land and have got those schemes through. We have also several schemes in hand, but there is delay owing to the necessity of a Commissioner under the Board of Agriculture coming down. I would ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture how we are to proceed if we want to buy land by auction. That question has arisen very acutely during the last fortnight. If it is necessary to obtain leave from the Board of Agriculture before the purchase can be made, you may lose the opportunity of a very advantageous purchase. On one occasion we did purchase without sanction, and the sanction has since been obtained. The particular land was valued by the Board of Agriculture at £50 an acre, but we bought it for £47 an acre. I think it would have been of very great advantage if the Act had contained a provision for a revision of rents every seven years. In my county landlords are very willing to let land to the county council; at the same time there is this difficulty, that the tithe, at present a very heavy one, may so up still further. Therefore in letting land to the county council the landlord has to allow himself a certain margin. This creates a difficulty, whereas if there had been revision of rents every seven years the matter would have been much easier. Naturally we have had to inquire confidentially into the means of the people who are applying, and I have been very much struck by two remarkable things—the number of sons of labourers, about twenty-six years of age, who produce Post Office Savings Bank books containing deposits of from £70 to £100, and the fact that all, or nearly all, of them are teetotallers and non-smokers. Another curious thing is that in my county everybody wants his land alongside his dwelling. That, of course, is an impossibility. Then, again, there is one farm which applicants are desirous of having, but which is in a very bad state and is full of weeds. The men wish to take it at a certain price, but the Commissioner said it could only be taken provided it was perfectly certain that the men were fully alive to what they were taking, because he was very much afraid it would not be suitable for small holdings. These men know exactly what it is, and they wish to have it. The only question is whether the county council is justified in allowing the men to take it. I mention that as showing that the Board of Agriculture are very sharp upon us. There is an enormous number of applications, and we could go faster if we could get the Board of Agriculture to move equally quickly.

My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War the Questions standing in my name on the Paper, viz.: (1) When will the Special Reserve units draw their complement of short rifles, and will those be of the latest pattern and thoroughly serviceable in every way. (2) Now that the Special Reserve units form part of the First Line, will they be clothed and equipped in exactly the same way as Regular soldiers, and, if so, when? (3) In a Special Reserve Unit there are only six colour-sergeants allowed on the permanent staff. These draw the same rates of pay as were drawn by colour-sergeants of the Militia permanent staff, whereas now the two other colour-sergeants who are only attached to the Special Reserve unit draw Army rates, that is, 6d. a day more for similar or even less work; should they not all draw Army rates? (4) There is at present no married establishment laid down for Special Reserve units, but it is laid down that when the Reserves are called out they come under exactly the same conditions of pay, etc., as the Regular Army. This presumably includes separation allowance; if so, do all private soldiers of the Special Reserve unit when called out draw separation allowance? (5) How can a Special Reserve unit hope to keep up their establishment when a recruit who joins the Regular Army from the Special Reserve draws the same bounty on completing three months drill on enlistment as he would on completing six months? Would it not be fairer to the Special Reserve to compel him to do six months drill on enlistment and one training with his own Special Reserve unit before joining the Regular Army? (6) What immediate steps are to be taken to fill up the junior ranks of the officers? of the Special Reserve? I am led to put these Questions in order that those regiments which have ceased to exist as Militia but have recently become units of the Special Reserve may have fuller information as to their immediate future than they now possess. I do not wish to introduce any thing of a controversial nature, but I am sure my noble friend must realise that the abolition by His Majesty's Government of that old constitutional force the Militia and the sweeping away of its past traditions cannot and is not likely to be easily forgotten, either by the officers of that force or by the rank and file. For that reason I trust that the claim of these officers and men, considering the loyal way that they have responded to the new obligations demanded of them, that better treatment should be meted out to them than has been accorded to the Militia for many years past, more especially as regards their clothing, pay, and equipment, will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government. At the present time there is a universal fear that money is likely to be extorted for territorial purposes at the expense, not only of the Special Reserve, but also of the Regular Army; and this must be my excuse for putting to my noble friend so many Questions relative to the Special Reserve. The great uncertainty which at present prevails cannot but have a most disastrous effect on a new force about to come into being. Therefore I am confident that the noble Lord will be glad to have this opportunity of publicly stating what steps His Majesty's Government propose to adopt in order to create an efficient reserve to the Regular Army in time of war by means of the Special Reserve. I fully recognise, as do all commanding officers of Militia that when the new regulations with regard to the Special Reserve were issued by the Army Council the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War most readily considered there presentations that were put before him by Militia commanding officers. Notably, the proposal that the commanding officer of the Special Reserve was only to command his unit for the three weeks annual training, the line major to have supreme command for the rest of the time; and also the proposal that the Militia officers, whatever their rank, were to be junior to the officers attached to the unit from the line. Such gross injustices as those would, to my mind, have tended to mar to a considerable extent the successful formation of the Special Reserve, and I am very glad to think that they have been rectified. I think it must be recognised that if, as was asserted by His Majesty's Government, the abolition of the Militia was justified in order to find, by means of the Special Reserve, an effective reserve to the Regular battalions in time of war, it is essential that those Reserve battalions should be absolutely complete in every way as regards arms, equipment, and clothing, but I regret to think that at the present time nothing has been done in this respect. That is, at least, my experience, and I speak as a commanding officer of a Special Reserve battalion. The only thing that has been done up to date is to reduce the permanent staff of the Special Reserve battalions. The most difficult problem that has to be faced in connection with the Special Reserve at the present time is that of finding suitable officers to fill up the lower ranks, for in this respect the regiments are at a very low ebb, and, through no fault of their own, are considerably below their proper establishment. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will be able to enlighten the House on these specific points, and prove to the satisfaction of the Special Reserve that it will in time become a real reserve of the Regular Army; then I consider that nothing but good will accrue thereby, and I shall feel at any rate that in putting these questions I shall not have taken up the time of your Lordship's house unnecessarily.

