§ (1) So much of the Militia Act, 1882, as prescribes the qualifications to be possessed by persons appointed to be deputy-lieutenants in Great Britain, shall cease to have effect, and after the passing of this Act a person may be 1914 appointed to be a deputy-lieutenant of a county in Great Britain if he possesses the following qualifications:
- (a) He must have a place of residence in the county or within seven miles thereof;
- (b) He must be shown to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State to have rendered worthy service as a member of, or in a civil capacity in connection with, His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces.
§ (2) The Militia Act, 1882, so far as it relates to Great Britain, is hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
§ Brigadier-General McCALMONTI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Great Britain" ["deputy-lieutenants in Great Britain"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the United Kingdom."'
I do so for the purpose of giving the Under-Secretary of State for War an opportunity for explaining why Ireland should be left out of the Bill. I apologise for not having pressed this matter on the Second Reading, but I just happened to miss it in the House last night or I should have called attention to it then. The Militia Act, 1882, applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. Since then deputy-lieutenants have been appointed on the same footing in this country as in Ireland, with the exception that some ten years ago an Instruction was issued under which His Majesty expressed his intention of refusing to confirm any appointments of deputy-lieutenants unless they had served for ten years in His Majesty's Forces. That, I understand, was brought in in view of the new Territorial Force, which was then being formed, and in order to give the deputy-lieutenants some military significance and more status than they had had up to that time. I suppose that that provision will now be abandoned, and that the ten years' qualification will be cancelled. This Instruction was issued in 1908. I cannot see why, even if Ireland has no Territorial Associations, the deputy-lieutenants should not have the same status in Ireland as those on this side of the Channel. A deputy-lieutenant should be, for the purposes of his office, of the same status whether in Ireland or in Scotland or in England. The fact that there is no Territorial Force Association does not seem to have very much weight, because there are in Ireland a very large number of gentlemen, some of whom have served and some of whom have supported the armed forces of the Crown, who are fully qualified to become deputy-lieutenants, especially when we remember that similarly qualified gentlemen 1915 on this side of the Channel are entitled to be appointed. I do not see why Ireland should be left out. I have put down one or two other small Amendments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some good reason why Ireland should be left out, or accept my Amendments.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)I regret that I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. When this Bill was being considered, both in the other House and before the Association of Lords Lieutenant, the case of Ireland was carefully considered by the then Chief Secretary and the then Lord Lieutenant, and the conclusion arrived at was that this Bill should not apply to Ireland.
§ General McCALMONTWas that last year?
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThis year. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that it is as important to appoint deputy-lieutenants in Ireland as in any other part of the country. I am quite certain he will be the first to realise that the type of deputy-lieutenant we have in Ireland is as good as the type we have in this country. But it is not quite true to say that the same conditions and qualifications are applicable in both cases, because ten years ago in this country we introduced the definite qualification that he should be a man who has rendered eminent service as a member of his Territorial Force Association or who has been a member of one of His Majesty's Forces for ten years. Of course, the qualification of belonging to a Territorial Force Association never applied to Ireland, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman need fear that any man who is recommended for a deputy-lieutenancy by the Lord Lieutenant, and who gets the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary, will have to pass through a more difficult ordeal than any man in this country who becomes a deputy-lieutenant.
