Lords Sitting of 10 April 1919

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BECCLES WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can now tell your Lordships what business he proposes to submit to us for the remainder of these sittings; when he proposes that your Lordships' House should adjourn for the Easter recess and for how long? I should like to ask, if I may—and this is really a matter of great importance—whether he could tell us what business is likely to be taken during the first few days on the reassembling of the House after the holidays.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): I will endeavour to give my noble friend the information for which he asks. First, as regards the measures which we shall ask your Lordships to deal with before we separate for the Easter recess, it is essential that the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill, already before the House; the Army (Annual) Bill, in the same position; and the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill should receive the Royal Assent before we adjourn. I hope that it may be possible to move the adjournment of your Lordships' House for the recess on Tuesday, April 15. That, of course, is dependent on what happens in another place. The House of Commons, I believe, hope to adjourn on that date. I share the hope; but if they are unable to do so and have to sit on Wednesday, there would be a sitting of your Lordships' House on the same day.
252
The third of the Bills to which I alluded—namely, the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill—will be read a first time in this House to-night; and the Bill being, for reasons which I could easily explain, one of urgent importance, I propose to ask your Lordships to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX on Tuesday for the purpose of passing it into law. In that case it would not be necessary to meet on Monday next, April 14. As regards the other Bills that will come up to this House before we adjourn, I hope to get from your Lordships the First Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill before the recess, and to take the Second Reading on Tuesday, April 29—the day of the re-assembling of both Houses of Parliament. There is also another small category of measures of which I hope to get the First Reading before we adjourn—namely, the War Charities (Scotland) Bill, the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill, the Scottish Board of Health Bill, and the City of London Police Bill.
The noble Marquess then asked as to the business to be taken after the Easter recess, and in the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide. I have already mentioned that the first business upon our return will, I hope, be the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill, and this I trust will be followed in the period of which I am speaking by the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill, which should reach us about three weeks after the House re-assembles, and the Aliens Restriction Bill. The Housing Bill, a measure of course of the first importance, which will take some time in another place, will probably not reach us before Whitsuntide. That will be the main item in the bill of fare after that date. I think I have given the noble Marquess the information for which he asked.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his very full statement. I do not know, but I think it would be worth his consideration, whether the Ministry of Health Bill would not be better taken on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday after we reassemble. I think he will find, considering the importance of the Bill, that we are more likely to have a full attendance on the Thursday than on the Tuesday.
The only other matter which I would ask the noble Earl to reconsider is a very small

253
one relatively, but important in principle, and that is his suggestion that the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill should be taken through in one day. I do not think there can be any such pressure of necessity for that Bill, to justify carrying it through in one day. It really, if I may say so, is a mistake to suspend the Standing Orders except for really urgent matters—at any rate, to suspend them to the extent of driving a Bill through in one day. For my own part I do not know that the Bill is really urgent. It would not be proper to discuss the character of the Bill. I can quite conceive that the case for justice under the Bill could be made out in a most overwhelming manner, but that it should be necessary to pass it very rapidly into law I do not understand. However that may be, I venture to think that it would be better to have a sitting on Monday rather than that your Lordships should be asked to pass the Bill through all its stages on Tuesday. If we sat on Monday we could take the Second Reading then and the other stages on Tuesday. Certainly so far as I am concerned, I could not be taken to consent to all the stages of the Bill being gone through on Tuesday, unless it is of a very urgent character.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, generally speaking I agree with the principle laid down by the noble Marquess, and I think he will bear me out in saying that I show no small reluctance in moving the suspension of the Standing Order unless I am compelled to do so. With reference to the Bill in question, he admits, from such knowledge as he has of the matter, the justice of the Bill, but the only question which he is concerned to dispute is the urgency.
The case presented to me by those responsible for the measure is this. The Bill arises out of these circumstances: There have been within quite a recent period several murderous attacks upon police in Ireland. Four have been assassinated; several others have been wounded; Mr. Milling, a resident magistrate at Westport, was shot dead; an active campaign of assassination propaganda is being secretly circulated throughout the country, and the police authorities have pressed upon His Majesty's Government the immediate and urgent necessity of the Bill. We sometimes hear rumours of very considerable unrest among the Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and
254
it is not unnatural in the circumstances of the case, exposed to this sort of attack, that they look to Parliament to give that protection which Parliament alone can afford. These are the circumstances in which the Bill is brought before Parliament. The matter was before the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive Council in Dublin Castle a few days ago, and they strongly represented to His Majesty's Government the desirability, if possible, of passing the Bill into law before Parliament rises. That is the case for urgency, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is a sufficient one.
The rearrangement suggested by the noble Marquess is really a matter of-detail. Given the First Reading of the measure to-day, I should have thought—viewing the case that I have made out for urgency and the extreme unlikelihood that your Lordships would wish to devote any considerable time to discussion—that it was more for your Lordships' convenience to deal with the measure in a single day on Tuesday, with the chance, if another place does not rise on Tuesday, of having another day, rather than meeting on Monday. If, however, strong representation is made to me that that course does not meet with your Lordships' approval, and you desire to meet on Monday, I will reconsider the matter.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Earl that the scope of the Bill may not be quite as extended as members of the House may desire to see it. A great deal of pressure had to be exerted upon the Government from these benches in order to induce them to take up this question at all. The course proposed is really asking your Lordships to pass whatever measure is brought forward blindfold, because it is obvious that there can be no adequate consideration of the measure on Tuesday. It is for this reason that we wish to meet on Monday.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That will be a point which I will bear in mind in considering the suggestion with regard to meeting on Monday. I will, perhaps, make an announcement before the close of our proceedings.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DOMINION TROOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order for the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, this is a war measure which requires, I think, no detailed explanation, but in respect of which it is convenient and proper that your Lordships should be generally apprised of its object and scope. Your Lordships may be aware that large numbers of marriages have taken place between members of His Majesty's Forces domiciled outside the United Kingdom and English women. In these circumstances, in case divorce proceedings become necessary, the law is that the proceedings must be taken in the country of the domicile, and, according to our law, the domicile is the domicile of the husband—in the particular case now under consideration it is the domicile of the soldier belonging to the Oversea Dominion.
Very strong representations were made to the authorities on behalf of the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government, which takes the same view, that a great miscarriage and even denial of justice is likely to follow in the wholly abnormal condition prevailing to-day in the application of the strict rule, and it is proposed in the present Bill to enable the appropriate Courts in the United Kingdom to entertain matrimonial proceedings in cases of marriages contracted during the war by members of His Majesty's Forces with women of this country, even although the husbands in those cases were domiciled outside the United Kingdom.
I need hardly point out that in nearly all these cases, though not in every case, the obligation that the matter shall be decided by the Court of the husband's domicile is one which, having regard to the means of the parties, would make it quite impossible that the matter should ever be investigated in Court at all. The witnesses are very often in this country and they could not be made available (without an expenditure which the parties would be wholly unable to provide) in the country of the husband's domicile. I may perhaps add that this Bill, if it becomes law, will
256
not become operative in the self-governing Dominions until it has been adopted by the Legislatures of the Dominions, nor in a Crown Colony until it has been made effective by the appropriate Constitutional method. My noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore, who has great knowledge of these matters, has been good enough to draw my attention to one or two points in respect of which, as a matter of first impression, I think he is probably right. and one or two Amendments may be required in Committee. I hope, between this stage and the Committee stage, to have the opportunity of discussing his suggestions with my noble and learned friend, and, if necessary, your Lordships will be troubled with them at that stage. I do not think it is necessary to say more. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a small point on this Bill which may possibly be covered by the points which the noble and learned Lord mentioned as having been raised by Lord Phillimore. I do not know what the points are. It did occur to me, on looking at the Bill, whether it has been considered sufficiently—no doubt the Law Officers have considered it—as to whether it effects satisfactorily that which it is desired to effect. The object, I think, is quite clear. It is to give a convenient tribunal, and that is obtained in the Bill by making it the tribunal of that part of the United Kingdom where the marriage takes place. I take it that that is not exclusive necessarily of the tribunal of the matrimonial home, apart from the question of legal domicile—the tribunal where the matrimonial home is situated—and the reason I take that is that the last clause of the Bill states that—
"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the jurisdiction of any Court with respect to matrimonial proceedings, other than that conferred by this Act."
I am not quite sure whether that clause refers to other matrimonial proceedings or to other Courts, but it seems to me that the effect may not be what is desired.
Let me give the noble and learned Lord an example to make clear what I mean. Suppose a New Zealander was married in Ireland while quartered there, and suppose he was removed to England, that his wife has a home in England and that is where

257
he remains for some time, will the proceedings be able to be taken either in Ireland or in England? If so, I think that would be the object desired, but if not I think the Bill would rather inflict a hardship than remedy one. It might not be more convenient to go ither to Ireland or Scotland because that was where the marriage took place and where the matrimonial home is. I think I am right in saying that the law has now been settled so far as this country is concerned—I do not profess to know that of Scotland or Ireland—that proceedings can be taken where the matrimonial home is, even if there is not a legal domicile. This Bill, I take it, would not do away with that right, but I think it would be worth while to consider that point before the Committee stage if it, has not been fully considered.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the object of the Bill is quite sound, but it strikes me as having been not very carefully considered. No doubt, since your Lordships' House and the decision in the case of Casdagli v. Casdagli made it quite clear that the only competent matrimonial Court is the Court of the domicile and since it is recognised that the domicile is that of the man, it would follow—were this Bill or some Bill like it not passed—that if a New Zealander, or Australian, or Canadian had married an English, Irish, or Scottish girl, the proceedings, if they came to a quarrel, would have to be heard by the Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian Court, notwithstanding that both parties were still in England, Scotland, or Ireland.
But the Bill goes a good deal further, I think, than is necessary. Supposing, for instance, that a Canadian or Australian marries an English girl and that they are living happily together, and go back to Canada, where they live for three or four years and then quarrel. Under this Bill, as I read it, it would be open to either of them—probably to the English woman—to come back to this country and institute a suit in this country and bring the Canadian husband back here to meet it. That is not the only part of the mischief. The law preserves the natural tribunal, which is the tribunal of the domicile, and the Canadian husband might counter her action by bringing his suit in the Court in Canada, while she was bringing her suit in the Court in England. As we know, the
258
law about marriage varies very considerably, the law of Canada, for instance, not granting divorce and some of the other countries granting divorce for other causes than those which are effective in England. It is probable that each party would refer the Court of that country which gave him or her the best remedy or the best defence.
There are other illustrations which I could put before your Lordships, and I venture to suggest, for the consideration of those who have the Bill in charge, that the whole object would be met if it was confined to people while they were resident in this kingdom. if the words "or residence" in line 10 on page 1 were struck out, and if after the word "shall" in the same line there were inserted "if the parties are at the time of the institution of the suit resident within the territorial ambit of its jurisdiction," then I think all that is wanted would be accomplished. That is to say—where a Colonial soldier had married an English girl—while they were still here, and had, unfortunately, matrimonial differences, it should be competent to try them in the Court of this country. If they go away to the home of the soldier, then they ought to settle their differences in that country. The Lord Chancellor has been good enough to say that he will take these matters into consideration. As I have said, the Bill seems to be sound in principle but not sufficiently carefully thought out, and no doubt these matters will be remedied in Committee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has pointed out certain difficulties in the way of this measure which I fully appreciate. I rise simply to draw attention to the practical effect of it. I quite recognise the practical consideration which has made this Bill almost a necessity for the time, but what I do not like about it is that it has no time limit. If it had been a Bill for saying that a soldier, for instance an Australian, who had made a war marriage here could find this sort of remedy within a period of, say, twelve months from the passing of the Act, I should not complain. But as the Bill stands the man may live for years, he may have separated from his wife here, and she may begin proceedings here—not in the Court of his domicile—with the result that he may find himself involved in matrimonial litigation in the Courts here which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been quite incompetent. The principle has been