My Lords, before I answer the Questions on the Paper, perhaps I may be allowed to inform the noble Viscount, in reply to his remarks, that it is the intention of the Army Council to recognise the Special Reserve as a part of the Regular Army. As your Lordships know, the Special Reserve has always been spoken of as part of the First Line of the Army, and it is our desire so to regard it, and to assimilate, as far as possible, the conditions of the Special Reserve to those of the Regular Army in respect of equipment, clothing, and in other ways. It is not possible to carry out the whole of that at once. We hope that by next year's training the whole of the Infantry of the Special Reserve will be equipped with the short rifle similar to that in use at present by the Regulars. With regard to clothing and equipment, the intention is that the clothing and equipment shall, as far as possible, be exactly the same as that of the corresponding arm in the Regulars. We cannot fix the actual date by which the equipment and the clothing will be supplied, because we have at the present time large stocks of Militia clothing which will have to be worked off before the issue of the new supply takes place. Your Lordships will hardly, I think, expect, and I do not think the Government could sanction, the complete re-equipment of; these men, which would entail the absolute waste of a great many thousand pounds' worth of stock. It is only a temporary measure, and we hope as soon as possible, compatible with that, we shall be able to equip the Special Reserve in every way like the Regulars. There will be certain changes. I have a long list here of the articles of clothing which are issued at the present moment to the Regulars and which are to be issued to the Special Reserve. The two are identical, except that the Regular draws a pair of canvas shoes which are not issued to the Special Reservist and the Special Reservist wears a frock instead of a tunic. The scales of clothing are not the same, of course, but will be in proportion to the amount of time the Special Reservist serves. As to the third question, the reason why you have six colour-sergeants, who are spoken of as posted men, on one rate of pay, and two colour-sergeants, or attached men, on a higher rate of pay is this. The six posted colour-sergeants represent the men who were the permanent staff of the old Militia battalion, and the two attached men represent the two non-commissioned officers who used to be at the depot. These two categories of non-commissioned officers, whilst they are engaged in the Special Reserve, are doing the same kind of work though at different rates of pay, and the reason is this. The posted men receive an appointment which is in its nature permanent. They enlist under normal conditions for twelve years. If the colour-sergeant wishes to marry, either he is found quarters or he gets the lodging allowance. On the other hand, the attached men hold their appointments for two years only, though the period may be extended to three. They are liable to be called out at any time during those two or three years, and as to the question of drawing the lodging allowance as married men, they have to submit to the same rules as the permanent staff of the battalion, and, as your Lordships are aware, only 50 per cent, of the sergeants are allowed to be on the married strength. Therefore there are certain differences, all of which tend to increase the expenditure of the attached men, and for that reason they have been given a slightly higher rate of pay. Then, with regard to the fourth question, when the Special Reserve is embodied all married men in the Special Reserve will draw the separation allowance. As to the fifth question, I take it that the noble Viscount does not consider it as likely that a very large number of men who join the Special Reserve intend to remain in the Special Reserve, but that they are simply joining it on their way to the Regular Army. For that reason he proposes that the men should be compelled to remain a certain period in the Special Reserve. It is very difficult to say what proportion of men are going to remain in the Special Reserve, and what proportion of them are using the Special Reserve as a stepping shone into the Regular Army. We are doing the best we can, but it has been found impossible to make any calculation in order to see what number of men intend to stay. The question is being watched very closely, and we mean to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Special Reserve shall be a real force containing men of the Militia class as opposed to men using it simply in order to enter the Regular Army. One hopes that the terms of the Special Reserve do not present any great terrors to the Militia class, and one is, perhaps, justified in hoping that from the large number of them who have transferred from the Militia into the Special Reserve.

Can the noble Lord give the numbers?

Yes. Up to 1st July the figures were: Artillery—transferred from Militia to Special Reserve, 2,885; recruits, 1,585; joined the Regular Army, fifty-three. Infantry—transferred from Militia to Special Reserve, 18,274; I recruits, 9,198; joined the Regular Army, 1,057; Then there is the final question as to the officers. The new scheme for the training of the officers of the Special Reserve is being set to work at once, and already at the Universities the new course has begun. It will, however, take considerable time and will not be in normal working order for some years to come. We hope that in the training of 1910, some of the first of this new class of Special Reserve officers will be undergoing training. It is just possible that we may have a few next year in the units that train late in the year. I quite admit that that leaves a very serious gap to be filled up before the scheme is in working order. We have not lost sight of that, and though I cannot give the noble Viscount the details to-night we shall very shortly be able to announce what steps we propose to take in order to maintain the supply of junior officers for the Special Reserve battalions.

My Lords, there are one or two points arising out of the noble Lord's answer on which I should like to ask for information. First of all there is the question of equipment. I very much regret, judging from the reply which has been given by the noble Lord, that the Special Reserve, like the Militia, is not going to receive anything like the equipment of the Regular Army. The noble Lord did not give us any information with regard to the Engineer units. When may they hope to be equipped with the new short rifle? They are a very important part, considering that they provide several units for the Expeditionary Army. The noble Lord's answer with regard to equipment was very significant in regard to what it contained and also what it did not contain. The Special Reserve are in future to be dressed exactly the same as the Militia in that they are not to receive a tunic. I can assure your Lordships, with very considerable knowledge of the subject, that nothing so affects the men, especially when called up on embodiment, as the fact that they are not provided with the full dress tunic; and in many garrisons I have known a large number of men purchase tunics out of their exiguous pay. When these changes were first introduced we were assured that the Special Reserve were to receive exactly the same treatment as the Regular Army, but it is evident from what has fallen from the noble Lord that that is not going to be the case. Are these men to have any full dress headdress or not? The only men who received full dress headdress in the Militia were those who wore the helmet. The regiments that wore the busby did not receive the full dress headdress. The noble Lord has given us no information with regard to that. Then there was the noble Lord's statement with regard to the shoes. Why should not the men of the Special Reserve receive a pair of shoes? Why should they be the only men who have nothing whatever to change into in wet weather? They will, I suppose, do the same sort of training, and it is exceedingly hard that one pair of boots should have to last them six months. The same remark as to the purely unnecessary differences which are being drawn between the two forces applies to the colour-sergeants. Nothing leads to greater heartburning than for men of the same rank doing the same work to receive different rates of pay. If this is the way they are going about it, the War Office are going the wrong way to encourage the permanent staff of the Special Reserve. It seems to me that a very grave mistake is being made in reducing the permanent staff of the Special Reserve, because you are greatly reducing your recruiting staff, and you will thereby to an equal, if not to a greater extent reduce the number of recruits. There is an idea—it is an entirely fallacious idea—in the War Office that there is a sort of annual crop of recruits who will come in whatever you do. That is not the case. Recruiting has to be very carefully done. A very large number of agents are required, and, if you reduce the number of agents, you ipso facto reduce the number of recruits forthcoming. The noble Lord gave us the number of men who had transferred from the Militia to the new Special Reserve. But he did not give us what, to my mind, is much more important—the number of men who have taken their discharge or elected to remain and complete their service with the Militia. The statement of Lord Lucas respecting the officers of the Special Reserve is a most serious one, for he has acknowledged that for two years there will be practically no officers to enter the new Special Reserve. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of the Militia know the extreme difficulty which the commanding officer has had in keeping up the number of officers in his battalion. Twenty-four Militia units have been disbanded, and therefore twenty-four recruiting officers for the officers' ranks of the Militia have disappeared in the commanding officers of those disbanded units. I ventured last year to point out in your Lordships' House that the question of obtaining officers for the Special Reserve was one of the utmost importance and difficulty, and I added that, in my opinion, the War Office were taking on this great work in a light-hearted manner and with no conception of its difficulty. I appeal to those of your Lordships who have had experience of the trouble in obtaining officers for Militia regiments whether that was not one of the most difficult and thankless tasks one could possibly undertake. When it was my privilege to command a Militia regiment I used to spend a large part of my time in writing to eligible young men inviting them to take up my commissions in the Militia. I have written to as many as between forty and fifty young men between one training and another, and I thought myself very fortunate if I obtained four or five; and when I was not writing asking young men to join I was writing, with tears in my eyes, asking the then officers not to leave. The War Office have taken no action to grapple with this enormous difficulty. To do anything at all commensurate with the importance of this work there ought to be a large Department in the War Office attending to nothing else. I hope the noble Lord the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure us a little more on this point.