§ General McCALMONTWhat is going to happen about the ten years' qualification? I do not follow whether that still stands or not.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt does not apply to Ireland; but if a man has been ten 1916 years in one Service or the other I feel sure this would add weight to the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ Colonel Sir J. CRAIGI have always felt that, as far as possible, there should be no differentiation made between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. Since the beginning of the War a great many measures have been passed where Ireland has been left out for one reason or another, or where a separate Bill has been brought in dealing with Ireland on a different basis from that in which she is dealt with in the English Bill. The effect of that has been on many occasions to teach the Irish people that there is a distinct difference between them and us over here, and that they are a distinct class, and they have widened the gulf between them and us in a way which has been quite unnecessary. It is not a great matter of principle, but in this case, if the Bill is considered a wise measure for England. Scotland, and Wales, I do not see why the wisdom should not also extend to my country. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept the Amendment I have no desire to obstruct the Committee, but Ministers in charge of these measures should not invariably cast our country on one side and say, "This is a first-class measure; it is something which is wanted in the country, but simply because Ireland is Ireland we must cut her out of the Bill." I trust that in future, if there is any ameliorative legislation of this character, or anything affecting the status of citizens, we in Ireland will benefit as much as the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. BOOTHThat position has often occurred, and we have been in a painful position as English Members. We did not like to move to omit the Clause that the Bill should not extend to Ireland, being English Members, but, when there has been a point affecting personal liberty or the status of citizens, in have come a whole lot of Irish Members, not being in the least concerned, and they have voted as the Government wanted, just as now, if we have a Division, they will come in and vote against them, whether they are right or wrong. If the Bill was made to apply all round we should be saved from that, and Members, from whatever part of the country they came, would have to study it. Am I interpreting the Bill right that in future a deputy-lieutenant in England will be chosen because he is interested in the Territorials, but in Ireland, from some 1917 political motive? I think that is deplorable. There is far too much politics in Ireland. I hope I can be corrected on that, but it seems to me the idea in Ireland is to keep up political appointments. Is not that so?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo; that is not so. The Territorial Force Association does not exist in Ireland, but during the last ten years membership of an association has been a qualification in this country. In Ireland the appointment of deputy-lieutenants is based, I understand, largely upon such qualifications as I have mentioned, namely, whether a man has been in the service of the Crown or not, or whether he has given useful service to the Crown in time of national emergency.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNot at all!
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the words "or within seven miles thereof."
This measure removes the necessary property qualification for deputy-lieutenants, and I think the Bill is in that respect acceptable to the Committee. In 1907 a Clause was put into the Territorial Force Bill that deputy-lieutenants should have to be members of the Territorial Force. That also was a good measure which commended itself to the House. The effect of my Amendment is that in future appointments deputy-lieutenants must have a residence in the county, and in support of that I call to my assistance my right hon. Friend's speech on the Second Reading last night. He said:
We also found among officers members of the professional classes and others dependent on their earnings, many willing and able workers in the national cause—many business men, who had really no property qualification at all, but who did reside in the county. The Government thought it wise and proper that these men should have the same right to be appointed deputy-lieutenant as other people who happen accidentally to possess the property qualification, and it is really to give us the right to appoint as deputy-lieutenants such men who reside in the county, and who have done good service.My Amendment will carry out my right hon. Friend's intention. On the very face of it it seems wise. The jurisdiction of these deputy-lieutenants will be confined to the county. Their office is distinctly a 1918 county appointment, and men can always be found inside the counties who are suitable for these positions, and the fact that they have residences inside the county surely makes them more acceptable and more suitable for the post.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I agree in the main with what he has said, and our intention is now to make the provision the same for deputy-lieutenants as it is for county justices. They are men who are doing excellent service in the county and yet have not a place of residence in it, but just over the border, and it is in order to cover hard cases of that kind that we thought in common fairness it was necessary and wise to add "or within seven miles." After all, that is the traditional thing as it affects even county justices at present, and all we are doing is to apply that very simple and safe rule to the case of deputy-lieutenants.
§ Mr. BOOTHI hope my hon. Friend will not press the point. The case continually arises in Manchester. Owing to the fact that in the adjoining county of Cheshire, within a few miles, is a good residential part and the London trains stop at one or two of the stations, it was found that a fair number of them actually lived over the border in Cheshire. I can quite see that there may be cases, especially where there is a river border, where there may be suitable men, identified for a long period with the life of the county, whose residence is just over the border.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Commander BELLAIRSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), after the word "State" ["to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State"], to insert the words "or Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty."
