Lords Sitting of 27 February 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord GRIMTHORPE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord WENLOCK—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I beg to introduce this Bill and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Galway.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BITON FERRY BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
D. H. EVANS AND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
NEWARK GAS BILL. [H.L.]
PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
WEST SOMERSET MINERAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
Read 2a.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in
392
my name on the Paper, that the Message of the House of Commons of Tuesday last—viz., "That it is expedient that the said Bills be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons"—be taken into consideration and be adopted. I think I ought to explain that all the Bills are for an increase of rates, and questions arise as to whether it should be allowed, and if so how much, and, if allowed, whether it should be a temporary or permanent increase. Obviously these are questions which require decision. They are convenient questions, I think, to have decided by a single inquiry, and therefore I recommend your Lordships to agree to the Message from the House of Commons.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

THE LATE AMIR OF AFGHANISTAN.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, before public business is taken I should like to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice, with reference to the murder of the Amir of Afghanistan. I think it is only right that some notice should be taken of the loss we have sustained by the death of a true Ally. In most difficult circumstances, and under great temptations, perhaps, to desert us, he had always been faithful to the policy carried on between us and him for a number of years.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): The noble Lord, who I believe was honoured by the personal friendship of the late Amir of Afghanistan, is quite justified in putting to me the question of which he has given me private notice—namely, whether I can, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, add anything to the information that has appeared in the public Press about the unfortunate assassination of that Sovereign. I am afraid that as regards actual details of the event we have no further information than that which has already appeared. I gather that, the Amir being in camp at a place called Laghman, to the north-east of Kabul, an entry was made into his tent at an early hour on the morning of February 20, and that the Amir was killed by bullet shots and was also stabbed. His dead body was recovered and was taken back by the members of his family to Kabul. What were the objects of this

393
attack we do not know. As the noble Lord knows very well, policy, and particularly domestic policy, in Eastern Courts is a very obscure factor, and whether the assassination of the late Sovereign was due to religious and fanatical reasons or to reasons of politics or to causes of domestic intrigue, we do not know. Suffice it to say that in these tragic circumstances he lost his life.
The noble Lord, in the few sentences to which he gave utterance, spoke, and spoke justly, of the late Amir as having been a consistent and loyal friend of this country. That is a true description of his attitude throughout his long reign. The late Amir was not fifty years of age when he was killed. He succeeded his father in the year 1901, and occupied the Throne for the nearly eighteen years which have since elapsed. The Amir Habibullah Khan was not, of course, cast in the same mould as his father, the late Amir Abdur Rahnian Khan. As the House may perhaps recollect, I was brought into personal contact with that Sovereign during a fortnight's stay at his capital. Any one who ever met Amir Abdur Rahman Khan would bear me out in saying that he was one of the most remarkable personalities of the East—a man of adventurous career, of iron character, of great strength of will, of an almost overmastering personality. I certainly count it amongst the most remarkable incidents of my political life that I was brought into close association with that sovereign. When he died his eldest son, Habibullah Khan, succeeded him upon the Throne. It was what rarely happens in those countries—a peaceful succession; and the son, although, as I have said, not of the same calibre as his father, still pursued his father's policy with a loyalty, consistency, and skill which did him infinite credit. He was a man, as the noble Lord will remember, of a genial and affable temperament. He had a great taste for European civilisation, and was thoroughly imbued with the need of introducing all the instruments of modern progress into his rather backward country. In some respects he shared the fierce traditions, and may indeed have reproduced the cruel habits, of his countrymen; but, broadly speaking, he kept his country in order, he facilitated its forward march on the paths of progress, and he remained, throughout the eighteen years of his reign, a true and loyal adherent of the British connection.
394
When I went back to India in 1904 I had the pleasure of entertaining at Calcutta his eldest son, a young prince who had not yet attained the age of maturity, Prince Inayattillah Khan, who seemed to me to reproduce in many respects the intelligence of his father. A little later the Amir himself came down to India, and the noble Lord will recall the various incidents of his progress through that country—how much he struck those whom he met by his enlightenment and intelligence and the friendly attitude he displayed, and, on the whole, what very favourable impressions he left. Of course, there occurred throughout his reign the traditional difficulties between the Government of Afghanistan and the Government of India, but they were never pushed to the point of serious trouble, and practically the Government of India could regard him with truth as having faithfully carried on the traditions of his father.
Then came the outbreak of war in 1914, and your Lordships can imagine how the designs of the enemy were at once directed to finding a weak spot in our armour in that direction. Turkish and German emissaries found their way to Kabul. The Turks could appeal to the Amir on the ground of the solidarity of Islam; the Germans could appeal to him with the bribe of the territories outside the Afghan frontier which it was so easy to promise to restore. The Amir received these missions and listened to what they had to say. He entertained them hospitably, and in due time—it was usually after a long time—he dismissed them re infecta. That, in substance, is what happened throughout the war; and many as were the appeals addressed to the cupidity or self-interest of the Amir throughout that time, or to the traditional ambitions of his nation and race, he nevertheless remained a staunch adherent of the British cause. It is a great misfortune that he has been killed. It is, perhaps, a less misfortune that the blow should have fallen now than that it should have happened at an earlier date when the issues of the war were still uncertain; but, nevertheless, it is a tragedy that we should lose so good a friend.
As to what has happened in Kabul since the Amir's assassination, our information is not very great. It would appear that the succession has been given to his younger brother, Nasrullah Khan, whom many of

395
your Lordships will remember as having been the guest of the British Government in this country between twenty and thirty years ago. We have no reason to believe that he has been set up as Amir without the consent of or in supersession of the eldest son whom I mentioned just now. The Afghans, in common with other Oriental people, have their own rules of inheritance, and it may be that he was popularly acclaimed as most suitable for the Throne. All we know is that upon his recognition at the Court of Kabul he addressed at once a letter to the Government of India couched in the most friendly and loyal terms, in which he renewed to the British Government the expressions of friendliness and loyalty of his brother and of his family. To that letter an appropriate reply is being sent, and there is no reason, at any rate for the present, to suppose that there will be any interruption in the happy relations which prevail between us and Afghanistan.
I need hardly say that there is but one opinion here about our policy towards that country, which has been testified by the history of the last twenty or thirty years and has been enshrined in numerous documents. We desire to maintain the independence and integrity of Afghanistan, and we hold it essential that its political relations should look towards the East rather than towards the West, and that it should remain in close and constant friendship with the Government of India. I hope, my Lords, just as that policy was initiated and carried on by Abdur Rahman and by the late deceased Amir, so it may continue in the hands of Nasrullah Khan, if he succeeds to the Throne.
LORD LAMINGTON: I thank the noble Earl for his interesting statement, one of exceptional weight and far more complete than I dared to expect.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting, so that the Air Navigation Bill and the Re-election of Ministers Bill may be passed through their remaining stages.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is very fairly explained by the Memorandum that accompanies it. The object of the Bill, briefly expressed, is as far as practicable to take every means and opportunity of converting public-houses which are merely drinking dens into places of reasonable recreation and refreshment. For some years past there has been a general movement in the country in this direction. Many of your Lordships will remember that in former years there were really no comfortable places of refreshment for the well-to-do classes, or for any others. Then there gradually grew up a system by which restaurants were established where the better classes could have their meals under decent if not charming circumstances. Places like Earl's Court and the White City, where there were fairs and other forms of diversion, also had restaurants to which the general pubic could go and at which they could enjoy a meal under pleasant conditions. In the Army itself for a number of years there has been a movement to improve the canteens for soldiers. Instead of being merely drinking places they are developing on lines to provide means for recreation, games, and suppers, so as to induce soldiers to frequent them and be able to get their beer under circumstances which do not tempt them to excessive drinking. There is also the Public House Trust in this country and in Scotland, with the idea of running public-houses on the lines of pleasant recreation and refreshment. The one in England has developed greatly, and I believe the Earl of Lytton is a leading supporter of the Trust in this country. But it did not touch the vast mass of the people, and the True Temperance Association, which has had this matter in hand for a number of Years, has felt as if it were rather crying in the wilderness.
Then came the war, and these proposals suddenly received emphatic endorsement by the establishment of the Central Liquor Control Board. A great munitions area was formed near Carlisle, and the whole of that district, including Carlisle itself, was put under the jurisdiction for the purposes

397
of licensing of the Central Control Board. I do not see Lord D'Abernon present this afternoon; I hope he will be present, as he is responsible for the working of this system. I have paid a visit to most. of the licensed houses in Carlisle. You will find in the main streets and in the slums of that city old-fashioned public-houses now being transformed into places of decent refreshment. I do not know exactly what the statistics are to prove that the system has reduced drunkenness. About a year ago figures were supplied, but I have seen none lately. The Government, having established this system, has really endorsed the policy which the True Temperance Association has been trying to carry into effect. All we now want to do is to develop the machinery which will enable this object to be achieved.
There is one point of difference between the policy indicated in this Bill and that which is carried out by the Central Control Board. The latter had absolute powers given to them, and were able, in order to improve public-houses, to sweep away all the restrictions which had been imposed by various Licensing Acts and Police regulations. This Bill does not go nearly as far as that. Up to 1869 licences were granted freely so long as the licensee was a decent person. Then there came a movement to reduce and limit the number of public-houses. This led to the creation of the tied-house system, with all its mischievous effects. In 1902 the Act of that year intervened so as to regulate any change made in the structure of public-houses, and it is owing to the 1902 Act that the real difficulties have arisen which have prevented public-houses being improved on the lines most people would like to see done. The Act of 1910 was merely a consolidating Act, but it continued these, in our opinion, objectionable restrictions.
What are these difficulties, and what happens from time to time? A man might apply for permission to make some structural improvement in his house. In a case in Chelsea a man applied for two years for permission to make a structural improvement. It was refused by the licensing justices, and on the third application it was taken to Quarter Sessions and granted. In Stockport a licensee applied to be allowed to rebuild his house. It was refused. He then said he would make certain improvements, and the licensing justices agreed but, said they would require a quid pro quo for
398
this concession. Be said he was quite willing to fall in with the wishes of the licensing justices, but that he would not give any quid pro quo. He would not, in fact, be penalised for making a public improvement. The result was that his licence was refused. At Wandsworth, in the case of a public-house where there was a concert in the garden and in regard to which there was no complaint as to the character of the entertainment, the licence was not renewed because children were allowed to go to the concerts in charge of their parents. In Cardiff there recently took place—I will not say an act of injustice—an act of hardship to the general public. The people concerned are very large and important caterers. I will not read the whole of their letter, but will give some of the salient passages. It relates to a place called the "Carlton." They provided two orchestras and a concert party. The letter says—
"These entertainments appealed to the public greatly, with the result that the restaurant was nearly always filled. Although the house is fully licensed we would not seave alcoholic drinks of any description in this room, as it was frequented mostly by young people. Moreover, we would not serve any female with intoxicating drinks in any part of the house."
No complaint was made of mischief accruing from these musical entertainments, but as a matter of principle the music licence was withdrawn because some individuals in Cardiff disapproved. The Watch Committee of the City fully approved of the character of the house; nevertheless, in the end the musical licence was withdrawn. With what result? The letter says—
"We regret to say that since the music licence has been taken away the drink trade has grown by leaps and bounds, and the weekly receipts from intoxicating liquors have increased by nearly 1,800 per cent.—"
Let us take that as a misprint, and put it at 180 per cent,—
"We cannot explain this altogether, except that the class of trade seems to have changed, and people now step in and out for a drink, whereas before they used to sit all the evening over a cup of coffee or some light refreshment. From a monetary point of view we are doing better than ever, but this is not the class of business that we care for."
This shows one result of refining a musical licence, and practically compelling the public-house to become a mere drinking shop and nothing else.