My Lords, I am bound to admit that what my noble friend Lord Hardinge said at the beginning of his speech is fully justified, and that all the requests which have been put before the War Office by Militia commanding officers during the last few months have been very courteously received. I am very grateful to the War Office for their action in that matter. I can only say that I wish the same spirit which dictated that attitude had dictated also the framework of the measure under which the Special Reserve was established. Some of us did our very best at the time that the Bill was passing through Parliament to mitigate parts of it which we considered would press unduly on the Militia. We were, no doubt, in part successful, but we were not wholly successful; and I ventured to say at that time that, unless His Majesty's Government were able to reassure opinion in the Militia, they ran a very great risk of the existing men in that force not transferring to the Special Reserve. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary has given us a few figures to-night as to the numbers that have transferred. I think it is, perhaps, rather early to press him in the matter, because I apprehend that a large number of Militia battalions have not yet held the training at which their fate is to be decided. That rather vitiates the figures; but I think Lord Raglan is justified in putting it to the noble Lord that it is quite as important for us to know what men have refused to transfer as to know the number who have transferred. We want to know what percentage of serving Militiamen have agreed to transfer to the Special Reserve. That is, I think, very important. As regards equipment, I am not quite sure that we fully understood what the noble Lord the Under-Secretary had to say to us. I understand that the Militia, at any rate the Infantry Militia, are to receive the new rifle very shortly. Did the noble Lord say next year?

Before the next training.

That, no doubt, is very satisfactory. I understand that the Special Reservist is to be equipped in a precisely similar manner to the Regular soldier, with certain exceptions. It is important for us to know what those exceptions exactly are. I understand that he is not to have a pair of shoes. That is, if I may say so, rather a pettifogging economy, because when a man comes in after a heavy march or a hard day's drill it is a great relief to him to be able to take off his boots and put on canvas shoes, and I cannot believe that the expense would be very great. They used to have canvas shoes. I believe that was one of the benefits conferred on the Militia by my noble friend Lord Midleton, but that has now been abolished. It is a small point, but I should like to ask the noble Lord the Undersecretary to note it and see whether something cannot be done. Then the Special Reservist does not receive the full dress tunic. The noble Lord did not mention the headdress. No doubt the noble Lord will on a future occasion tell us precisely how the question of the headdress is to stand. I turn to the last, and, to my mind, most important question put to the noble Lord by Viscount Hardinge—namely, what immediate steps are to be taken to fill up the junior ranks of the officers of the Special Reserve. The noble Lord said the matter was under consideration. He will forgive my saying that that is an observation which we very often hear from the Treasury Bench, and which I am afraid we have been taught rather to regret when we hear it, because when a thing is said to be under consideration it means that a very long time is to elapse before anything is done. Let me remind the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of the opening words of his speech. He spoke of the Special Reserve as a very serious force which was henceforth to be treated as part of the Regular Army. The very erroneous idea which used to prevail years ago that Militiamen were playing at soldiers has passed away, and we are now told that this force is a very serious part of the Regular Army. Let the noble Lord look at the Army List and see the vacancies in the ranks of the junior officers in this important branch of the Army. It is a perfect scandal, and it constitutes a danger to the country. If this is to be a real force you must contemplate having to use it. We Are thank God! at peace with all the world, but we must conceive a state of things in which we might not be at peace. What are you going to do with the Special Reserve in the event of war being suddenly declared? They cannot be used without officers, and it is for the Government to find a way to fill up those vacancies. It is all very well for them to have a scheme for the future, but what we want is the officers now. We want them next week, or the week after, and if the Government cannot find a better way, I would earnestly urge them not to delay but to do it on the old lines until something better can be devised. I admit that the old way of nominating officers to the Militia was not perfect, but it was better than nothing at all; and until the Government have time to develop their own scheme let us have the privilege of recommending names to the proper authority, so that these depleted ranks of junior officers may be filled.

With your Lordships' leave I will answer two or three of the Supplementary Questions which have been put to me. The latest Returns show that whilst over 20,000 men have joined the Special Reserve, almost exactly 5,000 have decided to remain as Militiamen, and just under 6,000 have taken their discharge. As to the question of clothing, I do not think I made myself quite clear. It is the intention of the Army Council thoroughly to clothe and equip the Special Reserve in the same way as the corresponding arm of the Regulars. That will not take place immediately, because there are these large stocks of Militia clothing which have to be worked off. The intention is to supply similar clothing, and this will be carried out as soon as possible.

rose to call attention to the Treasury Regulations as to leave granted to those Civil servants who belong to the Territorial Forces for the purpose of attending their annual training; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that my object in bringing forward this Motion will not be misconstrued. I have the honour to command a corps which is composed almost exclusively of Civil servants. I think I am right in expressing the opinion that the success of Mr. Haldane's new Army scheme must depend more or less on the encouragement which is given by both private and public employers of labour to their subordinates to join the Territorial Army.