I think that simply bears out the spirit of the Bill. It has always been a very invidious position for anyone associated with the Navy that he has to go to a Secretary of State. I should be quite willing to accept the words "First Lord of the Admiralty," if those are preferred. When the Air Ministry Bill was introduced, the sponsor for the Bill said the First Lord of the Admiralty was a Secretary of State. That is not the ease. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment, so that anyone who has been associated with the Naval 1919 service can obtain the recommendation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty or the First Lord.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It seems only reasonable that a man should be recommended for service in the Navy by someone who is confident to speak of his work in the Navy.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI should have been glad under ordinary circumstances to accept the Amendment. When a man is considered for appointment as deputy-lieutenant his recommendation is considered by the Lord Lieutenant, who, I am sure, has no prejudice, and the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant is given on the ground of naval service as well as military service It so happens that the Lords Lieutenant have to send the nominations to a Secretary of State, who at the present time happens to be the Secretary of State for War. Under the old Militia Act it was the Home Secretary, and, as I have said, it is now the Secretary of State for War. But I am speaking with certainty when I say that every possible consideration is given to a man who has shown that he has had any naval service as well as to a man who has shown that he has had any military service. I do not think this Amendment would help the Bill in any way, and I can give the assurance of actual practice, with which I hope the Committee will be satisfied, because I know from experience and personal knowledge that when a Lord Lieutenant sends in a recommendation which is backed by naval service it receives invariably the utmost consideration.
§ General McCALMONTI should like as a member of the sister Service formally to support this Amendment. I do not think that my right hon. Friend has given us any reason why we should not include the Admiralty in the recommendation. I should like to put it from this point of view: I will not use the word "slur," but it is clear that, as any naval officer reads this Act, or as any question arises in connection with this particular point, he will naturally say that it is purely an Army question, and has nothing whatever to do with the Navy. Whatever assurance the right hon. Gentleman could give us as to practice is really not of the slightest use to this House. I have no doubt that if a naval officer were put forward he 1920 personally would give it every consideration. But he will not always have the office which he now holds, and neither will the present Secretary of State for War. I think that, as a compliment to those who have put this point forward, he might accept the Amendment, which I submit will do no harm to the Bill. I therefore hope that he will reconsider this matter.
§ Mr. BOOTHI do not think my right hon. Friend quite dealt with the point which is raised. As it appears to me, it is not how the Lord Lieutenant's recommendations will be received, but is he likely to make any? If the Lord Lieutenant knows that he can make it either to the Army or to the Navy he will recognise that they are on an equality, but when he knows that all the recommendations go to the Secretary of State for War I suggest that he will be inclined to lean towards the military man. That is obvious if he knows that every suggestion he makes goes to the War Office. That is the point where I see a little unfairness to the naval service. I am perfectly certain that in practice if the Lord Lieutenant has to send all the names to the War Office it will be suggested to his mind that military men instead of naval men are desired. This Amendment, I think, will put that right.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERMay I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be desirable to have something on the face of this Bill to show that the naval authorities have a voice in recommending men? It is rather strange that a naval man's service is to be estimated by a soldier rather than by a naval authority. It may seem a technicality, but I think it is a bit of a slur on the naval man who is recommended to be a deputy-lieutenant. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Secretary of State would not give fair consideration, but that is not quite the point. What I really suggest is that the Bill ought to show that the recommendation for the naval man comes from the naval authorities. Would my right hon. Friend consider this, and would it not be possible by the Report stage to introduce words so that the Clause may read in this way:
He must be shown to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty or of the Army Council to have rendered great service.1921 That would bring in a naval authority. Would my right hon. Friend give a promise that he will consider this matter before the Report with the view to bringing in in some way the naval authority?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIf I may be allowed to say a word or two in reply, I would point out that the Naval Forces of the Crown are specially mentioned in Section (b) of Clause 1. As I pointed out in the speech I have just delivered, the Secretary of State at present happens to be the Secretary of State for War. At any given moment it might be another Secretary of State, and it is only necessary that it should be one Secretary of State. If you are going to include the First Lord of the Admiralty you would also have to include the Secretary of State for the Air Forces, and you would also have to include somebody who would have to be the judge, so to speak, of the civilians who are not serving in either the military or the naval forces. I think that the procedure at the present time is far and away the best, the safest, and the soundest. Supposing you put in all these secretaries of State you will place the Lord Lieutenant in an extraordinary position, and he will not know to what Department to send a recommendation. A man might belong to both Services or belong to one Service or he might be a civilian who has been in both Services. I would remind the Committee that the Lord Lieutenant is just as proud of the naval forces as of the Army, and the moment he comes across anyone who has done any notable work in either the naval or the military force he would be prepared to recommend him, provided that otherwise he is of the right character.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. C. PRICEI beg to move in Subsection (1, b), to leave out the word "worthy."
