Lords Sitting of 29 May 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, on behalf of Lord Parmoor I beg to present a Bill to enable local authorities to adopt a system of proportional representation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shandon.)
On Question Bill read 1a.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill, intituled An Act to dissolve the marriage of Anna Theodosia Hester Stoney, of 69 Adelaide-road. Dublin, in the County of Dublin, with Leigh Sadlier Stoney, a Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) in the 4th Battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on Petition), and a copy of the Proceedings in and the Decree of he High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench, Division (Matrimonial): Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a.
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL.
CHEPSTOW WATER BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
Read 2a.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the events of the last few days have drawn the attention of every member of your Lordships' House to the importance of this question, and the moment appears opportune for the Second Reading of this Bill, to which I trust your Lordships will assent, the general principles being, I believe, approved by all. The main
900
object of the Bill is to extend the statutory requirements as to wireless telegraphy installations on merchant ships. It is proposed to require every passenger steamer or every cargo vessel of 1,600 tons gross to have a wireless telegraphy installation, and operators and watchers as may be necessary. The Bill is wanted because the only requirements on the Statute Book as to wireless on merchant ships are those contained in the Merchant Shipping Convention Act, 1914, which Act is not in operation. The Act was passed on the result of an International Conference which prepared an International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, but the war intervened before the Convention could be put into operation.
This Bill is necessary because, even if the Merchant Shipping Convention Act, 1914, were in operation, the wireless requirements for merchant ships would still be inadequate. Under the Convention Act only ships carrying fifty or more persons are required to be fitted with wireless. During the war cargo ships with a smaller number of persons on hoard have been required to be fitted with wireless if of 1,600 tons or over, and experience has shown that wireless is very useful for large cargo ships as well as for passenger steamers. The Bill is wanted because the present requirements have been imposed wider the Defence of the Real in Act, and may not be in force very much longer. The main grounds for putting forward the Bill are: (1), the safety of merchant ships will be increased, wireless being useful not only in the interest of the safety of the ship fitted with it but in order that other ships sending out wireless calls may have a better chance of the wireless call being picked up and help given; (2) the Admiralty want as many ships as possible fitted with wireless so that any measures they wish to take for the safety of shipping, either in peace or in war, may be taken immediately, and this involves all large merchant ships being fitted with wireless; (3) wireless operators have been required on merchant ships in large numbers during the war, and it would be very inconvenient if the present requirements under the Defence of the Realm Act lapsed with no statutory obligation of owners to fit their vessels with wireless. Wireless operators would largely be thrown out of employment, and, should the demand come for wireless operators for merchant ships, they would then be unavailable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the. Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Reasons for Commons disagreement to certain of the Lords Amendments.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (44) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 4, line 37, after ("appoint") insert ("into Parliamentary Secretary and")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they consider that two Parliamentary Secretaries are necessary for the transaction of the business of the Ministry.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 16, leave out from ("Sections'') to the end of subsection (5).
The Common disagree to this Amendment because it is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 4, line 37, to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that the Reasons for the Commons disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I have to ask your Lordships now to consider the Reasons for the Commons disagreeing to certain Amendments, and I move that you do not insist on your first Amendment. I tried my utmost on two occasions to make out my case for the second Parliamentary Secretary, and I do not propose to repeat what I said on those occasions. But I should like your Lordships to allow me. to say once more that I recognise clearly the objections which were very forcibly put forward to the multiplicity of posts, and as I then said—although I am not quite certain that I carried very much the belief of your Lordships—I really sympathise with the desire for economy which was endorsed by two majorities. I have only to say that I believe in the truth of what I then said as to the fact, as I considered it,
902
that the exclusion of this second Parliamentary Secretary would not tend to real economy of time and labour. I believe now, as I did then, that he is necessary for the proper devolution of the work of the Ministry, and as regards the efficiency and the expedition of that work; because the area of control and the volume of work will be difficult to estimate. The Minister was engaged for two years and more in constructing this Bill, and I respectfully submit that he should know and be the best judge of what, is the necessary help that he would require. Your Lordships will, of course, readily believe me when I say that I consider it to be most presumptuous of me even to suggest that I should advise you, but I may perhaps remind the House that the proposal was in the first instance carried in the House of Commons without any dissent whatever, and a night or two ago the same proposal was carried by a majority of seven to one. I would venture to express the earnest hope that your Lordships may be satisfied with your sincere and vigorous protest, and not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD DOWNHAM: I ask your Lordships to be resolute in the opinion to which you came, after two very full debates, that no case whatever had been made out for two Parliamentary Secretaries in this new office of the Ministry of Health. The noble Viscount in charge of the. Bill has just said that the Minister of Health was engaged for two years in constructing this Bill, and therefore, after two years of deliberation, ought to know whether or not two Parliamentary Secretaries were necessary. I, too, was engaged for two years in constructing this Bill, and the Minister of Health, Dr. Addison, and I came to exactly the same conclusion after two years deliberation—namely, that only one Parliamentary Secretary was necessary. When Dr. Addison presented this Bill to the House of Commons and sent it up to Grand Committee there was no clause in the. Bill enabling the Minister of Health to have two Parliamentary Secretaries. Therefore during the whole of those two years the Minister for Health had come to the conclusion that he did not need more than one Parliamentary Secretary, and it was only by an afterthought that a clause was slipped into the

903
Bill at a later stage by which the Minister for Health should, for his convenience—as it was put, and that was the only argument given—have an extra Parliamentary Secretary.
I think I may say that after three and a half years in the Local Government Board I know that Department "inside out and outside in," and I say that there is no case whatever made out for another Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister for Health can appoint as many Secretaries as he likes so long as he can get leave from the Treasury to finance them. For what is a Parliamentary Secretary needed? The main use of a Parliamentary Secretary is to carry Parliamentary work through the House of Commons are the Committee stages of that House. I know that during the time I was at the Local Government Board we carried through litany more first-rate Acts of Parliament than any other Department, yet it was not necessary to have more than one Parliamentary Secretary.
Let me remind the House that the Government is not only asking for an additional Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health for England and Wales, but has obtained in a Bill for Scotland another Parliamentary Secretary for that, part of the country. Further, they are about to ask both Houses of Parliament for another Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health for Ireland. So that we shall have no less than five Parliamentary Secretaries for Health in the House of Commons. I think I may take it from the concession that was made to us the most magnificent concession that was made to us that the first Parliamentary Secretary for Health is to be, in your Lordships' House in the first instance. But how long is the "first instance" going to last? When that period is over, probably in two or three months, there will be five Parliamentary Ministers for Health in the House of Commons, all paid salaries, all having private secretaries who are also paid salaries; and I do say that it is surely time, if the other House will not make any protest., that this House should make some protest against the wasteful and wanton expenditure that is constantly going on.
There is really a serious danger that the Executive may get too strong for the independent members of the House of
904
Commons. It seems to me, if we go on at this rate adding two more Parliamentary Secretaries to the nine already created during the war, that half the members of the House of Commons will soon be in the Executive and the other half will be wishing to be there. Therefore, when we were told that on a division the other night this addition of a Parliamentary Secretary was carried by seven votes to one, I am not surprised. There are a great many very ambitious men in the House of Commons, and it is a tempting thing to them no doubt to wish to climb the ladder by getting their feet on the Parliamentary Secretariat in the first place. It is becoming a real danger in the House of Commons that too many of the able and independent men will all, sooner or later, be having Government official rank. They will be tempted to join the Government and lose their independence in the House of Commons. I believe your Lordships may come to this conclusion—that the country is with you and not with the other House in this matter, and that the country is seriously disturbed at present by the multiplication of officials, not only in the House of Commons but out of the House of Commons. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will be resolute in the position which you have taken up.
I am aware that sometimes, when your Lordships come into conflict with the other House and insist upon some Amendment that you have carried, you are in danger of losing a Bill. We are all in favour of this Bill for t he Ministry of Health. During its passage through this House it was received with universal sympathy, and I cannot help thinking that the Bill was strengthened by the Amendments which we put in. Surely there is no fear of losing this Bill because we insist on the attitude we have taken up as to a Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot imagine the Government dropping this Bill because your Lordships insist that no case has been made out, for a second Parliamentary Secretary. After all, we are told by the noble, Lord in charge of the Bill that in a very short time all the functions of the Local Government, Board will have to be redistributed among other Departments, and that the Minister of Health is going to part with a great portion of his work which relates to franchise, Poor-law, the oversight and supervision of local loans and of local authorities.

905
When the time comes and those duties are cast on other Departments, will not other Departments come to the other House and this House and say, "Surely if you are going to cast all these duties, say, upon the Home Office which were hitherto discharged by the Local Government Board, are we not entitled also to a new second Parliamentary, Secretary? So I say the game proceeds all along, and fresh demands are going to be created for Parliamentary Secretaries. If we insist upon the attitude we have taken up it is open to the Government at any time, if they really find that a second Parliamentary Secretary is necessary, when they are able to make out a case, to bring in a one-clause Bill making out their case, and, I am sure that we shall accept that Bill creating a second Parliamentary Secretary when we know how the duties are going to be distributed among different Departments and see that a case is really made cut. For my own part, if I can get anybody to divide with me, I shall divide your Lordships' House to insist upon the attitude that we have taken on two occasions after full and deliberate debates.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it has very often been my lot, when sitting on the Front Bench opposite and also in former days from this side of the House, to deprecate a conflict with the House of Commons on Amendments to Bills which have passed through your Lordships House, and to ask your Lordships not to insist upon the Amendments yon have made. Rut on this occasion, unless some far stronger arguments are forthcoming from the Government Bench than any of those which we have heard or any which were used in another place when your Lordships' Amendments were considered, it seems to me that your Lordships will have no choice but to adhere to the conclusion you have reached.
The noble Lord who has just sat down has used one argument to which it appears to me there is no answer. We have no idea at present of what the Parliamentary needs of this Office in the future will be. It is impossible to state how far it may be necessary for the Minister of Health in the future to have the support of one or of two subordinates to assist him in his Parliamentary work. As Lord Downham has pointed out, nothing will be simpler, if it is found that the burden of Ids work proves to be heavier than that of kindred Offices
906
and is so recognised by the House of Commons and by the public generally, than to introduce a one-clause measure for the appointment of an additional Parliamentary Secretary, which, if the case is a good one, would pass through both Houses without difficulty. It is surely, noble Lords opposite must recognise, a very strong order to assume, before we know what it really is, that the Parliamentary work connected with this Office will be so heavy as to demand this very special treatment.
But then we are given to understand that it is not Parliamentary work for which this official is required. We are told—the Minister chiefly concerned said as notch in another place that this gentleman is required, not for the ordinary duties of an under-Secretary in Parliament, but to act as a staff officer in the outside work, which has now apparently become so large a part of the conduct of Departments. When I spoke last time I said frankly that I considered this conception of the duties of an assistant Minister absolutely wrong. I do not believe it to be the duty of a Parliamentary Secretary to be perpetually working outside Parliament, whether it be in the conducting of private conferences or in the manipulation of public opinion through the medium of the Press. His place is in Parliament to defend the conduct of his Office there, and to assist the Minister in doing so.
This new system of the multiplication of Ministers who when they come into the House are naturally, as Ministers, bound and pledged to support the Government policy whatever it may be, but whose real duties lie outside in an obscure area of work unknown to the public, is in my belief a most unwise departure from the ancient practice. Unless it can be shown—and I do not believe it can—that the creation of this new official is necessary for strictly Parliamentary reasons, I cannot see why your Lordships should depart from the conclusion which, after a great deal of discussion and quite deliberately, you reached the other day.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I think perhaps some reply is due to the noble Marquess and to my noble friend Lord Downham. My noble friend spoke with great vigour, and, as the House