My Lords, whilst I regret that the noble Earl has thought fit to make such a vigorous and unsparing attack on the Treasury Regulations, at the same time I recognise there is no Member of your Lordships' House better entitled to raise this question than the noble Earl, who, as he has said, is the commanding officer of the Civil Service Rifles, which I am given to understand by my noble friend the Undersecretary of State for War is one of the smartest regiments in the London Division. Speaking generally, I may say that it is the intention of the Government to afford Civil servants every reasonable facility, subject, of course, to the requirements of the public service, for joining the Territorial Force. Again, speaking generally—and I think the noble Earl himself will admit this—the present Treasury Regulations are very much better, from the point of view of commanding officers of regiments, than they were formerly in the days of the Volunteers. The Regulations have been relaxed as much as they possibly could be, considering the interest of the public service, to meet the desires of those responsible for the organisation of the Territorial Force. The noble Earl, is rather using the concessions already made as a lever to obtain a still further relaxation of the Treasury Regulations in the direction he desires. The way in which, the Treasury look at the question is this. The requirements of the Department to which the Civil servant belongs take precedence; that is to say, if he cannot be spared from his particular Department he cannot go to camp. He is a Civil servant first, and a soldier afterwards. Full discretion, of course, must be given to the heads of departments as to whether a particular man can, or cannot, be spared to go out for his training; and I put it to any Member of this House who has himself controlled one of the large Government Departments or has served in a great Department of State, whether any other arrangement than that would be possible. Subject to these requirements a Civil servant may be granted, in addition to his ordinary holidays, special leave, not exceeding fifteen days, for attendance at camp. During such time he will draw military pay from the Army funds, and on returning to civil life will be given the difference between his military pay and his ordinary civil pay—that is to say, he draws his ordinary office pay. No account is taken of the ration and other allowances that he receives while in camp. Therefore he gets that in addition. I now come to the question of substitutes. Where a man is allowed to go to camp and his place has to be taken by a substitute, his civil pay will be stopped during his absence. If the cost of the substitute is less than the salary, of the Civil servant, the latter will have the benefit of the difference; where it is more the difference is met out of the public funds. I understand the contention of the noble Earl to be this, that the Government should find both the military pay and the civil pay, and, in addition, pay for the substitute.

No. He would sacrifice his military pay, but should be allowed to keep his civil pay.

The Government then would have to find the civil pay and also defray the cost of the substitute?

Certainly.

That is to say, however much the pay may be which the particular Civil servant may draw, the Government would have to find the cost of the substitute, which, of course, may amount in particular cases to a very considerable sum. I do not think that the Treasury are prepared to make that concession. I should add that if a Civil servant elects to spend his ordinary holiday in camp he will draw his civil and military pay in full. I can say from experience how very much better these regulations are than those which existed a few years ago when I commanded a squadron of the Middlesex Yeomanry. It was frequently extremely difficult to get leave for a Civil servant at all, and I submit that the present regulations are very much more favourable to Volunteer regiments than those formerly in force. I think I can safely add that if employers of labour throughout the country will follow the example which has been set in this matter by the Treasury and make it as easy for their men to attend camp as has been done by the Government, I do not think those responsible for the inception and organisation of the Territorial Force will have any reason whatever to complain.

My Lords, as I have a right of reply I will venture to trouble your Lordships with a very few words in regard to the noble Earl's answer. My noble friend suggested that I was rather using the concessions already made by His Majesty's Treasury as a lever to obtain a still further relaxation of the regulations. I venture, with all deference, to say that I do not know what great inducements have already been given. The noble Lord referred to the great difference between the old regulations regarding leave and the present. I commanded a battalion when the old regulations were in force, and they at least allowed one full extra week's leave on full pay. Therefore the men had only to sacrifice the other week. That was better than the present regulation in the case of Civil servants in the Post Office.

But was not that rather a special case?

No.

I think the noble Earl refers to the Field Army Brigade, which was rather a special case.

The noble Lord said that the man was a Civil servant first and a soldier afterwards. Well, take the case of a young man employed by Messrs. Marshal and Snelgrove. He is a Marshal and Snelgrovian first; and therefore exactly the same argument applies in the case of private employers. If the concessions for which I ask cannot be made then I venture to submit that His Majesty's Government would have done much better not to have allowed the Civil servants to join the Territorial Army. I might add that one company in my corps is going to receive applications for leave from camp this year from 50 per cent, of its members in this particular Department.

My Lords, as my noble friend has mentioned me by name, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on this question. I may explain, however, that I do not assume command of the Post Office Corps until October. I have had a certain amount to do with this question in connection with the Post Office, and I have naturally taken a very great interest in it. The real point is that of substitution, which affects the Post Office very materially. In the case of the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board, or similar offices, it is quite easy to allow one of the staff to go away for fifteen days leave, and no actual substitution is required. The, trouble really arises in a department like the Post Office, where there is an enormous amount of manipulative duty in connection with the telegraph and the London postal service. Therefore it is impossible to do the work without engaging a substitute. When first the Treasury brought out their rules they insisted that any cost of substitution should be borne by the individual. I am glad that the Treasury have modified that since, and that they have now provided that where the cost of substitution exceeds the civil pay of the individual in question it is paid by the Department and where the amount is less the Civil servant gets the benefit. The noble Earl also referred to his own corps—the Civil Service Rifles—and to the old regulations which existed in this matter. At that time, I understand, certain regiments (speaking from memory, I think there were twenty-eight battalions) known as "the Field Army Brigade," were allowed seven days full pay during the time of their embodiment. As far as the Post Office Corps is concerned, that has never been the case. They did not belong to this Brigade, and consequently the new Regulations seem, as far as the Post Office is concerned, more or less to meet their views. I can only say that I have inquired with regard to recruiting for the Post Office Corps, and that at the present moment they are over 800 strong, the full strength of the battalion being just under 1,000. This Return I received about a month ago, and at the present moment we are probably completely up to strength. The noble Lord also mentioned the question of overtime, and took exception to the men working seventy-one hours. This morning the Comptroller of the Savings Bank came to see me on this question, and he informed me that he gave the men the option of going into camp during annual leave and getting civil and military pay, or, on the other hand, of substitution; and he asked them whether they would care to take advantage of overtime. The whole amount of overtime, as I think the Earl of Arran said, is seventy-one hours, which will be spread over the whole of the year.

Until Christmas.

Until Christmas of this year, and in future years probably over. I can only, in conclusion, say that I think it would be very difficult for the Treasury to do any more than they have done, and that as far as the Battalion with which I deal is concerned, the returns which we are getting seem to me to be very satisfactory—a state of things which I hope will continue.