259
accepted throughout the Empire, wherever our divorce laws apply, of the domicile being the criterion, and I think i is a little awkward that for the next half century that principle should be abrogated so far as the cases to which the Bill applies are concerned. It will introduce, I thing, some difficulties in the way of the administration of the law. I quite see the utility of the measure and its fairness, but I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would consider whether the question of a time limit might not be applied to the operation of the Bill so that we may not abrogate a great principle of law which has now become a second part of our jurisprudence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The very helpful and suggestive observations which have been made by your Lordships will certainly receive all the attention which they deserve between the present stage and the Committee stage. The matter is by no means free from difficulty. The question of a time limit was considered, and I am by no means sure that the view for which Lord Haldane has contended to-day is not the better one. It may content your Lordships if I say that between now and the Committee stage I will carefully discuss all the suggestions that have been made, and the difficulties that have been raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prolong period of naval, military, or air force service.
1.—(1) If the competent authority is of opinion that, as respects any men to whom this section applies or any class of such men. they cannot consistently with the public interest he released from actual service at the time when in pursuance of the terms of their service they would be entitled to be discharged, any such man may be retained and his service may be prolonged for such further period, not extending beyond the
260
thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty, as the competent authority may order, but at the expiration of that period, or at any earlier date at which the competent authority considers that he can be released, he shall be discharged with all convenient speed, but in no case later than three months after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty.
(2) The men to whom this section applies are men (not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation) who at the termination of the present war are in actual service in the naval, military, or air forces of His Majesty and whose term of actual service expires at the termination of the present war or before the said thirtieth day of April.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to omit from subsection (2) the words in parentheses—namely, "not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation"
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that when the noble Viscount introduced this Bill last Tuesday he explained that it was in order to retain in the Army men who would otherwise be discharged when the ratifications of the Peace Conference were exchanged, and he pointed out that the Bill would not refer to soldiers of the Regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation. I should like to read what he said—
"The question has been raised why these Regular soldiers should obtain this measure of exemption, while civilians who had been taken from their civilian occupation and have served as long as two or three years with the Colours are retained."
Then he made an eloquent reference to the services rendered by the Regular soldiers, and went on to say—
"I hope your Lordships will feel that they have 'done their bit,' and have earned their release."
I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that members of the Territorial Force had also deserved well of their country, and that those who were serving in the Territorial Force at the outbreak of war should also obtain their release. The noble Viscount, when he answered me, said that "they would be released under the Army Order of January 29." He said—
"It is clear that all those who joined up till 1916 are to be demobilised, and are now being rapidly demobilised under the Army Order; consequently no Amendment is necessary."
That Army Order refers to soldiers of the Regular forces every bit as much as to soldiers of the Territorial Force, and there-for if it is necessary in the one case to exclude soldiers of the Regular Army from the operations of this Bill it is equally neces-

261
sary, if you wish to save the men of the Territorial Force from the operation of the Bill, to exclude them also.
What I propose is that we should leave out the words "not being soldiers of the Regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation," and insert at the end of subsection (2) the words which appear on the Paper. I would like to alter them a little so that the words should run: "Provided that before an Order under this section is made applicable to soldiers," and so on. I should like to emphasise this point. It seems a long time ago, but I remember taking part in a march of the Home Counties Division from the south of Aldershot to Salisbury Plain. We arrived there on the Saturday and Sunday before the outbreak of war—on what is known as "Black Sunday." These men were sent straight back home by train, and when they arrived they found telegrams waiting for them announcing that they had been re-mobilised and had to go to their war stations forthwith. Many of these battalions, amongst them the battalion to which I belonged, were sent out to India early in 1914—in September or October—and they have been there ever since, and are there now The Territorials went to camp expecting to be away for a fortnight. Practically none of them expected an outbreak of war between this country and Germany. They had a few hours at home, and were then sent to their war stations, and afterwards to distant parts of the Empire, without any chance whatever of winding up their own affairs in civil life. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a considerable case of hardship. I therefore suggest that these men of the Territorial Force who joined before the commencement of the war should now be excluded from the operations of this Bill.
I have two further points to make. The Army Order is worded it, this way: if the competent military authority is of opinion, they "are to be demobilised as soon as the exigencies of the service permit." That is a very wide phrase. I know a case, which was brought to my notice only yesterday, of a man serving in France, with over four years service and forty-three years of age, who should be demobilised under the terms of the Army Order—and I have no doubt he will be. But at the present moment the competent authority, in the shape of his commanding officer, informs him that he is required for demobilisation purposes, and
262
cannot go. He is a driver in the motor transport section, and if there is one man who I should have thought was not necessary for demobilisation purposes it would be a driver in the motor transport section. I give that as an illustration of the wide I power which is open to the authorities to retain men in the Army in spite of the general terms of the Army Order.
The other point is this. Your Lordships will see that in my Amendment I speak of men who were in the Army prior to August 4, 1914. The wording, as it appears in the Bill—" serving on a pre-war attestation"—applies, I understand, to any man who joined the Army under the ordinary terms of service—that is to say, either seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve, or any of the ordinary terms of enlistment which were in existence in the Army before the war. Amongst other terms of enlistment that this phrase will cover is the system of enlistment for the Brigade of Guards, which happens to be in many cases three years with the Colours and nine years with the Reserve. Therefore you will get men who joined the Army at the end of 1915 being demobilised under this Bill, but you will get men who joined the Territorial Force before the outbreak of war and have served with the Army since the outbreak of war being held wider this Bill. I suggest, therefore, that perhaps my wording is preferable to that in the Bill. If the noble Viscount opposite is prepared to exclude from the operation of this Bill those who joined the Army at a later date than August 4, 1914, I shall be only too glad to do so. Why I have only made such a small exception to the Bill is because I did not want to see a large number of men excluded from its operation and the authorities having then to come down and say, "It is necessary to have an Order to retain them in the Army." I want the exceptions to the Bill to be few enough for us to make quite certain that those exceptions shall be made effective.
The only argument that I can see against these Amendments—because the two must be really considered together—is that peace may be ratified, say, this summer, and it will not then be possible to get men back from India, because the troop season will not have begun owing to the weather being too hot in the Red Sea and elsewhere. I think that I have covered that point by my Amendment, because where the autho-

263
rities can show that there is reasonable cause they have only to place an Order on the Table of both Houses, and no doubt neither House would object to that Order being made effective. It is most unlikely, particularly in view of the very large amount of work that has been put before us by the Leader of the House, that this House will not be sitting throughout the whole of the summer, and probably well into the autumn. Therefore there can be no difficulty that this House will not be sitting, and that ten days could not be got during which the Order should remain on the Table of the House. I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 to 20, leave out ("not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Before the noble Viscount replies I should like to draw his attention to the very great hardships of this case. I think that there is a great deal in what the noble Earl has said. I know what the difficulties of the War Office must be—they must be very great—in finding troops; but after all, the Regulars enlisted on a professional basis and the Army was their profession. The Territorials did not enlist for service abroad at all. There was an honourable understanding among them—it was very widely spread—that they would agree to go abroad. It was supposed that they might have to extend the Expeditionary Force, and therefore, after that Expeditionary Force was called into action, they were proud to say as an obligation of honour that they would go abroad. But they were not professional soldiers, and the reason why they have gone so far is due to one cause, a very honourable one—their response to Lord Kitchener.
The magnetism of Lord Kitchener's personality was very great, and very early in the war he made an appeal to the Territorials. He did not think that they were fit to go and fight in France straight off, and so he persuaded India and Egypt to give back Regular battalions and batteries and to take Territorial battalions and batteries in their place. It was a great feat of personality to be able to do so much, and I do not think that anybody but Lord Kitchener could have persuaded the
264
Territorial Force to do it. But they did it, and the result was that Territorials went abroad to take the place of Regular battalions which were in India, in Egypt, and various parts of the world. They did this without grumbling and without complaint, but it is obvious that the hardship upon them was very much greater than on the Regulars, whose profession it was to serve in those parts of the world.
But the unfortunate Territorials have had no release. The very reason for which they were selected, which was that they were to take the place of long-service soldiers in these distant places, has magnified the hardships under which they are at the present time. Now that peace is at any rate in sight, the obvious course is to replace Territorial regiments at a distance by Regular units. That may be difficult. I know too much about the difficulties to wish to press the matter to an extreme; still it is the proper course, and I do not think that we ought here to leave out of sight the enormity of the hardship which is inflicted upon the Territorials by keeping them in very distant places, which are wholly outside their legal obligation, for this very prolonged period, and I think therefore that the noble Earl was justified in moving the Amendment if only upon that ground.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should like to say a word to enforce and press upon the noble Viscount the argument which has just fallen from the noble and learned Viscount behind me. I believe, if the noble Viscount should decide to carry this Bill in the form in which it stands at this moment, he will have done the very worst service towards the future recruitment of Territorials that could possibly be performed by any Minister of the Crown. Look at the position as it stands at the present moment. You have several brigades of Territorials moved from England who were serving on a pre-war engagement. They were moved -to India in October and November, 1914. They included battalions from the county to which I belong, which were moved on to Mesopotamia in March and April and May, 1915, and have been, I believe I am right in saying, in one of the most trying climates, if not the most trying, in the world for four years. Others have been on garrison duty in the plains of India for a similar period. Most of these men left England four and a half