399
I have another instance where an application was made for a variety of improvements in a house near Guildford. I need not go through all the long series of negotiations that took place, but this is the result. Owing to the difficulty experienced by the owners in the past in such matters, they incurred the expense of briefing an eminent counsel for the last three applications instead of submitting the matter in the ordinary way by a representative of the owners; so that in addition to the expense to which the owners were put in their endeavours to improve the public were deprived of the benefit of bay-windows, a ladies' lavatory, a cloak-room, and of a verandah on the south of the premises. A covering letter says—
"We particularly wish to bring to your notice that at a meeting between the licensing justices and the representative of the owners in situ the magistrates expressed the opinion that the contemplated alterations would make the premises too comfortable."
I could go on giving instances, but I need not take up your Lordships' time. It is not only that the licensee in making his application would probably have it refused, but he would also be saddled with all the expense and with the loss of time taken up; therefore there is no encouragement to make a house a better place of entertainment. I have also in support of the proposal a letter from the Home Counties Public House Trust, to which I have already referred and with which Lord Lytton is closely connected. The letter says—
"May I, as the managing director of the company owning the largest number of hotels in one group in the world, and also as the largest licensee, say that I welcome your Bill as the best measure in licensing reform over yet introduced. As the matter stands at present, Benches vary in their practice all over the country, and the laws which they administer are nearly as often of their own making as that of the Legislature. As an example of this, my company is absolutely barred from taking over houses and developing them on the lines that you favour in the whole of the Smith and East of London."
I have also the support of the Institute of Hygiene, although they wish to promote temperance on rather different lines. They wish to have the person who wants to drink licensed, and not the person who supplies it.
Then right reverend occupants of the Episcopal Bench have again and again endorsed the idea of improving the structure
400
of public-houses. The Bishop of Manchester, in 1916, said—
"It is useless to think that they would eradicate drunkenness simply by liquor traffic laws. The public-house is a poor man's club, and when we return to normal conditions what are we going to provide for the wage-earning classes in the way of resort?"
That is the real point. To a great many people the public-house is their place of resort, and in many cases their club. It is surely much better to make these places respectable so that a decent working man can go there and take his wife and family, instead of having to go shamefacedly to a place to obtain a drink. I see present the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who when I introduced this Bill yesterday said that he did not quite approve of it because he, as one of the licensing justices of Kent, had never known a case where any obstacle had been put in the way of a man improving his house. He also said that it was rather the other way, and that people were unwilling to spend money on the improvement of their houses. I think the answer to that is, first of all, that where the noble Lord is the responsible authority there would be a very sane and sensible policy carried out, and if any of his colleagues had strong fanatical views on teetotalism, I am sure that the strong personality of the noble Lord would prevent those fanatical views from prevailing where his jurisdiction was concerned.
It is not only the fact that obstacles are put in the way. To develop temperance you must also give encouragement, so that the condition of the houses may be improved. That is what this Bill proposes to do. I may, perhaps, be permitted to read the report of a speech which recently appeared in the Press by Mr. Sydney Neville, President of the Institute of Brewing. He said—
"The shrewdest brains in the trade realise that the high standard of sobriety which has been reached during the war is a commercial asset as well as a national benefit, and that the industry would do well to consider, and if necessary initiate, such regulations as would maintain the present standard and discourage that excess which, though falling short of actual drunkenness, detracts from the efficiency of the industrial community it is the business of the licensed trades to improve."
Further he said—
"The art of design of licensed houses had long been unnaturally arrested by unintelligent restrictions and artificial difficulties placed in the way of supplying improved accommodation."

401
It is not only one, but all sections of the community who realise that it is very desirable to have some improvement in public-houses. It must be remembered that the trade has been very much harassed. I believe it is quite true that there are many respectable people nowadays who are so liable to penalties, owing to some technical flaw in the carrying on of their business, that it is very difficult to get people of the highest repute to be managers or licensees of public-houses. Numerous dangers and pitfalls lie before them, and as the State is largely responsible for the general conduct of these public-houses it is only right to ask that the State should now, by its orders and regulations and taxation, assist in furthering such conditions of decency and recreation that temperance may be promoted in the country.
I had the honour of promoting a Bill before with this object in view, but then it was simply limited to trying to restrict the powers of the justices in refusing to sanction improvements. This Bill proposes to set up a new body who should be responsible for the carrying out of the licensing laws. It may be said, Why not simply allow the Liquor Control Board to be developed and to extend its powers all over the country? First of all, that Board was brought into being only for the purposes of the war and lapses as soon as peace is signed; also they have such far greater powers than anything contemplated in this Bill, that really one would not ask the country to agree to such very extensive authority being given to any one Department.
As to the Bill itself, it first deals with the setting up of the new authority. Clause 3 hands over the powers of the licensing justices, and Clause 4 deals with a Committee to frame rules and regulations; while Clause 5 enables a certificate to be given to those homes which have been improved. That certificate confers certain privileges, among others the holding of entertainments on the premises, although the privilege would be subject to review and withdrawal, if thought desirable. Clause 7, in the case of these improved houses, would allow children to go on the premises. Of course that idea is very obnoxious to the minds of some people, but surely it is the presence of children and women that tends so much to improve the character of a place of this kind. Of the other clauses the only one of importance pro
402
vides that an improved public-house shall be entitled to the remission of half the licence duty—this by way of encouragement to the person who makes these improvements. Security of tenure is also provided for.
Personally I dislike Government control of any industry, but I think half-and-half control is worse than anything. We have had many discussions in this House about labour unrest, but I believe it is Government control without responsibility that produces much of the trouble. In the case of public-houses the Government, or at least a public authority, interferes almost every day, for at no hour is the licensee free from some vexatious interference. It is the uncertainty that results which is the most mischievous of all conditions, and it is this objection which the Bill seeks to remove; we wish to have some stable authority with a consistent plan of dealing with these matters.
There ought to be an end of the idea that the whole business of the publican is to sell beer and spirits. He ought to have some other object in view—namely, to give fit and proper recreation. We wish also to abolish the power of those who, from fanatical devotion to a cause, really hinder improvement. It may be said that the financial clauses of the Bill contravene the privileges of the House of Commons; but if the Bill is passed in this House, at the last stage those clauses will be brought into harmony with the privileges of another place.
I regret very much that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who should have had charge of this Bill in this House, has for a number of months been seriously ill, and it is owing really to his interest in the matter, a meeting having been held at his house, that this Bill has been brought forward. I regret his inability to be here on this occasion, and in his absence I invite your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, my noble friend made some reference to me which I could not quite catch, but I gather that it as in consequence of the very brief conversation that I had with him yesterday when I intimated to him my opinion that there was no reason why the administration of the licensing law should be taken out

403
of the hands of the justices. One can only speak from one's own experience, And my experience does not go to prove that there is any necessity to substitute paid Commissioners for the "great unpaid" who have been doing a very valuable work for many years—in this respect and in many other respects as well. I should like to interpolate here that I do not think nearly enough gratitude has been accorded for the enormous mass of unpaid work which is being done in this country always, but which has been done to such an enormous extent during the last four years—and by people, I may say, who have never struck work.
I am entirely sympathetic with the noble Lord in his object of supplying better entertainment in the public-house. I regret extremely that for some reason or other the ordinary public-house seems disinclined to supply in the form of drink anything but alcoholic liquors. I imagine that the reason of this is that in the trade in tea and coffee and cakes there is tremendous competition. There is probably also a local antipathy to cutting into Another man's business. The local tea shop has this particular class of business, and very probably the licensed victualler thinks it unfair for him to cut into it. I regret this very much, and I have pointed out, in addressing licensed victuallers at the annual meeting of the licensing authority, that it would be very much in accord with the feelings of the country if they would endeavour to make a new departure in that respect. I have also had to point out to them, particularly during the war, that they have no right whatever to close their houses to the public as a great many of them were doing, opening them only during those hours when alcoholic liquors might be sold under order. I told them that their houses were for the use of the public, the only place to which the public could go, especially travellers and others, for refreshment which they could not obtain elsewhere, and that they were bound to keep their houses open.
I sympathise with my noble friend in regard to the extension of the class of, business public-houses may do, and in many cases I think it would be of great: advantage if the privileges of the public- houses included the permission to have music and entertainments, and possibly dancing. But I really do not see why it should be taken out of the hands of the
404
present justices and handed over to the authority of commissioners. In the first place, that means more expense to the country in the way of an enlarged Civil Service, against which many people have been protesting for a long time. In the second place, I do not see why we should anticipate that commissioners are going to do any better work than the justices have done. That is my principal reason for objecting at any rate to that part of the Bill; and I should be sincerely sorry if I found that His Majesty's Government were asking their supporters to support this Bill. I hope that they will leave us free to vote as we please, and not say anything very strongly in favour of it themselves, because I think it would be a great slur upon the justices.
I cannot possibly vote for the Bill because of the Memorandum. I do not mean to say that the Memorandum is in the Bill, but it contains the excuse for the Bill. It mentions "the existing system of administration by committees of justices"—they are licensing committees as a matter of fact, though the members are justices—" and the tradition of repression rather than of development which characterises the policy of many of them." I do not think that is a correct statement, at least not in my experience. We should welcome any indication on the part of the licence-holders that they would make their houses more attractive to the public than in the past by the introduction of such reforms as the noble Lord suggests. But I dispute the allegation that the justices have repressed any efforts to reform the character or the kind of entertainment which is given in public-houses. I have no knowledge of it at all. It may not be to the interests of the licence-holders to introduce this kind of reformed entertainment; but I have no knowledge that it has ever been the policy of the justices on the licensing committees to repress an attempt to introduce reforms.
The Memorandum also says that the County Commissioners would approach their duties unhampered by the old policy of restriction. I have no knowledge of any policy of restriction; and I certainly cannot confirm a Memorandum of that kind by giving my vote for a Bill based upon it. There is, of course, something in the character of the entertainments which the Bill proposes to give which I should accept with some reservation. For instance, I