I do not think from the speech of either of the noble Lords on the opposite bench that the Government quite appreciate the extremely delicate ground on which the whole question rests of getting the Territorial Army to train for a fortnight. I know from some past experience that if anything is likely to break down the scheme of the Secretary for War, it is this difficulty by which, even if a man gets exactly the same for going out as he does for not going out, he is really a loser, because his expenses in camp are heavier than when he is living at home. I feel myself that this is so difficult a question that I would urge the Government to reconsider it from the point of view of economy. I would be no party to urging upon the Government that they should so increase the cost of the Territorial Army that more money has to be found than that which is allotted at present to the general service of the Army, because I feel that, that will only lead to a reduction of the Regular Army. But this is the point I would venture to urge. Unless you can induce employers to bear some share of the cost of their men going out I do not think you will find that the men, after they have tried it for a year or so, will be able to continue their service for the fortnight of training which you have now thought it necessary to lay down. If that be so, recollect the position in which you will then stand. If you have to keep 150,000 men, or, still more, 200,000 or 300,000 men, in camp at anything like what will pay them for going into camp, you will have to add to your present pay by something like the equivalent of the present pay, or half as much again. I do not think: 1s. or 2s. will do it. I think that this move which the noble Lord has brought out to-day, is really a false economy on the part of the Government. If; you ask a man to go out, and to pay a substitute in the Post Office, he is, of course, absolutely a loser at this moment by going into camp. He cannot afford to do it, and he will not do it; and that is the case with nearly everybody in private employment. I do not know what numbers of Volunteers to the Territorial Army are involved. The noble Lord the Earl of Granard mentioned one corps of 800 strong, but I imagine the total number in Government employ is not more than hundreds—I take it that it hardly runs into thousands. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me.

I think, if the noble Earl will excuse my interrupting him, the whole establishment of the Post Office is over 246,000, and in nearly every town or village in the country some members of the Post Office belong to the Volunteers or to the Territorial Army in some form or other. I should say, speaking offhand, the numbers would reach something like 4,000 or 5,000.

Supposing the noble Earl is correct, I would ask your Lordships to consider what is involved. If you provide the pay of 4,000 or 5,000 men, or their substitutes, for a fortnight, you are giving encouragement to the whole of your other men to do something of the same kind, but if you withhold the whole of that pay, which comes to a very small amount, you do not encourage employers to put their employees into a position in which they could possibly afford to come out. That is the reason why the Field Army, who are 30,000 or 40,000 strong, were given some years ago seven days extra leave without pay. What I understood the noble Lord, Lord Denman, to say was that they should be made a special case, and that half their training, at all events, should be at the expense of the Department. Well, I honestly believe that if the Government will act liberally by those in their own employ, they will set an example which employers may possibly follow; but if they do not, I apprehend that it will be found, before many months are over, that it is impossible to continue this fortnight's training which I believe is essential, which has always been of the greatest difficulty, and which can only be carried out if all concerned are willing to make some sacrifice in order to prevent its falling too heavily upon those who are willing to give up their time to the service of the country.

I think the Treasury have been treated rather unjustly. What is it that the Treasury are prepared to do? In the first place, besides the ordinary holiday, they are prepared to give a fortnight's holiday to any Civil servant in the Territorial Force, and are also prepared to pay him his full pay during the time he is out. If, further, the man has to provide a substitute for himself, the Treasury are prepared to pay his full civil pay, and also his military pay. It is paying him two wages simultaneously. Certain cases were quoted by Lord Arran, which I understand are in a minority, in which the cost of providing a substitute amounts to as much as the man's full Civil pay, but in most eases I believe that it does not do so. I think the Treasury, after all, have sot some sort of worthy example in allowing the man who is so far indispensable that it is impossible to provide a substitute for him—in the, first place impossible to provide a substitute for him as required, and, in the second place, impossible to provide a substitute at any lower rate than he himself is earning—the Treasury, I say, is setting an example in allowing that man to go out at all. In the second place, it is doing that which, we have always said. We have never pretended, from the beginning, that we were going to compete against civil employment in the matter of pay during the time the Territorial Army was out. We have said all through that we were going to pay Army rates of pay, and that if men chose to come out for that they could. Everybody has gone into that with his eyes open, and the Territorial Force understand that they are to be paid at Army rates of pay. The Civil servant who gets this extra fortnight has, as I say, in most cases, not only that Army rate of pay, but either a sum amounting to the whole of his civil pay, or in most cases a certain proportion of his civil pay as well. I think we may fairly say that the Treasury has treated the War Office very generously in this matter, and we only hope that private employers will be able to do as much for us, and we shall be deeply grateful if they will do as the Treasury has done.

That this Motion be agreed to?

I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

My Lords, on that Motion I beg to observe that on every Bill that is brought forward now it is moved that the Standing Committee be negatived. During the last month there is only one Bill that I know of (which is Lord Lovat's Crofters Bill) which has been allowed to go to the Standing Committee, and I think about a month before that there was a Bill of my own which also related to Scotland. With these two exceptions it has now become a general practice to move that the Standing Committee be negatived. Now, my Lords, what particular hurry is there about this Bill? The Standing Committee sits to-morrow. I am perfectly prepared, if any of your Lordships choose to move the abolition, of the Standing Committee altogether, to support that. That is another matter, but so long as the Standing Committee exists—and this Bill apparently is a perfectly trivial Bill—why in the world it should not go to the Standing Committee, if you are going to have a Standing Committee at all, I do not see.

My Lords, there is no objection to this Bill going to the Standing Committee, as the noble Lord seems to desire it, and therefore I withdraw the Motion to negative the Standing Committee.

was sure the House would greatly regret the absence of his noble friend (Lord Newton). If the House were to lose him it would be a very great loss, but he must say that every remark he had made with regard to the previous Bill applied equally to this. His noble friend himself said it was a very trivial Bill.

So it is.

said that if it were so there was no reason why it should not go to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee would meet to-morrow, and it would only protract the course of the Bill by one day if it followed the usual course. There were certain rules of the House, and in his opinion, so long as the House chose to have a Standing Committee Bills ought to go to it. He quite admitted that the question of whether there should be a Standing Committee or not was open to argument, and he believed that a great part of the useful ness of the Standing Committee Had gone, but so long as it existed it was absurd to hear noble Lord after noble Lord standing up and saying, "I have got an excessively trivial Bill, and therefore it need not go to the Standing Committee."

You do not object.

Yes, I do object.

Then all I can say is that I shall object to any of the noble Lord's Bills.

