Lords Sitting of 23 October 1917

DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS.
LORD ST. DAVIDS LORD ST. DAVIDS had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they would introduce or support legislation for the abolition of the property qualification in the appointment of Deputy Lieutenants.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, until the creation of the Territorial Force, Lords Lieutenant were practically unrestricted as regards their choice of Deputy Lieutenants, except for a statutory qualification, as to which I will say a word in a moment. And, as far as my own county is concerned, I must say that some Deputy Lieutenants who were appointed long before my time and when there was no restriction, have been during the war some of the most useful members of our body.
But at the time of the creation of the Territorial Force Associations the then Secretary of State for War made new Regulations. Under those Regulations, before a man could be appointed he had to have held a commission in His Majesty's Army or Navy for ten years, or he had to have a qualification as an active member of a Territorial Force Association. And those Regulations, which made the appointments military ones, remained in force till after the commencement of the present war, when modified Regulations were issued. These Regulations did make some modification of the former order, but they still left the office of Deputy Lieutenant in the main a military one. A man had either to have a military qualification or to have rendered distinct public service.
Now I come to the statutory qualifications. The statutory qualifications are, first, that a man must have a residence in the county for which he is to be appointed. That seems to me a perfectly sound requirement. He ought certainly to have a residence either in the county or, at the very worst, immediately adjoining it. As regards the residential qualification, I have no objections to make. But there is a property qualification. Before a man can be appointed Deputy Lieutenant he must either have £200 a year from invested moneys, or he must have £200 a year I income from land, and that land need not
730
be in the county for which he is to be appointed. I have it within my own knowledge that in some counties Lords Lieutenant are quite clear that this property qualification has sometimes prevented them from appointing the best man. There are men within my own knowledge, retired officers, who have done excellent work in the creation and organisation of the Territorial Force, who have worked at it from the beginning till now, who have deserved better of the military authorities in their counties, probably, than any other men, and who cannot be appointed Deputy Lieutenants because they have not anything except a military pension. I venture to think that this is not right.
I do not know what view the Government are going to take. They may say that they have no time for legislation. Well, considering the amount of legislation they are engaged in, I can hardly think that in time of war they can set up the theory that they have no time for military legislation, especially legislation of this kind, which would be quite small, quite easy, and would only involve a Bill of one clause. And if they do not like to introduce such a Bill themselves, or to tack on such a clause to some measure of their own, it would be easy for them to promise support to a Bill introduced by somebody else. They may say that the post of Lord Lieutenant is rather an honour of a small kind than an office. Well, that may be so. But it has seemed to me since the war that it is an office which has proved very useful in many counties, and it is an office to which definite work might very easily be given and which might be made to perform much more useful functions than it does to-day. But I do say that, whether you regard it as an office or an honour, it is an unjustifiable anomaly that it should be open only to men with property, and in either case it ought to be open to every officer in His Majesty's Army or in His Majesty's Navy.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to express sympathy with the view which has been put forward by my noble friend, and if I ask the House to bear with me while I say a few words about the question, it is because in the past I had officially a good deal to do with it.
The origin of the qualification is historical. In olden times—times which are not so very old—the Militia were not under