405
do not think I should welcome the duty of attending at a public-house which had been given a licence for dancing, and deciding whether or not the dancing was for the benefit of morals; and I do not know that the Commissioners would care about such a responsibility. With this exception I am in entire sympathy with the class of entertainment the noble Lord would like to see introduced, and I see no reason why it should rot be introduced if the licence-holders are willing. But they are the people you want to get at, and not to change the authorities which give out the licences. You have to encourage the licence-holder to improve and to enlarge the kind of entertainment which he may give. So far as that part of the noble Lord's Bill is concerned, I am entirely in sympathy with him; but I cannot commit myself to a Memorandum which states that we who have had the responsibility of administering the Licensing Act for many years—and I believe have done so honestly and judgmatically—have for a long time been following a policy of restriction, because I believe that to be absolutely incorrect.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill will believe me when I say that I not only sympathise with the admirable intentions of the Bill as set out in the explanatory Memorandum, but that appreciate the broad-minded spirit by which he seeks to attain those ends. I recognise with pleasure that the noble Lord does not desire to interfere with the liberty of the individual in selecting the beverage he prefers, whether it be of a temperance nature or otherwise. Nor does he seek to enforce restrictions or prohibitions in that direction. I understand that his intention is to encourage temperance by kindness and suggestion rather than by any drastic measures; and I am sure that this policy is one which would commend itself to your Lordships' House. I fully recognise also the wisdom of his desire to bring the State and "the trade"—if I may use the term that is commonly applied—into closer harmony, rather than to provoke needless antagonism in trying to effect reforms which, after all, must be for the benefit of both parties. Your Lordships also will probably agree that improved surroundings, by offering other inducements than drink, and other attractions are the most likely way of promoting temper-
406
ance in an unobtrusive and effective manner.
Therefore if I venture to suggest certain criticisms, I trust the noble Lord will believe that I do so against the Bill as it stands and not against the motives which actuate it; because with those motives I am, as I have already said, in entire sympathy. Really the ideal which is set out by the True Temperance Association is so alluring, the picture that they draw of improved houses, social evenings, innocent recreation, and homelike surroundings, is so attractive, that it seems hard—I might almost say it seems cruel—to have to analyse the scheme from a practical and businesslike point of view. I have had the advantage of studying the Report which that association issued, and when I read there that they looked forward to the time when, in the improved houses, we should have music, dancing, amusements that were suitable for both sexes and for all classes, I really felt that by not welcoming this Bill I should be seeking to deprive myself of some possible future recreation under irreproachable conditions, approved by the most austere authorities, possibly even in the company of some members of your Lordships' House. I see foreshadowed there a return to bygone days, and I see visions of freedom of action which have certainly not obtained in recent years.
But I think I must ask your Lordships to set the visions on one side and to turn to the realities. The main provision of this Bill is the substitution of Commissioners paid out of public funds for unpaid magistrates who for generations have devoted their energies to licensing work. I cannot but think that the noble Lord in his explanatory Memorandum, as was pointed out by Lord Harris, is unduly hard on the efforts of those licensing justices. I think I might even say that he is a little bit ungenerous to those who have given their time voluntarily to the public service. He speaks, as has already been said, of "the existing system of administration by committees of justices and the tradition of repression rather than of development which characterises the policy of many of them," and he says that it is to this that "the present unsatisfactory state of public-houses is by many critics in a large measure attributed." He then goes on to suggest that salvation is to be found in a more professional body

407
of administrators. I should like to ask on what evidence he bases that assumption.
I think I am correct in saying that the criticisms against the action of licensing justices hitherto have come both from the licensed trade and from the temperance reformers. Therefore I think it is fair, and not unreasonable, to argue that as they appear not to have given unqualified satisfaction to either party, they have done their work in an impartial manner and have made an honest attempt to arrive at a happy mean, in so far as their powers permit. After all, I would remind the noble Lord, they can only carry out their duties in accordance with the laws, and why he assumes that they are adverse to effecting improvements I am unable to see. It is true that in his speech he quoted a few instances, but it is hardly fair to condemn the whole body of licensing justices owing to certain instances which he has been no doubt at considerable pains to obtain. To sweep them all away, good, bad, and indifferent, and expect a newly-formed body to effect improvements, is an experiment which may be justified by results, but I think it is difficult to see why these newly-appointed commissioners, merely because they happen to be salaried officials, should be more broadminded, far-seeing, and ready to effect improvements than voluntary workers.
I wish to say a few words on the financial aspect of the question. If the success of this scheme were assured, no doubt in the interests of the community the financial aspect would be of little moment, but I would point out that the areas proposed to be set up in this Bill would number about 140 in all. Taking the salaries of the commissioners at the figure named—£2,500 a year for each area—the total cost would amount to £350,000 a year, to which must be added the cost of staffs, travelling expenses, and so on. That is no inconsiderable figure. Then consider the effect upon the houses themselves. I understand that in addition to their ordinary duties the new commissioners would have instructions to issue certificates to certain houses, when they fulfilled the qualifications set out in Clause 5, that they should be recognised as improved public-houses and that they are then to have certain privileges conferred upon them which are not to be enjoyed by other houses. The suggestion appears to be that the central authority shall formulate certain guiding rules, and
408
I ask whether these rules are to be strictly defined or elastic. If they are to be strictly defined, then they must surely act hardly in many instances, owing to local conditions, whereas the present system is able to prevent those hardships. If, on the other hand, these guiding rules are to be elastic, then you would have the present conditions reproduced, and the same charges that are now levelled against the licensing justices—that they act arbitrarily and on no fixed principle, and that the holders of licences are subject to the whim for the moment of the justices, would be equally true of these new commissioners whom it is proposed to set up; and it would appear that dissatisfaction and jealousy would be fostered rather than alleviated.
I presume that the noble Lord considers the general relaxation as to entertainments and the admission of children as an essential feature of the scheme. I do not propose to deal with that at any length, but merely to point out that it is a considerable innovation, requiring very serious consideration and the adjustment of other enactments. I will pass to one point, which I think is specially worthy of notice, and that is the proposal that there should be a rebate of half the licence duties when licensed premises are recognised. as an improved public-house, and that the holder of the licence should be excused contribution to the compensation fund for the extinction of redundant licences: Apparently at the same time the Public Exchequer is to be charged with the expense of paying the new commissioners and their staffs, and also to be deprived of some part of existing revenue. This, I would point out, would very considerably increase the figure I have already named as being the initial cost of the scheme.
There is another point to which I would direct your Lordships' attention. This compensation fund is needed for the extinction of redundant and undesirable houses. This fund will apparently be very considerably reduced, and the consequence will be that fewer undesirable houses will of necessity be extinguished, and this, I think, must be an argument which will appeal to the advocates of temperance reform. There is a further argument which will appeal to all advocates of fairplay, in whom I am sure I may include the members of your Lordships' House. It is this. There must be certain unfairness in relieving improved houses

409
of their liability to this contribution, and at the same time leaving the charges to be paid by the remaining licence-holders. Although their individual contributions may not be increased, yet they will have to face the position that the number of their rivals would not, be reduced comparatively, and therefore indirectly they must suffer.
There is another point—namely, that many of these licence-holders whose houses: will not be recognised as improved houses would probably be very glad indeed to comply with the conditions which would entitle them to rank as improved houses, but they may be prevented from fulfilling the qualifications by situation, available resources, and very likely by the conditions of the leases on which they hold their premises. Therefore the position is this, that before committing themselves to the expenditure involved in the Bill the Government would need to assure themselves that the results of the Bill are to such a wide and fruitful nature as to justify the charges on the public funds which would be entailed if it became law. They would also have to assure themselves that the comparatively small amendment of the licensing system which is proposed in the Bill would not constitute an obstacle to further and more beneficent reform at some future time. It cannot be said that careful consideration of the Bill offers any ground for confidence on either of those heads, and therefore the Government are unable to support the Bill as at present drafted. In conclusion, I wish to repeat the assurance that this decision does not arise from any reluctance to assist or promote that improvement which the noble Lord and I am sure all of your Lordships desire. It arises solely from a doubt as to the efficiency of the scheme now put forward, and I would ask your Lordships not to be too ready, owing to your sympathy with its object, to pass this measure without being sure that it really will effect in a permanent and satisfactory manner that improvement which we all would so heartily welcome.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I, in the first place, say with what great satisfaction I am sure your Lordships listened to the noble Earl, who is representing the Government for the first time to-night. I listened to him with the greatest possible pleasure. I thought that he made a very lucid and admirably
410
moderate statement of the case as he was instructed to do, and I look forward to many opportunities to hear him in the same capacity again. I am a little sorry, I must admit, at the conclusion at which the noble Earl arrived in not supporting my noble friend's Bill. I would like to remind your Lordships that we are not asked on the present occasion to support every provision in the Bill. That is not the question. The question is whether we agree with the principle of the Bill. That is the well-known Second Reading issue which we have to determine.
My noble friend Lord Lamington has been for many years a great representative, both in the country and in your Lordships' House, of the true temperance movement. That is a movement which has, I believe, yearly gained strength in public favour. The original position, of course, was that there ought to be as free a supply of refreshment to the public as the public desired. That is the old idea of all. Then came the great temperance movement—of which I will speak with the greatest respect, because it has done an immense amount of good—in which a totally different point of view was put forward, namely, that places for the sale of intoxicating liquor ought to be permitted with a certain amount of reluctance; that they ought to be severely controlled—which is obviously right—and, more than that, that they should be very severely limited so that not only should they be open for a very restricted number of hours but that they should be curtailed in numbers, those numbers being gradually reduced, and that they should be prevented from offering any attraction to the public which might tempt the people to enter them and consume intoxicating liquors.
It was the universal policy of nearly every bench of licensing magistrates, and to some extent, I believe, of the law, to prevent anything like amenities, or games which should be played, or music that could be heard, lest the public-house should become popular. Partly through the law and partly through public opinion, public-houses began to be looked upon as rather disgraceful places, which a woman could not enter without losing her character and which a child must not be allowed to enter in any circumstances whatever. That was the general policy. Although I yield to no man in the House in my feeling as to the awful results of intemperance or in my admiration for the efforts of the temperance