265
years ago. To say, "I am unable to bring you away because I have not the transport," is an argument which every one must listen to with respect. But to say to them what you virtually do say in the terms of this Bill is to inflict upon them a great hardship.
At this moment I could tell the noble Viscount of a particular regiment which, having been out for the whole of this period, was due to come home, and was at Basra awaiting shipment, and nearly 300 men were taken out of that regiment at almost the last moment and put into another regiment which has not been so long in Mesopotamia and will have to remain there. Of course, the feelings of these men are most acute. I will not suggest that it is a breach of faith by the Government, nor do I suggest that the Government have ignored in any way their liabilities to these men. What I do say is that it ought not to be at the option of the Government to decide whether these men should be transferred from one regiment to another and kept there, without making an absolute case before Parliament for doing so. I appeal to the noble Viscount to give these men the same rights as the Regular Army, and I think we may assure him that Parliament will listen with the greatest regard to any changes, by Order in Council or otherwise, which may be necessary in order to enable the public service to be carried on.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I should like to acid my support to the proposal made by the noble Earl. At the beginning of the war, I was serving with the Wessex Territorial Division. In October they sent out a complete division to India, and in December we were again asked to send out a division. The brigadiers and commanding officers were sent for to London and received a message from Lord Kitchener asking if they would send out another division, and undertook to do so. These men, except those who have been transferred from India to Mesopotamia and Palestine, have been out ever since. At the time I remember very well it was distinctly stated that they would be brought home at the first opportunity. They have done their duty well, and I think they have a claim to the consideration of the country. And I think we must consider their relations and families at home as well, who have been deprived of them for all that time and are most anxious
266
to see them back. There are numbers of people in the West country who have had to do without their relations all that time, and while I know that these men are perfectly willing to do all they can for their country if the necessities of the country demand it, I think they do expect, after what they have done, that the Government will take the first opportunity to extend to them the consideration which is offered by the Amendment of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT PEEL: From many quarters of the House and from those most competent to speak on behalf of the Territorial Force very strong appeals have come to me, as representing the War Office in this matter, to do what is possible for the Territorials, I think the discussion has mainly turned on the question of the Territorials in India.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And Mesopotamia.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I used the word "India" because there has been a good deal of interchange between Mesopotamia and India, and I think there are no Territorials who have had the full term in Mesopotamia, apart from India. But the two cases are really very largely parallel. I expressed a very strong opinion and made a strong statement on behalf of the Army Council the other day when this question was raised by my noble friend Lord Harris, that the Army Council fully recognised the unfortunate fact that the Territorials had had to be kept for so long a period in India. It recognised their great patriotism in coming forward so early in the war, and the great services rendered by them to the country by allowing the Regular soldiers to be set free from those garrisons, thereby strengthening our Army in France and other parts of the world.
The Army Council has the very greatest sympathy with the general view that has been expressed by noble Lords this evening. But we are not dealing now with this general question but with a specific Amendment. I will deal with the details in a moment, but at present I make this statement, that, if this Amendment were

267
passed, not one single Territorial more would be brought back to this country than would be brought hack without it. It can have no effect whatever on the Territorials in India or in Mesopotamia, because these Territorials are not kept there because they are being treated less well than Regulars. They are all, under the administrative order, freed for demobilisation. The Army Council wants to demobilise them, and there is only one reason why they cannot be demobilised, and that is that during the hot weather it is impossible to bring these troops home, and before the hot weather there was no Army which could take their place. Therefore if this Amendment were passed (quite apart from the difficulties) it would be completely inoperative and would do no good whatever to the Territorials.
Let me deal with the specific proposal of my noble friend, and then, if necessary, I can return to the general point that I have now made. My noble friend first suggested that I have been guilty of some inconsistency. That is a matter of complete unimportance, but I think I ought to justify what I said, because there is no inconsistency in what I did say. My noble friend is making a confusion between two classes of men. In the opening statement I made I was comparing the case of the Regular soldier with the case of the man who was called up since 1916, and I was arguing whether or not there was possibly a case for retaining the Regular as against the post-1916 man. The subsequent statement quoted by my noble friend was made with regard to the pre-1916 man, who is in a totally different category, and whom the Army Council is doing its best to demobilise as fast as possible.
I think I ought to say also that Army Order 55 does not deal with the Regular soldiers, because they are on a special active station, and it does not affect them. What does my noble friend want to do? First of all, the Regulars are exempted from the provisions of the. Bill. The Army Council does not want to retain those Regulars. There is a good deal of criticism on the size of the Army which is retained, hut my noble friend wants to put those Regulars into the Bill. He wants deliberately to put back under the operation of this Bill the men whom the Army Council and the Government have decided are not wanted, who can be allowed to go to the Reserve in order to build up a
268
Reserve for the people. He is trying to establish some sort of parity or disparity between the Territorials and the Regulars, as if there were some kind of unfairness of treatment as between the two. All the difference that there is is due merely to the fact that the engagements are different, that the one is for seven and five years and the other is for four years.
How would this be applied to the Regulars I take those who enlisted in different years. Those who enlisted in 1913 would clearly not be affected, because their regular period for serving would not have elapsed during the currency of this Bill. Therefore we are driven back really to the 1911 men, because, of course, my noble friend knows well that, quite apart front this Act, it is possible to retain these men for the other year—the eighth year. And therefore, before you reach a class which will be affected by the changes which my noble friend suggests you have to go back to men who enlisted as far back as 1911.
EARL STANHOPE: It is only true of the men who enlisted for seven or nine years service.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is broadly true that you have to go back to the men who enlisted as far aback as 1911, and who exhypothesi have been right through the war. The application therefore of the Amendment, even if it put We Regulars back in the Bill, would have very little effect; and, again, would not apply to those who enlisted at, such a period that their time of service did not elapse until subsequent to the date of this Bill. It is not that my noble friend is anxious to bring these Regulars back into the Bill but that he really wants to deal with the Territorials. I think I am right in saying that is his object. What then would be the effect? The noble Earl's Amendment is to provide that before an Order is made applicable to soldiers of the Regular or Territorial Forces, the draft shall be laid upon the Table of Parliament for fourteen days before it has any application. As I have said, under an administrative Order all these men are demobilisable—that is to say, those whom my noble friend wishes to affect. Everybody who enlisted before 1914, and, indeed, even those who enlisted during 1914 and 1915, the Army Council is trying to demobilise as fast as possible; and the only reason why they are not being

269
brought back home is because it is impossible to bring them back.
My noble friend suggests that the draft Order should lay upon the Table of Parliament before any period is fixed for which the men should be retained. It is clear that the draft could not be laid after the peace because it would have no effect until fourteen Parliamentary days had elapsed. That means more than a month—if we are sitting only three days a week in this House—whatever may be the necessities, whatever may be the military situation at the time. If it is done, of course, after the peace is signed it would be too late. You will have to make the Order at once; because as the peace might come within three or four weeks it would be necessary immediately the Bill is passed at once to make the Order retaining these troops. But that is clone by the Act. As there would be no discipline amongst the troops concerned if the Amendment is carried it is incredible that your Lordships should agree to it. There is a further danger. Supposing this Order were made to con tinge for three or four months. The Orders must be made when Parliament is sitting. Your Lordships are not sitting as a rule in August and September; therefore what the Amendment contemplates is that Parliament should be called together for the sole purpose of agreeing to or disagreeing with an Order about Territorials which would have no effect whatever, because what is required could be done very easily under the Bill.
Great as is the sympathy everyone must feel with the Territorials, I strongly urge your Lordships not to press an Amendment of this kind. I should like to repeat what I have already stated about the Territorials and what has been stated also by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War—namely, that the. Army Council regard it as an absolute duty at the first opportunity to remove these Territorials from India and to replace them with men of the New Army. When the hot weather comes to an end those Territorials will be withdrawn at the first opportunity from India and Mesopotamia. Does not that entirely cover their case? If you want to put in an Order of this kind which is to be done administratively you will have to fill up your Bill with administrative Orders. Take the Army Order under which these men are demobilised—men over thirty
270
seven, men with so many wound stripes, and so on, this is done not under an Act of Parliament but, under Orders issued by the Arm Council; and if you are going to make a selection in favour of one particular administration Order you will have to put the whole of them into the Act of Parliament. I urge your Lordships not to do such a thing, or to cumber the Bill with an unnecessary Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not received this Amendment more favourably. I think he is quite wrong. He did not seem, to appreciate the real spirit in which this Amendment has been moved. Upon the face of the drafting of this Amendment there is a distinction drawn between the Regular Forces and the Territorials. I am sure that my noble friend must admit that that is very offensive to the Territorials. With his customary courtesy and feeling for the susceptibilities of the Territorials he has said a great deal to show what view the Government take; but upon its face it is not right that there should be this distinction drawn between the treatment of the Regular Army and the treatment of Territorials.
It is not merely that it requires a great deal of explanation to show that they should be differently treated in the Bill, but because it will be profoundly misunderstood by the Territorial Forces them-selves. That is one of the points which the noble Viscount does not seem to have taken account of at all. The particular Territorials of whom we are thinking have been placed in a position of very great hardship indeed—such hardship as was testified to in your Lordships' House on a recent occasion, at which time the Government expressed every kind of sympathy with them. But when it comes to action apart from words, when we come to the actual drafting of a Bill, the first thing the Territorials find is that, so far from there being any sympathy with them, they are going to be treated expressly in a harsher way than the Regular Forces. I want the Government to realise the impression that produces.
On the Second Reading the noble Viscount said that, after all, the Regulars contemplated in this clause—the pre-war Regular Army—had gone through the terrible fighting of the early part of the war. Yes they did, and all honour to