731
the Crown but under the Lords Lieutenant, and were run by the country gentlemen in the counties. It was natural that there should be a qualification for the person who administered the Militia, having regard to the notions of those times. The Lords Lieutenant and the Deputy Lieutenants, who were deputies in discharging their functions, were very important people while the Militia remained a separate force. But in 1871, as part of his reorganisation. Mr. Cardwell took the Militia from under the Lords Lieutenant and put them directly under the War Office. The effect of that was that the military functions of the Lords Lieutenant were something of an anomaly: and as to the Deputy Lieutenants, they had no functions at all of a definite character. The result was that these offices were regarded merely as offices of social distinction. Nevertheless, and possibly as a consequence of this, in the year 1882, when the great Militia Act was passed, a section was inserted—Section 33—defining the qualification. It was, as my noble friend has stated, £200 a year either in land or in income from personal property, and that remained, and it did not very much matter because the offices were purely social offices.
Then came the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act in 1907, and under that Act County Associations were set up to discharge the functions in connection with the new Territorial Force which had been discharged in the past by the Lords Lieutenant with regard to the Militia. But the Lord Lieutenant was given a new and very important function in connection with these Associations. He was the President, unless he declined or was unable to act; and in that case, the Army Council could appoint a President in his place. He was responsible for the guidance of the Associations, and everybody who knows the history of these years knows that the Lords Lieutenant have rendered admirable service in connection with the Territorial Force. They came back to their old position as heads of a military organisation, and, seated in their Associations, they proceeded to carry out administrative functions in connection with the Second Line Army of a very far-reaching and extensive kind.
Now, my Lords, the Associations over which they presided were to consist, and did consist, under the schemes which the Army Council framed under the new Act, of at least half military persons—that is
732
to say, as a rule, men who had commissions in the new Territorial Force. But the person who was left out in the cold under the arrangement was the Deputy Lieutenant. This was partly because at the moment there was no obvious function for him. The Deputy Lieutenant used to be the deputy of the Lord Lieutenant, and there was no provision, and could be no provision, making him the deputy of the Association. He was not wanted. And accordingly the Lords Lieutenant went on in a double capacity, appointing the Deputy Lieutenants for purely social functions, and on their other side themselves discharging military functions.
Then came a Royal Warrant, for which I was responsible, which did what my noble friend said, and prescribed that no Deputy Lieutenant should be appointed unless he had held a commission in the Regular Army or Navy or in the Territorials, or had rendered distinguished services in connection with the County Association. There was a purpose. The purpose was that the Lord Lieutenant might be able to allocate Deputy Lieutenants to different districts of his county and so relieve himself of a good deal of work and supervision. I am not sure that there has been any uniform exercise of that power. In some places the Lord Lieutenant has appointed men who had rendered very admirable services, but in other cases has appointed Deputy Lieutenants who had done nothing at all. But the purpose was that they should be the deputies of the Lords Lieutenant, not in performing the functions discharged in the Association, but in going about attending meetings, seeing to recruiting, and doing all the other work which a Lord Lieutenant is called upon to do, That seems to me to be a very important and worthy function for the Deputy Lieutenant and one which I hope will be developed. I know that the noble Earl opposite (Lord Derby) has taken a great interest in this part of the organisation and has always tried to expand it in every way possible. But, as has been pointed out, for these people, consisting as they do now of men who must hold a military rank or have rendered public services in connection with military affairs, there is no reason at all why the old property qualification, which was re-enacted and kept alive by Section 33 of the Militia Act, 1882, for purely social reasons, should remain unrepealed. I agree with my noble friend in thinking that if the Government has the opportunity it

733
would be a good plan to repeal Section 33 and leave the Lord Lieutenant to choose the most suitable people, who, I trust, will be persons of experience in military affairs who would co-operate in organising the Territorial Forces of the counties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to say a word in support of the proposal of my noble friend opposite. My noble and learned friend behind me (Lord Haldane) has explained with great clearness the various changes that have taken place in the appointment of Deputy Lieutenants as part of the great scheme in the formation of the Territorial Army, for which the credit is due to him; and I think I am right in saying that all Lords Lieutenant would be sorry to depart from that general qualification of service rendered to the Territorial Force, or more recently to the Volunteers, as representing a proper qualification for the appointment of Deputy Lieutenant. I am inclined to think my noble friend Lord Derby will correct me if I am wrong—that a somewhat narrow interpretation has been placed by the War Office on the rendering of eminent service to the Territorial Force. It has been taken, as I understand, to mean membership of the Association by holding His Majesty's Commission. If that is so, I venture to think that the qualification is unduly narrowed. Speaking for the county of which I am Lord Lieutenant, there are certain cases of people who have done admirable service in encouraging recruiting, more especially of late with regard to the Volunteers, who are not themselves members of the Territorial Association, and whom I should be glad myself to place on the list of Deputy Lieutenants. My noble friend will no doubt tell me if that further restriction exists. But I most cordially support the contention of my noble friend opposite, that the property qualification, which, as Lord Haldane has explained, is simply a relic of the day when the Deputy Lieutenant was practically always a country squire and probably succeeded his father in that office, almost, as he would suppose, as a matter of right, is now altogether out of date and ought to be swept away. I trust that His Majesty's Government will take a similar view.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, may I say a word in support of the proposal of the noble Lord opposite? I have been a Lord Lieutenant now for over twenty-five
734
years and have therefore had some experience in this matter. I should like, in the first place, to say that my experience of the War Office is not the same as that of the noble Marquess. I have not found that they have put any narrow limitation on the applications that have been made for the appointment of Deputy Lieutenants. But I do think that the time has come when the property qualification should be done away with. I do not think that it is any help to anybody. It certainly does not help the Lord Lieutenant to select the right man for the right place. My experience has been and no doubt it has been the experience also of a good many other Lords Lieutenant that we now know more about the men who are doing good work in the county than we knew before, and the Lord Lieutenant wants an opportunity of doing something to give those men a pat on the back. Nearly everybody is doing something. I have never considered it from the point of view suggested by the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Haldane), that we are looking for men to do our work. What we want is to be able to do something for the men who are performing the work at the present time.
I wish the noble and learned Viscount had gone a little further in his historical statement with regard to the military character of the position of Lords Lieutenant. I do not know in whose day it came about, but certainly during the time I have been Lord Lieutenant there has been an alteration in the uniform. In the old days we used to have a purely military uniform, which was very satisfactory; but latterly we have been given a sort of combination dress, neither one thing nor the other, and extremely unsuitable for Lords Lieutenant of a certain age Now that we are all put into khaki, it does not matter. It would, however, be historically interesting to know whether the alteration in the uniform was made because we were considered too military before. With regard to the property qualification, I trust that the Secretary of State for War will see his way to abolish it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I am glad to find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lords who have spoken on this question. First of all, let me say that I am pleased that Lord St. Davids mentioned residence in the county as being a necessary qualification. I am not sure