I am sorry to say I am not acquainted with the contents of this Bill, and I cannot say, therefore, whether this particular Bill ought to go to the Standing Committee or not. I have not an opinion. I am rather inclined to agree that it has become a rule to negative the Standing Committee without much consideration. We have all, in former days, spent many happy hours in the Standing Committee. I do not know whether, as the noble Earl said, its usefulness has entirely departed. My impression is that it was a more useful body to noble Lords on this side of the House when they were in Opposition. In those days it used to-give occasion for more minute examination of Bills which they would not have received in face of the alarming battalions drawn up on the Ministerial side of the House. I do not know whether the noble Earl will think it necessary to press his Motion on this occasion. We should all be very sorry if the noble Lord was debarred from departing in search of that repose which I am sure he has richly earned, and I should almost advise the noble Earl to withdraw his opposition on this particular occasion.

said that under the circumstances he would withdraw his opposition, but at the same time he would remark that Lord Allen-dale had been very badly treated.

suggested what he considered a better course. The noble Lord had business not only in that House but also on an important-Committee outside the House, but within its precincts, and he would suggest that he might postpone his departure.

who had the following Question upon the Paper—

"To ask His Majesty's Government for the following information relative to the working of the Irish Land Act, 1903; (1) Why the recent issue of £5,000,000 in Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock was not made to the National Debt Commissioners at the certified price of, the day in accordance with the practice which has been followed since June, 1906, as mentioned in Paragraph 35 of the recent Report of the Departmental Committee of the Treasury [Cd. 4005], and the continuance of which practice is recommended in Paragraphs 84 and 85 of that Report. (2) What is (approximately) the extra annual charge which will be thrown upon the Ireland Development Grant by this £5,000,000 having been issued to the public at 89½, instead of being made to the National Debt Commissioners at the certified price of the day? (3) Have the Government definitely abandoned the practice (which originated with themselves) of making these issues to the National Debt Commissioners, and, if so, why. (4) How much of the proceeds of the recent issue of £5,000,000 Stock will be immediately absorbed by claims already existing, viz.: 1. Repayment of temporary loans made under Section 30 of the Act, or otherwise, and not yet repaid; 2. Sums immediately required to meet: (a) Advances already sanctioned for direct sales under Sections 1 to 5 of the Act; (b) advances already sanctioned for purchases under Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Act; (c) advances immediately payable to the Congested Districts Board for any purpose; (d) any other advances that are immediately payable out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund—"

said: My Lords, in putting the Question standing in my name, [should like to say a very few words in explanation of their objects. The first paragraph refers to the issue lately of £5,000,000 Guaranteed Land Stock, and the object of that part of the Question is to know why this was issued to the public at 89½ instead of the usual practice being followed of the issue being made to the National Debt Commissioners. Ever since the month of June, 1906, this has been the practice. It is so stated in the report of the Departmental Committee of the Treasury, and they not only recommend this in paragraph 84 for the future, but state in the following paragraph that it seems reasonable to suppose that the National Debt Commissioners would be in a position to lend £5,000,000 a year. The difference is very considerable. Immediately preceding the issue of this loan Land Stock stood at 91¾ to 92, and the issue was made to the public at 89½. I have no doubt there is some good reason for it, for the Government would naturally like to obtain money on the best terms they could, but at the same time we should naturally like to know why it was done, and also whether the same practice is to be continued in the future, and what amount would be thrown on the Irish Development Grant by issuing the loan in this manner instead of at the price of the day. The remaining part of my Question refers only to what amount of this loan will be available for purchase. I wish to know what claims are already made: (1) For direct sales to tenants; (2) for sales to the Estates Commissioners; and (3) for money that has to be paid to the Congested Districts Board and for any other advances that have to be made.

My Lords, the Answer to the first Question the noble Lord has on the Paper, as to why the issue of stock was not made to the National Debt Commissioners, is very brief. Because the National Debt Commissioners have no funds, unfortunately, and therefore the noble Lord will agree that they cannot advance the money, with the best wishes in the world. Going to Question 3, he asks: "Have the Government definitely abandoned the practice of making these issues to the National Debt Commissioners?" I am afraid I am unable to make any definite announcement on that point. Then in Question 2 he asks what is the loss thrown on the Ireland Development Grant by this issue of stock. The loss incurred is £3,300 annually. Then he asks as to the repayment of temporary loans made under Section 30 of the Act, and not yet repaid. The amount temporarily purchased under this section of the Irish. Land Act amounts to £1,927,000. Then with regard to the other Question the Commissioners have sanctioned advances amounting to £956,659 in direct sales, of which £266,438 will be advanced on the 16th instant, and the remainder as soon as outstanding questions of title have been disposed of. Under Sections 6, 7, and 8, the Commissioners have agreed to buy estates, the purchase money of which, amounts to £637,779, of which £55,624 will be advanced on the 16th instant, and the remainder as soon as the vendors have shown title and are in a position to allocate during the present sittings Under Section 2 of the evicted Tenants Act, 1907, the Estates Commissioners have made offers for estates the purchase money of which amounts to £47,851, which will be advanced when the requirements of the statute have been complied with. Under Sections 72 and 79 the Congested Districts Board have agreed to buy estates, the purchase money of which amounts to £35,374, which will be advanced as soon as the vendors have shown title and are in a position to allocate during the present Trinity Law Sittings. That brings the total to £1,677,663. Now, the total advances on the 16th instant, which the noble Lord desired to know, are as follows:—By the Estates Commissioner £322,000; by other Commissioners, £3,000; under the Labourers' Acts, £7,000; and for bonus, £18,000; making a total of £350,000. The Law Sittings of the present Trinity term terminate at the end of this month, after which, advances cannot be made until the Courts resume their sittings and solicitors are in attendance. Possibly £500,000 may be required for all the purposes above stated on the 31st of this month, provided the vendors' solicitors are prepared to close their oases. It is not possible to forecast what moneys may be required in the interval from 31st July to 1st October, 1908, but judging from last year, £41,280 was drawn for advances under the Labourers Act between the end of July and the 1st October and £170,000 was drawn for bonus under orders made in Court prior to the 1st August. I think that gives the bulk of the information which the noble Lord desires.