271
them; but the Territorials also took part in the early fighting—a Territorial battalion of my own county was in the fighting in France in the early days—and besides that you have to consider the difference of the conditions under which they enlisted. That point was very strongly put by my noble friend who moved the Amendment. The noble Viscount seems to think that there really is on the face of it no greater hardship in a Territorial enlisted before the war having to go on serving, than there is in the case of a Regular soldier.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I never contended that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, he did not, but the contention of my noble friend who moved the Amendment was that it is the business of the Regular soldier to fight, and the fact that he has to go on longer is relatively less a hardship. The Territorial is a civilian primarily, driven on by a great patriotism, and he stands in a position to be released rather sooner than later as compared with the regular soldier, and therefore I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not accept the Amendment. Let me deal with his argument. He said, "Your Amendment will have no effect because we have issued an Army Order, and it is the intention of the Army Council…" He seems to think that an expression of intention on the part of the Government has the same effect as an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said an Army Order had been issued.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An Army Order can be altered at any moment by the Secretary of State and the Army Council. An Act of Parliament depends for its sanction upon the assent of both Houses of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: An Act of Parliament cannot bring a man back from India in the hot weather.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am going to deal with that in a moment. The noble Viscount seems to think there is no distinction between an Act of Parliament and an intention of the Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I never said so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said he seemed to think so. If I had wanted to say that he said a thing I should say so. There is every distinction in the world. He thinks an engagement on the part of the Government is quite certain to be fulfilled. Is he quite sure? Have all the engagements of the Government always been fulfilled? Have they never changed their minds? Why, my Lords, it is not that we bring any charge of breach of faith on the part of the Government, but they are always being put in circumstances of difficulty, and then pressure is put upon them, all sorts of representations are made to them by military officers, and they give way. It is a different thing with an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament cannot be varied except by the consent of both Houses. Then you have something like security, and the thing is entirely different. Therefore I do not think I can accept at all his answer to my noble friend's argument—namely, that the Army Council have expressed a wish, and put it into an Army Order, that these Territorials shall be demobilised as soon as possible.
Then my noble friend says that they cannot be demobilised during the hot weather. There is going to be no ratification of the Treaty of Peace before the hot weather, and therefore we need not trouble about the hot weather. He said that peace might come with something like the rapidity of a thunderstorm. Peace does not seem to me to be moving with the rapidity of a thunderstorm. After the signature of peace there will, of course, be a very long interval between that and ratification, and the end of the war does not come till ratification. If after peace is signed it appears that the ratification is likely to take place before the end of the hot weather, then he will be in a position to lay an Order before both Houses, as is provided in the Amendment. It is perfectly simple. He will be able to say: "Peace is signed, it is clear the ratification will take place, and I do not know when the hot weather will end, and therefore we must have a little time and we will lay the Order before both Houses." If, on the other hand, there is no such chance and ratification is going to be after the hot weather then he will have no excuse for keeping these troops in India, and he does not want this clause, and there is no reason why he should not accept at once that the moment the cool weather comes, these men should come home like Regulars.

273
Therefore if the ratification is going to take place later there will be no difficulty whatever. If it takes place when Parliament is not sitting it will be in the cold weather, and the troops ought to come home, in all the spirit of equity. Therefore I think it is only fair that the. Amendment should be accepted. I do not mean to say that a little modification of dates may be necessary. My noble friend (Viscount Peel) made a great deal of play about that, but if he wants to alter the number of clays let him say so. But taking the Amendment broadly as it stands it seems fair, and I see no reason why your Lordships should not assent to it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are only two points to which I think it necessary to give an answer. I do not know what I seemed to suggest at all, but of course I never intended to, and I rather doubt if I did, suggest that an Act of Parliament is on the same basis as an Army Order. I was saying that an Act of Parliament could not do impossibilities, and that it was no
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The proposed proviso, I take it, is consequential?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, after subsection (2) insert:
"Provided that, before an order under this section is made applicable to soldiers of the
use putting into an Act of Parliament, provisions which would be entirely inoperative, and that therefore it was much better to deal with the Army Order as it stood. Of course, if my noble friend's rather gloomy anticipation is true, and there is to be no ratification of the peace treaty till after the hot weather, then of course I agree that so far as the Territorials in India are concerned, not only the Amendment but this Bill will be unnecessary, because of course until such ratification these troops are kept under the Compulsory Service Acts, and this Bill only comes into operation at the ratification. Therefore if the hypothesis on which he rested his argument be true, then neither the Amendment nor the Bill is necessary and these men will be brought back before this Bill comes into effect or becomes an Act of Parliament.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 27; Not-Contents,32.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Grimthorpe, L.

Peel, V.

Hylton, L.

Argyll, D.

Lawrence, L,

Annesley, L.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rothschild, L.

Eldon, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Howe, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Jersey, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

Russell, E.

Gisborough, L.

Wigan, L.(E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Strafford, E.

Denman, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Erskine, L.[Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Harris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Finlay, V.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M.

Haldane, V.

Ludlow, L.

Harcourt, V.

Manners, L.

Brassey, E.

Hardinge, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Harewood, E.

Knollys, V.

Roe, L.

Lindsey, E.

St. Levan, L.

Onslow, E.

Balfour, L.

Sydenham, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Wynford, L.

regular or territorial forces of the Crown who had enlisted prior to the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days, during which that House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those fourteen days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft order."—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Continuation of certain provisions relating to terms of service.
2.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, a soldier who in pursuance of that section has been transferred from one corps to another shall not until the said thirtieth day of April be entitled to be retransferred to the corps in which he was serving at the time when he was so transferred.
(2) Sections fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, the constitution of corps of that force, and the liability of officers and men of that force to serve outside the United Kingdom, shall continue in force until the said thirtieth day of April.
The Army (Suspension of Sentences) Acts, 1915 and 1916, both as originally enacted and as applied to the Air Force, shall, from the passing of this Act and until the said thirtieth day of April, apply to soldiers and airmen whether employed on active service or not, and whether employed beyond the seas or not, and shall have effect as if references to imprisonment and prison included references to detention and detention barracks.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, at the end of subsection (1), the insertion of the following proviso: "Provided that, where a soldier's retransfer is delayed under this section, he shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he is in receipt."
The noble Earl said: This is a small point. Under the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, power is taken to transfer a man from one corps to another, and when he is transferred from a corps which is more highly paid to one which receives lower pay, his higher pay is retained by him. But in the Army (Transfer) Act there are the words "where, for the purposes of the present war," a man is transferred, and so on. The Act gives the power of transfer and it gives the soldier the pay which he received in a more highly paid corps. This Bill enables a man to be retained in the corps to which he has been transferred and prevents him from being retransferred to the corps which he originally joined. It is not quite clear whether the man might not have time higher pay taken away from him under the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, owing to the words "where, for the purposes of the present war." Therefore, I propose in my Amendment to make the case clear and to say that, where the soldier's retransfer is delayed by this Bill, he shall not be deprived of his higher pay. I am sure your Lordships will agree with
276
this Amendment. I think it might be necessary. In any case it merely makes assurance doubly sure, and those who have to deal with the financial Regulations of the War Office are only too anxious to get those Regulations made, safe.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after ("transferred") insert ("Provided that, where a soldier's re-transfer is delayed under this section, he shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he is in receipt").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has raised a point as to the pay of the soldier on retransfer—that is to say, that he should retain on retransfer the higher pay or emoluments, or whatever it was, which he received when in his original corps. He suggests that there is some doubt whether the soldier, if he is retained and not re-transferred as the result of this measure, may still receive his higher emolument.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have been advised on this point, and I am advised that it will have no affect—I mean that the fact of a man being still transferred will not affect his position and that he will still net his emoluments. If that were not so it would be, I think, beyond the competence of this House, because it would be proposing that the man should get a higher emolument than that to which he was otherwise entitled, and it would constitute a breach of the privileges of another place. But I am told that is not so and I do not think the Amendment is necessary. I have very grave doubts as to whether it is in order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If my noble friend says it is not necessary, that is quite sufficient, and I hope my noble friend will not press it. But if the noble Viscount says it is out of order I venture to say, with great respect, that it would be wiser if members of the Government would use language which is more apt. It is not out of order, even if it is a breach of privilege. It may be unconstitutional, but that is a totally different thing. It is not out of order for your Lordships to break any privileges of the House of Commons, although I hope your Lordships will not do it. The question of privilege, so far as your Lordships are concerned, ought to be closely