735
that I would not go further and say that any man who left the county permanently should also resign his Deputy Lieutenancy for the county. The noble and learned Viscount (Lord Haldane), in his historical review of Deputy Lieutenants, was quite correct in saying that the appointment was first of all an office; it then became an honour; now, thanks to the Territorial Act and to the war, it has again become an office. The Lords Lieutenant have responded in the most splendid way to the appeals that have been made to them during this war. I know from my own personal experience that when I have made certain appeals to them they have always cooperated in every possible way; and it is only right that they should have the power, in doing work for the Army and Navy of this country, to appoint as Deputy Lieutenants men who can help them in that work.
I am perfectly prepared to see the property qualification in this case done away with. What I propose to do, if the House thinks right, would be to consult with Lords Lieutenant as to the form which the proposed Bill should take, and as to whether, while abolishing the property qualification, we should not impose some sort of obligation upon Deputy Lieutenants and endeavour as far as possible to define the qualifications under which they should be appointed. The noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) spoke about the appointments being made in a narrow sense. I am sorry he should have found that to be the case.
TEE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I have had no such experience myself. I have not found that any case I have put forward has been refused. But I have been told by other Lords Lieutenant that the particular interpretation which I mentioned has, in reply to inquiries, been given them by the War Office.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am glad to hear his experience, as far as the noble Marquess is concerned; but I am sorry to hear what he has said as to others. I see every one of these applications myself. I go through every single qualification, and I can assure the noble Marquess that there are cases in which I have been advised that the gentleman in question was not qualified and I have overruled that advice, because I have felt that his work in connection with the Army or the Navy had been suffi-
736
cient to justify his being made a Deputy Lieutenant. I am as anxious as any one in this House that no restrictions shall be put upon the appointment of Deputy Lieutenant that will exclude men who can be of use to the Lord Lieutenant on behalf of the Army or the Navy. I am afraid, however, that legislation will be necessary. Of course, I should like it, if possible, to be an unopposed Bill. I therefore suggest that the best course for me to adopt would be to consult all the Lords Lieutenant in order to frame a Bill that will do away with the property qualification and at the same time lay down, as far as we can, the rules and regulations by which gentlemen can be given this appointment as an office and not as an honour.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: There is a limit to the number of Deputy Lieutenants permitted to each county, based on population. Some counties were given Deputy Lieutenants with a lavish hand in the early days. I suppose the limit will be retained?
THE EARL OF DERBY: We might consider the whole question of numbers. But if the predecessor of the Lord Lieutenant has been a prodigal son—
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Prodigal father.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes, prodigal father—I do not think it is possible for us to legislate to make that good. But there may be cases in certain counties where the limit ought to be raised. I should like to take into consultation the Lords Lieutenant, and as far as the noble Lord is concerned I am sure we shall carry out what evidently is the wish of the House.

MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the rioting in Hackney, and to ask what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to maintain order in London.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I first put this Question down, some months ago, there had been a meeting at a place called the Brotherhood Chapel in South-gate-road, Hackney, which had been