907
will readily recognise, with great experience. At the same time his speech appeared to me to be inspired by a certain animus which rendered him not altogether a fair judge of the situation he was describing. There was quite evident in his mind the impression that this was a case of wasteful expenditure introduced without any sufficient reason by the Government, with a disregard for the public interest, the Government being only anxious to add to the number of-Ministers on whose votes it could rely, and to extend the sphere of official patronage even beyond limits which are already regarded as excessive. If that were so, I should not be standing at this box to defend it. I can truthfully say that a. stronger opponent of the multiplication of offices, or of pluralism, does not exist than myself, and in so far as I have had any influence in the proceedings of the Government during the past four years they have been steadily inspired by that feeling.
But is this altogether a fair description of the situation? My noble friend Lord Downham said that no case whatever had been made out for this proposal. I have had time before coming down here to run my eye through the debates which took place in another place, and also in your Lordships' House, where the matter has twice previously been discussed, and certainly tile impression has been left on my mind, and it. exists in the mind of the House of Commons although the noble Lord decided the majority by which the matter was decided, yet it did decide by a majority of 170 to 25 in the direction Opposite to the noble Lord that this Ministry, when created, will involve an enormous addition to the work which has hitherto been undertaken by the Department in which the noble Lord himself has borne a distinguished part.
A good deal depends upon What you mean by the term "Parliamentary Under-Secretary," and what is the work you expect such an official to do. The noble Marquess has quite fairly seized that point, and he has stated a proposition from which I confess from my own experience, which may not be as great as his, I wholly differ. The proposition laid down by him, and also by Lord Downham, is this—that a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is a gentleman appointed, not to take part in the main in the administrative work of the Office, but solely to make things easy for his Chief in Parliament, to answer Questions
908
and make speeches. However active he may be outside, in the Department he is to be a cipher. I altogether dispute that description of the proper functions and duties of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I was one myself. It is now many years ago. When I was Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office, under the late Lord Salisbury, it is quite true that my main duties—and they were by no means easy—were to defend the Foreign Office in the House of Commons: but my Departmental duties were at least as heavy. I was head of the Commercial Department in the Foreign Office which had to discharge an immense amount of work, and I know of no case in which a Parliamentary Under-Secretary either confines or is expected to confine his duties merely to I answering Questions and making speeches. He is expected to relieve the Minister of a portion of his work and can any of us shut our eyes to the fact that, in the present position of affairs, the call upon departmental activity, interference, and supervision is increasing every day?
I have been a Minister for only four years in the war, but I can scarcely express to your Lordships the degree of rapidity with which the complexity of public business is increasing, and it will increase all the more rapidly in proportion as Parliament and public opinion are insisting that the Government shall play a further part in the management of our affairs. I, for my part, am prepared to take the opinion of the Minister—in this case Dr. Addison—that the functions which this Ministry will be called upon to discharge cannot be adequately performed if he has only one Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
What is the real test of this matter? Let us brush aside all idea that the Government want to create positions and salaried posts, or to obtain Parliamentary votes upon which they will be able to rely. Let us look at it front the true point of view—that of the efficiency of administration. Is the Ministry justified or not in asking that it shall have two Secretaries instead of one? I have personally only two interests in the matter. One is the efficiency of the work in this new Department, on which so many hopes are based; the other is the due representation in this House of the interests of this new Ministry when it is set up. I do not think my noble friend is quite fair in what he said on that point. Lord Sandhurst, the other day, gave an

909
undertaking on the part of the Government that if these two Under-Secretaries were created one of them should have a seat in your Lordships' House.
LORD DOWNHAM: The expression was that "in the first instance" he should be in the House of Lords.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is quite true. And upon that the noble Lord builds the hypothesis that we may have an Under-Secretary here for a few months and then he may go, and that the concession will only be a nominal and valueless one because he will disappear, and we shall have the three Ministers in the House of Commons. If that is the fear entertained, my recollection is that I got up in the debate, after my noble friend had spoken, and emphasised and expanded his remarks with a view of meeting that criticism, and I said that, given that the case for two Under-Secretaries has been established, your Lordships have a perfect right to ask that one of them shall sit in this House. I think yon would make a mistake if you reject an opportunity of having one; and I am prepared myself in so far as my word carries any value, to give an undertaking that one shall sit in this House, and to give that undertaking in a form which as far as possible shall pledge succeeding Governments.
I look forward with anxiety if, when this great Ministry has been created and is beginning to discharge its functions, your Lordships' House, so full of goon of authority, experience, and judgment, has to rely in debates connected with these matters upon the assistance of a noble Lord who is, perhaps, engaged in other duties, and whose connection with the Department is only secondary. I was talking to Dr. Addison this morning, and he said, "Pray believe me not only is such a situation disagreeable to your Lordships; I can quite understand your feelings about the matter. It is equally disagreeable to time Department, because the. Minister in charge of the Department has to take up his own time in coaching the representative of the Ministry in this House.''
I would like now and here to take an opportunity of establishing the proposition that in these cases your Lordships' House has a right to a fair and equal share in the representation of the great Departments of
910
State. It is impossible, of course, to lay down a definite law which shall apply to every ease, for practice has long since shown that there are certain offices which are always filled by members of another place; and I ask your Lordships, accepting the pledge which I give, and which is a pledge that if these two Under-Secretaries are appointed one shall sit in this House, and that that shall be a pledge which, as far as it is possible to make it, shall be incumbent upon succeeding Governments—I ask your Lordships in your own interests not to throw away the opportunity that is thus offered.
It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Downham, said, that your Lordships can persist, if you please. What are the two alternatives? The Bill may be lost, or very likely my noble friend is correct in saying that the Ministry in the House of Commons, or the House of Commons itself, with not lo lose the Bilk for a matter of this sort. But that does not cover the whole ground. I wonder if it is really worth our while—you have the power to do so, and perhaps are going to exercise it to have a fight with the House of Commons over a matter of this sort, it is easy to brush aside a majority of 145, but after all it is a fact, and if the House of Commons, having heard the case, has decided by that majority that it thinks the Minister has Made out a. case, ask your Lordships if it is worth your while to persist in your attitude at the cost of a quarrel out of which we can gain very little credit., and which will possibly go some way to embitter the relations with another place in the future. Therefore I venture to hope, although I am conscious that I have been pleading a cause to a House which has not hitherto been altogether favourable to my views, that your Lordships may reconsider the matter, accept the pledge I have given, I hope in a sufficiently definite form—if it is not in a very definite form, I am willing to make it so—and not persist in the attitude which you have already twice taken up.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not complain of the speech of my noble friend. He has spoken with very great respect of your Lordships, and has shown how conscious he is of the very serious grievance which your Lordships have against the distribution of offices in the Government, which deprives this House of the proper organs of Government

911
with whom it can properly deaf in public business. We are very grateful to recognise that, and I do not think that I ever heard the grievance recognised in such terms before. We shall remember them for future reference. I just parenthetically remark of these kindly pledges as regards your Lordships' House that there was no trace of them in another place. When two Under-Secretaries were advocated in another place two nights ago no one would have dreamed that either of them was going to sit in your Lordships' house. I think the House of Commons would have been very much surprised if that information had been given.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I say that I make the pledge with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the House of Commons?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not question that the noble Earl does. But may I remark, in parenthesis, that it is rather a death-bed repentance so for as the Government are concerned, We really are engaged upon this matter on broader grounds. The noble Earl spoke of the majority in another place. I am not going to repeat what Lord Downham said about the enormous number of officials who formed part of that majority, although that must be taken into consideration, but what we have to remember is this, that the present Parliament is in a very special position. I am sure my noble friend the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition will forgive my saying that there is no real Opposition in the House of Commons at the present time. The Opposition that there is, although led by men of distinction, is of such dimensions as not to be of a very important character, and therefore I think it will be seen that yon cannot treat the present House of Commons—although we treat it, of course, with profound respect—as we should treat an ordinary House of Commons.
There is really no opportunity in that House for the other side to the Government case being properly represented in the Division Lobby. No doubt there are some orators who make it good case, but when it comes to a Division the House is so enormously on one side that you really cannot rely upon the view which your Lordships' House has expressed being properly represented. Therefore there is
912
a very great responsibility thrown upon the Lords, when we know, as we do in this case, that we have the country behind us, that we are really representing public opinion, and that public opinion, for the reasons which I have stated. I cannot find its true expression in the House of Commons with the greatest respect, yet we feel the responsibility that there is upon us, and therefore we do not feel it possible upon a question of principle of this kind to give way so far as we are concerned.
I do not for a moment believe that there is going to be any difficulty in working the Ministry of Health because we do not give it another Under-Secretary. I do not want to repeat What has been said in previous debates, nor what Lord Downham has said this afternoon, but I would remind your Lordships in one sentence that the Local Government Board has been relieved, and is going to be relieved, of a great many of its functions, so that. although other functions are added, in the sum there is not much difference front what existed in former times. If in former times one Under-Secretary was enough, why in all conscience is not one enough now? That is the view which has been heard on previous occasions, and it is the view which we submit at the present time, and we believe that this multiplication of office, is a great and growing mischief. We believe that to a limited extent, but to some extent, it saps the independence of the House of Commons, and we believe that the country is determined if it can to reduce the number of officials and the number of salaries which those officials absorb. For these reasons, with great respect I ask your Lordships to adhere to your view.
LORD BUCKMISTER: My Lords, may I be pardoned if I say a few words in support of the view of the noble Marquess? I listened, as I am sure all of your Lordships listened, with the closest attention to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I think he recognised, as we did, that he was advocating a cause which lacked popularity, and that he was doing his very best to make a case which upon the merits did not bear close investigation. One thing I was very glad to hear from his lips, and that was that if this is agreed to, one of the two Under-Secretaries should

913
permanently sit, in this House. I assume, of course, by that that he means it should be a term of the Bill, but the reason why it gratified me to hear it was this—that from the moment he said that, there must be removed from your Lordships' action upon this question any possible complaint that might be raised as to feelings of jealousy between this House and another place in regard to the distribution of offices.
If this Amendment is persisted in it is not because this House will regard itself as unfairly treated in the distribution of offices. It is for another, and, as I think, far more important reason. The real question is this. Has any sufficient case been made out to justify the unusual course of creating two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in the constitution of a new Ministry, and it was for an answer to that question that I listened with attention to the noble Earl. But to that he gave no reply at all. All he said was that he was satisfied, after a conversation with Mr. Addison, that such was the case. The truth is that Mr. Addison cannot possibly know until the Ministry begins to work whether he will require this assistance or whether he will not, and the objection that is being taken to it is not that when it is found that an Office is over-crowded another person should not be appointed to discharge the duty, but that with the work as a whole unknown—and it must at best be nothing but problematical yon should start upon the assumption that two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries are required.
The noble Earl pointed out that the duties of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary were many and important. Nobody denies that, but the great part of the duties are undoubtedly duties that can be performed by somebody who is not in Parliament. The duty of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is as a rule to stand between the Minister and the House of Commons. Why do you want two for that? The idea that there is work behind for them to do, and that one Parliamentary Under-Secretary might himself be unable to discharge it, can readily be met, if occasion requires, by appointing other people to do this work, but not necessarily by appointing a Member of Parliament to do it. The thing that strikes me about it is that it is difficult to see why two people are needed in the House of Commons, or one
914
in the House of Commons and one here, to discharge duties connected with this new Office, and to that difficulty I have found no solution in what the noble Earl has said.
I hope that the noble Earl will permit tile to add that I listened with great sympathy to the statement that he made about his efforts, which we all realise have been sincere to limit, the growing crowd of officials in Government Departments. I listened with sympathy because no more forlorn adventure has ever been headed by any one, not oven by the noble Earl in the course of his long and distinguished career, He has been struggling in vain against this increasing multiplication of Offices, and at this moment all we are going to do is to try and strengthen his hands. This is the moment, it seems to me, when the House can assert that the one thing, as far as it lies in its power, to do is to secure that the minimum of public money shall be spent upon public Offices, and that the government shall set in every detail and in every respect an example of strict and rigid economy, by the observance of which alone the future of this country can be secured.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I hope that this House will remain tenacious in the matter of principle. For my part, I should not like this House to abandon the position it has taken up because it has received the offer that one of these Under-Secretaries should be a member of this House instead of both Under-Secretaries being members of the other House. My position is that I think there ought to be only two officers representing this Department in Parliament, and that one of those should always be in this House. Any other arrangement is an innovation. It is a recent innovation. It is a bad innovation. It is an innovation which tends to undermine and to neutralise Ministerial responsibility, which prevents the proper fear of the House being put into the Ministerial action.
I said it was a new innovation. I bear in mind, in the years not long before the war, that when a certain Party had a very large majority in the House of Commons it thought that it was safe in deputing everything to Under-Secretaries. There occurred a week in the House of Commons during which the head of a great Department disappeared from the House. We

915
none of us knew where he had gone. His Under-Secretary, Of course, sat in this House at that time, for we had not then got into the bad practice of modern times, so the Minister could not answer in the House of Commons through his Under-Secretary. His questions, therefore, were answered by a popular Lord of the Treasury or holder of some similar kind of office. Unfortunately for the absent Minister, in one of the illustrated periodicals there appeared a photograph whirl; showed this distinguish head of a Department engaged during the week in the congenial task of killing pheasants. I may be wrong, but I think that the head of a Department when he sits in either House of Parliament ought to answer the Questions of that Department. It was the old practice, and it was the best practice. If he has need to be assisted by an Under-Secretary on account of the work of the Department, by all means let him be so. He will be none the less well assisted by one Under-Secretary because that Under-Secretary is a representative of this House. But when it is proposed to create two Under-Secretaries, as in the present case, we should bear in mind that we have already, given the Minister large consultative assistance by creating a whole constellation of Consultative Committees. In view of this it is very doubtful whet her any great responsibility can ever be exercised even by the new Under-Secretaries. I hope, therefore, that we shall not be diverted from the position that we have taken up, even after the promise which, with full loyalty to the traditions of this House, the noble Earl has made that one of the two Under-Secretaries shall sit in this House.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before the House goes to a Division I would like to put very briefly the reasons that influence me in recording my vote. I shall certainly vote for the maintenance of the decision come to by this House the other day. I do so on two grounds. First, because I believe that this House will be discharging a great public duty in diminishing as far as it is able this growing tendency for an inflated bureaucracy. It will also although it is but a drop in the ocean be discharging its duty in diminishing as far as it can this stream of extravagant expenditure which has become a very serious aspect of our public life.
I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend who leads this House,
916
and I am bound to confess that with all the persuasive power he possesses on ordinary occasions, I could not gather front any remarks that he made to-day that he produced any very convincing arguments in favour of the proposal for two Under-Secretaries for this new and untried Department. If his argument meant anything it was an argument, and a very forcible one from his point of view, for the allocation of a second Under-Secretary for all great Departments of State. That is a proposition from which I differ strongly, and I would like to state my reasons very briefly for making that statement.
This Ministry which is now being created by Act of Parliament is merely machinery. It is hoped that in days and years to come it will expand itself in all kinds of directions for social ameliorations. Its duties may become very numerous, and may be so divergent that then two officials of the character of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary may be justified, but I would venture to say, as other noble Lords have said, that that day has not now come, and can only come after years of experience. It cannot be until then that one can consider any justification for two subordinate spokesmen in this new Department.
Let me briefly, if I may, examine the position of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in one of the great Departments of State. I have occupied that position just recently, and for some time past, and I am speaking before many noble Lords who have also occupied that position. It must be remembered that a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is very rarely appointed by virtue of any intrinsic knowledge of the Department which he enters. He is appointed as a promotion for Parliamentary work. Again an examination would show that in recent years the life of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is a very transitory and a very brief one. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that a fair computation of the average life of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in a Department of State during the past few years is probably between two and two and a-half years. Therefore it is obvious, looked at from the point of view of efficiency to the Department, that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, through no fault of his own, possesses little practical executive experience and, with that little practical experience, he possesses, as many gentlemen who have occupied the position