I propose this Amendment because the word "worthy" has rather a wide interpretation, and one does not exactly know what it means. I would like to have an interpretation of that word. Is the man to be an officer only? Has he to have a certain length of service? Or can it be a man who has been attached to the Territorial Force? I could give cases where men were quite unable owing to pressure of business to accept a commission in the Territorial Forces, but who at the same time believed it was their duty to qualify 1922 to defend their country. So they passed through the Territorial Forces, served their three years, and obtained their certificate. I understand that under the word "worthy" that might not be regarded as a sufficient qualification for a man to be created a deputy-lieutenant. I think that under the word "worthy" the War Office authorities might say that that was not a sufficient qualification to enable a man to be appointed a deputy-lieutenant. I have another Amendment later on, the comments on which I shall defer, and I only desire now to have a clear definition as to what is meant by the word "worthy," or whether, taking it out, you will simply say that he must show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State to have a record of service. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, because I am anxious to include men who, in years gone by, have rendered service to the Territorial Force. There are a great many I know in business, and also the sons of first-class business men, who were pressed to accept a commission. In these cases they were quite unable to accept a commission, although strongly pressed to do so, and at great sacrifice they went for three years in order to qualify themselves to defend their country. By accepting this Amendment there will not be room or ground for the War Office to reject a man under these circumstances.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThis particular Sub-section was very carefully considered by all the authorities, and particularly by the Association of Lord Lieutenants, who have to deal with the recommendation of deputy-lieutenants. I think it is wise to leave the word in the Bill. If we were to leave out the word the Clause would read, "rendered service as a member of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces." I do not think it should necessarily follow that a man who is a member of one of these forces, and did not render worthy service, should be in the position to be considered for the office of deputy-lieutenant.
§ Mr. PRICEThe right hon. Gentleman has scarcely answered my point as to what interpretation the War Office is going to put upon this matter. Will a man who has rendered Territorial service be eligible?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONCertainly, if he is recommended by the Lord Lieutenant.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI do not intend to do so.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "or in a civil capacity in connection with."
This measure has two characteristics which the deputy-lieutenants of the future must possess, namely, residence and worthy service as a member of His Majesty's Forces. I think if the qualifications were limited to residence and worthy service the Clause would be very acceptable. Deputy-lieutenants have been appointed from members of the Territorial Force since 1907, and that has been a very good line to take, but in this paragraph (b) you have introduced a new type of individual, namely, the man who has in a civil capacity, in connection with the various forces, rendered worthy service. My desire is to leave out that gentleman from the possibility of becoming a deputy-lieutenant in future and to confine it to members of the three forces of the Crown mentioned. I need not enlarge on the gratitude we all feel towards the members of forces of the Crown for what they are doing for us, and among the rewards we desire to add this of deputy-lieutenant, although it is a very small reward. I think it is a mistake to bring in civilians who have busied themselves in any way in connection with these Services. These men will get the lion's share of the honours, because of their busy nature. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that this Amendment is of quite a military character, and, although he has not been in an accepting mood up to the present, I hope he will accept this.