277
scrutinised. It is not right that we should admit they are breaches of privilege which are only inferentially so. When we lay a direct charge on the taxpayer, that, no doubt, is a breach of privilege, and one which your Lordships never desire to commit But where in vindicating a general principle of justice an increased charge falls upon the taxpayer it is always a question of doubt whether it is a breach of privilege or not, and the noble Viscount knows very well that the House of Commons have power to waive their privileges. I hope they will waive their privileges on suitable occasions. As your Lordships know, there is a recent occasion when they would have done far better to have waived their privilege. The only result of what they did was to injure their own Bill. I only say this because I think it would be a great mistake if it became known in your Lordships' House that passing Amendments of this kind is in any degree out of order, and even if it were a breach of privilege it follows that the House of Commons would not agree to them. If my noble friend says the Amendment is unnecessary, that is quite sufficient.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should be extremely glad, after the advice of the noble Marquess, to substitute the word "unconstitutional," for "out of order."
EARL STANHOPE: If the noble Viscount says the Amendment is not necessary, I do not wish to press it. I wanted to be quite certain on the point, because I have suffered more than once by thinking things were right as to the financial regulations of the Army, which, after all, was not the case.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have taken the best advice open to me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), after the words "territorial force," to insert, "within the corps to which they belong." The noble Earl said: This Amendment opens up the question of transfers. Under the Army Transfer Act power has been taken to transfer men from one corps to another, and in this particular case there is a reference to the Military Service Act; of 1916 in regard to the Territorial Force, What I propose by my Amendment is that men in the Territorial Force may be transferred to any battalion
278
in the same regiment, but that power should not be kept to transfer men from one regiment to another. For instance, a man might be in the Hampshire Territorial battalion; under my Amendment the War Office would be able to transfer him to the Hampshire Regular battalion, but they would not be able to transfer him to the Sussex regiment, or to the King's Liverpool.
I said nearly everything that is necessary to be said on this question on the Second Reading of the Bill. The point really is that the unpopularity of transfers in the Army is very considerable and cannot be overrated. I am convinced that nothing is a greater block to satisfactory voluntary recruiting than the power to transfer a man from the unit he chooses to enter. That operates throughout the whole Army, and I am quite certain the feeling against it is very strong. I know that the authorities at the War Office are anxious to retain the power to transfer men from one regiment to another. It is much simpler, of course, to have a perfectly "fluid" Army, and when one regiment gets below establishment to build up from men who belong to an entirely different part of the Army. It is rather the system on which a certain number of country clergymen manage their parish accounts. It is not business-like nor satisfactory, and it certainly is not satisfactory from the Army man's point of view. I hope your Lordships will agree to this and the following Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Which is the following Amendment?
EARL STANHOPE: The new subsection (3).
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are totally different subjects, and I hope the noble Earl will not take them together.
EARL STANHOPE: Certainly, I will keep them separate. This Amendment merely points out that a man in the Territorials should only be transferred within his own regiment, and not transferred to anything outside. If you really want to keep comradship and good feeling, and maintain the spirit of the battalion and the spirit of the county regiments, you must put a stop to the transfers which at present you wish to legalise under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after ("force") insert ("within the corps to which they belong").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: No one will contest, I think, the general statement of my noble friend, that transfers are unpopular, more especially from one corps to another, and particularly from arm to arm. He knows quite well that during the war this necessity did arise, and that it was absolutely essential to build up certain units from other corps and from other arms. We are not, however, dealing with that general question. The other Amendment of the noble Earl comes later, and I do not want these subjects, which stand on rather a different footing, to be treated together.
I understand quite clearly the point of my noble friend, but I really am unable to understand his Amendment. He proposes to insert, after the word "force," the words "within the corps to which they belong." The Amendment would not have the effect he desires. Let me read the subsection—
"Sections fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen of the Military Service Act, 1916, which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, the constitution of the corps of that force,… shall continue in force until the said thirtieth day of April."
The words, therefore, are merely reciting what is in that Act; merely saying that they "shall continue in force until the said 30th day of April." My noble friend would say: "Sections 14, 15, and 16… which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, within the corps to which they belong…" The only effect of the Amendment is to make a misstatement about what is said in Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Military Service Act. This Amendment would really have no effect except to insert a recitation in an Act of Parliament which is a false recitation, and which mis-describes what is stated in a previous Act.
EARL STANHOPE: Surely that is not the case. The point of my Amendment is this. Parts of Sections 14, 15, and 16 which relate to the subjects appearing in Clause 2, will be retained until April 30; but other subjects, which are not referred to, will not be retained until April 30. Why I put in this particular Amendment is that you will be allowed, under this Amendment, to transfer men in the Territorial Force within the corps to which they belong.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid that would not have the effect my noble friend thinks, because I do not believe that he can bisect in that particular way a particular section. This subsection only really recited Sections 14, 15, and 16, and says that they shall continue in force until April 30. I am afraid that what he suggests would not be valid.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that the noble Viscount has pointed out a fault in the drafting, but that could be amended if we knew what the Government's opinion was on the substance. As far as drafting is concerned, I think that it would read all right if after the words "so far as they relate to officers and men of the Territorial Force," there came the words of my noble friend. If we knew the Government's opinion on the substance there would be, no difficulty in regard to drafting. It is the word "which" that makes it wrong. The question really is the substance, and to that matter the noble Viscount did not reply.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should be glad to reply on that point, though it is a little difficult to do so on this specific matter, because, though connected with the other, it is separate. Let me put it in this way. The fact that demobilisation has taken place not by units, as my noble friend knows, but by men who have seemed to come under specific categories, makes it very difficult. Men have been withdrawn not because they belonged to any particular unit, but because they belonged to some industrial category. It is obvious that you have to fill up the broken gaps that are left in the different units.
But the case is even more difficult when you come to demobilisation under the Service system. Then you withdraw from all these units the men who were serving before 1916. Men are drawn from these particular units according to length of service, and therefore in the reconstitution of the Army of Occupation it is absolutely essential to have this power of transfer. It would be wholly uneconomical if you did not have it. If you did not have it, you would have certain units with perhaps only thirty or forty men. That would be an impossible way of conducting your military business.
It is even worse than that, because some arms of the service are so depleted that they would not have a sufficient estab-

281
lishment to carry on the work for the rest of the Army. Therefore we must transfer very often men from the Infantry to the Army Service Corps or the Medical Corps in order to produce some balance between the different arms. On the general principle, therefore, I am afraid the Government are averse to the suggestion of my noble friend, because it would involve very great difficulties in the reorganisation of the Army. I suppose that it is no good my saying that the Army Council do no desire to do this further than is necessary, because I should then be told by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that this is a statement which can be altered the next day and is of very little value. Therefore I abstain from making it, though it is actually the fact.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am in great sympathy with the object that my noble friend opposite has in view. I can bear witness to the feeling that there is in regard to these transfers. I recall at this moment one case of the transfer of 300 or more men from a county regiment with which I had some connection to an Irish battalion. That caused an immense amount of feeling not only amongst the men transferred. Nevertheless, I cannot close my eyes to the fact that there is a very great danger in tying the hands of the military authorities too tightly. On the particular occasion to which I have referred I expostulated with the late Lord Kitchener, and I remember his argument very well. He said, "I entirely sympathise with you, but I have to beat the Germans, and that must come before everything else." That is an argument difficult to resist. I myself should be inclined to be content with an assurance which I am sure the noble Viscount will give, that this power of transfer will be exercised as fairly as possible, and only when the urgent necessity of the case justifies it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite prepared to give that assurance.
EARL STANHOPE: I suggest that the noble Viscount might go a little further. I fully appreciate what he has said as to the difficulty in the reorganisation of the Rhine Army, and the Armies elsewhere. But I suggest that we should have some definite limit in regard to how long these transfers should go on. After all, de-
282
mobilisation on a general scale will shortly come to an end, and we should then be able to reorganise our Army on a proper Territorial or county basis, whichever you prefer to describe it. Then these transfers should cease.
The difficulty has been throughout the whole war that once the Army Transfer Act came into operation it has been the first thing that was used and not the last. I have in mind a case at this moment in which a brigade had very serious casualties and a very large draft of men was sent up to it. There were four battalions in the brigade, and it happened that the reinforcements consisted mostly of four regiments, and they were told they should go so many to this regiment and so many to that. What actually happened was this. I do not remember the name of the regiments, but it worked out something like this: 200 men say of the Gordon Highlanders were sent up to join a battalion of the Suffolk Regiment, and 200 men of the Suffolk Regiment were sent up to join a battalion of the Gordon Highlanders. The Brigadier, being a very strong supporter of the regimental system of esprit de corps, quite rightly kept the men in their own regiments. The Gordon Highlanders went to the Gordon Highlanders, and the Suffolk men went to the Suffolks. But that is what was happening over and over again. I suggest that any esprit de corps under these conditions is really almost impossible.
If you go to a man in hospital or any-where else and ask him what regiment he belongs to he will say, "I belong to so-and-so." But you say, "It is not the badge of that regiment you are wearing." "Oh," he will say, "I was transferred somewhere else." But he will al ways claim to belong to the regiment to which he was first attached. That is a curious coincidence, and it is one which I cannot explain. Men were not long at their depots yet they got there enough esprit de corps to make them feel that they had a sort of connection with the regiment to which they were first attached, and that connection was one which they personally retained throughout the whole war. In many ways I am not very strong about this Amendment. Like the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, I am a supporter of compulsory service. This deals with voluntary enlistment, and I am quite sure that if you do not stop these transfers at an early date you can whistle for your volunteers, because they simply

283
will not come. I suggest to the noble Viscount opposite that perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, even if he cannot accept this and the next Amendment, he should accept some Amendment laying down a definite date at which transfer from one corps to another should come to an end.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, after what has been said, that probably enough has been put before your Lordships to impress the Government with the very strong feeling which exists in the House against these transfers. All of us who have served at all know how very unpopular they are. The Government, I know, are fully alive to the fact that we shall have to rely very shortly no longer upon a compulsory system but upon a voluntary system. The success of that voluntary system largely turns upon the attitude which the military authorities take during these last few months. If the military authorities show themselves sympathetic to the susceptibilities of the soldiers and the Territorials then they may get their volunteers, but, if an impression gets abroad that they are likely to treat them without regard to their feelings, then they will not get them, or not so many of them. Therefore, it is very important in the interests of the country that a sympathetic attitude should be adopted, and these transfers are profoundly unpopular.
I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that it would make it difficult for the Government at the present moment to prevent any sort of adjustment which he suggested might be necessary. What he said about the difficulties of demobilisation seems to me quite true. And therefore I am glad to think that my noble friend is not going to press the Amendment for the moment, but it would be a good thing before the Bill passes into law to tell us whether they think that these transfers will come to an end as soon as demobilisation is over, and whether they can assure the country that there will not be any more transfers and that they will go back to the old system under which a man enlists in a particular corps and remains in that corps. If some such assurance could be given before your Lordships part with the Bill I think it would probably do some good.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is no doubt that the Army Council thoroughly appre
284
ciates the unpopularity of transfers. But, as my noble friend Lord Stanhope knows, it is rather difficult to fix a specific date. Demobilisation goes on, and these regiments are telescoped together and reformed, and I suggest to him that it might be rather unwise to tie the hands of the Army authorities by giving them a fixed date after which no more transfers could be made. It might militate against the redistribution of men. I take the case of the Army Service Corps: there happens at the present moment to be a shortage of men there. It might be rather difficult if there were a specific date.
As regards the desire of the Army Council to preserve the regimental and territorial systems, which are connected together, perhaps I might refer again to a point which I mentioned in my opening statement, that these ten divisions which form the Army of Occupation on the Rhine have been organised after really great effort on the territorial basis, so far at least as the infantry is concerned. The noble Marquess understands the great difficulty of organising the more technical arms on the territorial basis. But that is a valid proof in fact of the great anxiety which the Army Council have to preserve the regimental and territorial system.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I ask a question which I put to the noble Viscount when he moved the Second Reading—namely, whether the impressment of carriages also covered the case of motor-cars and motor-tractors. I am quite convinced that we shall require both in the Army in the future, and therefore it is necessary that whenever carriages and horses are referred to motor-cars and tractors should equally be included. I should like to mention to your Lordships that this Army (Annual) Bill contains

