ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL. (Hansard, 10 April 1919)

§ 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.