917
well know, very little power in the Office. During most of the time he holds office he is really merely the complacent spokesman of the Minister: and the Minister, mind you, in his turn is very largely influenced by the decision of the experienced and skilled officials in his Department. The influences that. those officials bring to hear are naturally based on long and continuous experience as against the very transitory experience of an Under-Secretary. The real value and effectiveness of an Under-Secretary is very largely confined to the manner in which he is able to interpret the opinions of his chief as advised within his Department.
And in saying this I do pot in any way desire unduly to disparage the office of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, but, merely to answer I he arguments advanced by the noble Earl, that two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in a new and undeveloped Department must be created in order to assure its immediate efficiency. I merely ask this question of your Lordships. Is Parliament, in the interests of the country and the taxpayer, justified in duplicating in this new Department the office of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary? I am bound to say emphatically I do not think that Parliament is so justified. It is, I think, incumbent on your Lordships' House to cheek this ill-considered and really unnecessary extravagance. A few years ago the functions and the powers of this House were very materially curtailed. The power of veto has been removed from this House, but this House still retains the power of revision. I would urge upon your Lordships that we are very dangerously approximating to the position when we find ourselves unable to carry out those circumscribed duties that still pertain to us, namely those of revision. It is absolutely within our rights as a House to revise measures that are sent to us from another place. If, in that revision, we come into direct conflict with public and democratic opinion then, as a House constituted as we are, we are taking a serious responsibility upon our shoulders.
But I venture to say that in this case, in maintaining our decision of the other day, although running in conflict with another place we are, I believe, coming to a decision in complete accordance with public opinion, and the more public opinion is enlightened upon this position the more
918
public opinion will realise that we are deciding in accordance with their interests. This House should insist on the omission of this provision, which will cost the country £1,500 a year, Which neither by precedent nor experience can be shown to be of the slightest use, at the present time at any rate, to this measure. Therefore, this is a peculiar, occasion when, with perfect right and in accordance with the full democratic sentiment of the country, we should assert our revisory powers.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I should like to say, with great respect. that I cannot see how the noble Earl the Leader of the House can pledge the Government, and it is quite certain that it is not within the power of any man to pledge any succeeding Government. I have never been an Under-Secretary myself. I have worked in a Department among the rank and file, and I can say with great confidence that the general view in Government Departments is that Under-Secretaries do not actually help on the work of the Department. I know there are great and brilliant exceptions, of which the most conspicuous—I say it in all sincerity was that of the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he was at the Foreign Office. But that is not usually the case, and it is quite certain that a second Under-Secretary in any Department would be regarded by the members of that Department as an unmitigated nuisance.
I think it is to the point to ask to whom this second appointment has been promised. If it is not your Lordships' opinion it is certainly the opinion outside that this appointment has been promised to somebody, otherwise the Government would not be so insistent upon creating the office. We know that it was an after-thought; it was not put in the Bill as originally drafted, it was not thought of during the two years that the Bill was under consideration. Before this discussion closes hope we shall have an answer to that question: it would certainly be a matter of interest to your Lordships and to the general public. But I do hope that your Lordships' will insist, and I am perfectly certain that if you do you will have public opinion behind you. And it seems to me equally certain that if we do not we may as well give up our last remaining shred of claim to be regarded as a Second Chamber.
On Question, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment,
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move that the Lords insist on the next Amendment. It is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICES) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Finlay, V.

Inverforth, L.

Peel, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sutherland, D.

Newton, L.

Annesley, L

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clwyd, L.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Dewar, L.

Sinha, L.

Lytton, E.

Dinevor, L.

Somerleyton, [Teller]

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Glenarthur, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford. D.

Hood, V.

Glenconner, L.

Northumberland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Granard, L. (E. Granard)

Somerset, D.

Grenfell, L.

Portman, V.

Hothfield, L.

Bath, M.

Inverclyde, L.

Bristol, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Islington, L.

Crewe, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Aberconway, L

Lambourne, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Aldenham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ampthill, L.

Ludlow, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Monckton, L (V. Galway.)

Ancaster, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L,

Beauchamp, E.

Avebury, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Denbigh, E.

Balfour, L.

Penryhn, L.

Doncaster, E. (D.Buccleuch and Queensbury)

Barrymore, L.

Playfair, L.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Grey, E.

Blyth, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Howe, E.

Boston, L.

Rotherham, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brodriek, L. (V. Midleton)

Roundway, L.

Lindsey, E.

Buckmaster, L.

St. Levan, L.

Lucan, E.

Carnock, L.

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Manvers, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Southwark, L.

Mayo, E.

Denman. L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Russell, E.

Downham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, L.

Swaythling, L.

Strafford, E.

Emmott, L.

Sydenham, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Erskine, L.

Treowen, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Weardale, L.

Allendale, V.

Faringdon, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Esther, V.

Forester, L.

Haldane, V.

Forteviot, L.

Wolverton, L.

Harcourt, V.

Gainford, L.

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURE (LEATHER MEASUREMENT) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CROSSLEY AND PORTER ORPHAN HOME AND SCHOOL) CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE CASE OF MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to move, "That in view of the allegations made both in public and privately against. Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant, this House is of opinion that a Judicial inquiry should be held forthwith to examine the circumstances leading to her dismissal from the Royal Air Force."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the summary dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant front the Royal Air Force has created considerable interest in the country mid has been the subject of important debates in both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships, I am sure, are not surprised that this should be the case, for Miss Douglas-Pennant is known to a good many your Lordships and widely known throughout the country. She has sixteen years of public service to her credit, of which seven were spent in the extremely important work of an insurance Commissioner for Wales. Yet the facts prove—and I hope I shall be able to make them clear to your Lordships—that a lady with that, record behind her has been summarily dismissed from the Royal Air Force, not on reports, either written or verbal, of the superior officers under Whom she served, not on complaints made by her subordinates, but for reasons which, when they are definite at all are frequently contradictory and in flat defiance of the Regulations of the Royal Air Force itself.
I cannot conceive why His Majesty's Government should object to an inquiry in this case. It is quite obvious that these events occurred before any of those who are now responsible to Parliament for the work of the Royal Air Force occupied their present positions. They occurred principally under the last Government, and the only real charge that I have to make against His Majesty's present Government is that pledges have been given that an inquiry should be held if certain conditions are fulfilled—conditions which I maintain have been fulfilled—and yet that inquiry has not been held; and further that it is ridiculous, after events such as these, that any conditions at all should have been attached to the holding of an inquiry. What are the facts? On April 22 last year Miss Douglas-Pennant was invited to become the Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. She had heard that her predecessor had been unable to carry on the work owing to the great difficulties
922
which she there had to contend with in regard to having no assistance from other people in the office, and so she said she would only take up that responsible position if she were satisfied, after inquiring into the circumstances, that, she could usefully do good work.
She therefore came to the office of the Royal Air Force and there spent a month going into the whole work which she would have to do. She found that. a Colonel Bersey was in charge of the personnel, both men and women, in the Royal Air Force; that, there was no record of the positions either of women's camps or of hostels; that there was not, even a registry of letters; and that there was no nominal roll of officers of the Women's Royal Air Force. As a result she informed Sir Godfrey Paine. the Master-General of Personnel, that site Wag unable to take up the position of Commandant. Sir Godfrey Paine then stated that it had already been decided that the Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force should be directly under him; that she must report to him personally; that she was to see him every day; and that he, in fact, would be her superior officer. The position then was that Colonel Bersey became the channel through which Miss Douglas-Pennant was provided with pay, clothing, rations, recruits, and quarters for the women of the Royal Air Force; but, in all other ways, Miss Douglas-Pennant came directly under t he Master-General of Personnel.
A few words as to Colonel Bersey. As I understand, Colonel Bersey is several years younger than myself. He was a second-lieutenant in the Royal Air Force. Whether it was because of the dangerous nature of his work at the Air Ministry or because of the efficient way in which he ran his office, in which there was no registry, no record of camps and no nominal roll of officers, this individual was jumped up from a second lieutenant to colonel in one day. The date of his promotion I think will appeal to your Lordships. It was April 1 last year. It soon become apparent, that the decision by which the Commandant was to be directly under the Master-General of Personnel had given great offence to various officers in the Department, and they determined to make her position impossible. It is quite obvious, from the position in which Colonel

923
Bersey was placed, that it was very easy for him to do so. Miss Douglas-Pennant had great difficulty in discovering where these camps and hostels were and how many officers there were, but eventually she did find out that the 16,000 women in the Royal Air Force were scattered throughout 500 camps, and that, despite their being so dispersed, there were only seventy-three women officers in the Air Force to look after the whole of them.
It is hardly surprising under these conditions that the position of the women of the Royal Air Force and of many of the camps was extremely unsatisfactory. It was also obvious that the first thing to be done was very largely to increase the supply of officers. At the time that Miss Douglas-Pennant took over I understand that there was only one hostel for the accommodation of twenty-five officers, and therefore she could only train officers in batches of twenty-five. Several places were offered to her which were obviously impossible, and it was only because she was well known to, and popular with, the officers of the London County Council that they courteously placed at her disposal quarters in which she was able to train batches of 200 officers at a time. The first batch of officers had completed their training and were about to take up appointments shortly before Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed. It will be clear that until the supply of officers was largely increased, there was not much chance of improving the conditions of the women of the Royal Air Force. But these officers objected to Miss Douglas-Pennant's appointment for other reasons. Candidates were accepted for the Women's Royal Air Force on the written recommendation of any officer. I put it to your Lordships that nothing could be more unsuitable than that women should be accepted on the written recommendation of any young officer. Miss Douglas-Pennant naturally objected. There was a further reason. Five ladies had been offered important positions in the Royal Air Force. Miss Douglas-Pennant interviewed them and discovered that they had had no previous training for these responsible posts. She stated she was unable to recommend that they should be given these appointments until they had had some training, but that she was prepared to give them subordinate posts, and, if found suitable, they should be promoted. That recommendation went before Lord
924
Weir, and of course e upheld it. It was obviously correct.
But those five ladies were well known in the office. They were friends of several people in the office. One of them was a sister of one of the officers, and a a result this decision caused great offence. The consequence of these five ladies not being given these appointments was this. Immediately afterwards three of Miss Douglas-Pennant's subordinate officers tendered their resignation. Miss Douglas-Pennant recommended to Lord Weir that their services should be retained, but Lord Weir overruled that decision and insisted that two of them should be allowed to resign, and that the third should be kept in the Service.
There begun at once a regular conspiracy against Miss Douglas-pennant. I could give you a good many instances, but will only give two. Complaints were received in the middle of July that the condition of the kitchens at Regent's Park Camp, No. 2 Stores Depôt, were very unsatisfactory. Miss Douglas-Pennant went into the case with Colonel Bersey, and Major Elwell was instructed to take certain action to put these matters right. She impressed upon Major Elwell that under no circumstances should the work be stopped. Imagine her amazement on receiving shortly afterwards a. message over the telephone from Colonel Carden, commanding the Depot. to say that he had received a message, purporting to come directly from Miss Douglas-Pennant, to the effect that the whole of these cooks should be withdrawn, and that in consequence the cadets serving there would be without any food. Miss Douglas-Pennant interviewed Major Elwell, and asked him why he had given a message of that character, which was exactly contrary to what she had told him to do. Tie replied that he did so under the direct instructions of Colonel Bersey.
Now I come to the second ease. On July 17 Dame Katherine Furse, the head of the Royal Naval Service (and a friend of one of the officers who had tendered her resignation) demanded, and obtained, an interview with General Paine. As your Lordships know, it is very unusual for an officer of one Department to go to the head of another Department without first seeing the opposite member of the Department, visited. In the presence of Miss Douglas-Pennant Dame Katherine Furse stated that Miss Douglas-Pennant had appointed