285
some extremely important clauses on this occasion
The noble Viscount in moving the Second Reading, I think quite rightly, confined himself to formally moving, because the House was a very empty one, and I am afraid was getting tired. But there are some extremely important clauses in the Bill, and I am quite convinced that perhaps not more than half a dozen of your Lordships have the least idea what they are. For instance, there is a clause which enables officers to be dealt with summarily, and a General Officer is now entitled to punish an officer by forfeiture of seniority or with a severe reprimand. Personally, I think it is a very good alteration, but it is an extremely important one, and I think it is one which the House should know. Then there is another clause which is more open to doubt, dealing with the question of unauthorised decorations. Any one who wears an unauthorised decoration is liable to a fine of £20, or to three months' imprisonment. But the clause also provides that any one who, without lawful authority or excuse, supplies or offers to supply such decorations to an individual who is not authorised to wear them, shall also be punishable. In other words, if an individual goes into a shop and asks for a medal or a chevron or anything of that kind and the shopkeeper sells him that particular thing, and the man is not entitled to wear it, the shopkeeper is liable to be fined or imprisoned. Of course that raises rather a big point, and I am very doubtful whether it is a sound or right one. I think that the penalty should be on the man who wears rather than on the man who sells. Under this Bill it is proposed to place it on both.
I think I have mentioned all that is of great importance, but I suggest to the Government that a Bill like this, which has to become law by April 30, should be introduced into this House at au earlier date than the middle of that same month, particularly when we are going into recess almost immediately afterwards. I think it is unfair on your Lordships. The very last thing we should wish to do would be to hold up any Bill of this character, but it might be necessary to move Amendments to a Bill of this kind, and then we should be in a very awkward predicament indeed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I daresay my noble friend will not expect me to reply to the question as to when the Bill is to be brought
286
into this House, because he knows that that is rather beyond my scope. There was a question which my noble friend raised. I think on Tuesday, and which he has raised again to-day, the question of the registration of motor cars, and I should like to reply upon that, because I have had some opportunity of looking into it.
Motor cars and tractors are liable to be impressed under Section 115 of the Army Act, and that is the procedure which has taken place during the war. Before the war a list of load-carrying vehicles was kept by the inspectors of subsidised transport appointed in various areas in the United Kingdom. At the present time there is no census of cars or tractors kept by the War Office; but in the event of rapid mobilisation which might require the impressment of a large number of cars and tractors recourse would be had to the Police registers which provide an accurate account of every car and its ownership. In view of the enormously increased supplies of mechanical transport available for the Army it is hardly likely that any extensive impressment or requisitioning would be necessary. I think the very large number of cars and tractors in the possession of the Army was brought before your Lordships' notice when the Cippenham question was debated a short time ago. My noble friend will see that anyhow in the present year there is no real necessity for adopting the very interesting suggestion he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not suppose that my noble friend intends to trouble your Lordships by moving Amendments in Committee as he did not foreshadow such a course; therefore it would have been easier if the noble Viscount had replied on the other substantial points made by the noble Earl. Lord Stanhope made two other points. The first was as regards summary jurisdiction in the case of officers. I myself entirely approve of that change in the law. It appears to be an appropriate one. As a matter of fact, something of the kind already exists, and it is really only extending a power used by General Officers now. The other point was with regard to the liability of the seller of ribbons. That is a more difficult point, and perhaps the noble Viscount, by leave of the House, will tell us why the seller is made liable. The sooner, of course, the wearer of a ribbon to

287
which he is not entitled is punished the better.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The reason I did not reply to the points of my noble friend was that I understood him to express his full approbation with regard to them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Viscount misunderstood my noble friend with regard to the seller of ribbons.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The necessity for that is the outcome of the curious situation that has now arisen. One of the duties cast upon the Army Council is that of deciding to whom all these medals clasps and ribbons shall apply; who shall obtain them; who fought in this or that battle; and who came within a certain area of operations at a particular time. That is a task of enormous complexity. I have no figures in my head at the moment because I did not know that this point would arise, but I should be afraid to say the number of factories engaged on the manufacture of the millions of yards of ribbon required for the large Forces concerned. Whether the quantity of ribbon goes once or twice round the earth I should not like to say at the moment. Cases have arisen already where shopkeepers have been selling portions of ribbon which have not yet been authorised by the Army Council. I believe they were soiled bits of ribbon cast aside until the correct article was produced, and the people have declared that they were put there for ornament and not for the purposes of sale. It is obvious that there must be some control of the authorisation of these ribbons. The ribbons are widely spread enough already, and it is suggested that their value is decreased by a large distribution; therefore if the whole of the population is open to buy them from any shop I am afraid the value of the ribbons would be still further watered down. I think the noble Marquess will see that there is some necessity for this provision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

SUMMER PRICE OF MILK.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government if any decision has been arrived at as to the price, wholesale and retail, for the sale of milk for the summer months, commencing on 1st May.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question on the Paper of your Lordships' House for one day last week. At the request of the Ministry of Food I postponed it until to-day, but I was again requested at a late hour yesterday afternoon, to postpone it until next week. In these circumstances I do not propose to press the Question this afternoon but to put it down for next Tuesday.
I would like, however, to enter as strong a protest as I can against the delay occasioned by the Ministry of Food in not announcing milk prices. Such a course upsets all markets and all kinds of trade in milk and milk products, besides the trade in cows and other cattle. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Food will say that they have appointed a Commission, and that, owing to the time that body has taken in getting evidence and coming to a conclusion, they have not been able to decide the prices. That is no excuse at all. The Commission ought to have been appointed two months earlier than it was. We shall also be told no doubt that it is possibly the fault of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture; but as the Ministry of Food are always trying to put the blame on the Board I am sure that argument will carry no weight here, and I trust that the Ministry of Food will really not attempt to use that argument.
I have a very shrewd suspicion that something, about which we do not know, lies behind this. I am very suspicious of the delay in announcing prices, and I think that when your Lordships' House meets again we shall have to try to extract a little more information from the Ministry of Food as to why this delay has taken place.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords. I have been asked by the Ministry of Food to answer this Question. The noble Lord has correctly stated that the first postponement of it was due to the fact that a travelling commission on milk had been appointed in January, and that it had not at the time reported. The second postponement is due practically to the same cause. That commission met for the first time, I believe, on January 16. It held twenty meetings in different parts of the country and it sent in its report on April 8. Under the system which the Food Controller adopts the question of fixing the minimum price has to be submitted to a Committee. Their recommendations go to a Consumers' Council, and then I believe as a rule they are referred to an Agricultural Advisory Committee. That takes time, and as the Report was only received on April 8, and as the Minister of Food and his officials have hardly yet had time to make up their minds upon the recommendations made by that Committee, this second postponement is asked for and the Minister of Food desires me to say that he hopes to be able to announce a decision on Tuesday next.
The question is one of very considerable complexity. It involves fixing a maximum price in the first place, it involves a question whether that price should be graded to meet the different periods of the year for which it is effective, and also questions whether there should be differential rates according to the localities, whether if those differential rates are adopted there exists the machinery to make them effective, or whether that machinery can be improvised. There is the still further and in my opinion the most important question of all, whether there should be in addition to a maximum price a parity price fixed for cheese. Therefore it is no easy problem, and I have only to give the official explanation of the delay.

FOREIGN HOPS.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE VISCOUNT HARDINGE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture—
1. How many consignments of foreign hops, and of how many hundredweights each consignment consisted, have been stopped at British ports since the prohibition of the im-
290
portation of foreign hops, and have been put into bond under Government direction. Who were the consignors and who were the consignees of each such consignment. Have any consignments arrived recently, and, if so, to whom they were consigned and have they been landed. If they have been landed, where are they now stored, and subject to what conditions.
2. If any foreign hops have lately been shipped to British ports consigned to any person or persons who were aware of the prohibition of foreign hops being imported. If so, can the contravention of the Proclamation be other than wilful, and therefore liable to seizure; and if so, will these hops be seized.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my reason for addressing the two Questions which stand in my name to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture is the fact that during the previous debate on hops he, in the opinion of the hop-growers of Kent, evaded the question altogether. With your Lordships' permission I will read the question again. I asked—
"If any foreign hops have recently been shipped to any British port or ports, although the importation of such hops is prohibited; if so, have they been landed, and what has become of them."
The reply of the noble Lord was—
"The prohibition is against the importation of any hops, and that stands."
He then proceeded to describe how the Controller dealt with the brewers and the growers. I trust he will forgive me for saying that that was hardly an answer to my question—a question which is regarded as of infinite importance to the hop industry—for this reason, that they have been led to understand, and I believe rightly, that on the first few days of the prohibition a consignment of hops was seized and put into bond with the undertaking that these hops would not be released except on their going back to their place of origin. Ultimately the hops were released, and landed I believe on these shores, and if he can tell us who bad those hops it would be very good information for the importers in this country.
During the recent debate the noble Lord told us that he considered that the Hop Controller had handled this hop

291
question in a very admirable manner. I can assure the noble Lord that the growers have the greatest confidence in the Hop Controller, and find it difficult, therefore, to understand how it was that he recommended the importation of hops to brewers who held reserves before the acreage of hops had been reconstructed up to that of 1914. If, however, the noble Lord can assure us that that assumption was not justified, but that it is the intention of the Government to grant licences under certain conditions, then I repeat what I said on another occasion—namely, that it will be grossly unfair to the hop-growers of this country, and must inevitably spell disaster to this greatest of all agricultural industries, the hop industry, while on the other hand a distinct victory will have been gained by the foreign growers, more especially those emanating from the Pacific Coast.
Some of your Lordships may ask what are the views and wishes of the brewers on this question. I believe I am right in saying that they are keenly interested in seeing the 1914 hop acreage reinstated. In fact, I have been informed that the Brewers Society passed a resolution insisting that restrictions shall be imposed upon the import of hops till all the English growers have had a fair opportunity of reconstruction. I would like to draw attention to another point which in the recent debate was brought forward and which the hop-growers of Kent regard as a real danger spot disclosed by the noble Lord's speech. It was in answer to my noble friend Lord Harris, who asked who were the brewers who were to be allowed to import hops. The answer was this—
"Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import; and those brewers who have stocks will be allowed to import provided they do not add to their quantity in reserve or in stock."
I sincerely trust, my Lords, that that decision will not be regarded as final, because as long as there are sufficient hops for producing the quota of beer allowed by the Government I fail to understand why there should be any licence to import hops at all. If, however, brewers have a genuine fear of any shortage, I would suggest this—let the brewers who have ample supplies supply either hops or beer to those who have a shortage. This levelling of stocks would be the only honest policy as between the brewer and the grower. To issue permits for individual requirements would be grossly unfair to the home growers.
Let us look upon this question from another point of view. I would like to ask the noble Lord, if there is really a shortage of hops, Why should we deal with the Americans? Why should not we deal with our own Colonies, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia? We have been told during the last General Election that there was to be Imperial Preference. Well, my Lords, if we can produce as much beer as is required within our Empire why go outside our borders? We were told, too, during the last Election, that we were to protect key industries. I fail to understand what key industries are, but it appears to me that if there is one which wants protection it is the key industry—namely, agriculture. In conclusion I trust that the noble Lord will reply to these Questions and thereby relieve a great deal of suspicion which now exists, and I am sure he will be the first to realise that the growers are entitled to some definite assurance.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I should like to supplement what has been said as regards an omission in the previous reply which the noble Lord gave a little time ago to my question as to the permission to brewers to import hops, provided, as I understand, they do not acquire by that process stocks larger than they originally had. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will explain to your Lordships whether brewers are in any way limited with regards to the proportion of beer that they may brew. That is to say, may a brewer who has sufficient hops use the whole of his stock of hops, if there is a sufficient demand for his beer? Is he unlimited as to the amount of beer he may put out, if he has a sufficient stock of hops? If so, it seems to me rather unfair to the smaller brewers, who have not got a sufficient stock of hops, that the others should be allowed to import and that the stock of hops should not first of all be distributed where it is wanted in this country. I quite understand the reason why it is necessary to import some hops this year, because, as my noble friend must know, we cannot get back to the 1914 acreage until, I suppose, 1920 or even 1921. They have to be planted this year even if the setts are ready, but I do not understand, I confess, why this large importation (as it may be) of foreign hops should be allowed this year in the case of brewers who have already got large stocks and