I am not surprised that my noble friend (Lord Clonbrock) should have asked His Majesty's Government why this loan was issued at the fixed price of 89½ instead of being issued to the National Debt Commissioners at 92, which was the certified price of the day. Of course the result will be a very considerable loss to the Irish Development Grant, and indirectly to the Irish ratepayers. I have had unfortunately perhaps more experience in the issue of Government loans than any Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last 100 years, and although I daresay I made some mistakes in connection with that important and responsible office, I do not think anybody ever accused me of issuing Government loans at too low a price to the public. I believe that I succeeded in securing a fair price for all the loans that I issued. Now, having had that experience, I will venture to say that it is my decided opinion that His Majesty's Government have issued this loan at too low a price. I believe that they might very easily have obtained something like ¾ per cent. more than they did. They issued the loan at a fixed price of 89½, as I have said, when similar stock in the market stood at 92, and when the market was a rising one. If they had issued this loan at a minimum price of 89½ I feel convinced they would have had tenders for it which would have made the average price probably as much as 90¼. I do not consider that good finance. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the experts for his I advice, as any Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally would; but my experience has been that experts are apt to be over-cautious in these matters, and although I have had to do with very large sums of this kind, and it would have been a very serious matter for the country if any of the loans issued during the South African War had failed, I took upon myself the responsibility of issuing loans at a higher price than the experts advised.

who had the following Question upon the Paper—

"To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to make any announcement as to the dates at which the measures mentioned in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne, or any of those measures, are likely to come before this House "—

said: My Lords, since I put this Question upon the Paper the Prime Minister has made a statement in the House of Commons with regard to the position of public business—a statement which, at one moment, I hoped would afford a certain amount of illumination upon the point to which I most desire to draw your Lordships' attention. But the Prime Minister's statement, naturally enough, was directed to the situation in the House of Commons and not to the situation in the House of Lords. And it is to the situation in the House of Lords that I desire to direct the Question which stands in my name. I do not think I misrepresent the feeling of a large number of your Lordships when I say that the prospect that lies before us in regard to the distribution of work between the two Houses is one which fills us with very considerable apprehension. It has always been a source of complaint in this House that we are not given sufficient opportunities for examining the measures which come before us. We are continually told that our principal business is the business of revision, but it seems to be forgotten that if revision is to be of the proper kind it must take place in a deliberate fashion; and, session after session, in the last hours, perhaps, of the time available, we are asked to consider measures which we have had no proper opportunity of examining. My Lords, that evil—that abuse—I daresay the noble Lord who leads the House will remind me of it—is an abuse which is of long standing; but on the other, hand, it has never yet, I believe, reached the dimensions which it has now assumed; and that is due to the fact that in the other House of Parliament, Ministers resort more and more, with every session which passes, to expedients for curtailing debate which deny to the other Chamber of the Legislature full opportunity of discussing the Government Bills, and deny to this House the opportunity of considering the arguments which might be adduced for or against them. Now, although the Prime Minister's statement, made last Friday, does not throw much light upon the legislative proceedings in this House. Mr. Asquith made last month another statement which did contain some very important references to the general question. In that speech, which was coloured by a very sanguine and optimistic tone, the Prime Minister, after referring to the zeal and efficiency with which the different Departments of the Government were administered—and after dwelling upon the fact that there were no differences of opinion amongst his colleagues, or indeed no differences of any great moment amongst his followers, went on to say that in these very favourable circumstances—I will use his own words—

"We have laid on the Table of the House of Commons a series of measures which, judged by their number, or still more by their importance and magnitude, would, at no remote date, have been regarded as adequate material for the life work of a whole Parliament."

The Prime Minister coupled this announcement with a few "precautionary words." He admitted that people may form a very varying estimate of the power of human endurance and of the capacity of the Parliamentary machine, and then he used this remarkable expression.

"Unless there is to be a chronic overcrowding on the legislative high road, we must aim each year at a larger concentration of effort on a smaller number of objects."

That, to my mind, is a very admirable principle. We in this House, I suppose, may, consider that we too are passengers on the Parliamentary machine, and we have, perhaps, a right to throw a glance upon the legislative high road and to conjecture, if we can, what the condition of the traffic is likely to be later on in the year through which we are passing. In the gracious speech from the Throne ten measures of first-rate importance were enumerated: the Old-Age Pensions Bill, the Licensing Bill, the Education Bill, the Bill dealing with Coal Mines, the Bill dealing with Housing and Town Planning, the English Land Values Bill, the Irish Universities Bill, the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, the Port and Waterway of London Bill, and the Bill for the Protection of Children; and there were, as I daresay your Lordships remember, the two Scottish Bills which were carried over from last session and which were introduced early in the year into your Lordships' House. Now, how does Parliament stand with regard to these Bills? The Old-Age Pensions Bill has come to your Lordships' House and was read a first time last Friday. The Licensing Bill has reached, or is about to reach, Committee Stage. Then we come to the Education Bill. The Education Bill was introduced amid much sound and fury; but it has faded out of our sight and we do not quite know whether it is dead or asleep. If the noble Earl is able to give us any glimpse of the present condition of that Bill I think the House will be grateful to him. The Coal Mines Bill is still, I understand, before a Standing Committee of the House of Commons. The Housing and Town Planning Bill has been only read a first time in the House of Commons. The English Land Values Bill has not been introduced. The Irish Universities Bill has reached the Report Stage. The Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill has not been introduced. The Port and Waterway of London Bill is still before a Joint Committee; and the Protection of Children Bill has only reached the Report Stage. Then, my Lords, it comes to tins—that we have one important measure, the Old-Age Pensions Bill, which has actually reached this House, and we have disposed of the two Bills which were carried over from last session; but with those exceptions, of this long list with which I have troubled your Lordships, not a single measure of importance is, as far as we are aware, likely to come before the consideration of your Lordships' House in the near future. Of course we are told that there is to be an autumn session. I am no opponent of autumn sessions. I doubt whether in this House they are as unpopular as in many other quarters; but they are open to this great objection, that they deprive Ministers, and all the working officials whose business it is to elaborate Government measures, of the comparative leisure and freedom from interruption for which they can only look at a time when the Government Offices are not liable to be disturbed by the alarums and excursions inseparable from the Parliamentary session. The result of an autumn session generally is, and it seems to me can scarcely fail to be, this—that the Government measures are introduced to Parliament in a crude and undigested state, greatly adding to the labours of both Houses and greatly diminishing the prospect of thoroughly considered and useful legislation. This session falls, then, into two halves, the period which began in January last and will end the week after next, and the period which will begin on 12th October and will, I suppose, come to an end very near Christmas time. We know how we have fared with regard to the spring and summer portion of the session. We have now three weeks remaining, and we know exactly what work lies before us during those three weeks. We have the Old-Age Pensions Bill, greatly altered during its passage through the House of Commons, and only circulated to this House on Saturday last. I understand there is a chance that the Irish. Universities Bill may reach us—probably the noble Earl will give us information upon that point. And I must not forget to mention the Finance Bill, about which I have no doubt some of your Lordships will have something to say. But may we be permitted to cast a glance upon the second portion of the session which is to begin in the month of October? We are apt to look upon an autumn session as a sort of boundless hinterland in which everybody who desires to promote legislation can stake out an unlimited claim of his own. But after all, my Lords, how long will the autumn session of this year last? Nine, or I suppose, at the utmost ten, weeks, and during that time His Majesty's Government will have to make what progress they can with that very formidable list of Bills which I read to the House just now. I see that besides those Bills, there are a bevy of minor measures which I have not particularised, and there are those private Members' Bills which His Majesty's Government are so fond of taking under their protection and of sending up to this House. I hope the noble Earl will be able to reassure us, but I venture to think that everything points to a repetition during next November or December—a repetition upon an even worse scale than anything which we have yet known—of the kind of legislative scramble to which this House has been used in the concluding days of the session of Parliament. I venture to say one word (I hope the noble Earl will not take it amiss) of warning. I believe that this House will resent, and will resist, the attempt to repeat, year after year, this process of rushing Bills through the House under conditions which render their proper examination impossible. I venture to recall a statement made by the late Prime Minister and mentioned the other evening in this House by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, with reference to the conduct of the House of Lords in refusing to pursue the discussion of the Scottish Land Values Bill during the last few hours of the session. I rejoice to think that the propriety of our action was admitted by the late Prime Minister. And I am not without hopes that the present Prime Minister may be found disposed to take a similar view; for in a speech from which I have already quoted he used these words—