925
to a high position a lady whom Dame Katherine Furse had dismissed and turned down from the Royal Naval Service. The facts were that this lady was transferred from the Royal Naval Service to the Royal Air Force, with a strong recommendation in her favour from Dame Katherine Furce. Dame Katherine Furse stuck to her statement until the husband of this lady threatened legal proceedings, and then she withdrew her statement, and gave as her reason for having made it that it was "due to an inaccurate recollection at the moment." That was the sort of thing going on all round, and in the White Paper now on time Table of the House your Lordships will find that Miss Douglas Pennant makes many other charges of that character.
I come now to the question of her dismissal, because that is really the important point. Through the courtesy of my noble friend opposite I understand that he is going to ask your Lordships to postpone a decision on this subject on the ground that the White Paper has only just been laid, that, you have had no opportunity of studying it, and that it is not fair that you should give a decision until you have read it. The Government took that course in the case of the Slough Inquiry, and your Lordships, I think rightly, refused to accept a reason of that kind and insisted that the Inquiry should be held. I hope that your Lordships will insist in this case also. My Motion has been on the Paper of your Lordships' House for fourteen days, and the last letter from Miss Pennant which appears in this correspondence is dated May 2. I suggest that there has been ample time for His Majesty's Government to make up their mind as to whether these Papers should be published or not. As a matter of fact, Miss Douglas-Pennant did not twelve a copy of this correspondence until after two o'clock yesterday afternoon, when for the first time she had a chance of seeing the correspondence which is now grab before your Lordships. The correspondence is incomplete, but she agrees to its being published, and I am therefore able to refer to it. I wish to be quite fair to your Lordships and also to my noble friend opposite, and I think he. will agree that what I have stated so far is in no way controverted by what appears in this White Paper, and I hope he will interrupt me if I make any statement which is disproved by the correspondence.
On August 16 Miss Douglas-Pennant came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible for her to do any really good work at the Royal Air Force. Site found that the channel through which she got clothing and recruits (Colonel Bersey) made it impossible for her to make progress, and she tendered her resignation to Sir Godfrey Paine. He absolutely refused to hear of her resignation, and stated that he had every confidence in her capability; and the following day he showed her a letter which he had sent to Colonel Bersey, relieving him of Iris appointment and appointing another officer in his place. Miss Douglas-Pennant and this other officer attended before him on that day and he said, "Now these things have got to go ahead. If there is no real progress in a month from now you will all have to go." He laughed. Miss Douglas-Pennant said. "If I do nothing wrong shall I have to go? He said. "Whichever of you is to blame will go." A great deal has been made out of that in this correspondence, and I challenge my noble friend to say that this was more than a chaffing caution or was intended as a real threat.
Only eleven days after—time new officer was appointed, and things began to go ahead very fast—General Brancker summoned Miss Douglas-pennant to his office and informed her that she was dismissed, and would have to leave the following day. "Not" as he stated. "because you are inefficient, as you are very efficient, but as you ale grossly unpopular with everyone who has ever come in contact with you." It is a new policy in this country if great public servants are going to be dismissed because they are said to be unpopular. My Lords, it is not even true. What statements can my noble friend produce in the Papers now laid upon the Table to prove that Miss Douglas-Pennant was in fact unpopular in her office? There are the letters of a Miss Andrew, who was one of the three lady officers who tendered their resignations when Miss Douglas-Pennant refused to promote the five ladies whom she considered had not had sufficient training for the posts for which they were recommended. Why were not the letters from the other two officers also published? I will tell your Lordships the reason. Because the letters from these other two officers show that the reason for their resignation was so trivial that it was quite obviously a question of pique because their friends had not been appointed, and the

927
only letters of the three which are put into this paper are the letters of the one whom the officials at the Air Office felt would hear strongly against Miss Douglas-Pennant.
Miss Douglas-Pennant has absolutely been flooded with letters from both those who served with her in the Air Force, and those who did public service with her outside, stating how glad they were to work with her, what a privilege it had been, and how they had enjoyed working hand in hand with her at the Air Ministry or elsewhere. There is a further proof which I can give to your Lordships of Miss Douglas-Pennant's popularity. When the first batch of officers who had been trained Wider her direction; at the Air Ministry heard that she had been dismissed they one and all stated that they would go. It was only because Miss Douglas-Pennant said, "I am still Commandant of the Royal Air Force; I forbid you to resign, and if you do so I shall treat it as mutiny," that the action which had been contemplated was prevented.
Then, my Lords, as to the question of dismissal. As I have pointed out, Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed summarily on August 28. What are the regulations under which women of the Royal Air Force May he dismissed? They are these
"Provided your service may be terminated forthwith on ground of misconduct, false answer on enrolment. or breach of conditions on receipt of notice given by the Air Council, or, in the event of your services being no longer required, they may be terminated by one month's notice in writing being given to you."
Now, when was the notice in writing given? The notice in writing was given for the first time on September 2, five days after she had been dismissed by General Brancker. Therefore we are reduced to the other alternative, that her services were terminated either on account of misconduct, false answer on enrolment, or breach of conditions.
It is hardly surprising, in view of the way in which Miss Douglas-Pennant was treated, that rumours are beginning to spread, making attacks against her private character. Only yesterday a rumour to that effect reached me from the City, and I must tell your Lordships that a Mr. Tyson Wilson, who is a Whip of the Labour Party, has stated to several witnesses that charges had been made against Miss Douglas-Pennant of so serious a character
928
that, if they were published, she would never hold up her head again; that her public career was not at all as good as was stated, and that he recommended those he was talking to not to have anything to do with her or they also would sillier. Mr. Tyson Wilson has now denied the statement, but it has hem made in the presence of several witnesses, every one of whom is prepared to state that it was made. Can your Lordships be surprised that a wrong view has been taken? An officer of the Royal Air Force can only be dismissed on the ground of misconduct or on the ground of false enrolment, and yet Miss Douglas-Pennant was summarily dismissed and received no notice in writing until five days after she had been dismissed.
I will turn again to the correspondence. If your Lordships will refer to the letter from Lord Weir at the foot of page 13, you will see that he writes as follows—
"There is one point which might be made clearer in view of the discussion in the House of Lords. General Brancker had practically nothing to do with Miss Pennant's supersession other than as my instrument in informing her of our decision to replace her. His opinion was not asked as he had only just taken up his position, and any belief that General Brancker brought about the supersession is unfounded."
General Brancker was one of the only two officers under whom Miss Douglas-Pennant served. The other was General Paine. Now General Paine, as I think my noble friend will agree, has a reputation for being extremely outspoken and yet he never on any occasion intimated to Miss Douglas-Pennant that he considered her inefficient or thought that she was not doing good work. As a matter of fact, he did exactly the opposite. He stated that he was thoroughly satisfied with her, and on 16th August absolutely refused to allow her to resign. When this decision was come to by Lord Weir. Sir Godfrey Paine was abroad. The letter refers in the next paragraph to Sir Godfrey Paine having given this warning, but, at I have already told your Lordships and I have had it direct front Miss Douglas-Pennant, neither she nor the other officer considered this more than a hint that they were to do their best, which of course they did.
Then why was she dismissed? The only evidence in this correspondence from subordinates is front Miss Andrew. On whose information then did Lord Weir come to time conclusion that it was right

929
that Miss Douglas-Pennant should go? It is clear from the letter on page 9, from Lord Weir to the Prime Minister, which says—
"I meanwhile had occasion again to consider the position of the Women's Royal Air Force, matters being brought to a head by an intimation which I received from Sir Auckland Geddes, then Minister of National Service, that owing to the state of disorganisation of the Force, he could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to it."
I think this House will be amazed to hear that Miss Douglas-Pennant has never met Sir Auckland Geddes and did not then, at any rate, know where the position of the Ministry of National Service was, and that in fact the Ministry of National Service had nothing to do with the finding of recruits for the Women's Royal Air Force. It was not responsible for it. Actually that decision was come to before Miss Douglas-Pennant had anything to do with the Force. The officers for the Royal Air Force were got through the professional classes bureau of the Ministry of Labour. Recruitments for the other ranks were very largely stopped because it would have been extraordinarily unwise to add still further women to the Royal Air Force until there was a sufficiency of officers to look after them.
It was arranged that the campaign for the recruitment of the other ranks of the Royal Air Force should begin in October, and an officer was transferred from the Ministry of Labour to set the campaign on foot. I ask your Lordships to refer to another paragraph in the same letter on page 9. Towards the bottom you will see that it states—
"I welcomed Mr. Harmsworth's appointment to enable you to form your own judgment on the case, and all the facts and relevant papers at our disposal have been laid before him."
What is the result of that inquiry? It has not been put into the Paper that is before your Lordships' House. I will tell your Lordships why. Mr. Cecil Harmsworth wrote to Miss Douglas-Pennant these words—
"I am strongly recommending that a judicial inquiry should be held."
He wrote again just before the General Election to say that he was very sorry he was being called away to his constituency before the arrangements for the inquiry were complete. These letters are in Miss Pennant's possession. He even went
930
so far as to approach her and ask what sort of reparation would satisfy her for the way in which she had been treated. That is the only inquiry which has been held into Miss Douglas-Pennant's case.
Eventually the Prime Minister came round to Lord Weir's view, very possibly on the paragraph which I have quoted to your Lordships, saying that the Minister of National Service was unable to promote further women to the Royal Air Force. I have already pointed out that that was an entirely incorrect statement. Sir Auckland Geddes had nothing whatever to do with it. I come to this further stage. The noble Marquess opposite, on February 27, gave this pledge in your-Lordship' House—
"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 tile Government that the Secretary of State will leave no stone unturned to probe that allegation to its very uttermost limits, and if Miss Violet Douglas-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 will 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,"
Miss Pennant's case has been submitted to a Committee composed of members of both Houses of Parliament, and they unanimously came to the conclusion that she had in fact made out a prima facie case which justified an inquiry being held. Why in the world should Miss Pennant have to satisfy that condition?
You have had here an officer dismissed from the Service—not from her appointment but from the Service—absolutely contrary to the Regulations and not on the recommendation of any of her senior officers. A recommendation was made, which again is not in this Paper before your Lordships' House, by a Minister who had nothing whatever to do with her work. If that is to be the way in which the Public Service of this country is going to be run in future, then I feel sure your Lordships would agree that the position of any public servant in this country is not worth an hour's purchase. The great Public Service of this country, of which we are so justly proud, will be destroyed, and the