293
who may use them up, and who, therefore, will be able to replace thorn with very considerable stocks against future use when English hops might be coming in.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I am afraid my difficulty lies in the fact that I do not represent the Board of Trade, which is really concerned with the question of importation to which the noble Viscount alluded, and I do not control, as President of the Board of Agriculture, the amount of beer which is allowed in this country; so that, though I answered on the last occasion as President of the Board, I was unable to answer that part of the noble Viscount's Question which asked whether certain imports have been made. If I may be allowed I should like to say that the principle we have adopted is this. Brewers who have not sufficient hops to brew their apportionment of beer between now and next year's crop will be allowed, on proving their shortage, to import sufficient to brew their beer up to that time, and not more. The governing words of my answer to the noble Lord who spoke last are these—
"Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import."
But there are different kinds of shortness. A man may have a considerable quantity of old hops in stock but he may want to import a sufficient quantity of fresh hops in order to be able to use up a portion of those old hops. That is the meaning of my answer, which I confess, when I read it, was open to misconstruction. The governing words are: "Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import. "That, I think, ought to reassure the growers in Kent and elsewhere.
Then, if I may pass on to the other point that was raised—and I am answering for the Board of Trade over this particular point—since the importation of hops was prohibited there have been two cases in which foreign hops have reached this country. In the one case, which was the case of a consignment of 200 bales, the consignment to this country was in transit to France, and that consignment has since proceeded on its way to France and it is no longer in this country. The other case is one in which foreign hops were consigned to this country. That consignment consisted of about 821 bales, weighing 70 tons, and came from the United States. That consignment was at once seized. It is held in bond to the Department of Import
294
Restrictions at St. Katharine's docks and cannot be released from bond except with the consent of the Department of Import Restrictions and after consultation with the Hop Controller.
Therefore, though these hops are in this country they are in bond held there to the Department of Import Restrictions, subject, as to removal, to the consent of that Department, and that consent is only given after consultation with the Hop Controller. The second part of the Question refers to the question whether there was a wilful contravention of the Proclamation. Clearly, I think, those who consigned the hops to this country were aware of the prohibition. Therefore, the contravention of the Proclamation could be nothing else but wilful, and the hops are liable to seizure and they have, in fact, been seized. I do not know whether that answer is completely satisfactory to the noble Viscount, but if I can in any way amplify it I shall be very glad to do so.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord if there is any firm to whom these hops have been consigned and if they have received them?
LORD ERNLE: No firm has received them. They have never passed out of the hands of the Import Restrictions Department at St. Katharine's docks.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: That is quite satisfactory.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider proposals for an improvement in the Procedure of the House presented the following Report—
ORDERED TO REPORT,
1. That on Wednesdays, on which day there is no judicial sitting, the House shall sit at 3.45 p.m., when prayers will be read and private business taken; and that public business shall commence at 4 p.m.
2. That the same rule shall apply to all days, and not Wednesdays alone, after the judicial sittings of the House have terminated in the latter part of the session.
3. That the introduction of Peers, and private business, shall, as far as is practicable, be taken on Wednesdays,

295
in order to enable public business to commence as early as possible on the remaining days of the week. That publicity be given in the Orders of the Day to the intention of a Peer to take his seat in the above circumstances, with a view to the general convenience.
4. That on every day other than Wednesday (subject to the condition named in 2) the House shall meet as now at 4.15, but that, in the event of there being no private business, public business shall commence at that hour.
5. That, in the event of a Debate being adjourned until a subsequent day, it is desirable, as a general rule, that the adjournment shall not be moved until 8 p.m.
6. That, in the event of a 'Debate being adjourned over dinner, an interval of 1¼ hours shall be allowed for the purpose.
7. That it shall be in the power of any Peer who asks a question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view to making a speech or to raising a debate, to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his question when he hands it in to the Clerk at the Table. Such action on his part will not deprive the House of any of its existing privileges, but will be for the general convenience in the arrangement of business.
8. That the House be invited to exercise a stricter vigilance in the enforcement of its own Standing Orders, notably Standing Order No. XXVII., which prohibits any Lord from speaking twice to any question or proposition except the mover of a Motion in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his former speech (no new matter being introduced), and then only after first obtaining the leave of the House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Procedure of your Lordships' House has been printed and is before your Lordships. I beg to move that it be now considered and adopted.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now received and adopted.—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to move the adjournment of the debate. I do not think it is worth while going on with this. It seems to me to be tinkering with an important subject and not making any real change or doing anything that will be of the slightest good to the House. The first suggestion is that we should meet a quarter of an hour earlier on two clays of the week and a little more on Wednesday. By that arrangement you will save about one and a half hours in the week. It is not worth while doing that. If we want more time, why have we given up the idea of sitting on four days of the week? We used always to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. For the last three or four months Monday sittings have been given up entirely. I do not know the reason. The result is that there is only one day in the week for Notices apart from Bills; and Wednesdays are always taken up long in advance and are often very much crowded.
What, really, is the meaning of this suggestion that a Peer who asks a Question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view of making a speech or raising a debate, is to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his Question? He need not make a. speech unless he wants to, whether he puts an asterisk or not; and by the reading of the Report, although the Peer who asks the Question places an asterisk beside it, apparently it does not bind and is not intended to bind other Peers, who reserve all their rights to say what they desire to say. I do not want to say anything rude, but I cannot conceive any one putting a Question in this House without reserving his right to make a few words of explanation. If you put a Question you get a Government answer. It is handed in writing to the noble Lord who answers the Question. We have had here to-day two intelligent answers by the President of the Board of Agriculture, but nine times out of ten if we ask a Question we get a written reply and it is impossible to cross-examine the noble Lord who replies. If you do, you get no answer, because the noble Lord who has had the answer handed to him is not aware of the facts of the case.
If we are going to make a change we should make a much larger change. If your Lordships want more time you should sit much earlier, and I am confident that

297
some arrangement could be made for the Court of Appeal to sit elsewhere. If you are going to begin tinkering with these things you will have to go much further. I simply move that the debate be adjourned. I know that the noble Earl is much engaged, but. I think, on a matter of this kind, we ought to have the attendance of the Leader of the House when we are tinkering with our procedure.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I certainly do not want to raise any objection to the proposal of my noble friend to adjourn this debate, if that be the pleasure of the House. There is rather a small attendance to discuss a matter which is of general interest to most of us. I think my noble friend is a little unduly severe in his criticism of the proposals of the Committee. He objects to what he calls "tinkering" with this important subject. These proposals are not, I agree, of first-rate importance, but they are framed with the object of introducing certain appreciable improvements in the procedure of the House. The first clauses are an attempt to save time. I think, under present arrangemtent, a good deal of time is wasted. Something will be gained, even if the total gain of time measured in half hours or quarters of an hour does not amount to a very large total.
Then my noble friend was extraordinarily critical over the proposal, contained I think in the seventh clause, under which it is suggested that members of your Lordships' House should mark with an asterisk Questions with regard to which the Peer who puts the Question only desires information on some particular point. I think that is an improvement. I quite understand that any attempt to curtail the liberties of the House should be resented, but this proposal does not hurt anybody at all. It certainly will not hurt the Peer who desires to put the Question down, because it is left entirely to his option whether he will "star" his Question or not. Will it hurt your Lordships? I do not think it will. It is expressly stipulated that the House is not to be deprived of any of its existing privileges, and if it should be the pleasure of the House, in spite of the fact that the Question has been marked with a "star," to prolong the discussion, there is nothing on earth in this proposal to prevent the discussion being prolonged as long as any
298
member of your Lordships' House desires to prolong it. This proposal is defended as being for general convenience in the arrangement of business. I think it will be to the general convenience. It will be for the convenience of the Minister concerned that he should know whether he is to be asked a simple categorical question, to be replied to by a categorical answer in regard to certain matters of fact, or whether he is expected to take part, as sometimes happens, in an extended debate upon the whole subject of the Question, and perhaps a number of others connected with them well. It will also be for the convenience of the House that when your Lordships see the Notice Paper you should know whether a particular Question is intended to elicit information as to matters of fact, or whether it is the desire of the questioner and his friends to raise a general discussion. Upon the whole I must say these proposals are perfectly justifiable, and they scarcely deserve the extremely severe condemnation which my noble friend showers upon them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess is quite right in raising no objection to the suggestion of the noble Lord that the debate should be adjourned. It is clear that we ought not to proceed with this matter in the absence of the noble Earl the Lord President. I have no doubt he would have desired to be here and is prevented by some imperative duties elsewhere. In those circumstances I do not think it would be worth my while to say anything of the subject-matter of the proposals. The noble Marquess has stated, and I entirely agree with him, that the strictures of Lord Balfour of Burleigh were somewhat unduly severe. The propositions are, no doubt, small, and. in some cases I doubt whether they would be very effective; but I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House will be able to show that in no sense are they damaging to the conduct of debate in your Lordships' House or do they derogate from the privileges of private members. These, after all, are two important principles, and if the noble Earl is able to sustain them I think the proposals may well be accepted.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene except to ask whether, before the discussion is resumed, the noble Earl will have special regard to the proposal for "starred" Questions which should be incapable of debate at all.