§ Mr. PRICEI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I desire that the deputy-lieutenants shall come from other forms of life than those who have been members of the naval or military forces. There are men who, during the War, have rendered very distinguished service in their districts by assisting in recruiting and other ways. Possibly owing to their health they have been disqualified from naval or military service, but they have rendered enormous service in connection with the forces of the Crown in a civil capacity.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watt), but, unfortunately, I cannot meet his views, 1924 because I do not see how we can accept his Amendment. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) has brought to the notice of the Committee the real point. Since the beginning of the War a great many men who are incapacitated from military or naval services on account of disability or unfitness of some sort have been rendering yeoman service in connection with the naval and military forces of the Crown for a long period, and I think the Lord Lieutenant should be allowed to nominate for the sanction of His Majesty the King a man of that nature. In connection with the Act of 1907 it was laid down that a man qualified to be appointed should have served in the forces of the Crown or should be a member of the Territorial Force Association. We all know the Territorial Force Associations of the country have been composed of civilians and military and naval men, and I see colleagues here who know very well, in their own experience, of civilians resident in the county who have been members of the Territorial Force Association of that county and have been the moving spirit of that association. I do not think it would be wise, and, in any case, it would be unjust, to accept an Amendment of this kind.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ General McCALMONTI beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "in connection with," and to insert instead thereof the words "in support of."
It seems to me that there is quite a difference between gentlemen who have done service in connection with and gentlemen who has done service in support of the forces of the Crown. I notice that Lord Derby, in introducing this Bill in another place, used the words "in support of." There are certain hon. Members who have done a great deal in connection with the Army in connection with such things as conscientious objectors, and things which do the Army no good, and I suggest that this Bill is not intended to include those people. If my right hon. Friend would put in those words they would do no harm to his Bill, and it would make quite certain that we shall not have appointed people who do more harm than good.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. The words he suggests would be advisable if we had not 1925 the earlier words, "worthy service." The two mean exactly what he says. I am afraid that he did not notice that these words must be read with the words "in connection with."
§ General McCALMONTSurely there might be people who would consider that the gentlemen whom I mention were doing very worthy service in connection with the naval, military, or air forces?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am afraid that that is not the point. My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State would take great care that men of that type would not be likely to have their names sent forward for appointment as deputy-lieutenants. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, with that explanation, will not press his Amendment, but will consider that his point is sufficiently met by the words in the Bill.
§ Mr. BOOTHI raised the point on the Second Reading that I did not want men who have been making money out of munitions to come in. When I heard these words I thought that they would meet my point. Men making money out of supplies of munitions may be rendering very worthy service, and it might be thought that they, or men who had done some great business stroke, should be selected; but I do not think they should come in in this way. I presume that the real reason why the Amendment is not accepted is that the Government do not want the Bill to go back to the House of Lords.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONTo be quite frank with my hon. Friend, that is one of the reasons, but I can assure my hon. Friend who has just sat down that we have no intention of suggesting to a Lord Lieutenant to recommend for appointment any man who has amassed riches out of munitions and has done nothing else. Under the Sub-section as it stands a man must, first of all, have rendered worthy service. He must have rendered them to the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown, and he must have rendered them voluntarily.
§ General McCALMONTAs we have now got the real reason why none of the Amendments are being accepted, I have great pleasure in withdrawing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1926§ Mr. PRICEI beg to move, at the end, to add the words "or in any civil capacity."
I consider that the announcement which has been made by the Under-Secretary for War, that when a Bill comes here from the House of Lords he will not accept Amendments because the Bill comes from the Lords, is grossly offensive. I resent very strongly the suggestion that when a Bill comes down from the Lords we are to make no Amendments. We have a perfect right to make any Amendments we like. The object of the Amendment, which we are told in advance is not to be accepted, is this: There are men who have rendered very distinguished services to the county, and are very well qualified to discharge these duties, but have been unable to render any military service. This is a very old subject, because when the Territorial Bill was introduced by Lord Haldane, Lord Rosebery—I have not read the speech lately, but I am familiar with it—referred to the fact that it was very unfair to prescribe qualifications for a deputy-lieutenant that you do not apply to the Lord Lieutenant. It is an extraordinary thing that you can make Lord Lieutenant of a county a man who does not fulfil any of these requirements, and is purely a civilian. It is absurd that you should have one regulation with regard to the Lord Lieutenant of a county and impose greater restrictions for the deputy-lieutenant. Surely you should have wider qualifications for the deputy-lieutenant than for the Lord Lieutenant. Lord Rosebery himself, I think, never rendered any military service, yet he is Lord Lieutenant of Linlithgowshire. Other Lords Lieutenant who were appointed not long ago have rendered no military service whatever, yet these men, when they submitted to the War Office—I am quoting a fact, because the Under-Secretary will recollect that I raised this question before—
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo; I do not.