411
societies, yet I believe that the whole of that view of treating the consumption of intoxicating liquors as something disgraceful was wholly wrong and founded on a false foundation; and anything false is bad in public policy. This did not command the assent of the public. The electors did not really agree with it, and it was not genuine. There is nothing wrong in the consumption in moderation of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, I always welcomed the movement of which my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury is president, and of which my noble friends Lord Lamington and Lord Plymouth are supporters—a movement for true temperance, to put the whole question on a rational basis. While you do your utmost by the law and public opinion to restrain anything like intemperance you can give the wage-earning classes what they have a right to have, which is reasonable and decent accommodation for refreshment. This ought not to be looked upon as in the least disgraceful, and you should give every amenity to the public which they have the right to demand. That is the true temperance movement.
My noble friend has come forward and submitted a Bill with a view to carrying out the policy of that movement, and, with great respect, I think he is entitled to the approval of your Lordships for the effort he is making. I believe he is on the right lines, and therefore I am, if I may say so, a little impatient of the detailed criticism to which the Bill has been exposed this afternoon. Detailed criticism is, of course, right at the proper stage. When we come, if we do come, to the Committee stage, the views which were put forward so ably by Lord Harris and the noble Earl who speaks for the Government ought, of course, to have every weight given to them by your Lordships, but in my humble judgment they realty do not touch the essence of the matter. My noble friend Lord Harris said that he was going to oppose the Bill because of the Memorandum. That is a little hard. I am sorry he should have thought that; because I should regret it if the practice of attaching Memoranda to Bills were to be discouraged. They are very useful indications of the Bills, because they enable your Lordships, and I believe the other House of Parliament, readily to grasp the general tenor of the Bills. It would do nothing but discourage the whole practice of having Memoranda if they were read
412
into the Bills themselves. They are not the Bills. They may not accurately describe the Bills. If you want to find out what a Bill says you must take the text of the Bill, but a Memorandum is a very useful indication of contents. Therefore, I should deprecate the argument addressed to your Lordships that you ought to throw out a Bill because a particular noble Lord did not agree with the Memorandum.
It is said—I think I beard the noble Earl who represents the Government say so just now—that the principle of the Bill was the establishment of this body of commissioners who were going to supersede the licensing magistrates. Personally, I have a great sympathy with the noble Lord's objection to that proposal. I should certainly like to hear the proposal argued before I assented to it. But I do not take that to be the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is contained in Clause 5. It is the principle that if public-houses comply with certain conditions and satisfy a certain authority that they have complied with the conditions, they may be entitled to certificates as being improved public-houses with all the advantages which those certificates carry with them. Of course, the conditions which they are called upon to satisfy are the conditions of being public-houses conducted on what I may compendiously call true temperance principles. If they do that then, instead of being henceforward looked upon as something discreditable and as places where a decent woman cannot go and as a concession to the original sin of human nature that ought to be severely restricted, they become a reasonable opportunity for refreshment to the wage-earning classes which they would not otherwise get, and are entitled to be treated accordingly.
That seems to me to be the principle of the Bill, and if your Lordships go to a Division—I do not know what my noble friend intends to do—I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because it contains that principle. As to whether that particular new set of things should be administered by commissioners or by the old licensing magistrates, that appears to me, though a very important matter, certainly a secondary matter. I have a very high regard for my brother magistrates—I speak of the county magistrates. I have no great experience of the borough magistrates, but the county magistrates I

413
know to be a high principled body of men, who do their work for nothing and are entitled to the greatest credit and gratitude. I am sure the great body of them would carry out any policy which Parliament imposed upon them. No doubt there is that difficulty which my noble friend has called attention to, that they have been accustomed to administer a law very different in character from the one he is seeking to have enacted. But I do not say for a moment that they might not be entrusted with the obligations and duties of administering the law on the new basis which my noble friend would seek to establish. That is a matter to be argued out in Committee.
The noble Earl opposite said that one of the objections to the plan was its expense. That is an objection, and a very strong one. I was delighted to hear a member of the Government putting in a plea for economy. It is economy in a small way, no doubt. My noble friend says it is about £350,000; but when I think of the millions which have been absolutely wasted every day by His Majesty's Government, I feel gratified that there is a beginning of economy. It is a strong argument, and I hope it is one which will weigh with my noble friend Lord Lamington in Committee, let alone the fact that it does not fall to your Lordships' House to inflict taxes on the taxpayer. I am afraid a little difficulty may arise on this point notwithstanding the devices my noble friend will seek to avail himself of in order to evade the difficulty. On the whole I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill, as I gather from the noble Earl that the Government do not object to the principle and the effort to reform public-houses, and that we shall deal with the machinery under which that great principle is to be carried out when we get into Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who had just sat down has stated his case so clearly, and I am in such complete agreement with practically everything he said, that I have very little to add to what has fallen from him. I think it cannot be disputed that in drafting his Bill as he has, with the exclusion of the licensing bench and the substitution of special commissions for those who now licence public-houses, the noble Lord has certainly not adopted the line of least
414
resistance. He will find, in fact, that by this proposal he has raised something like a hornets' nest all over the country. So far as the County of London is concerned, I have already received some animated protests by those who are entitled to speak for the magistrates of London, strongly protesting against the terms in which their activities are described in the fatal Memorandum to which allusion has been made.
On this point I quite agree with the noble Marquess, that it is not fair to set aside or even to oppose a Bill, if you think its terms are tolerable, merely on account of the terms in which a Memorandum is framed by those who are responsible for the Bill. But it is right also to add that these Memoranda, which we find exceedingly useful in many cases, ought to be purely explanatory in their terms and not argumentative. This Memorandum, beyond all question, goes further than mere explanation, and is rather of the nature of a First or Second Reading speech, bringing certain charges for instance against the licensing benches. That is a pity, and I think it would have been far better if the Memorandum had been differently framed. In spite of that fact, I agree with the noble Marquess that His Majesty's Government would do well to give this Bill a Second Reading on the understanding that the principle of the Bill is as the noble Marquess described—not the substitution of a body of commissioners for the existing licensing bench, not the enactment of certain substantial pecuniary advantages for those who are willing to undertake a particular form of licensed house (because that is not in our power to enact here), but the assertion of the principle that there should be two types of public-house—that is to say, the ordinary licensed house which may be devoted to the sale of alcoholic drink and nothing else, though it need not necessarily be so, and an improved form of public-house, a place of general resort and refreshment for which certain special privileges may be claimed. Those privileges can be defined in Committee.
I think it is quite clear, at least I assume it to be clear from what I know of your Lordships' House, that this Bill is not likely to pass here in its present form, and that it probably would be subjected in Committee to not inconsiderable amendment. But if the House would agree to pass the Second Reading on the understanding that the principle is such as the

415
noble Marquess has described, I think it would produce a far better effect in the country than the apparent rejection of the whole possibility of improving public-houses on the lines which Lord Lamington has described in his speech. We note that the noble Earl, in explaining, in his extremely clear and capable speech why the Government were not able to accept the Bill, did not hold out any promise or hope that they would be prepared with any alternative method. He blessed the general and vague idea of improved public-houses, but he in no way indicated that His Majesty's Government were prepared to encourage their inception. That being so I am afraid, if this Bill is simply rejected on Second Reading and nothing more is said, that the country generally, and in particular those who are in favour of this reform, will get the impression that your Lordships are indifferent.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I desire to say only a few words on this Bill, and my excuse for doing so is that I have had a long experience, as a magistrate and at the Home Office, of the licensing laws. Upon the main purpose and object of the Bill I find myself very much in the position of the noble Earl who spoke for the Government. I am strongly in sympathy with the purpose of the noble Lord opposite. It seems to me to be a matter for reproach to our licensing system that there is so wide a difference between the house of temporary refreshment abroad and the corresponding house here. In many countries abroad citizens of all classes go to these places of refreshment, take their rest there for some part of the day, and take with them their women and children, and no danger and no reproach attaches to them. Here we have, I am afraid, a very different state of things. There are some houses here to which people are very reluctant to go, in which you do not expect to see women at all, and from which of course children are by law excluded. That is not right, that ought not to be the position of things; and there aught to be some way of arriving at a better system in this country. There ought to be something approaching to what we see elsewhere. Therefore, so far I am entirely in agreement with the Bill.
On the other hand, I also concur with what the noble Earl said as to the machinery proposed in the Bill. To begin with I see,
416
of course, the great financial objection. I can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer having the greatest objection to this Bill. It would deprive him of a very large revenue indeed. Apart from that, you have the change of administrative body. I do not endorse from my experience, which is a very long one, what is suggested in the Memorandum about the magistrates who have administered the licensing law. I have never come across the policy of repression to which the Memorandum refers. I think that most magistrates are anxious to encourage the improvement of public-houses, but the fact is their powers are very limited indeed. They have only the power of dealing with applications made to them. They have no right of initiative if I may say so, in the way of suggesting improvements, or of requiring improvements to be made, and it is apparently for that reason that they have been unable to effect the improvements which many of them would desire to make.
There is also the point—a very real point—as to the nature of the body proposed to be set up. It is proposed to set up in lieu of the voluntary committees of magistrates and committees of Quarter Sessions, a body of county commissioners, three in number, I think, who would be paid, and of which body the County Court Judge is to be the chairman. I know something of the work of County Court Judges, at all events from information, and I doubt whether any of them would have the time to give to so important a duty as this. The suggestion is that they should take it, I suppose, in their spare hours, at some slight additional remuneration. Many of them are overworked already, and could not possibly give time to important work of this kind. Apart from that, the whole charge upon the Exchequer, as the noble Earl has pointed out, would be a very serious one indeed.
There is another objection which has not been put. I very much doubt whether the noble Lord would get the improvement which he desires by means of any local bodies, and I am not quite sure that the time has not come for setting up a central body which would endeavour to arrive at the ends which he has in view. We have much to learn from our experience in the war. I do not say that all the regulations of the Central Board of Control ought to be continued into peace times. I am far from saying that. But I think that every one who knows the facts, and who has studied them,