931
whole situation in regard to the Government of this country inevitably be changed.
I am afraid that I have occupied your Lordships' time too long, but I have ventured to show you that grave injustice has been inflicted on Miss Douglas-Pennant, and that every conceivable Regulation and Instruction has been over-ridden. For that reason alone I maintain that a judicial inquiry should be held. But I also put it on even higher ground. If your Lordships will not insist that the Public Service should be maintained under the Regulations which are in force, then, as I have already stated, the Public Service of this country must inevitably be destroyed and great damage and harm will be done to that very fine service. For those reasons I ask your Lordships to support me in my Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That in view of the allegations made both in public and privately against Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant, this House is of opinion that a Judicial inquiry should be held forthwith to examine the circumstances leading to her dismissal from the Royal Air Force.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in his Motion for an inquiry. As far as I understand it, without entering into the details which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships, Miss Douglas-Pennant does not state that the authority was wrong to dismiss her, but she finds fault with the system and demands an inquiry. The reason I trouble your Lordships on this question is this. It would be fatal if this House, or any body of the community, were ever to try to make out that authority has not the right to discharge and to appoint. That would be fatal to the Public Service.
I am troubling your Lordships on this occasion because my case is very similar. I represented to the Admiralty when I was Commander-in-Chief that the trade routes were not protected, and that a number of other things were wanting, such as a war staff, and that our food supply was insecure. I did not agree with the views of the Admiralty, in fact, I said that the Admiralty did not appear to understand anything about war. The Admiralty put me on the beach. They made me haul down my flag, and discharged me from the Service. I never complained. I think the Admiralty were right. They could not have a Commander-in-Chief who differed from
932
them entirely. Events proved that I was right and that the Admiralty was wrong, but that has nothing to do with the principle. The authority must have the right to appoint and discharge officials in all cases. I asked for an inquiry, and that is what Miss Pennant is asking for, and I got it. The inquiry went on, I think, for four months, and it proved that I was correct in my statement. I did not complain of my dismissal. The inquiry did a great deal of good. As a result of it we got several reforms which were much needed. We got a War Staff, although that did not come for about two years. If there is something wrong in the procedure of the Department in which a person is serving, that person is quite right in taking the line which Miss Douglas-Pennant took, but in common fairness and justice and love of the fair-play which exists in this country, when a public servant does that and asks for an inquiry it should be granted.
I am certain that your Lordships are more or less shocked and horrified by the material which my noble friend has produced before you. Miss Pennant may be right or she may be wrong, but in the interests of the Public Service she should have a Judicial Inquiry. There has been too much secrecy about. This secrecy all means suspicion. This inquiry has been evaded over and over again by the Government. Why is it being evaded? Because they do not want the inquiry. I hope your Lordships will insist and make the Government grant the inquiry. It is only fair to Miss Pennant and fair to the Public Service that they should do so. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having mentioned my own case. I only did so because I think it is similar to that of Miss Pennant. The Admiralty gave me a n inquiry, and I hope your Lordships will insist on Miss Pennant getting an inquiry, more particularly after what the noble Lord has brought forward. On his statement the Government have broken their contract with Miss Pennant. She was to have a month's warning or notice before she was discharged, but they did not give her a month's notice until she had been discharged five days. If that is the way we are going to run the Public Service where shall we get? I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division, and I certainly shall support him in his demand for a judicial inquiry in this case.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I would not venture to intervene in the debate at such an early stage of my experience in this House, had it not been for the fact that I have not only known Miss Douglas-Pennant for a great number of years but I have had a great deal of close experience of her service in connection with many honourable and important movements in Wales, and because I know that this case has aroused in Wales a widespread and deep interest. It is not necessary to go into the details or the grounds upon which the Motion for an Inquiry has been placed before your Lordships by the noble Earl opposite. But I should like to say that I think that the fact that Miss Douglas-Pennant has occupied the important position of a Welsh National Insurance Commissioner and has done great public service not only in Wales but throughout the country for many years ought to be a weighty factor in our conclusion on the question as to whether a judicial inquiry should or should not be granted. I feel that it is not only a point of vital importance to the public career of Miss Douglas-Pennant, but it is of still more importance, I believe, to the real interests of the public service of this nation. As one who has had, I think, special opportunities of seeing the public service of Miss Douglas-Pennant in Wales and elsewhere and of knowing her character I hope that your Lordships will on this occasion press the Government to grant this inquiry which, in any event, is only fair play to her and in the interests of the Public Service.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the subject to which we are addressing ourselves this afternoon is not a new one. It has been before your Lordships before, and since then there has been a certain amount of controversy in regard to it outside; this House in the Press, and I feel really that the reason of this controversy is based to a very large extent on imperfect knowledge of the case. It is quite true that there has been a veritable campaign organised in the Press and various accusations have been hurled promiscuously about, and allegations made not of a very fair character, which I feel have not been substantiated or supported by any proof. The Government in this connection have been repeatedly accused of concealment, deception, and even corruption. I re-
934
pudiate every one of those accusations most vehemently, and with regard to the point of concealment, speaking for myself and for those with whom I am associated, I would say that there is no desire whatever for concealment. I should be only too glad, to put before your Lordships the case I as we see it and to bring to your notice every single fact that I have in my possession or that is in the possession of the Air Ministry.
This question is what may be termed a legacy. It has been handed on to the present Administration by a previous Administration. But when I say that, I have no desire to divest the Government of any responsibility in the matter, and my endeavour this afternoon will be to show your Lordships the case as we view it and as, I venture to say, I view it myself. We know perfectly well the principle of continuity, but I can assure you that I am no slavish votary of that policy; and if I felt that we were on a wrong line in this case I should be the first to tell my chief, and I should not be standing at this box now with the intention of showing your Lordships what I believe to be the case, and of endeavouring to persuade you that the course which the noble Earl has suggested is one which, for all reasons, and especially for the interests of the public service, should not be followed. I do not think that I need give any expression of my own personal attitude in this case. I had occasion before of speaking to your Lordships with regard to this matter, and I think I made my position clear that I had no personal feelings whatsoever in the matter, that my sole endeavour was to bring out the real facts of this case, and to put before your Lordships exactly what had occurred and what the Government feel is their duty at this moment.
The noble Earl who has introduced this matter did so in a very temperate and very able speech, and I should like to express my gratitude to him for the manner in which he has treated me in the matter. He has hidden nothing from me. He has told me the points that, he was bringing forward, and I can assure your Lordships that I know perfectly well he is acting in absolute sincerity, and that he believes that the case which he has put forward is such as to call upon your Lordships to insist on granting a judicial inquiry. What is the outline of the story? The story is of a capable individual—because the fact

935
that Miss Douglas-Pennant is a lady does not come into this question at all; she has been taking the work of a man, and that is the point before us at this moment—a capable individual who was called upon to undertake a very critical task, and she was placed in that position because of her previous record, to which the noble Earl has testified and to which we are all willing and anxious to testify. She encounters in her work immense difficulty and that is not only confined to one office in the Government. She tells us, in her statements, which are in this correspondence before your Lordships, of all the difficulties which were placed in her way—of all the obstacles with which she was confronted. Time goes by, and at a certain stage her chief, the Secretary of State, decides that in the interests of the Service, in the interests of the Air Force, he should make a change, and that some one should take her place. That is the history, the bare outline of the case.
The noble Lord who seconded this Motion is one to whom I should be most unwilling to offer any opposition when I recognise the great authority with which he speaks as an officer in the Naval Service. But I must say that I venture to disagree with a great many of the propositions which he put forward, and, with great respect, I will tell him exactly why I am in disagreement with him. He speaks of an inquiry which he was able to obtain. I wonder how many similar inquiries there have been, and I wonder also if he is aware that there are many individuals now who have been superseded, who have been transferred, who are labouring under a grievance, who believe they have been badly treated, who believe that they have been treated with the grossest injustice; yet does he suggest that each one of those individuals should come forward and claim an inquiry into the reasons why he has been transferred or superseded?
LORD BERESFORD: I certainly suggest that he should be given an inquiry if he demands it.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and gallant Lord lays the country open to a multitude of inquiries if once the principle is established that anyone who has a grievance should be able to claim
936
and to obtain an inquiry into that girevance. May I go on with the story which I am endeavouring to put before your Lordships? The noble Earl in his speech hardly addressed himself to the real point which, I believe, is the one to which we should address ourselves—namely, the question that a judicial inquiry should be held forthwith to examine the circumstances leading to the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant from the Royal Air Force. That is a questioning of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State; and if that inquiry in admitted it is a suggestion that the Secretary of State was either moved by corrupt influences or that he was a man who by his intellectual capacity was not fitted for the position in which he was placed. I do not understand that either of those charges is pressed.
Let me now go forward with the case as it has occurred. Miss Douglas-Pennant entered on her duties in April, and it it is very obvious from this correspondence—which I regret has not been in your Lord ships' hands before—that Lord Weir was personally interested in the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant, and did his utmost to support her and to make her position a success. There is a case here in which Lord Weir writes a letter to Miss Andrew, where he says—
"I am satisfied, however, that a genuine attempt is being made to overcome the difficulties of the inception of the W.R.A.F., and that it would have been certainly unfair at the time when the resignations of yourself and your colleagues were tendered, less than a month after the appointment of the Commandant, to have expected results to have manifested themselves. It is my anticipation, however, that real progress will shortly be shown."
That is one letter in which Lord Weir shows that he is anxious that Miss Douglas-Pennant should have every chance of overcoming those difficulties and of removing those obstacles which he knew and which we all recognised were uppermost at that moment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What is the date of that letter?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: July 19, 1918. Now, I think it is common ground that the organisation of the Women's Royal Air Force left a great deal to be desired, but I do not know that this is a reason for the indictment of the Secretary of State. It was common to all organisations. We know perfectly well the situa

937
tion in which this country was placed at that moment. Organisations and Departments were called into being practically at a moment's notice, and it was impossible to ensure that an organisation of an efficient character could suddenly be brought into being.
I will go on and refer now to another letter. It is one written by Lord Weir to Dame Katherine Furse, dated July 20, 1918. He says—
"I have been with some care into the question of the resignations of Mrs. Beatty and her colleagues, and I think I am aware of the general reasons which led up to them, and I cannot help feeling that, in view of the very recent appointment of Miss Pennant as Commandant, they were unduly precipitate, and that I should not be justified in any other course than in supporting the action which has been taken by their superior officers."
What I want to show is that Lord Weir was particularly anxious that Miss Douglas-Pennant in her position as Commandant should be successful; and when we are indicted for various expressions of opinion supporting Miss Douglas-Pennant I say that it is really showing that the position is not accurately appreciated. While these things are going on it is the duty and the desire of everyone that heads of Departments and subordinate officials should have every chance of making their Department a success, and that they should get every assistance to achieve that object. That seems to me to explain the words which Sir Godfrey Paine used. He was anxious to make Miss Douglas-Pennant's work a success, but he realised the difficulties with which she was confronted.
Things go on, and I will now draw your Lordships' attention to the reason which actuated Lord Weir in superseding Miss Douglas-Pennant. He receives information from Sir Auckland Geddes, and he states this very clearly in the letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister on December 4, in which these words occur—
"I meanwhile had occasion again to consider the position of the Women's Royal Air Force, matters being brought to a head by an intimation which I received from Sir Auckland Geddes, then Minister of National Service, that owing to the State of disorganisation of the Force, he could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to it."
Before I deal with that I must refer to a suggestion made by the noble Earl. He put forward the proposition that Sir Auckland Geddes had nothing whatever to do with the Women's Royal Air Force.
938
I have before me a note with reference to a War Cabinet decision (No. 287 (1) of November 28, 1917). By this War Cabinet decision the Minister of National Service was made responsible for controlling the recruiting of all women for work of national importance. That seems to me to establish that Sir Auckland Geddes, as Minister of National Service, was in the main the responsible authority for the recruiting of women for the Women's Royal Air Force.
I will now venture to take your Lordships back to the situation in which Lord Weir received this intimation from Sir Auckland Geddes. It was in August, 1918, when the fortunes of this country were in the balance. I put that concisely, but your Lordships will appreciate exactly what I mean by it. It was at a time when quick decisions had to be taken. A Secretary of State is a man whom you have proved and whom you believe to be suitable for the post, and you give him these great responsibilities so that he can take decisions on his own, and that is why you believe that those decisions will in all probability be the right ones. Lord Weir was at that time responsible for the Women's Royal Air Force being kept up. He was responsible for that mainly because women in this country were taking the places of men who were urgently wanted at the Front in France; and he received an intimation from the man who in the last resort was responsible for the recruitment of women for the Royal Air Force, in words which I think your Lordships will agree are striking, that—
"owing to the state of disorganisation of the Force he could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to it."
I know that we now look upon these things, when we hope and think peace is in front of us, in a far different frame of mind than was the case when the war was upon us and none could say accurately what the result was going to be; and the fact that a quick decision was taken is a matter which I think you will appreciate.
In that connection I should like to make one remark about the manner in which Miss Douglas-Pennant was superseded. Lord Weir makes no attempt to escape any censure or blame for the manner in which that was done. It appears in one of these letters in which Legal Weir endeavours to show that he agrees that the month's trial was not formally complied with. It

939
is quite true that Miss Douglas-Pennant received from General Brancker, on the orders of Lord Weir, the instructions which superseded her. She received them, I think, on September 28, which was a fortnight after the time that Sir Godfrey Paine had spoken to her. I do not desire to minimise the point in any way. I feel that Miss Douglas-Pennant was certainly not treated with that consideration to which she w as entitled and which she ought undoubtedly to have received. But that, in my view, is the sole pound of grievance; and while it is a ground of grievance, it cannot be said that it is a ground for inquiry.
Now there is a point to which I would venture to allude, spoken of by Lord Stanhope. It is with regard to Miss Douglas-Pennant's position in the Women's Royal Air Force. It is contended that she was a member of the Women's Royal Air Force. Miss Douglas-Pennant was nothing of the kind. She was never enrolled in the Royal Air Force or paid from Royal Air Force funds. She was, in words which your Lordships will appreciate, "loaned" from the Welsh Insurance Commission, and in that connection I would draw your Lordships' attention to the letter which was written by Mr. McAnally, the Secretary to the Air Ministry, to Miss Douglas-Pennant on September 2, 1918. Mr. McAnally wrote as follows—
"I am commanded by the Air Council to refer to the request contained in your letter of the 29th ultimo, addressed to Major-General Brancker, and in reply to furnish you with the enclosed copy of a letter which has been sent to the Secretary of the National Health Insurance Commission of Wales. At the same time I am to confirm what was said to you by the Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force at your interview this morning, when he intimated to you that he had convinced himself by the most careful inquiry that, although you had worked most wholeheartedly and untiringly to bring the W.R.A.F. on to a proper footing, the results desired were, nevertheless, not being obtained. That being so, the Council have conceived it to be their duty to appoint a new Commandant—"
I ask your Lordships to appreciate those words—
"Although you have worked most wholeheartedly and untiringly to bring the W.R.A.F. on to a proper footing, the results desired were, nevertheless, not being obtained. That being so, the Council had conceived it to be their duty to appoint a new Commandant. They have acted in this way because there was no other practical method, in the public interest, of dealing with the situation with which they were confronted, and I am to ask you to accept this decision in this
940
sense and, at the same time, their assurance that they are fully conscious of the difficulties with which you have had to contend."
That is the letter which the Air Ministry sent to Miss Douglas-Pennant in suggesting her return to the National Health Insurance Commission—in a word, her transference from one Government Office to another institution; and this is the letter which was enclosed to the National Health Insurance Commission of Wales—
"Sir,—With reference to previous correspondence relative to the services of the Hon. Violet Douglas-Pennant being placed at the temporary disposal of the Air Council, I am now commanded to inform you that the Council find it necessary to introduce certain changes in the organisation of the W.R.A.F. Although the Council do not fail to appreciate the loyal and untiring service which Miss Pennant has given during her term of office, they feel that the introduction of the contemplated changes will be facilitated if a new Commandant is appointed, and they have decided that she shall be released from her present position and thus be in a position to resume her work on your Commission. In informing you of the arrangements made, I am to request that you will thank the National Health Insurance Commission of Wales for their courtesy in placing the services of Miss Douglas-Pennant at their disposal."
I can only say that I have studied this correspondence, I have made a scrutiny of all the correspondence I can find. I have seen everybody whom I could possibly think could be connected with this case, and I say at once that I cannot see the grounds on which an inquiry is demanded, which questions, as I maintain it does, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State to transfer Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant from the position which she occupied to the position which she had left to come to the Air Force.
There are several points made by the noble Earl to which I would address myself. He speaks of the report by Mr. Harmsworth, which is known as the Harmsworth Report. What is the situation with regard to that Report? Mr. Harmsworth at the time was the Prime Minister's Private Secretary and in that capacity he was authorised by the Prime Minister to inquire into this case and to furnish him with a report of what he believed to be the facts. That was the capacity in which Mr. Harmsworth addressed himself to the task. The Secretary of State in another place has made this statement which I will venture to quote to your Lordships—
"I have read the Report, and I do not myself see any reason from the point of view of the Government—"