§ Mr. PRICEI raised the subject of the Lord Lieutenant of a county. He said he had submitted to the authorities the names of men who, he thought, were very well qualified, and who had rendered distinguished service to the country, but these men were turned down because they had rendered no military service, while he himself had rendered no military service whatever. It is absolutely absurd to have a wider selection for a Lord Lieutenant than for a deputy-lieutenant. If my 1927 Amendment is accepted I am sure that no Lord Lieutenant will submit to the authorities any name that he is not satisfied is perfectly desirable. I know the case of a worthy man, one of the most highly respected men in the country, whose name was sent to the authorities and turned down because he had not rendered military service. He could not render military service—he was unfit for it—but there was no man in the locality who exercised greater influence or had done greater service than this man. Yet he is disqualified as deputy-lieutenant, while in the same county there is a man as Lord Lieutenant who has rendered no military service at all. I want to put both these men on precisely the same footing and to provide that the qualifications necessary for a Lord Lieutenant should apply precisely to a deputy-lieutenant. I trust sincerely that the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. There is a great deal of feeling on the subject and letters about it have been received from different parts of the country.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARI should like to support my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not imagine that we shall get any concession from the Under-Secretary for War on this point, but I do think that we are at least entitled to protest, at a time like this, when all the different sections of the community are invited to render the best service they can to the State, that there should be any distinction drawn between those who are associated with the Services and those who are not exclusively associated with them. There are at the present time civilians who, for the position of deputy-lieutenant, have qualifications as good, if not better, than some of the very gentlemen who may be appointed to this office. I am myself acquainted with cases where men of the highest standing in their own counties will be disqualified under this provision for an office for which they are eminently well fitted. The Government have drawn a distinction which should not have been made at any time between the different classes of the community, who are rendering the best services they can to the State. It is knowledge common to all of us that there are men at the present moment who are rendering the most splendid services to the State, but who are debarred, for one reason or another, by the provision in this Clause, from being appointed to the position of 1928 deputy-lieutenant. These gentlemen have done work of a scientific character, or have rendered other valuable services to the State, but they are ruled out by this provision. I do not think that it is in the interests of the country that such a distinction should be drawn between different classes in regard to these posts. A feeling has grown up on this subject which is not to be trifled with, and it is a feeling which is increasing to a great extent in many districts, and I do hope that the Under-Secretary of War will recognise the existence of that feeling, and do something if he possibly can to meet it.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am sorry that my frankness to the Committee with regard to the Amendments has called upon me the condemnation of my old friend and colleague (Mr. Price).
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI recognise that, but at all events I was frank with the Committee and I do not think it did any harm to tell the truth. With regard to the very particular Amendment which the hon. Member has moved very cogently, I will not go into the history of appointments to the position of deputy-lieutenant, but I would say that I regard this as a democratic measure. The scope under which these appointments may be made under this Bill will be larger than ever it has been before. The case which my hon. Friend brought to the notice of the Committee is considered, namely, men not associated with the Territorial Force Associations, and who have had no service in either branch of the forces. The Bill extends the scope of selection, and we say that if any man in any county has rendered worthy service in Red Cross work, Volunteer work, or recruiting work, his claim will be considered. I think I am meeting as far as I can the very point which my hon. Friend brought before the Committee, and I hope that he and the hon. Member who supports him will not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Mr. KINGI hope we can have an assurance on this occasion, before we pass the 1929 Bill, that the residential qualification will not be too rigidly insisted upon. If I can have an assurance to that effect, I will not trouble the House further.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON indicated assent.
§ Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.