417
will agree with me that certain features of the work done by that Board have been attended with very real success. Very few people, possibly none at all, would be willing to go back to-day entirely to the state of things before the war.
The quotation which the noble Lord made from the Chairman of the Institute of Brewing was very much in point. Being connected with the trade, he of course knows their thoughts. He said, as I understand, that to some extent he would desire the regulations of the Board of Control to be continued. I do not want to go into that matter in detail, but I suggest that the time has come when it is worth while considering whether we should set up as a permanent body some kind of central authority which would have some of the powers that were given to the present Board during the war, and which night, as I suggest, deal with the matters to which the noble Lord's Bill especially refers. I think it would be an advantage, if the system is to be adopted of bringing into existence two kinds of public-houses, that that should be done on a system uniform throughout the country, and that regulations, if they are to be made, should be made by a central body, and be conformed to by the local authorities. I only desire to add one other observation. I was rather disappointed that the noble Earl did not go a little further than he went, because many people would be glad to-day to learn what is to be the policy of the Government with regard to these licensing matters. Whether we like it or not, we are to-day the parting of the ways. We have come to a point where some policy must be adopted and deliberately followed up.
A variety of courses have been suggested. There are three or possibly four. The first is prohibition or veto, general or local. To that in any form I am myself entirely opposed. I think it is contrary to all our British traditions. Secondly, there is the policy of purchase. That, I know, has received very serious and very thoughtful consideration during the last few years, and it was with a view, I believe, of arriving at a conclusion upon that proposal that the Government appointed certain Commissions to go into the question with regard to England, Scotland, and Ireland. Those Commissions presented Reports which will be very valuable indeed.
418
The Report which was presented by the Commissioners over which my noble friend Lord Sumner presided is full of facts and of excellent advice upon that matter. The same may be said, I have no doubt, of the Scottish and of the Irish Reports. But I am afraid that the result of those Reports is that there is a strong financial bar in the way of the proposals for purchase. There are, I know, other arguments against it into which I am not going; but at all events the proposal means a very substantial addition to the National Debt of this country, and, without expressing my own opinion, because I ought not to do so at this stage, I am afraid that one must come to the conclusion that the financial argument alone would be sufficient to prevent any Government from adopting at an early date the proposal for purchase. The third alternative I suppose is going back to the old pre-war conditions, which I think would mean losing a great deal of valuable ground.
There remains, as far as I can see, only the fourth course, and that is to adopt, and carry out a system of control. We can by following up, by bettering and improving, and by carrying on the system of control initiated during the war, do something to retain the improvement in the habits of the people which has been brought about during the war, and also do something to attain the ends which the noble Lord's Bill has in view. Whether your Lordships pass the Second Reading or not, I hope at all events that these points will be considered at an early date, and that we shall have a declaration from the Government as to their policy; and I believe that the very discussion of this Bill will have done something to bring, that result about.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a. and passed.

SOUTHERN PERSIA.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE rose to ask His Majesty's Government when they will be in a position to issue any further Despatches regarding the operations of Imperial Forces in Southern Persia for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in putting this Question to His Majesty's Government I have no desire to ask for any full information on the whole subject of Persia, or to institute a debate on that subject, although it is one which sooner or later will doubtless be discussed in your Lordships' House. My Question relates only to those forces of His Majesty's Army which have been for some time past engaged in operations in Southern Persia. As your Lordships are aware, the southern part of Persia has been that in which we have taken a special interest since the AngloRussian Agreement was made, by which a zone specially interesting to Russia in the North, a zone in. the South specially interesting to ourselves, and a neutral zone were formed.
There is no need to labour here the question of our interests in Southern Persia. Our interests in the Persian Gulf have been recognised as paramount for a great number of years, and finally since the declaration made by Lord Lansdowne some fourteen years ago. The trade routes in Southern Persia are of great importance, both to us here and especially to India, and without desiring in any way to impair or prejudicially affect the independence of the Persian Government we have felt it our duty so far as possible to ensure the safety of life, property, and trade on those routes. As your Lordships know, from time to time the condition of Persia has been little short of a welter of anarchy, and in the course of the war those southern areas in which we were especially interested became so utterly disturbed that the trade routes were closed and the interests of British subjects were seriously affected.
It became, therefore, necessary to intervene there on strictly limited lines so far as our power admitted. Two years ago our power in this direction was not very great. Our commitments in other parts of the world were enormous. A very large—what would have been thought an impossibly large—proportion of the Indian Army Was engaged first in France, after-
420
wards in Mesopotamia and Palestine, and to some extent in East Africa in operations of war. Therefore, even had it been so desired, it would not have been possible to send a very large force to Persia. But a force which in former times might have been thought substantial was sent for these police purposes to Southern Persia, and it was to the proceedings of this force, among others, that I called attention in the speech I made on the Address, when I said that perspective regarding some of His Majesty's forces engaged in the war had become wrong in the sense that public attention had been far more closely called to some than to others, which had been neglected in the public estimation.
Very little, I think, is known to the public of what has happened in Persia. During the very last few days, owing to the enterprise of The Times newspaper, some important articles describing the feats of His Majesty's forces there have appeared; one I think was in the issue of to-day—a full and interesting account. And I can assure your Lordships that when all the facts are known it will be found that, both in the undertaking of long and arduous marches through difficult country and in holding exposed positions against largely superior forces of the enemy, the feats which have been performed by the Indian troops there will bear comparison with any which can be cited from operations in other parts of Asia or Africa and of Europe itself. Some of the operations which took place in the neighbourhood of Shiraz were of great importance in themselves, and exhibited high military qualities both on the part of the very able commander of the force, Sir Percy Sykes, and of the troops, mainly Indian and from different parts of India, which were engaged.
For some reason which I do not profess to understand, no Despatches regarding this force have appeared for a considerable time. I do not think—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that the operations of the last year and a-half have been described in published Despatches. The whole subject of the issue of Despatches is something of a puzzle to a civilian observer. Perhaps the noble Earl will again correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that some rule exists whereby Despatches though sent in and prepared for publication are withheld until it is possible to issue other Despatches referring to quite unrelated operations in different parts of the

421
world. The noble Earl will, perhaps, tell me if any such rule of the Army Council exists, and, if so, what is the purpose of it; because it is not clear to an outsider why Despatches from any theatre of war should not, be published as soon as they are available.
As your Lordships will see, it is, or at any rate may be, exceedingly hard upon those who are engaged. It may happen that some officer, honourably mentioned in Despatches, does not receive until the lapse of considerable time some honour or promotion for which he is recommended. If a long delay takes place such an officer may be incapacitated by wounds or even lose his life and at any rate some of those dear to him who would be most deeply interested in the publication of those Despatches may themselves pass away before the facts are known and circulated. It does seem desirable, therefore, that as much expedition as possible in the issue of such Despatches should be made.
The operations, of course, have been on so vast a scale that it is difficult for anybody, even those who are able to make a complete study of the subject, to keep clearly in their minds a focus of the different fights and the differents victories in all parts of the world. But one feels that it is a real loss if much time is permitted to elapse before the publication is made. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that, a complete history of these particular operations minor, indeed, but in themselves most important and most gallantly carried through will appear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, when the noble Marquess put his Question upon the Paper I was not altogether certain whether the discussion that would arise therefrom would be confined to the subject-matter raised in that Question, or whether it would spread itself out, as is our habit, over a wider area. I realise that if I had formed the former anticipation it would have been correct. In form the Question of the noble Marquess is confined to the operations that have taken place in one area alone in Persia—namely, in Southern Persia; and it is directed solely to inquiring whether any Despatches will be laid at an early date on that subject, and what is the reason for their not having been laid so far. Had the noble Marquess covered a wider area of survey I should have been quite prepared
422
to meet him, because I think he is right in pointing out that it is now some time since we had a discussion in this House upon our policy and events in Persia as a whole. I always welcome the interest that is displayed by several of your Lordships in that matter.
Persia, although perhaps to some extent withdrawn from the public view, has been one of the most interesting minor theatres if not of war, at any rate of military activity; and the history of what has been going on there, of the action we have been obliged to take not merely in the South of the country but on the Mesopotamian side, on the North-West and on the North-East, is a history full of interest, drama, even of romance, which I hope some time to be allowed to say something about to your Lordships' House; and if at any time during the ensuing weeks your Lordships desire to have a statement upon the matter I shall be quite prepared to assist.
The question, however, raised to-day is relatively a minor one. The noble Marquess has confined his attention to the particular operations that have been taking place between the Persian Gulf and Shiraz—the operations that, in the first place, were instituted by the force raised and commanded by Sir Percy Sykes, known as the South Persian Rifles; and, secondly, the force that had to be sent out at a later date from India to relieve him when he was beleaguered at Shiraz. As regards those operations, I believe—although I do not absolutely carry the facts in my mind—that a Despatch was printed and circulated at an earlier date from Sir Percy Sykes himself; and certainly we have no reason for believing that, when any further Despatch is received, it will be withheld. The fact is that the operations to Which the noble Marquess refers are only just over, if indeed they are over now. It was, I think, in the month of May last that the relief expedition from India to which I referred landed at Bushire, in the hot weather, when your Lordships know that not much can be done in the way of military movement, or indeed of any sort, in the areas lying between the coast and the mountains. The time was spent in laying a railway from Bushire across the coastal Hinterland to Borazjun, and then our troops moved up into the hills, penetrated as far as a place called Eazerun, 100 miles from the coast, and there formed a junction

423
with the forces operating from Shiraz, and thus Shiraz was relieved and the object attained. That was only in January last.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As the noble Earl mentioned the subject, my impression was that some Despatches had arrived in India and had not been issued, but had been withheld for some purpose which I do not quite understand.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My noble friend in the India. Office is not aware of that, and I am not either. As regards the general consideration to which the noble Marquess alluded, he said he thought there was sometimes an understanding, if not a rule, that military Despatches relating to operations in one part of the world were withheld in deference to considerations arising out of war-like operations elsewhere. That may be, but I know of no such rule, and I do not think it can apply in the present instance, because these were detached operations, unaffected by the broad issues of the war, and I know of no reason why the Despatches should not be laid, and I hope that as soon as they are received we may satisfy the very legitimate curiosity of noble Lords. If the noble Marquess or any one else likes to put down a general Question I will do my best to satisfy him.
LORD LAMINGTON: Will the noble Earl state what happened to the force which got to Kazerun? I thought he was going to make a statement, but was interrupted.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: What I said, I think, was that the force operating from the coast made its way as far into the interior as Kazerun, which is about 100 miles from the coast, and there effected a junction with the troops from Shiraz; Shiraz ceased to be beleaguered and was relieved, and the object of this force was attained. Consequently I hope that military operations may be regarded as closed, and therefore it is not necessary to keep a force in that part of the country longer than is required.
LORD LAMINGTON: Was the force, which I understand consisted of 15,000 men, levied entirely in Persia?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think I can answer the question. When the South Persian Rifles were instituted originally, the idea, in agreement with the Persian Government, was to institute a force in the South corresponding somewhat in character and numbers to the force then organised under the old conditions by Russian officers in the North. The idea was to have two forces of gendarmerie, of about 11,000 each. Then great changes occurred with the revolution in Russia, and Sir Percy Sykes's activities in recruiting were limited, I think, to raising a force of between 5,000 and 6,000 men. That I believe, was the maximum strength to which the South Persian Rifles at any moment attained.