941
That is with regard to the publication of the Harmsworth Report—
"It is a private and confidential Report made to the Prime Minister, and I cannot say anything without an opportunity of finding out what the Prime Minister says. That Report recommended that there should be a judicial inquiry, but the Prime Minister, after hearing what Lord Weir had to say about it in his letter of December 4—"
which is before your Lordships in the White Paper—
"decided that it was not right or necessary to press the inquiry, and he accepted the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force. That is the position, but, without making any pledge on the subject, I should be quite ready to inquire of the Prime Minister whether he would allow a document essentially of a private nature, only written to oblige him personally in the course of his public work, to be published."
That is the situation as regards the Harms-worth Report.
I saw Mr. Harmsworth himself. I had a long conversation with him in regard to this matter. He told me that he had interviewed Miss Douglas-Pennant, and that she brought forward the case which the noble Earl has brought forward and which is comprised in the statements appearing in the White Paper. Mr. Harms-worth said, "That is not a matter for me; this is a matter for another authority "; and on this line I understand he recommended that these matters should be examined and contemplated by a judicial inquiry. I go further with regard to that Report. Mr. Harmsworth went down in a practically unofficial capacity; he interviewed various people and obtained opinions from them, without the smallest idea in their minds that what they told him was going to be the subject of a White Paper to be laid on the Table of this House or in another place. I do feel, in the public interest, that you will make inquiries of this kind impossible if there is no possibility of any confidential report being made by one individual to another. I think I have, more or less, dealt with the points as they have arisen.
I should like to elaborate the reasons which the Government are convinced should be adduced for the purpose of showing that an inquiry of this kind is absolutely contrary to the public service. The noble Lord opposite says it is in the interests of the public service, but I venture, most respectfully, to disagree with him in that
942
opinion. Miss Douglas-Pennant has brought forward various cases in the White Paper showing the immense difficulties she had to contend with. She tells us that there was a conspiracy afoot to frustrate her efforts. In her first statement she says it, was a small knot of people inside the Air Ministry, and later she goes on to accuse a large concourse of individuals who, she says, were in league together for the purpose of frustrating her work at the Air Ministry. I will ask your Lordships to place yourselves in the position of the Secretary of State. Miss Douglas-Pennant was asked to come from the Welsh Insurance Commission for the purpose of removing the difficulties and obstacles, but after the Secretary of State had satisfied himself by examination, and after he had had this peremptory intimation from Sir Auckland Geddes, that Miss Douglas-Pennant (although he was fully aware of the qualities she possessed) did not possess those qualities which were necessary for overcoming these difficulties, in his jurisdiction as Secretary of State; a responsible Minister, he had no other course to follow but to take the line he did and appoint some one else in her position.
The proof, if I may say so, is that affairs in the Air Ministry began to mend themselves from that moment, and I think we can claim that the Women's Royal Air Force is now in an efficient condition. It is, of course, quite open for anyone to say that Miss Douglas-Pennant laid the foundations for that improvement, and I am not going to controvert that for one moment. But the Secretary of State had to make up his mind. It was a time of immense difficulties; he had to come to a decision rapidly, and he felt that for the efficiency of the Service it would be better for some one to take Miss Douglas-Pennant's place. That is the whole case. If I am accused of any concealment I hope your Lordships will tell me where I have been guilty of concealment upon a single point. I am anxious to bring the whole of the information, as I have it, before your Lordships. I have endeavoured to obtain the whole facts by the scrutiny of documents, and I hope that the information which I have been able to place before you will make your realise that this is not a case for a judicial inquiry into the dismissal of a public servant, who could not claim efficiency in the Department in which she was placed and which has subsequently

943
been managed in an efficient and satisfactory manner.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I have not the privilege of even the most remote acquaintance with Miss Douglas-Pennant. I know but little beyond the information contained in this White Paper which has been circulated, but I think even the most cursory examination of the documents in the White Paper ought to satisfy any unprejudiced people that there is a serious matter in issue between Miss Douglas-Pennant and the Air Ministry which cannot be satisfied by any official answer, however fully and candidly it may be given by a member of your Lordships' House who firmly belives he has been able to ascertain all the relevant and material facts. I feel sure your Lordships must have recognised, as I did, the anxiety of the noble Marquess to do, if he possibly could, full justice to Miss Douglas-Pennant, and at the same time give your Lordships all the information that was in his possession. But I cannot help thinking that there must have been present to your minds during the course of his speech the constantly recurring question, "Why is not Lord Weir here to answer this matter himself?"
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is no charge made against the noble Marquess in any of these letters.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Lord Weir is in America.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is a complete answer. I should like to know if there is any chance of his coming back soon, because in a case of this kind it is of the utmost consequence that we should have, if possible, information from the person who is himself involved in the dispute, and who by first-hand knowledge must know far more than it is possible for the noble Marquess to ascertain, with all his diligent anxiety to arrive at the truth. I agree with something that the noble Marquess said; and it is this—that in a case of this kind it is necessary to proceed with caution, and that an inquiry cannot be granted in every case in which there is a dispute between persons who have ceased to be in the service of a Government Department and their official Chief. I think that is obvious. The latter must
944
be masters in their own house, and it is impossible that you can have unending controversy as between them and officials whom they may think it their duty to remove.
But this case does not stand on an ordinary basis. I do not know if your Lordships have read what Miss Douglas-Pennant has put in print—I suppose the Government have printed it, and Miss Douglas-Pennant put it in writing. I have read it for the first time this afternoon. I call your Lordships' attention to it on page 15. This is what Miss Douglas-Pennant says—
"I accuse Brig.-General Livingston, Lt.-Colonel Bersey, and Mrs. Beatty (W.R.N.S.) of taking steps within the W.R.A.F. to bring about my dismissal from the post of Commandant, their reason for doing so being that I would not be a party to the jobbery and inefficiency which prevailed in the W.R.A.F. whilst it was under the control of Brig.-General Livingston and the direct management of Lt.-Colonel Bersey."
She repeats it on page 16—
"Having then attempted to carry on the work of the W.R.A.F. upon right principles and in the best interests of the Force, I became the object of a bitter attack, and I saw plainly that every effort was being made to get rid of me before Major-General Paine became aware of the chaos and disorganisation and intrigue which prevailed. I was warned from the outside and by a member of the staff that an intrigue was on foot to get rid of me because I was too just and straight."
It is perfectly impossible for any one to attempt to pass any judgment whatever upon such a statement, but it is at least important to see that it is made by a person who, when she was dismissed from the Force, as stated by Lord Weir in his letter on page 8, was a person in connection with whom "there was nothing which reflected in any way on your capacity or efficiency, but you appeared to be confronted with a combination of circumstances which would take too long to clear away, and the only solution therefore was a change." I will comment on that later, but for a moment I want to say that this lady, so far from being of a wild hysterical character, suffering from delusions, is there said to be a woman of capacity and efficiency. In her own record of service which appears on page 19 she says—
"On the other hand, I had a sixteen years' record of public work—seven years of which had been spent in the Government service, during which time I held one of the highest and most responsible posts as a National Health Insurance Commissioner. I had never had the slightest friction or difficulty working with others."

945
Therefore, my Lords, one starts with this, that here is a lady of admitted skill and character, a lady who is not prima facie a person likely to be led astray into making wild and cruel and reckless statements about other people, and it is her firm conviction that she has evidence to show that the reason why she was dismissed from the service was that she was attempting to expose jobbery and mismanagement. It is that issue which she desires to have investigated and explained.
Is it possible in a case like this to, I was going to say ride off, but I will say to escape the issue, by saying that in all these eases it is impossible to have an inquiry? I agree it is not, but there are not, as is suggested by the noble Marquess, a very large number of people all over the country suffering from the belief that they have been made the victims of injustice so great and so severe as this lady appears to think she is suffering from. Then it is said that Lord Weir acted in a moment of great national emergency, and that you must not question too closely what he did. I agree as to that. But the point is that Lord Weir is alleged to have been induced to act in this manner by people who wanted to prevent her from pursuing her work.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No charge of that kind is made.
LORD BUCKMASTER: You cannot read this Paper without seeing that that is what is suggested. She claims that she was attempting to render this Government service more clean and more efficient. When Lord Weir got rid of her it is admitted that she was efficient and capable, but it is said that she was "confronted by circumstances which would take too long to clear away." Why did he not attempt to get rid of the circumstances? How can you possibly get over circumstances which it would take too long to clear away by getting rid of the person who knows all about them and putting in her place somebody who does not? There is an uncomfortable and uneasy feeling left in one's mind that here is a grave question which in the public interest ought to be inquired into—not only in the interests of Miss Douglas-Pennant, who is nothing but a name in this matter—a question far bigger and graver than that, namely, the question of the pure and clean administration of the public service. That is the matter
946
which Miss Douglas-Pennant asks should be inquired into.
This matter has really got to a pitch in which I respectfully submit to the Government that they cannot, in common justice to this lady, let it stop where it is, because as is usual in these matters the thing proceeds to swell and grow from day to day. The Morning Post published the other day certain correspondence. The lady herself, so far as I know did not publish it. It is simply published over the name of Mrs. Broadhurst, following a reply from Miss Douglas-Pennant. It is there stated that—
"On Wednesday last, April 30th, Mr. Tyson Wilson, the Whip of the Labour Party, in an interview at the House of Commons, informed us that he knew, on the authority of the Secretary of the Ministry concerned, that complaints made against your administration previous to your dismissal had been drastically investigated. Also that you yourself had been given the fullest opportunity of hearing and answering such complaints, and had been unable to do so. Further that the charges so dealt with were such that no responsible official of any Department could do otherwise than, after investigation of their truth, decide on a summary dismissal."
That is where the case now stands. This lady placed her services at the disposal of the Government, and I believe there is no reason to doubt the truth of what was said by Lord Weir at the moment of her dismissal—namely, that she was efficient and zealous and capable in the work she did, and she ends by having statements made that there were charges against her character which she was unable to reply to. I should think any woman who came before your Lordships' House in such circumstances and asked that the matter should be cleared up would be met with a ready assent, and I find it difficult to see why it is that after perhaps the only impartial inquiry, made by Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, which concluded with a recommendation to the Prime Minister that this course should be taken—why it is that that course should now be denied.
The only answer given by Lord Weir is that to be found in the letter of Lord Weir to the Prime Minister on December 4. It is an unconvincing answer, and it is impossible to overlook the fact that it is suggested that there had been friction between her and the National Service Department, who would not send her recruits, when her case is that she had not had any communication with them at any time, and if it had been the case it would have been right to communicate with her