737
attended with rather deplorable incidents of rioting. There was a good deal of damage to persons and property, and the Police did not appear on that occasion to have been very successful in keeping order, which, after all, is their primary function. Had I raised the matter then, I might have had to ask the noble Viscount to give some explanation of that apparent laxity on the part of the Police.
But since then there has been another meeting at the same place, and I am given to understand that on this occasion the Police, warned apparently by their previous failure, did adopt rather stringent measures. I am told that they drew a cordon round the entire building, and allowed to pass through the cordon only those who were proposing to attend the meeting, and they hoped, and I am quite willing to believe thought, that in this way they would avoid rioting. They did not succeed, because, I suppose, they had no means of knowing who was friend and who was foe; and there was, in fact, rioting on the second occasion, accompanied by incendiary conflagration of a portion of the chapel. On the first occasion, although a good many people were knocked about and injured, the Police only succeeded in presenting one case to the magistrates of a person guilty of disorderly conduct. That person was fined some small sum, on the general excuse that one could not expect public opinion to be too tender of a pacifist meeting. It is, I think, important for the Government to remember that they are responsible for impartially keeping order in London as between all parties. I am sure the Government do not themselves lose sight of that; and it would be unfortunate if the Executive, in the form of the Police, were to get into their heads anything in the shape of an idea that rioting can be allowed at a meeting which is not looked upon with favour by the Government, although it would be prohibited in the case of a meeting attended by a member of the Government.
There are a number of questions that I wish to ask the noble Viscount which do not appear upon the Paper. And let me say at once that I blame myself, and not the noble Viscount, if he is unable to give an answer to those questions to-day. I am told, and I believe it to be a fact, that the riots on the first occasion—I am not sure about the second occasion—were a combined affair; that in the public houses at Hoxton there appeared a printed notice
738
inciting people to go and create disturbances; and that there is a combination of persons, whose headquarters are connected with the. Daily Express newspaper, who incite people to break up these meetings. If so, there was an illegal conspiracy; and there is a duty upon the Government to discover the authors and to put a stop to these illegal incitements to riot. I am told, further, that leaflets and pamphlets have been published which do not bear the imprint of any printer, which is also a punishable offence. In other and different cases pamphlets and leaflets not bearing the imprint of the printer have been dealt with by the authorities. I think, if I may say so, that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and the same energy should be exercised in discovering the authors of these anonymous leaflets and pamphlets as was exercised in the other cases to which I have alluded. If the noble Viscount is not able to deal with the subject of the leaflets to-day—if he is not aware of it—of course I will not press the matter, but will simply ask him the question and leave it to him. I do not wish to make any complaint to-day of the conduct of the Police, because one must admit that an honest effort was made by them, on the second occasion of this unpopular meeting, to avoid anything in the nature of public disorder. I only wish to ask my question about those who incited to violence, and about the anonymous leaflets which are in themselves an offence.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I am sorry to say, the questions not having appeared upon the Order Paper, that I am unable to give the noble Earl any information with regard to the collection of people at Hoxton or the leaflets to which he has referred. I think the first disturbance to which he alluded has been the subject of a debate in another place. At any rate, the matter has been raised there—
EARL RUSSELL: I do not press the noble Viscount to go into the matter, unless he wishes to do so.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: It is ancient history, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. The two disturbances have been correctly described by the noble Earl opposite as having taken place. The strain on the Police, as he knows very well, is extremely severe, a large number having gone on foreign service or been given

739
employment in various other ways. This being so, after the second occurrence, the Home Secretary decided that, as meetings of this kind appeared likely to lead to breaches of the peace, some freer use should be made of the power to prohibit them under 9A of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Accordingly, when notice was given that a similar meeting was to be held—on, I think, October 21—the Secretary of State made an Order prohibiting that meeting. The noble Earl and your Lordships will clearly understand that the Secretary of State's action involves no suppression of freedom of thought or of freedom of speech. The object is to render the maintenance of public order a task which the existing Police force may be capable of carrying out without neglecting the other multitudinous duties which are incumbent upon them.
The noble Earl, in his speech, made sonic comments adverse to the Police. I would only say that it not infrequently happens that the Police are blamed for being over-zealous, while on another occasion it is said that their activities are inadequate to the circumstances. A good deal was said and written about this particular occurrence, but I am sure that whatever was said or written would not shake the confidence of the public in that admirable force. As I have said, I am unable to answer the full questions of the noble Earl, but I will make inquiries at the Home Office and bear the matter in mind.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps the noble Viscount will not mind my saying, in reply, that I must not be taken in any way to accept what I think is the rather dangerous doctrine that he has laid down—namely, that a meeting of the character in question is to be suppressed because the Police are not able to keep order. I might approve of that doctrine if I found it equally applied at disturbed meetings held, say, by Mr. Lloyd George and the Glasgow munition workers. But it seems to me on the face of it to be rather a dangerous doctrine.