THE CASE OF MISS PENNANT.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the fact—

1. That Miss Violet Douglas Pennant was summarily dismissed from her post of Commandant as well as from the Women's Royal Air Force by Major-General Sir W. S. Brancker only a few days after Major-General Sir Godfrey Paine (the predecessor of the former in the office of Master-General of Personnel) had assured her, upon her tendering her resignation, that the Air Ministry had complete confidence in her and begged that she should not resign her appointment.

2. That the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Cecil Harmsworth to inquire into the matter.

3. That Mr. Cecil Harmsworth recommended that in justice to Miss Pennant a full judicial inquiry should be held.

4. That the Prime Minister promised that such an inquiry should be held.

5. That the inquiry has not yet been held and that the Air Ministry declines to have it held; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need not read the Questions with which I have prefaced my Motion on the Paper, and I do not think they require any explanation.

425
It is a mere inquiry as to the facts, and when the House is in possession of the facts through the answer of the representative of His Majesty's Government, which I trust will be candid and complete, I may have something more to say. For that purpose I shall exercise my right of reply, and I shall be astonished if some other members of the House do not also have something to say. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, in rising to reply to the Questions which the noble Lord has put on the Paper, may I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to him for his courtesy in giving me notice longer than is usually allowed by the rules of the House of his intention to raise this matter. It is certainly not for me to criticise the Wisdom of the noble Lord in bringing this matter before your Lordships, and as to the length of the noble Lord's speech I feel I have no sort of ground for complaint. The noble Lord has occupied responsible positions in the service of the Government, and he knows perfectly well the requirements of the Public Service, and so I feel that he has considered this matter very closely in all its vital aspects before taking the responsibility of raising this subject and asking your Lordships to consider it.
My Lords, a question of this description is always a very difficult one to deal with, and when there is a suggestion that anyone labours under a grievance; real or unreal, it always finds a sympathetic audience in your Lordships' House; and when the central figure of the matter is a lady, it naturally arouses those chivalrous instincts in your Lordships' minds which we are glad should and do exist. But Miss Violet Douglas Pennant has no need to take advantage of any assistance of this kind. She has a career behind her in the public service to which I am only too glad to be able to pay a high tribute. She has been a member of the London County Council, and also a member of the Welsh Insurance Commission, and when I speak of these two bodies we know well what degree of efficiency and capacity was required to discharge those duties well and adequately, as Miss Violet Douglas Pennant has done all through these years.
If I could he suspected of prejudice in taking a line which can be termed a somewhat antagonistic one—that is not the
426
word which I should like to use, but I should say a line which does not exactly coincide with the view put forward by those who are supporting Miss Douglas Pennant in this question—if I could be suspected of any prejudice in the matter, may I say that Miss Douglas Pennant is the daughter of a late highly-respected member of your Lordships' house, who I am glad to think honoured me with his acquaintance, and her two half-brothers were two of my most highly-valued friends, both of whom lost their lives in the war. Therefore I feel that you will absolve me of having any prejudice in the matter, and admit that my sole desire is to put before your Lordships the case as I have endeavoured to understand it, and ask you to realise what is the view of the Government in connection with this matter.
My task is not a very easy one on its merits. It would be an easy one if I were to read out to your Lordships the specific answers which I have in my possession to the Questions which the noble Lord has put on the Paper, but I feel that I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not, with the very inferior powers at my disposal, venture to present the case to your Lordships with a view of removing any misunderstanding or any sense of bitterness which may reside in the minds of those who are supporting Miss Douglas Pennant, and also of those in your Lordships' House who naturally take a great interest in this matter. It is in this connection that I feel I am entitled to claim a certain amount of indulgence from your Lordships. My Parliamentary career has been passed far more in polishing the weapons of attack, if I may use the expression, than in learning the meaning of the subtler weapons of defence. Your Lordships know well that a member of the Opposition in the House of Commons always endeavours to bring to his aid all the diabolical ingenuity he can command for the purpose of harassing an embarrassed Minister⁁
LORD AMPTHILL: Question!
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY—and I feel that I may, perhaps, have ranged myself on the side of the noble Lord but for the fact that I am in the responsible position of answering the Questions which the noble Lord has put. But when I speak of "attack" and "defence" I am surely exaggerating. There is no question of attack, and there is

427
no question of defence. There is no idea that one side will triumph and another side will fail. We are anxious that this matter should be put before your Lordships in its true aspects, so that your Lordships will be able to draw your own conclusions, and to realise whether the Ministry have acted fairly and justly, or whether Miss Douglas Pennant has been treated in a manner in which certainly no one was entitled to be treated. I should like to say at this juncture that my sole desire—and it is a burning desire—is to prove to your Lordships that the Air Ministry have not acted unjustly, have not besmirched the character of the lady in question by the action which they have taken, and have in no sense injured a career which we hope will be employed to the benefit of the country for many years to come.
May I deal with the first Question which the noble Lord has put on the Paper? I should like to say at once that there is a certain amount of misapprehension in the mind of the noble Lord. Miss Violet Douglas Pennant was not a member of the Women's Royal Air Force but was lent to that force by the Welsh Insurance Commission. It is quite true that Miss Douglas Pennant was superseded. Your Lordships are well aware of all those difficulties which naturally surround the inauguration of a new undertaking. We have been the witnesses during these last four years of the almost insuperable difficulties which heads of Departments have had to overcome, and I am sorry to think that the Women's Royal Air Force provided no exception to that rule. There were enormous difficulties to counteract, and His Majesty's Government are well aware that Miss Douglas Pennant did her utmost to overcome them. But I regret to say that Lord Weir, the Secretary of State for the Air Ministry, was convinced that she was unable to overcome those difficulties.
In that connection I should like to go into all possible detail for the purpose of satisfying the noble Lord who has raised the subject, and to show your Lordships exactly how the matter stood. The Women's Royal Air Force had been in existence for some months, and the jurisdiction of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant occupies a certain period of that time. As I have said, the path was beset with difficulties, and this fact was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. He satisfied himself, on the evidence which he
428
obtained, that there was a large amount of disorganisation, and that the control over the Women's Royal Air Force was not of such a character as to justify that state of affairs continuing. The Secretary of State did not make up his mind at once. A certain period of time was allowed to elapse, and then the Secretary of State wrote a letter to Miss Violet Douglas Pennant, and, in a word, that lady was superseded. Now I venture to come to a point which I am very willing, on behalf of the Government, to admit. It is that, while it was supposed that a month would elapse before the Secretary of State would come to his final decision, a fortnight alone was allowed to elapse, and Miss Violet Douglas Pennant was requested by the Secretary of State to give up her duties.
LORD AMPTHILL: Will the noble Marquess read that letter?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have not got the letter with me at the moment.
LORD AMPTHILL: Does it exist?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have not the letter of Lord Weir with me at the moment, but I can tell the noble Lord more or less its contents.
LORD AMPTHILL: If you please.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord must excuse me, because this is a matter which has come to my cognisance only in the course of the last two days. He will realise, and noble Lords will realise, that this episode (if I may use the expression) occurred under the Ægis of the previous Administration of the Royal Air Force. When I say that, I am not, on behalf of myself or of the present Administration of the Air Force, disclaiming any responsibility in the matter. Our desire is to elucidate the facts and to prove them to the satisfaction of all parties concerned so that no bitterness or misunderstanding can be left in the mind of any one. So far as my memory goes, the letter was to the effect that there had been disorganisation in the Women's Royal Air Force, that for the present Miss Violet Douglas Pennant did not seem to be able to co-operate with those other organisations which came naturally into close contact with the

429
Women's Royal Air Force, and that, in the interests of the service of which he was the representative, he deemed it best that Miss Violet Douglas Pennant should be replaced by a successor.
LORD AMPTHILL: What was the date of that letter, please?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have not got the letter with me.
LORD AMPTHILL: Was it subsequent or previous to the summary dismissal by Major-General Brancker?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have had the letter just placed in my bands. It is dated September 6, 1918.
LORD AMPTHILL: That was some time after the summary dismissal.
Several NOBLE Lords: Order!
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: In reply to the remark which the noble Lord makes, I would point out to him that Miss Violet Douglas Pennant was superseded by the Secretary of State and not by General Brancker or any subordinate official. As the noble Lord must know from his own experience, this is a matter which is the sole responsibility of the head of the Department, who, as we know, takes every possible advice upon the subject. He considers it with the most close personal contact he can possibly achieve, and on his own volition and responsibility lie carries out the details of his administration.
LORD AMPTHILL; I know that. But was she dismissed or not?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish my statement, and perhaps I shall have an opportunity, with the leave of your Lordships' House, to reply to the arguments which the noble Lord has put forward. When the noble Lord interrupted me I was suggesting, or rather affirming—it is the wish and desire of His Majesty's Government I should do so—that they feel, and feel very acutely, that Miss Violet Douglas Pennant was not treated with that consideration which she is entitled to claim, and I know that if Lord Weir was here at this moment he would be
430
the first to admit that and to offer whatever apology lay in his power to Miss Violet Douglas Pennant. But, my Lords, while that is certainly a ground for grievance to which the noble Lord on behalf of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant can lay claim.
I come to another question which the noble Lord has put to me, and that is the connection of Mr. Cecil Harmsworth with the case. As your Lordships are aware, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth is now Under-Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs. Previous to his appointment to that office he was a member of the Prime Minister's secretariat, and in his capacity, I understand, as secretary to the Prime Minister he was asked to investigate the case. I have seen Mr. Cecil Harmsworth and had a certain amount of conversation with him in respect to this matter. He tells me that he had an interview with Miss Violet Douglas Pennant, aid that in the course of the interview she alleged that certain influences had been brought to bear; in fact—I think I am right in taking your Lordships into all the facts I know of the the case—that she was more or less the victim of a conspiracy. Mr. Cecil Harmsworth then, as I think anybody else would have done, felt that it was not a matter on which he could adjudicate, and he left the case at that moment and said, "If this is the case as you state it, it is not a matter for me, but for some competent authority which the Prime Minister may think right to select." That, as far as I understand it, is the sole portion of the story in which Mr. Cecil Harmsworth is interested.
With regard to the statement that the Prime Minister promised that such an inquiry should be held, I say at once that the noble Lord can obtain no corroboration for that statement. I should be glad to know on what authority the noble Lord was led to believe that the Prime Minister had agreed to the setting up of an inquiry into the reasons for the supersession of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant. May I say a few words with regard to the question of supersession? Supersession is almost always a matter which causes a great amount of disappointment, destruction of hopes, in some cases the destruction perhaps of a life-long ambition. In the last four years the number of cases of