947
before she was dismissed and to point out the defects in her system which were complained of, and to see if it was not possible to have them remedied. No one desires to prejudge what the result of an inquiry would be. It is possible that this lady is mistaken—ladies have been mistaken before this—but a Government Department may have done a great wrong. They have done great wrongs before this, and the question is one which in the public interest should be investigated. The only way in which it can be investigated is by a public inquiry; and I do not care what kind of inquiry it is provided it is public.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I be allowed to correct a mis-statement. I have just heard that Lord Weir has been obliged to postpone his departure.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am very grateful to the noble Marquess, and possibly he will now be able to answer my question.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Before your Lordships proceed to a Division, may I say a word or two? I approach this question from a point of view which has not been touched by any speaker in the debate. I came down this afternoon with no intention whatever of voting on either side. I knew little about the case, but when I arrived, like all your Lordships, these Papers were put into my hands. We have none of us had time to read them, though we have been doing our best to turn them over since four o'clock. In these Papers I find a number of very extreme charges—I use the word with all respect—made by Miss Pennant against other individuals. These statements may be true, and they may be false, but here they are in a public document. At first sight many of them seem to me to be statements that, if they had been made in public, and not in a public document and therefore protected by privilege, might very naturally be the basis of proceedings in the ordinary legal way.
I feel so strongly, after seeing these charges made, that I am going to vote with my noble friend for an inquiry, but I do so, my Lords, probably disagreeing with him in the motive. I know no more of this case than I have learned from reading the debates carefully, and from following this afternoon's debate very closely, and I am not at all sure that Miss Pennant will get all the benefit from the inquiry that
948
her supporters think she will get. That is merely a matter of personal opinion. Your Lordships will see in the last long document that very strong statements are made against, I think, two ladies—against Mrs. Chalmers Watson, who was the first head of the Women's Army Corps, familiarly known as the W.A.A.C.'s, and against Dame Katherine curse, who is now head of the Women's Navy Service, which has been an astonishing success and in which there has been no trouble such as we are discussing this afternoon.
Charges like this ought to be answered. There is nothing in these Papers showing that either of these ladies has had any opportunity of answering the charges, and I feel that they should have an opportunity of answering them when they are published under the authority of a public document. Therefore in voting for my noble friend I wish to make it quite clear that my vote is not one for Miss Pennant, but is a vote for an inquiry into the whole case from whatever point of view you regard it. I believe that the new situation which has arisen this afternoon by the publication of these Papers makes some inquiry necessary. I do not care what the inquiry is, but I shall vote for there being one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I have the misfortune to differ from my noble and learned friend, and I tear from a considerable number of your Lordships, and I do not think it respectful not to offer a word of what I consider necessary caution. It is essential that one should not disregard the consideration pressed upon your Lordships by the noble Marquess—that he cannot distinguish this case from many other cases which have arisen in the course of this war. The noble and learned Lord said that it very seldom happens, in a case of persons whose services have been dispensed with, that they make such charges or such complaints as are made by this lady.
What was this lady's position? She was transferred from one branch of the Public Service to another branch. She undertook obligations and she became amenable to the rules—the well-known rules—of discipline in the Service. How many Generals in the course of this war, without inquiry, without the possibility of inquiry, have been summarily and in the middle of the war removed from their command? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Beres

949
ford, said that in his opinion, in every such case, if an inquiry is asked for, an inquiry should be given. Such counsel is absolutely erratic. I do not know whether the noble and gallant Lord is aware that the number of officers of General rank, including Brigadiers, is almost in the neighbourhood of hundreds, who, in the judgment of their superior officers, ought to be summarily removed and were summarily removed, whose whole careers were probably ruined by that. removal, and not one of whom does not most bitterly feel that he ought to have an inquiry, and that if he had been given an inquiry the result of it would have been in his favour. Your Lordships are surely aware that in one or two of the best known incidents in the whole history of the war—I desire naturally to mention no names—officers of the highest distinction have been removed as the result of the conclusions reached by their superiors and by the Cabinet, have demanded urgently and repeatedly that they should receive inquiries, and inquiries have been refused. Is that refusal a justifiable refusal or is it not? That is the real question that your Lordships have to answer to-night.
This is not an individual case; it is a case which falls under a general rule or does not fall under a general rule. Can a decision which has been a decision like that of the Admiralty or War Office be justified in refusing an inquiry to an officer whose services are dispensed with even if that officer makes grave complaints against those in whose hands it lies to take the decision that dismissed him? I am of opinion that not only can such a rule be justified, hut I am of opinion that but for such a rule the war could never have been carried on. Furthermore, I am of opinion that if this rule is denied we should spend the next two or three years in conducting inquiries.
I happen to have been engaged in two inquiries of this kind. One was connected with the origin of the Empire Battalion, and one was connected with a painful case which will be in your Lordships' recollection, in which allegations were made about the circumstances in which a commission had been given to a young officer. I speak from memory, but I believe each of those inquiries lasted for a period of something like three weeks. They cost, if my recollection is right, many thousands of pounds
950
each. If you are once to say that every officer of General rank whose career has been sacrificed is entitled to come to this House, as this lady has come, by powerful and influential friends, and put his individual case (and let one of my noble friends recall the facts discursively spread over a period of many years) and if he is to be allowed to say "I have been ruined by the allegation of a Brigadier or a General on the General Staff or by the Army Council and I demand an inquiry"—if such a principle were to be agreed to we should spend the next two or three years in dealing with and deciding by judicial inquiries the grievances of those who made these complaints.
I would urge another consideration which seems to be not without importance. Are these inquiries to be reserved only for persons of high positions—for soldiers or sailors of exalted rank? Is it to be laid down by a decision of your Lordships' House that subalterns and captains and commanding officers of battalions are to be placed in an inferior position to that of other persons whose social influence or whose rank in the service may happen to be higher? Of course, no one would venture to advance such a contention. Is the principle to be assented to that any officer who has held a commission in the course of this war, and who brings forward first of all the fact that he has been dismissed, and who adds to the fact that he has been dismissed "I was dismissed by my commanding officer unfairly and from malice or through corruption," is to be entitled to an inquiry? If any one of your Lordships can distinguish that case from this now under consideration I confess that I shall be very glad to hear that distinction clearly made. I confess that from the noble and learned Lord, I was astonished to hear such an argument.
We are told about some paragraph, which I confess I have not seen, appearing in a journal in which apparently Mr. Tyson Wilson, about whom we were told by another noble Lord that he is the Whip of the Labour Party, had made some statement reflecting upon this lady, and therefore suggesting—I gather that was the argument of the noble Lord—that your Lordships ought to direct an inquiry in order that it may be decided that the reflection of Mr. Tyson Wilson upon this lady is not well-founded. The short

951
answer to that is what was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—I accept it as from him—that Mr. Tyson Wilson denies that he ever made this statement at all. On the other hand, it is alleged by three witnesses, according again to the noble Earl, who is my sole informant on this point, that Mr. Tyson Wilson is not telling the truth. If your Lordships are to get Judges to decide whether Mr. Tyson Wilson used these words which he says he did not use and which three witnesses say he did use, then I say I have never heard such a ground put forward for an inquiry, and it astonishes me that any one of the great experience and erudition of my noble and learned friend should think that such an argument ever deserved or was likely to have the slightest respect at your Lordships' hands.
The plain truth—and let us try at least to understand this—is that this lady was diverted, as I have said, from one branch of the Public Service to another. Lord Weir formed the same conclusion—and I suppose no one would be disposed to suspect that he did not honestly do it, or that he had any prejudice of any kind towards this lady—he formed the same conclusion which over and over again Commanding Officers in authority in the course of this war have done about their subordinates. Having formed that conclusion, he suggests plainly in a letter which has been read to your Lordships the reasons and the only reasons which led him to that conclusion.
What is the case which is made in answer? Miss Douglas-Pennant was invited to set out the case on which she relied as justifying the inquiry which had been most contingently promised by the noble Marquess who, when the first debate on this subject took place, spoke on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether your Lordships have yet had time to read the confidential Memorandum which is to be found on page 10 of this bundle of correspondence. I read it very carefully indeed, and I am astonished that anybody who has read this document—the first document which shows the case which Miss Douglas-Pennant thinks herself called upon to make—could ask your Lordships to take the serious step—alone in the case of this lady, when it has been denied to everybody else—of an inquiry. These were the kind of statements which she thought it worth while to
952
make. The first is on page 11 of the White Paper—
"From the outset I found that I was treated by practically every one as an unwelcome intruder; and it was easy to see that this attitude was brought about by my having stipulated for direct access, having regard to the serious condition of things when I first looked into them. For instance, I learned that the Probationary Officers had been warned that I was a dreadful woman who had spies everywhere, and who was simply out to lord it over every one and to treat the officers in the most unfair and cruel manner."
And at the end of the next paragraph she says—
"A day or two after I had informed the five Probationary Officers that I could not recommend the appointments in question, I was interviewed by another officer, a Mrs. Stephenson, who complained that I had not posted her high enough, that she intended to inform Lord Northcliffe, and the Press generally what was going on, and that there were four highly-placed Generals and others in the Air Ministry who meant to get rid of me, unless I did what was wanted, concluding with the remark: 'Mark my words, you will be outside looking for a job if you do not do what you ought in this matter. You will be outside in another week or two—see if you are not.'"
Is it really suggested that matters of this kind in the most important letter of the series are to be sent before a Judicial Committee?
In my judgment it is the first letter which is the most important letter in Miss Douglas-Pennant's correspondence. The last letter is written when the Secretary of State for War has written to Miss Douglas-Pennant and said that her letter is lacking in explicitness and that unless she brings forward some charges of corruption or malice against named individuals he will not grant an inquiry. But that is the first letter, and it is after two other long letters that Miss Douglas-Pennant has produced these charges which were read by my noble and learned friend who spoke last, and about which I say that the only reasonable inference is that if she had it in her mind at the time she wrote her first letter that this was her real case it is incredible that she would not have put the grave passage read by my noble and learned friend in that letter, which contained the long series of tittle-tattle which I have read. She left it to the last letter of all, which is only produced, at the point of the bayonet, when the Secretary of State had absolutely refused to grant an inquiry.
I will add one further observation. A noble Lord, speaking with deep feeling from those benches, said that he wished to

953
make it quite clear what the feeling was in Wales upon this point. I do not doubt the feeling in Wales. It is not difficult if one conducts a public agitation in certain ways to excite feeling in Wales or elsewhere, but it is very material to discover how this particular enthusiasm and indignation in Wales were excited, and I would invite my noble friend to consider the protest meeting that was held at Bangor on April 17, 1919. I state provisionally that I am quoting from the North Wales Chronicle, and I should be glad to discover whether the report is erroneous. Butt I state guardedly that the North Wales Chronicle attributes to the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the following observations, which are said to be have been made at that meeting—
"The only possible explanation of the refusal of an inquiry is that the Government fear a scandal. One newspaper stated that some of the officers who sheltered in the Royal Air Force from the danger of contact with the enemy wish to have their mistresses maintained by the State in sham appointments of £300 and £400 a year. I do not think a Government which refuses an inquiry into such an allegation will last very long in this country."
It is true that the right rev. Prelate added—
"I am a well-wisher of the Government."
But I think he was rather passing to a different branch of his argument. It is, indeed, easy to understand indignation in Wales if allegations of this shocking character are made by persons of the highest responsibility, if excited public meetings are informed that this lady was removed from the Royal Air Service because she exposed the irregularities of officers who were establishing irregular connections with women who ware serving. And I greatly hope that the noble Lord when he next visits that interesting and beautiful town will make himself very forward in explaining that, although Miss Douglas-Pennant has written three extraordinarily long letters, she has never inserted that particular charge. And it would therefore be a little unreasonable if that were to be used as a means of exciting the just indignation of the moral population of Wales.
I have finished what I have to say on this question. I have not the honour of knowing Miss Douglas-Pennant, but I do not find that she, though somewhat sensitive in her own affairs, is quite as sensitive when she is dealing with others. I have
954
made it my business very carefully to inquire how many officers, male and female, were associated with this lady in important positions, and the proportion of those who were associated with her at all who have abstained from this conspiracy is quite extraordinary. There is no one who has not done something from the beginning, from Sir Auckland Geddes downwards—Sir Auckland Geddes who may be considered to be at any rate a person of admitted integrity (I have heard other suggestions against the Geddes family but nothing against their integrity), and we find Miss Douglas-Pennant beginning at the top and making the allegation that Sir Auckland Geddes, in order to obtain the appointment for his own sister has brought pressure to bear on Lord Weir and Major-General Brancker to dismiss her as soon as Sir Godfrey Paine, who alone knew anything about my work, was overseas."
As I differ profoundly from the noble and learned Lord as to the avenue through which only in rare case should ladies in the position of Miss Douglas-Pennant be able to win through to an inquiry, let me say at once that one of the avenues through which I would allow an inquiry would not be the making of reckless charges against persons in high positions without adducing one syllable of evidence in the letter in support of them. The one thing she was asked to adduce by the noble Marquess and by the Secretary of State was prima facie evidence. The accusations are shocking. "I charge Dame K. Furse"—a lady whose name is respected wherever it is known, whose contributions in the war have been as great as those of any lady I have ever known—" I charge Dame K. Furse, a friend of Mrs. Beatty and of Sir Auckland Geddes, with having brought pressure to bear through Sir A. Geddes on Lord Weir and Major-General Brancker to dismiss me." What does that mean? It means that a lady of the character of which I have spoken has gone to Sir Auckland Geddes (a Privy Councillor and a member of His Majesty's Government) and has said to him, "Will you go to Lord Weir" (also a Privy Councillor and a Secretary of State) "and will you persuade him to get rid of Miss Pennant"—and then the insinuation is plainly made that the reason Sir Auckland Geddes lent himself to this vile conspiracy was in order that the shameful job of placing Sir Auckland Geddes's sister in the position which Miss