"I am satisfied that the next, and the moat urgent, step in the improvement of our procedure is that, either generally, or as regards particular measures, the non-completed work of one session may be resumed where it was left off."

I remember a colleague of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Tweedmouth, saying something of the same kind in this House, and I should like very much to be told to-night whether that statement represents the deliberate view of His Majesty's Government and whether they intend to act upon it. That plan of carrying over to another session the Bills which have not been adequately discussed may not be the best remedy, and may not be the only remedy; but of this I am convinced, that some remedy is urgently required for the state of things which I have tried to describe. I venture to say this, that nothing more indecent, nothing less conducive to the efficiency of our debates, nothing more likely to create feelings of annoyance and exasperation fatal to the proper conduct of our debates and to the examination of measures upon their true merits, can be conceived than the present arrangement under which the Government of the day brings in a huge and inflated programme under circumstances which render it absolutely impossible that this House should be given the opportunities to which it is entitled for examining the proposals of His Majesty's Government.

My Lords, of course we cannot complain that the noble Marquess has, at this period of the session, asked for some information with regard to the measures which His Majesty's Government contemplate proceeding with in your Lordships' House. As the noble Marquess has told us, the Old-Age Pensions Bill reached this House on Friday last, and was circulated on Saturday. I propose to take the Second Reading, if that is agreeable to the House, to-day week. I should have been prepared to take it on Thursday, but I understand that noble Lords opposite will be glad of a somewhat longer interval, although it is not a very long Bill. But I hope in this case it may be possible to proceed pretty quickly with the. Committee stage. The Bill of course is one of the first importance, but it is very largely a Money Bill, and although there are parts of it which have nothing to do with money voted by the House of Commons, yet at the same time there are many important points in connection with it which are not of the character which your Lordships' House is used to discuss at any great length, or at any rate in great detail. Then the Finance Bill, as the noble Marquess has reminded us, will also be up very shortly. I understand that the Irish Universities Bill will be read a third time in another place in the latter part of next week, and therefore it will reach this House before we adjourn for our somewhat too brief holiday. That is not a Bill of a very controversial character, although it is one of great importance. With regard to the other measures to which the noble Marquess drew attention, I understand that the Children Bill, which is a very large measure, as your Lordships know, and one which I should think you would desire to discuss in some detail, will reach this House almost at the beginning of the autumn, session. The Scottish Education Bill will also arrive about the same time. As your Lordships know, in another place the Licensing Bill will have been taken for one or two days in Committee before the adjournment, and I hope, therefore, that it will reach us at a period in November which will give us quite as full an opportunity of discussing its provisions as has ever been the case in a Bill of the same kind in your Lordships' House. As regards the Education Bill, I am hot able to say anything. The noble Marquess spoke of the "sound and fury" with which the Bill had been introduced, and I am afraid there has been far too much "sound and fury" about the whole affair ever since we have been in office; but that has certainly been by no means confined to ourselves. I am indeed not apprised of what the actual condition of the question is at this moment, and therefore I must ask the indulgence of the House in saying no more on the subject. I hope for the best in the matter. The Port of London Bill is being considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and I think it is fair to assume that when it comes up it is not a measure which will take a very great deal of time in this House, although it is sure to be subjected to very close examination when it gets here. It is the case that, as usual, we always seem to be too short of business in the early part of the session, and to have far too much crowded upon us at the end. It has always been so in my recollection of this House, and we have had these complaints reiterated, whoever has been in office, and whichever side has been in power at the time. There has been one cause of delay to which the noble Lord did not draw attention, and that was that we lost a full fortnight by the lamented illness of the late Prime Minister and the change of Government. That was an event which could not have been foreseen at the time that the King's Speech was issued. Then the noble Marquess said—and I confess that I heartily agree with him—that there are very grave objections from the point of view of public convenience to the holding of autumn sessions, I myself should be very sorry to see it made a uniform practice. Last year we fortunately avoided it. Another year I hope we may also be fortunate enough to avoid it, but with the heavy programme which we have before us this year, and more particularly with regard to the untoward circumstance to which I have alluded, it became forced upon our minds at a very early date of the session that an autumn session was inevitable. Then the noble Marquess said he desired to give us a warning that the time might Come when the House of Lords would be tired of having Bills rushed through it, or attempted to be rushed through it, at the close of the session. It is perfectly true that the late Prime Minister never concealed his opinion, and never objected to stating it, that your Lordships' House had been badly treated in the matter of the Scottish Bills. I think we admitted it ourselves at the time, and there was no question that they came up too late at the end of the session, and my late right hon. friend stated that with the most absolute candour, as we should have expected of him. I quite agree that it is not fair to expect your Lordships' House to pass measures without full consideration, and I know that my right hon. friend, the present Prime Minister, is of the same opinion. Whether we shall be able to come to what is familiarly known as "carrying over," is a question on which I am sorry to say I am not able to enlighten the noble Marquess. It is a case which has strong recommendations, but, as we know, strong objections have also been entertained to it. If it is adopted at all, I hope it will always be adopted, so to speak, ad hoc, and in consideration of the particular circum stances and the particular measure, and that it will not become the general rule that all measures—especially those introduced by private Members of either House—are liable to be carried over from session to scission. I can foresee nothing more inconvenient to any Government or more disastrous generally than that possibility. But I am quite sure that my right hon. friend and the Government generally will take into consideration once more, with a view to possible assistance and convenience, this question of carrying over. I can promise the noble Marquess that, but I am unable to say anything more positive at this moment.

Can the noble Earl tell us anything about the Town Planning Bill?

I believe it is in Committee at this moment, but I am unable to say when it is likely to reach this House.