431
supersession, not only in the highest ranks in the Army, but also in every walk of the public life, have been many. In my own experience in France I know of many officers who were removed from their posts, not because they were incompetent, not because they were hopelessly inefficient or anything of the kind, but because they did not fulfil all those requirements which are necessary for the efficient carrying out of work, which is before authority. If there was any doubt that one individual was not altogether the best man to have under his jurisdiction, almost in his hands, the lives of the soldiers in France, he was put on one side at once and some one else put in his place. That was not a ground for inquiry; it was not a case in which anyone would have said that the jurisdiction of the head authority should be questioned. It happened in more cases than I should like to enumerate. It is always a matter of regret, and when it comes about it is something that we are all sorry for, but we feel that it is a principle none of us can alter. I am bound to say this on behalf of His Majesty's Government. If the question which the noble Lord is raising is one of inquiry as to the merits of the action which the Secretary of State took in superseding Miss Violet Douglas Pennant, it is a course of action they cannot countenance for one moment. I think it also right to say that if it is a question for inquiry as to whether there was any individual who could fill that post better, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, than Miss Violet Douglas Pennant, that is a demand which the Government are unable to concede.
I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships the attitude of the Government in this matter. I have, perhaps, spoken with a certain amount of heat on the question of supersession. It seems to me to be one which touches the whole public life of this country. The claim of anyone to occupy a high position in this country depends on his capacity to select the right individuals to act as subordinates to himself. But when I come to the other side of the case, and when I am given to understand that there is an idea in Miss Violet Douglas Pennant's mind and in the minds of those noble Lords who are taking up this case that she has been the victim of malice, the victim of a conspiracy, I am entitled to say on behalf of the Government that the Secretary of State will leave no stone unturned to probe that allegation to its very uttermost limit, and if Miss Violet Douglas
432
Pennant can bring forward a prima facie case, in which she will state the names of individuals who are associated in this reprehensible action, give us dates and details, give us facts, an inquiry shall most certainly be held, and all these facts brought to light and to the satisfaction, not only of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant and those noble Lords who are supporting her, but to the satisfaction of the whole of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down, as the whole House would expect, made the very best of an extremely weak case. In the closing part of his speech he apparently entirely forgot that he has to deal with the question of British law rather than the question of Continental law. In England it is the law that every one is innocent until proved to be guilty, and there is no question of anybody who is accused of having done anything having to produce proof that this, that, and the other has not been done. The noble Marquess really took the line that is taken in France, that a prisoner has to prove his innocence before that innocence can be established, and that all sorts of charges have to be met with dates, names, and everything else before innocence can be established.
What is the case? My noble friend has put down on the Paper a series of Questions. What are the answers he received? First of all, the noble Marquess told us that Miss Violet Douglas Pennant did not belong to the Women's Royal Air Force, and was only lent by the Pensions Committee in Wales. I do not know what foundation there is for that. It would be simply proved whether she was a member of the Air Force or not by the noble Marquess being able to tell the House whether Miss Pennant wore the uniform of the Air Force or not: If she wore the uniform of the Force, or was entitled to wear it, she was a member of that Force, and could only cease to be a member of it if she was dismissed, or, as the noble Marquess prefers to call it, superseded. There is no difference between the two words; they mean one and the same thing.
The noble Marquess himself raised the question of supersession which took place in France. I have seen a good many cases of that kind, but I do not re

433
member any case in which an officer was not told the reasons why he had been superseded. It was obvious that he had failed to take a position, or to hold it, or that he had been found incompetent in one way or another. But whatever the cause, the officer was always told why he had been superseded. In this case that has not happened. Why has it not happened? We are led to believe that there were other people; perhaps, who were more fitted for the pest. In what way were they more fitted for it? Was it that Miss Violet Douglas Pennant was considered incompetent, or what was the reason? As a matter of fact, if the noble Marquess had produced the letter from the Minister of the Air Force we would find that that Minister wrote stating that Miss Pennant had been extremely efficient. That is hardly a reason for dismissal lie failed to produce that letter. I do not know how things are done in the Ministry, but as a rule in a great Government Office any papers relating to an individual are kept in one jacket and in one file, and every paper relating to that individual should be quite easily found.
As to the further Questions that are on the Paper, the reply that we were given to No. 2 was that the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Cecil Harmsworth; to No. 3, that Mr. Cecil Harmsworth was in possession of the facts as given to him by Miss Pennant and thought that a judicial inquiry might be held; and as to No. 4, the noble Marquess does not know whether the Prime Minister promised an inquiry or not. To No. 5 the reply was that it is quite impossible that any inquiry should be held. I think that any individual who is placed in the position of Miss Pennant is entitled to be told quite clearly and without any equivocation why she was dismissed from the post which she held.
This is not a single case. There are other cases of a similar kind. There have been cases where information about individuals has been withheld a great deal too long. There is, for instance, the question of Sir Frederick Stopford, of Suvla Bay; the question of General Gough, the question of General Townshend, and the question of Sir William Garstin. In every one of those cases individuals have been dismissed from their posts, or something of a similar kind has happened, and they have been given absolutely no information as to why these things have been done.
434
This House is very jealous of what is done to individuals, particularly to great public servants, and I suggest to His Majesty's Government that it is not very wise of them not to give every fact which they possibly can on these occasions, because inevitably suspicion is aroused, and when suspicion is aroused debates take place which perhaps are not to the benefit of the Government and do not tend to the strengthening of their position. I suggest that His Majesty's Government should face these facts quite clearly, and say that they think in justice to the individual that the individual should be told the reason for the supersession or dismissal. That has never been done yet. The public should be told why these things have occurred.
I believe that a great deal of mischief has been done by leading articles and letters in the Press attacking the Government, and I think it is one of the things which every one of us ought to endeavour to avoid at a time of crisis such as the country is passing through at this moment. I am quite sure that there are no members of your Lordships' House who would not do their utmost to strengthen the hands of the Government, but with procedure such as this it is impossible to support them. So long as the Government put their heads into the sand and play the ostrich it is impossible for members in this House to support them in the way that they wish to do. I press strongly that His Majesty's Government should tell us a great deal more than they have told us vet. If not, I cannot see that my noble friend has any alternative other than to press his Motion, and if he does I shall support hint in the Division Lobby.
LORD WITTENHAM: My Lords, I came down to the House hoping that we should have a rather fuller explanation from His Majesty's Government of the circumstances under which Miss Pennant was dismissed. Of course, we all perfectly understand that while the war was on things had to be done at once, and people had to go at once if, in the opinion of the authorities who decided these matters, it was in the public interest that they should go. The noble Marquess who represents the Government in this matter explained the purport of Lord Weir's letter, which he had not at that time in his hand, but subsequently he said that Lord Weir's letter had been placed in his hand, or at all events I understood him to say so.

435
There, is a rule that if you quote from a letter the letter should be produced. The letter has been quoted from, or at all events the purport of it has been quoted, and I did not understand from the noble Marquess that he had any reason for withholding that letter from your Lordships' House, or for not reading it. But he did not, in fact, read it. I hope, if the noble Marquess replies, that lie may explain to your Lordships why, if he now declines to read it, he does so decline.
I should like to know, was Lord Weir's letter written after or before the interview between Sir William Brancker and Miss Violet Douglas Pennant? In other words, Did Sir William Brancker first dismiss Miss Violet Douglas Pennant and afterwards obtain the sanction of his chief, or was it upon the instructions of his chief that Sir William Brancker told Miss Pennant, as he did in fact tell her, that her services would not be required? I think that a matter of moment. Also there is this—I will not say curious, but noticeable—circumstance about the matter, that according to Miss Violet Douglas Pennant Sir Godfrey Paine, the predecessor of Sir William Brancker, had assured her almost immediately before he left, and before Sir William Brancker took up the leading position, that the Air Ministry had complete confidence in her and begged that she should not resign her appointment. It does strike one as odd that the moment Sir William Brancker comes on the scene, and has hardly really got the details of the work of the office within his cognisance, there and then he arrives at a diametrically opposite opinion from Sir Godfrey Paine. The answer may be given me, quot homines, tot sententiÆ Sir William Brancker differed in tote from the opinion arrived at by his prodecessor, and it is at that point that it seems to me that the letter of Lord Weir is of the greatest possible importance. Because I understand that Lord Weir was in the supreme position at the time that Sir Godfrey Paine held the position that Sir William Brancker subsequently took up, and if that is so Lord Weir knew all about it. Well then, when Sir Godfrey, Paine said that the Air Ministry had complete confidence in her, did he say that with the cognisance and consent of his chief, Lord Weir? And if he did, what right had Sir William Brancker, the moment he came on the scene, to differ from Lord Weir? That, again,
436
strikes me as a point that rather wants elucidation.
I happen to enjoy the privilege of the lady's acquaintance, as many of your Lordships doubtless do, but that does not move me in the matter; how could it? It is only that I desire to know, so far as I am allowed to know, exactly how the matter stands. And as it stands at present I must say I am left in considerable doubt, difficulty, and hesitancy, and it is only by reading (if the noble Marquess can do so) Lord Weir's letter that I, at any rate, can find some of my doubts resolved.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, if it was the object of the noble Marquess to allay annoyance and disappointment, I regret to tell him that he has lamentably failed in that object. Your Lordships, with just the hare facts before you, can judge whether I have had a straight answer to a straight question or not. The answer to these five questions, which I put down categorically, was "Yes" in each case, and in no case have I had a straight "Yes." That is not the way to allay suspicion and to relieve anxiety. I am not complaining of the noble Marquess. He knew nothing about the case before he was obliged to take up the heritage of his predecessor, and he is, of course, the mouthpiece of the Department. He has all my sympathy for being obliged to pronounce in your Lordships' House an answer which is so palpably evasive and incorrect.
The first main point in which he is incorrect is his insistance in saying that Miss Violet Pennant was superseded. Miss Pennant was not superseded; she was dismissed. She was dismissed in an abrupt, and arbitrary, and insulting manner. The letter from Lord Weir, with which the noble Marquess endeavoured to obscure the issue, was written sonic time after this dismissal and not before, and your Lordships will have noticed that the noble Marquess was most careful not to answer the question with which I interrupted him as to the date of that letter. We had a long dissertation on the question of supersession and how it is necessary in war time, and how it may be a grievance, though not a case for inquiry. This was a case of dismissal, and every public servant, whether in the Navy or the Army or the Civil service, has the right to know the cause of his dismissal from that service. That is a well