955
Pennant had vacated might be perpetrated. Allegations, however reckless, are not proofs. The mere making of statements which attack and assail the character of every man and every woman who did not agree with Miss Pennant—and, indeed, the number was very considerable—the mere process of attempting to besmirch the reputation of every man and of every woman from whom she differed at that time, does not, believe me, entitle this lady to the inquiry for which she asks. I do not think, nor, indeed, do I expect, that your Lordships will accept any advice that I may respectfully offer to you at this moment. Your Lordships will, as I well know, go your own way.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But I at least could not reconcile it to the view I hold that this course, in which I see nothing but disaster and failure, should be adopted without a clear warning (I hope respectfully conveyed from me) that your Lordships will be opening a wide door to many cases incomparably more deserving of inquiry.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, if there is any place where Miss Douglas-Pennant might be expected to have a meeting of indignation about the way in which she has been treated, I surely think it ought to be in her native city. I was very glad to hear it said that in fairness to every one there ought now to be an investigation, and I am sure that Miss Douglas-Pennant will court full inquiry into everything she has done.
I think the noble and learned Lord was endeavouring to turn us away from the main point, He talked of a highly-placed lady getting justice here, which would have been denied if she had not had so many friends in this House. I think this House has always been the inner temple of justice. A month or six weeks ago I was reading Prayers here, and while the House was sitting. judicially I listened to a case being tried. The person concerned was not a lady of high position but a poor charwoman bringing an action against the City of Glasgow, one of the most powerful corporations in the Kingdom. In my opinion it does not matter whether it is the case of a lady in a high social position or a woman in a low social position, the House
956
of Lords will always give a ready hearing and mete out justice. That is the main point. When a lady like Miss Douglas-Pennant is placed in this unfortunate position, little whispers are heard, and it is said that there is much more behind the case. In conclusion I should like to draw attention to the fact that while it is said that Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed by General Brancker on Lord Weir's order in August, yet Lord Weir says that he gave the order in September.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for more than two or three minutes, but I wish to say why I should feel compelled to vote for this motion. It is rather difficult to keep a thoroughly judicial spirit when one listens to a speech like that delivered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regretted the tone of that speech, especially coming from him. After all, everything the noble and learned Lord said was the speech of an advocate and not the speech, if I may say so, of a judge—and we are obliged to approach this subject as judges. All that he said, in which I dare say there was a great deal of truth, seemed to me all the more reason why an inquiry is necessary. If this lady has been guilty of making unfounded charges by all means let those unfounded charges be inquired into. But the real difficulty of the debate in your Lordships' House to-night is the absence—the astounding absence—of the only noble Lord who could have given us first-hand information on the matter. Where is Lord Weir? Why is he not in his place to defend his administration?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is the second time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is not the first time this subject has been before your Lordships. We had a debate upon it some months ago, and Lord Weir was not then in his place. What conclusion are your Lordships to draw from the fact that the noble Lord—who was the Secretary of State who came to this decision, and who is responsible for the action which was taken—is not present in his place to explain to your Lordships the

957
reason for his action? He has thrown that responsibility upon my noble friend, Lord Londonderry. I think that my noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, did his work this evening extraordinarily well, showing the good spirit and the attitude of mind which we were quite certain he would show. But what right was there to throw such a responsibility upon my noble friend? Lord Weir was the responsible man, and he should have been here to defend the course he took. That is the first reason why I feel compelled to vote for an inquiry.
The second reason is that the Private Secretary of the Prime Minister, who was directed by the Prime Minister to make an inquiry and who made it, is not allowed, apparently, to have his Report presented to Parliament. Why is that? Why should that Report be withheld from us? Why are we not to know what the Report on this inquiry of Mr. Cecil Harmsworth will be? This second is one which, if I may say so, broadly distinguishes this case from the generality of cases to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred. Will the noble and learned Lord get up from the Woolsack and say that every Brigadier-General who is superseded will have the Prime Minister's Private Secretary directed to make an inquiry into his case? Will be say that in every such case the Prime Minister's Private Secretary has come to the conclusion that there ought to be a judicial inquiry, and has told the
Prime Minister so? Of course, that by itself differentiates the case from all ordinary ones. These are two very strong reasons.
I will give only one final reason. The noble Marquess, speaking on behalf of the Government on the last occasion, told your Lordships—and, I am sure, told us in absolute good faith—that if Miss Douglas-Pennant produced a prima facie case for an inquiry the Government would be most anxious to grant it. Has she not produced a prima facie case? Who can deny that she has done so? I do not say that she has proved her case, but here was an absolute pledge from the Government that if a prima facie case was produced an inquiry would be granted. These reasons seem to me conclusive and I do not see how your Lordships can come to any conclusion but to vote for the Motion. May I add that that does not mean that those who vote for the Motion find in favour of Miss Douglas-Pennant.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course not. She may be absolutely wrong. All that we find is that there should be an inquiry.
On Question, That the Motion be agreed to—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Knollys, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Grenfell, L.

Crewe, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Inverclyde, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Islington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Aberconway, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Monckton, L.(V. Galway.)

Beauchamp, E.

Ampthill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Eldon, E.

Avebury, L.

Monson, L.

Grey, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Lindsay, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Manvers, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Roundway, L.

Mayo, E.

Charnwood, L.

St. Levan, L.

Selborne, E.

Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)

Sanderson, L.

Stanhope, E.[Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Sandys, L.

Strafford, E.

Dewar, L.

Shute, L.(V. Barrington.)

Ebury, L.

Strachie, L.

Allendale, V.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sudeley, L.

Esher, V.

Forbes, L.

Sydenham, L,

Finlay, V.

Forester, L.

Treowen, L.

Hood, V.

Gainford, L.

Weardale, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Glenconner, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Jersey, K.

Armaghdale, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry).

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Faringdon, L.

Bristol, M.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Newton, L.

Peel, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bradford, E.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Annesley, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

POLAND.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—
Whether the intention conveyed in the speech of the Lord President of the Council of the 13th March to send out a British Red Cross unit to Poland has been abandoned, and whether this is due to a refusal on the part of the Treasury to provide the necessary financial aid.
Whether the supplies and medical stores given to Poland by the British Red Cross Society are being distributed through the medium of the American Red Cross Mission, and whether the Government is aware that this method of distribution has produced an effect in Poland detrimental to the interests of this country.
Whether any further information as to the condition of Poland, derived from the reports of Sir Esme Howard, can now be given; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking such action as will give expression in Poland to the sympathy felt throughout the Empire towards reconstituted Poland and its suffering population.
Whether any representative of this country has yet been accredited to the Polish Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships at this late hour, and in view of the business which has already been done, that I should put my Questions with the least possible addition of words. My object in putting them on the Paper was to give the noble Earl, who made such a
960
sympathetic reply to a similar Question on March 13, an opportunity for making another statement in regard to the country of Poland, which excites so widespread an interest here. I have the greatest confidence in the sympathy of the noble Earl who leads the House and in his intentions towards Poland. His good intentions, however, may be over-borne by sinister influences; and we know that such sinister influences are at work in regard to this unfortunate country. I will add no more.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for having put his Questions with so much conciseness, and not having at this late period of the evening either indulged himself, or tempted me to indulge, in any lengthy remarks on this subject. He may rest assured that the sympathy to which he referred in my former remarks is not by any means abated, and that the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards that suffering and unhappy country is now what it was then—namely, one of continous and anxious sympathy.
As regards the Questions on the Paper, I will answer them seriatim. In reply to the first, on April 9 last the Foreign Office did inform the Treasury that it was in their opinion desirable that a Red Cross unit should be sent at once to Poland, that the British Red Cross Society, to whom application had been made, were unable to provide a unit themselves, and that the total estimated cost was £200,000. We asked the Treasury to sanction the expenditure of that sum. A week later the Treasury suggested, in reply, that our application ought to be made to the British Secretary of the Supreme Economic Council sitting in Paris, since that body is authorised, without reference to the Government here, or indeed to the other Allied Governments, to make grants out of a sum placed at their disposal, which includes as much as £12,500,000 given by ourselves for the

961
relief of the populations in the devastated areas. We made this request to Paris, and we pressed them for an early reply. A reply eventually came, that having considered the matter they did not feel justified it, allotting any part of the limited funds at their disposal, a good deal of which had been expended, in the relief suggested with regard to Poland. I think it ought to be remembered in that connection that this body to which I refer already had at an earlier date voted £100,000 for the purchase of stores in Poland. I do not know whether these are the stores to which the noble Lord referred. I think that can hardly be the case, because he speaks of stores which were given to Poland by the British Red Cross Society.
LORD TREOWEN: I was referring to the stores placed at the disposal of the Polish Government frown the surplus stores of the British Red Cross.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then there are evidently two sets of stores. As regards the latter—namely, the stores given by the British 'RA Cross Society—we have no evidence that, they are being distributed through the medium of the American Red Cross Mission, Our information was that for some time they were held up by the Germans and were therefore incapable of being allotted, but only two days ago a telegram came to say that they had been released, and they are now, I imagine, available for distribution.
As regards the third paragraph—namely, whether I have any further information as to the condition of Poland arising out of the reports of Sir Esme Howard—I presume that the noble Lord has in his mind reports upon the economic rather than the political condition of Poland. Sir Esme Howard was sent not from the Foreign Office here but from Paris, and his reports on the matter—he returned, I may say, two months ago—have been Made to and are in the hands of those bodies at Paris to which I referred. I should like on that point to say in a single sentence what I am sure the noble Lord will not misunderstand—that the real case for relief in Poland is an economic case, and that it is on those grounds that the people of Poland and the Government of Poland are justified in appealing to the Allied Governments and are most likely to receive assistance from them.
In my previous remarks, I uttered a word
962
of respectful warning to the Polish Government and to the leaders of Polish opinion, inviting them to concentrate upon this aspect of the case rather than indulge in military adventures, which would be only to their detriment. It is very necessary that I should repeat that warning now. Certain parties in Poland are at the present moment engaged in military attempts in Eastern Galicia which can only be fraught with danger to their cause—attempts to take the decision of the case out of the hands of the Paris Conference, and decide by a violent recourse to arms what ought to be settled by peaceful arbitration and decision at Paris. That warning I shall be very glad if my noble friend will communicate to any of his friends. Meanwhile as regards the economic situation, which I cannot pretend is good, we are doing and shall continue to do all that lies in our power to help that country.
The last Question is as to whether any representative of this country has yet been accredited to the Polish Government. I can answer that in the affirmative. Sir Percy Wyndham has been appointed His Majesty's Commissioner in Poland, and he has been in Warsaw since the beginning of this month.
LORD TREOWEN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the information he has given me. I should naturally have liked, and many of those interested in Poland would have been glad, if it had been possible for him to touch on the political situation in Poland, which we all realise is very critical. However, I fully understand his reticence on that subject.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported—

1. WAR BONUS.
The Committee again considered the application to the House of Lords Offices of the new War Bonus sanctioned by the Treasury, and approved its application to the Salaries of the Staff of the House of Lords.

2. ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION FOR CROWN OFFICE.
The Lord Great Chamberlain explained to the Committee his proposed arrangements for giving additional rooms to meet the pressing requirements of the Clerk of the Crown and Permanen Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. He proposed:—
1. To assign the two rooms on the ground floor looking on to Old Palace Yard, now occupied by the Resident Engineer, to the Clerk of the Crown.
2. To assign the rooms on the third floor, now occupied by the Housekeeper (with the addition of a large room, very kindly placed at his disposal by the Clerk of the Parliaments) to the Resident Engineer.
3. To assign the four rooms on the third floor now occupied by the Resident Engineer to the Housekeeper.

3. ACCOMMODATION IN THE HOUSE FOR THE WIDOWS OF LIFE PEERS.
The Lord Chairman brought before the notice of the Committee the question of the admission of Widows of Life Peers to the Gallery of the House.
The present practice is based on a resolution of the Offices Committee in 1894 to the effect that:—
"The regulations for the admission of wives and unmarried daughters of Peers to the Galleries of the House should extend to the wives and daughters of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary during the lifetime of such Lord."
The Committee agreed that this resolution should be amended so as to extend to widows of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and to read as follows:—
"The regulations for the admission of wives and unmarried daughters of Peers to the Galleries of the House should extend to the wives and daughters of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary during the lifetime of such Lord, and after the death of such Lord the regulations for the admission of wires of Peers shall extend to his widow so long as she remains unmarried.
The, Italics show the addition made by the Committee.

4. APPOINTMENT.
The Clerk of the Parliaments inform d the Committee that he had appointed Captain Arthur O'Neill Cubitt Chichester, Surrey Yeomanry, to fill a vacancy in the Parliament Office.
5. ESTIMATE.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for the year 1919–20 was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments and approved.

6. FEE FUND.
The Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ended 31st March, 1919, was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in moving that this Report be adopted I ask your Lordships to agree to the Report with the exception of paragraphs 2 and 6, with the object of referring them back to the Committee. In regard to paragraph 2,
964
there is a recommendation made to the Committee by the Lord Great Chamberlain that in view of unexpected developments since the Report was printed this portion of the Report should be referred back. I entirely concur, and I am sure the House will follow his recommendation. The Clerk of the Parliaments has asked me to suggest to your Lordships that Paragraph 6 should also be referred back for very cogent reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this hour.
Moved. That the House agree to the said Report with the exception of paragraphs 2 and 6, and that those paragraphs be referred back to the Committee.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following fourteen Bills received the Royal Assent—

Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland).K

Education (Scotland) (Superannuation).

Wages (Temporary Regulation) Extension.

South Shields Gas.

D. H. Evans and Company.

St. George's Church, Oxford.

Belfast Harbour.

Dover Harbour.

Blyth Harbour.

Bristol Corporation.

Dublin Port and Docks.

Mersey Docks and Harbour.

Newport Harbour Commissioners.

Bankers' Guarantee Trust (Transfer).

[From Minutes of May 28:]

BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NORTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
To be read 2a, on Tuesday next (The Lord Sydenham).
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.