299
I happen to approach this subject from a different standpoint from any of my noble friends who have spoken, as I have sat in the House of Commons. I think it would be of the greatest advantage to this House, in regard to time and information, if we could have a certain number of Questions "starred," upon which there would only be the question and the answer. Any noble Lord who desired to develop a debate would have an opportunity on a subsequent occasion of putting down a more general Motion. Many Questions are not asked by noble Lords because they are afraid of creating a discussion which may be inconvenient to the Government. I should be very glad if we could have a free discussion of the practice of this House in that respect.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I do not desire to develop my views upon the point mentioned by my noble friend as to starred Questions, but I will observe that in paragraph 7 of the Report it is specifically laid down that there shall be no derogation of existing rights of members of the House. Bearing in mind that declaration, which I take it is in accord with the general desire of the House, you have to consider how far it would be possible for a Peer to put down a starred Question and by starring it prevent any other member of your Lordships' House from taking part in any debate, or any reply to a Minister's statement which might be thought desirable. However, I do not desire to develop my views upon that interesting and really very important subject.
I merely rise to say that I readily consent to postpone further discussion on this point, probably until after Easter; at any rate, I will put it down nominally for one day next week, and it can be taken again at a date convenient to your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Curzon desired to hear your Lordships' views and to reply to the debate. He has been here twice, if not three times, from the Foreign Office this afternoon already, and I believe he is on his way here from the Foreign Office again. It so happens that he has had to go to and from the Foreign Office to keep a succession of engagements, and it appears that his last engagement has prevented his getting here ten minutes or a quarter of an hour earlier and hearing your Lordship's observations.
300
On these grounds I agree to the Motion of Lord Balfour and I suggest that the matter be put down again for Tuesday next.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HOUSING.
LORD ST. LEVAN LORD ST. LEVAN rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government expect any assistance in providing working-class houses from private enterprise.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, asked a question in relation to the housing of the working classes in which allusion was made to the part that private enterprise would take in providing such houses. While the large schemes which are at present in contemplation throughout the country must for the most part, necessarily I think, be undertaken by public bodies, who will be assisted financially by public moneys, I think it may be assumed that any assistance towards providing the houses which are so urgently required would be welcomed. In the debate on the Housing Bill in another place last Monday the Minister in charge of the Bill agreed that it was the intention of the Government to encourage private enterprise in this matter. In the same debate it was stated by an hon. Member that public enterprise with regard to providing houses for the working classes was dead, having been killed. There is a great deal of truth in that statement, and it is quite obvious that if private enterprise has been killed it cannot, while it is defunct, furnish any assistance at all in the desired direction.
Therefore I think that it would be most useful if the Government could give some indication of the nature of the encouragement which, according to the Minister's statement, the Government contemplate giving to private enterprise. It must be borne in mind that private enterprise means not only the owners of the land which is to be built upon, but also a large class of persons, such as builders and those concerned in the building trade, who have been up to recent years employed in the industry of providing houses as they were required. I think, therefore, if we could have some indication of the nature of the assistance which the Government intend to give, it would enable private enterprise, represented by those persons and classes of whom I have spoken, to know where

301
they stand, and whether there is any prospect of their being able to resume operations.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON had the following Question on the Paper on the same subject—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any special facilities for obtaining building materials will be given to individuals desirous of building working-class dwellings at their own expense; and whether such facilities will be equal to those to be afforded to local authorities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might perhaps be convenient to the noble Lord, as I have a similar Question on the Paper to that of the noble Lord, Lord St. Levan, that I should ask it at the same time. My Question relates rather to the equipment of farms with buildings, and of houses, the number of which have fallen in arrear in consequence of the war and for other reasons. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that private enterprise is not to be discouraged. The Local Government Board circular of November last contemplated that the duties of public authorities as regards building may be reduced by private enterprise. In regard to materials the Local Government Board has issued a circular this year stating that certain articles of building material are to be standardised. Local authorities are to be furnished with their description, and there is to be a production of doors, window frames, and bricks suited to the needs of localities, and in fact the insurance of adequate supplies of bricks.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that there are hopes for private enterprise from this store; and in saying that may I be allowed to add that I do not think there would be much difficulty to Government Departments in dealing with applications from private individuals for these materials. My own County Council, and I believe other County Councils, have been engaged in coordinating the needs of District Councils with regard to building materials so as to bring the needs of the whole county in so to speak one schedule. It will not be difficult for private individuals who require materials for this purpose to put their needs in with those of the District Council, and though I can hardly hope that the noble Lord will be able to consider such a sug-
302
gestion it may be that he might be able to convey it to the Department, and if they are, as they have said, in favour of private enterprise, they may be able to give the suggestion consideration when they come to deal with the matter.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who spoke first that the Government would welcome any assistance of the kind that he suggested, but in what has been called the abnormal period after the war such an effort would be more of the nature of a philanthropic effort than one that could be made a commercial proposition owing to the very high prices that prevail at the present moment. Every Committee which has considered the housing of the working classes after the war has come to the conclusion that private enterprise cannot be relied upon, except to a very limited extent, in the period immediately after the war.
The noble Marquess opposite will remember that he was Chairman of a Committee which considered this subject, and I find in the Report of that Committee this sentence—
"A direct subsidy from the State to the private builder appears impossible; such a subsidy would be regarded as a dole to the speculative builder or the ground landlord and as an encouragement to one only out of many equally important industries. It could, in any case, only be given if coupled with restrictions as to rent and selling price, which, in the case of the speculative builder at least, would defeat its object."
The cost of building at the present time is admitted on all hands to be abnormally high. It is further anticipated by those who have made a study of the subject that present prices will fall, not indeed to the level of pre-war prices, but substantially below the present prices. In these circumstances private enterprise would naturally wait till prices have fallen, but the need for houses is such that we cannot afford to wait; therefore His Majesty's Government are looking to the local authorities and public utility societies to build in the present emergency.
Having said that in regard to the discouragement which was feared by both noble Lords I should like to say this. At the same time the Government hope that private enterprise, which in the past has been responsible for some 95 per cent. of working-class houses, will re-enter the field when prices have reached the post-war normal level—I think that was suggested

303
to be seven years—and it will be their policy to secure that such rents are paid for the houses built, during the abnormal period, as will make a return to economic conditions in the building trade possible at the end of that period. This is a policy which has been strongly advocated by all the Committees which have considered this problem. I think I may include in that the Royal Commission on Scottish Housing and also what is known as the Hunter Report.
In the meantime the fact that private enterprise cannot be relied upon for any large contribution does not mean that private building firms will have no share in the work. On the contrary, the whole forces of the building industry must be mobilised if the problem is to be adequately dealt with, and, while circumstances may restrict the operations of private firms as speculative builders, their assistance will certainly be needed as contractors to the local authorities, and every encouragement will be given to them to come in in that capacity. The following extract on the subject by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, may be quoted in this connection—
"I believe there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding with regard to private building. We do not contemplate that all the 1,800 local authorities will set up a staff of builders, carpenters, architects, and surveyors. We shall ask the local authorities to use the present builders. We want to use all the present builders and their staff. We do not want them to come in as speculative builders, but as contractors. We want to use every builder we can."
Then in regard to the Question of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, I have to say that the primary object of the Government's policy in placing orders for bricks and other building materials has been to stimulate production and to provide employment. But the impression which appears to obtain in some quarters, that the Government have requisitioned building materials to such an extent as to render it impossible for private orders to be placed, is entirely incorrect. It is regrettable that this impression should still prevail in spite of official statements to the contrary which have been made from time to time. In an answer given by the President of the Local Government Board to a question in the House of Commons on February 18 last, it was definitely stated that the intention of the Government was that a proportion of the output of the brick
304
fields should be available to supply the demands of the building industry for works outside the Government housing programme, and, further, that until the materials are required for the Government housing programme they should be available to meet the demands of the ordinary building industry.
In an official statement issued in March it was made clear that the Government were anxious not only to do nothing to hamper the building industry, but to encourage it as much as possible. The orders which have been placed by the Government with brickmakers throughout the kingdom do not by any means exhaust the total capacities of the yards. In a good many cases the Government have, it is true, bought the total output of the yards, but this has been clone to keep the makers in funds and not to earmark the bricks for the housing schemes. Permission is given freely to the makers enabling them to dispose of Government stocks for all purposes. What applies to bricks applies also to other building material. It is hoped that the effect of the impetus given to the various industries by Government action will be that material which they could not otherwise have obtained will become available. If any other noble Lord interested in this question who is desirous of building cottages at his own expense and has difficulty in getting materials will be good enough to inform me, I will do my utmost to see that his efforts are forwarded.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Further than that, if any noble Lord, being an intending buyer of material, finds that on application he has been refused sale, will let me know, the matter shall be fully investigated.
As Lord Monk Bretton mentioned bricks and other material which are used for building purposes, such as window frames and so on, perhaps it would interest him to know what the Government have done towards stimulating production in the building trade. Measures are being taken to provide 3,000,000,000 bricks this year, which should include a fair margin for ordinary building purposes. Measures are also being taken, by improving methods of production, to increase the output to 5,000,000,000 next year. Such articles as baths, coppers, sanitary ware, ranges,

305
and so on, are being standardised, so that they may be obtained from the manufacturers at the lowest possible prices. Private builders will get the benefit of the reduction of prices which standardisation should secure.
Before I read that short summary I endeavoured to give a reply to the two questions of my noble friends, but it is quite possible that I may have fallen short in one or two points, because the noble Lord opposite rather developed his Question beyond the actual matter on the Paper. If I have been a little obscure owing to only getting the Question very late this afternoon and he will be good enough to communicate with me, I shall be very glad to put myself at his disposal.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I am much obliged to my noble friend. My Question was in the nature of what may hereafter be termed an Asterisk Question; I wanted to get information from him. As a matter of fact I was not thinking so much of rural housing as of the development of land in the neighbourhood of towns. I understand that in the opinion of the Government the conditions will be such that there will not be an opportunity for private enterprise to take part in development in that direction for some seven years, but that after that time they hope that conditions will become more or less normal. I am much obliged to my noble friend. I think the information he has given will go a long way towards clearing the air and making all concerned aware of the actual position of affairs.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

A MONDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I suggest that your Lordships should meet on Monday next, and I beg to give notice that upon that day the Lord President will put down a Motion to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX in respect of the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of April 9.]

WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of West Hartlepool under their Corporate Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of West Hartlepool to construct tramroads, a tramway and street works, and to provide and work omnibuses within and beyond the borough, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty minutes after seven o'clock