437
acknowledged and fully recognised right, which is possessed by everybody who is in any kind of service. That is all that Miss Pennant asks for, and she asks it not for herself, not for the sake of reparation, but because this is a question of principle, it is a test case. If we have now come to a state of things in which any public servant may be arbitrarily dismissed at a moment's notice by any Jack-in.-office and have no address, no right of asking for the cause of dismissal, then we have got to a state of things which has never existed in this country before, and which is intolerable. You have the fact of the Prime Minister's promise. It was repeated again and again that an Inquiry should be held, and that promise has not been kept. Again, that is a thing which is intolerable, and it is highly disconcerting at the present time when the Prime Minister gives his word and that word is not kept.
We now come to a new suggestion, which may be exceedingly clever, but which is not a fair suggestion; it is not "playing the game." Miss Violet Pennant asks for an Inquiry into the causes of her dismissal—nothing more than that; and she is told "You shall not have that unless you bring a charge of corruption." Did anybody ever hear such a monstrous suggestion? She asks to have the causes of her dismissal inquired into; she is not the accuser, she merely wishes to know the reason why, and she is met by the answer, "Unless you put yourself in the position of accuser, unless you bring some charge of corruption, or scandal, or Heaven knows what, against the Department, you shall not have any Inquiry, you shall not have justice." I do not think there is any precedent for action of that kind. It is certainly not fair or just; it is not what We have the right to expect from a Minister of the Crown.
A prima facie case for inquiry has been established by Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, and if you wish to know further reasons for inquiry I can give them in a few words. The various Ministers and authorities concerned have all disagreed as to the cause of dismissal. Take first of all Major-General Brancker. He told Miss Pennant that she was dismissed not because she was inefficient—he went out of his way to say that she was very efficient—but because she was unpopular. That may or may not be a case for dismissal, but that was the
438
sole reason given by Major-General Brancker. When Miss Pennant went to Lord Weir he dropped that and said it was not the case that case that that she was unpopular; it was because she did not get on with certain women's organisations. It was the first that Miss Violet Douglas Pennant had heard about it, and to this day no proof has been produced of friction with other women's organisations. That was Lord Weir's reason.
Then we come to Major-General Seely, who had taken it over; and the reason he gave was that it was on account of Miss Pennant's inefficiency—the very thing that had been denied by the two previous authorities, who, not only in their personal communications to Miss Pennant but openly in the House of Commons and publicly, had said that she was very efficient and capable. Now here you have the three reasons. Which of them is right? We want to get to the bottom of it. Surely Miss Pennant has a right to be told whether she was dismissed because she was unpopular, or because she could not get on with some women's organisation (which has not been named), or whether she was dismissed because of inefficiency. And now she is told that unless she brings a charge of corruption—a thing which it has never entered her head to do—against somebody or something, she is not to have this elementary justice.
The noble Marquess was careful to avoid saying anything about the Papers for which I moved. I should like to know whether we are going to be given the Papers in this case. It is no good telling me that there are no Papers, because there must be some. No transaction of this kind takes place in a Government Office without there being something on paper. The noble Marquess appealed to me on account of my knowledge of Public Offices. Yes, I know something about them, and I know the way these things are done; and I know it is incredible and inconceivable that any important public servant should be dismissed without something being in writing. We have the Report of Mr. Cecil Harmsworth. I take it that he did not report verbally to the Prime Minister, and that he must have put down something in writing. Further than that, there are the protests of a great number of public bodies who have taken up this matter. A number of important trade unions and other public bodies have been interested in this case,

439
not only on account of Miss Pennant's great popularity and remarkable record of public work, but because they regard this as a test case; it is a case on the decision of which depends our security for ordinary justice and fair treatment for all those in the public service. I beg to remind your Lordships that I have moved for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very reluctant to intervene in this most difficult matter, and I can assure your Lordships that nothing I shall say will exacerbate the discussion which has taken place. But it seems to me that the public are likely to be left rather in doubt as to the facts. Nobody admires the noble Marquess more than I do; nor could he have done better what he set out to do in his speech; yet there are one or two remarks which I think it right to make. In the first place I take it as admitted—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong; I will use his own word—that the supersession of this lady was carried out in a way which he does not defend. I think he said that Lord Weir himself would admit that the supersession had taken place in a manner which was profoundly regrettable, or some phrase of that kind. I hope my noble friend will interrupt me if I make a mistake. That, I think, is a matter which is important. The apology which that, involves ought to be noted, and I hope it will serve to allay any feeling of annoyance and vexation which in the circumstances has arisen. That is a good point.
Then we have the great difficulty of knowing for what actual reason this lady was superseded. I should have thought—I say it with great respect and diffidence—that at the point at which things have arrived my noble friend would do right to say plainly what was the reason. Perhaps he may say—I do not put myself up as a judge in this matter—that it would have been better not to have asked the question; but once the question has been asked it seems to me that in the public interest it should be plainly stated what the answer is. Whether the answer gives pain or not, we cannot help it.
Lastly I should like to say that I think it very unfortunate—though no blame attaches to my noble friend—that he was not able to answer the question whether the Prime Minister had promised an Inquiry. He is of course; not the keeper of the Prime Minister's conscience; but,
440
as he himself admitted, there has been ample notice of this Question, and I imagine that communication could have been made to the Prime Minister and he could have been asked whether in fact he had made this promise. If the Prime Minister says he did not make the promise the matter will, of course, fall to the ground. But there is no doubt that the impression was conveyed to my noble friend Lord Ampthill, or to those in whose name he speaks, that the promise was not only made but repeated over and over again. If the Prime Minister makes a promise there seems to be only one course—namely, to fulfil the promise.
LORD AMPTHILL: Hear, Hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If he did not make the promise, then, of course, the matter drops to the ground. But if my noble friend and the Government will make a plain statement of the reasons for the dismissal, and their view whether that was a proper course to have taken, perhaps nothing more would arise and the thing might come to an end. I do not think it is right, however, that the matter should be left as my noble friend opposite has been obliged to leave it, and I suggest with great respect and diffidence that it, would be wiser to make a clean breast of the reason; and, if there still seems to be need for an Inquiry, if the Prime Minister promised an inquiry, his promise ought to be fulfilled.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I can speak again only with the leave of your Lordships. I fully appreciate the remarks which have fallen from the noble Marquess. I can only apologise for my own shortcomings—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY—in putting forward the case if I have not been able to convey to him the objects which were in my mind, and the thoughts and reflections, after earnest consultation with my colleagues, which I was endeavouring to put before your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess seems to think from the speech that I made that there is something which we are anxious to conceal. I can assure him that there is nothing whatever of the kind. I spoke of the super-

441
session—which the noble Lord prefers to call the dismissal—of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant; and I thought I put before your Lordships' House the reasons why the Secretary of State was brought to that conclusion.
I thought I had told your Lordships that the organisation of the Women's Royal Air Force was not in the satisfactory condition which the Secretary of State was determined it should be. He had brought before him evidence of disorganisation, and he was satisfied that the control exercised over the Women's Royal Air Force was not satisfactory and not conducive in the best interests of the public service. We know well that at that time we were in the midst of an immense struggle, and that no one could afford to give anything away, and that, if some one were not to the highest possible degree of efficiency fulfilling a position, it was on the responsibility of the Secretary of State that he should leave no stone unturned to better the conditions of that particular department and to see that everything was done to make the force a really efficient asset to the British Government. The Secretary of State was convinced that this department was not being satisfactorily conducted, and he was confirmed afterwards in that opinion by the results of the change which he made. He himself is satisfied, and the Air Ministry are now satisfied, that the Force has improved; and Lord Weir assumes that it is by reason of the action which he felt justified in taking that the Women's Roy al Air Force enjoys at present an efficiency which it did not possess before.
I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships that that was the reason for the supersession—that that was the reason why Miss Douglas Pennant was superseded, or if the noble Lord likes, dismissed, from her post and a successor chosen to take her place. I hope I have made that clear to your Lordships. The further point which I desire to emphasise is this, that the Government could not countenance an inquiry as to reasons for the supersession. They do not believe that it is in the interests of the public service. It is a custom which is not followed. Lord Stanhope has, I believe, represented the War Office in your Lordships' House, and he knows perfectly well that non-commissioned officers and men, petty officers and ratings, are entitled to an inquiry if they are
442
superseded or dismissed from the posts which they occupy, but that rule does not prevail in other branches of the public service, and I do not think that your Lordships would desire that there should be a change in the procedure which has existed for all time. I do not know whether the noble Earl is advocating that, whenever dismissal or supersession takes place, an inquiry should be set up and all the facts brought oat, and that it should be inquired into why the responsible authority has thought fit to dismiss or supersede so-and-so.
EARL STANHOPE: I am suggesting that the individual in question should be told what the reasons were. That I believe is usual.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think that Miss Douglas Pennant was told the reasons by Lord Weir, and I believe the noble Earl knows that she was told.
EARL STANHOP: I think she was told a different thing each time by each individual.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have ventured to put forward the case as I understand it, and I hope that your Lordships will take the view which the Government are taking at this moment.
The Motion for Papers was then put by the Lord Chancellor, and a Division challenged.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: What is the Motion? Before we divide might I ask the House to be quite clear what it is that it is dividing upon I have listened to this discussion without, I frankly confess, knowing anything of the merits of the case before entering the House. I have heard the defence of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, and I gathered from his second statement two facts about which there has been considerable dispute. One is that there was an interview between Lord Weir and the lady in question, in which Lord Weir made her acquainted with the reason why he thought it desirable that her occupation in that force should cease. The second was that there existed such a state of dislocation and disorganisation in the force with which the lady was connected as to render it desirable that that

443
state of affairs should be brought to an end. Noble Lords may be dissatisfied with this explanation, and say that the lady has been unjustly treated; but while their speeches suggested either that the lady had been unjustly treated, or that there should be inquiry, that is not the Motion before the House. The Motion before the House, which is about to be put from the Woolsack, is a Motion for Papers. All of us who are familiar with the procedure of the House know perfectly well that that is a familiar move by which a speaker in charge of a Question reserves for himself a right of reply. That is the object for which the noble Lord concluded with a Motion for Papers. In fact when he got up he frankly confessed it. I have heard no Papers demanded. I have heard references to a particular Paper—namely, a letter from Lord Weir—but it is clear that noble Lords, although they professed curiosity as to its contents, had seen it or were familiar with its contents. Therefore it cannot be their object to divide for the production of a letter of which they are aware. What other Papers are there?
LORD AMPTHILL: I specified the Papers which there must be.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: When a noble Lord concludes with a Motion for Papers, he may be expected to be in a position to say what Papers he wants. But the noble Lord now asks us to vote for a Motion for Papers in general. Whatever may be the merits of this question, von do not carry it one stage further by voting for a Motion that Papers be produced by the Government.
On Question, Motion negatived.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Air Navigation

Re-election of Ministers

House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.