THE TAXI-CAB DISPUTE.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government would make a statement on the questions at issue in the present taxi-cab dispute, and indicate their policy with regard to the admission of women to the ranks of licensed cab drivers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think no apology is required for putting down the
740
second Question which appears in my name, because, this is a matter of considerable personal interest to all those in London who have any duties to discharge, particularly now that there is increasing difficulty in making use of any conveyance of one's own for the purpose of getting about. The notices which have appeared in the newspapers make it rather difficult to follow exactly what the points involved are. All I desire to do this afternoon is to elicit a statement from His Majesty's Government as to what exactly the questions at issue are in the dispute which has arisen, what the reasons are for the particular course that has been taken, and what considerations weighed with them one way or another. I have no sympathy, and I do not think your Lordships will have any, with the person who desires nowadays to take a taxi-cab for an extended journey. That is quite unnecessary. There are trains and tubes and other methods of making the longer journeys. But I think we are all agreed that for short journeys taxi-cabs are essential if we are to carry on our business in London. I do not, of course, think only of public business, such as attending this House, or attending the various Departments of State, because almost all of us know that what was called private business before the war now really consists of making or doing something or other that is required by one Department or another for the prosecution of the war. Practically, you may say, there is no business except what is needed for the war, and it is important that we should retain some convenient method of getting about London for short distances.
I do not think we need complain if the prices are increased. The price of everything has been raised, and we may well expect that the price for journeys such as these should be raised. I do not suggest that to take a taxi-cab at all is not to some extent in the nature of a luxury nowadays, for which a man may fitly be asked to pay; and in view of that I should like to ask what the particular objection has been to the adoption of the shilling for each mile, as against, as I understand, the present proposal—1s. 2d. for the first mile and 8d. a mile afterwards. It seems to me that no injustice, but rather an advantage, would result if you penalise the person who takes a taxi-cab for long journeys. Not so long ago it was a frequent practice—I think most noble Lords would be acquainted with it—for officers to take taxi-cabs to

741
return to their depôts at night, say, at Hounslow or anywhere within eight or fifteen miles. That is not really a proper use of the taxi-cab. Probably under the present petrol allowance it is impossible, but I think we should be entitled to discourage anything of that sort, which may interfere with what is almost an essential in London to the swift conduct of business by those who have important affairs to attend to.
I should be glad if the noble Lord could state what exactly is the attitude of the men, what their average earnings are, what they have to complain of in the way of average earnings, and what the issues are in the dispute. I have seen in the newspapers that an average of eighteen journeys a day is taken as a sort of basis on which one calculates. I suppose that is limited simply and solely by the two gallons which the drivers are allowed. Judging by the rapidity with which a cab is engaged the moment it is discharged, I should have thought that something like thirty journeys a day was nearer the average in the centre of London. I simply ask for information on the point. I should like also to ask whether it is not thought desirable to admit women into the ranks of licensed cab-drivers. I understand that there has been some opposition on the part of the Police, and I should be glad if that matter could be considered.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot follow the noble Earl throughout the whole of his remarks, for I have not the necessary information with me. I will, however, make further inquiries in the direction he has indicated, and if, when he sees Hansard, he thinks that what I have said is insufficient and will put down the Question again, I shall be glad to give him fuller information. This matter has been going on since the month of January. The original demand of the owners was for a bonus of fourpence. This was objected to by the drivers. This would have brought
742
the charge for the first mile up to a shilling. There were interviews at the Home Office, and the Home Secretary suggested that the matter should be referred to Conciliation Boards, but this was refused by the drivers. The Secretary of State had the books of the companies examined by a well-known gentleman, Sir William Plender, and it was considered that the fourpence bonus was fully justified. The Secretary of State proposed to make an Order accordingly.
Then, in the month of September, the owners and drivers organised to demand a rise of 50 per cent. The Home Secretary had further interviews, and satisfied himself that such an increase could not be justified. It would impose a burden on the public of about £1,000,000 in the aggregate. The bonus of sixpence, which was suggested, would cost the taxi-riding public about £650,000. That would work out in this way. It would not be a case of 1s. 2d. for the first mile and 8d. a mile afterwards, as suggested by the noble Earl. It is true that the first charge of 8d. would be raised to 1s. 2d., but equally if the taxi-clock registered 2s. the fare would be 2s. 6d., so that it was really in the nature of a sixpenny bonus. This was agreed to by the owners and by the owner-drivers. The drivers have not agreed, but the question with them is their agreement with the owners.
To the latter part of the Question, in which the noble Earl asks whether we would indicate a policy in regard to the admission of women to the ranks of licensed cab-drivers, the answer is that licences are issued to such women as apply and are found to be qualified. So far, only one woman has qualified, and a licence has been issued to her. The Home Office are, of course, only concerned with the issue of licences and cannot ensure that a licensed person will obtain employment.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past five o'clock.