Lords Sitting of 11 July 1922

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

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to give notice that I am now handing in Resolutions relating to the House of Lords. The Resolutions are five in number, and are as follow:—

I. That this House shall be composed, in addition to Peers of the Blood Royal, Lords Spiritual and Law Lords, of—

(a) Members elected, either directly or indirectly, from the outside;

(b) Hereditary Peers elected by their Order;

(c)Members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case to be determined by Statute.

II. That, with the exception of Peers of the Blood Royal and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted and reduced House of Lords shall hold his seat for a term of years to be fixed by Statute, but shall be eligible for re-election.

III. That the reconstituted House of Lords shall consist approximately of 350 members.

IV. That while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject Money Bills, the decision as to whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, or is partly a Money Bill and partly not a Money Bill, shall be referred to a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, the decision of which shall be final: That this Joint Standing Committee shall be appointed at the beginning of each new Parliament, and shall be composed of seven members of each House of Parliament, in addition to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be ex officio Chairman of the Committee.

V. That the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords during the course of a single Parliament, shall not apply to any Bill which alters or amends the constitution of the House of Lords as

325
set out in these Resolutions, or which in any way changes the powers of the House of Lords as laid down in the Parliament Act and modified by these Resolutions.

I propose, if it meets the general convenience of the House, to put down these Resolutions in the name of my noble friend, Lord Curzon, who, however, I fear may not be able to move them in person, for this day week. Monday is occupied by a debate on the honours question, and on Wednesday Lord Strachie has an important Question about the reimbursement of persons compelled to pay a tax in relation to milk. It is an important matter, and unless your Lordships desire differently I should prefer that this day week should be chosen for the Motion of which I now give notice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl say whether he proposes that the discussion shall take place in the ordinary way, with the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, or in Committee?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We are entirely in the hands of the House, in order to meet the general convenience of your Lordships, and what I say will not prejudge that issue. My idea is that a kind of Second Reading debate on the broad principles involved should be undertaken after the Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that the Resolutions should be dealt with as a whole in general debate, and that at a subsequent stage the Resolutions should be put seriatim to the House and amended seriatim as the House thinks fit. My idea is that next Tuesday's debate should be a Second Reading debate on the whole proposal, if that suits your Lordships' convenience, but I will discuss that with noble Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think that, as the noble Earl opposite has said, it is inevitable that the debate on Tuesday next must be of a most general description, indeed, almost more of a debate on a First Reading than on a Second Reading, because the Resolutions, as I caught them from the noble Earl's reading, are so general in character that it cannot be possible to discuss very much more than the general principles on which they are founded. As any of your Lordships who have looked into this subject at all must know, the real difficulties of this question lie in the details, in the precise applica-
326
tion of the different principles on which the Resolutions may be based. It is clear, therefore, that the first debate can only be of a general kind. I do not know whether the noble Earl imagines that it can be concluded in one day, but it seems to me most unlikely.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I never contemplated that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Then the noble Earl's idea is that the debate should be taken on Tuesday and probably resumed on Thursday, because Wednesday (I think he said) is taken up with something else.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, raises a question of very great public importance, and I hope by Wednesday to be able to announce the view of the Government. It is a very far reaching question. I think that Peers generally would be rather reluctant to put off that debate. It is clearly premature to settle on what day the debate on the Resolutions should be resumed. I confess I should be agreeably surprised if, by dinner time, my Motions were accepted nemine contradicente.

TREATIES OF WASHINGTON BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, without amendment.
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
WINDSOR GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEWS BURY ENDOWED SCHOOLS FOUNDA TION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I need not, I think, take up more than a few moments of your time, for unlike a certain number of measures laid before your Lordships recently, this Bill contains only two clauses and two schedules. The Bill is one to confirm a scheme made under

327
Section 60 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853. It is purely a local Bill, dealing with the Dewsbury endowed schools. The whole purport of the scheme is contained in the schedule of the Bill which appears on pages 2 to 6, and its purpose is to enable the education authority to carry on the foundation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the Joint Select Committee which has examined this Bill has rendered to me and the House considerable service by the care which they have given in the matter, and they have offered some suggestions to me which I very gratefully accept. They have also conveyed to me that they would be good enough to undertake the further duty, if the Bill be recommitted, of importing into it the result of many of their suggestions and the proposed alterations. I am glad of this opportunity of placing on record my sense of the value of the services rendered by the Joint Select Committee. I beg to move that to-day's Order be discharged.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENTCHARGES (RATES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dynevor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
The EARL of SELBORNE The EARL of SELBORNE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
". (1) Where any sum assessed upon any owner of tithe rentcharge attached to an ecclesiastical corporation or benefice in any rate made by the overseers of a parish has by reason of the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharges (Rates) Act, 1920, become irrecoverable the overseers in satisfying any precept made upon them by any spending authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, deduct the amount of the rate that has so become irrecoverable from the amount which would but for this section, be payable to the spending authority.
(2) The amount which may be deducted under this section from a precept shall not exceed the sum which bears the same relation to the amount irrecoverable as aforesaid as the amount in the pound of the rate estimated to be required for the purpose of satisfying the precept bears to the total amount in the pound for which the rate was made.
"(3) Where a precept sent by any spending authority to overseers includes a sum payable under precept to another spending authority, the sum so payable may be reduced by a deduction equivalent to that which could have been made by the overseers in pursuance of this section if the precept had been addressed to them.
"(4) This section shall apply only in respect of any sum which has become irrecoverable in any rate made on or after the first day of April nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and before the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
"(5) In this section 'spending authority' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, 'precept' includes a contribution order, and 'rate' means any rate made for thr relief of the poor and for other purposes chargeable thereon according to law."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Bill is to remedy an unforeseen effect of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharges (Rates) Act of 1920. The Amendment which I am proposing is designed to remedy another unforeseen effect of that Act. The exact purport of the Amendment, naturally, is not very clear from a casual glance at its words, but I think I can explain it fairly clearly. In the first place, your Lordships will remember that the only individual in the whole land who is rated on his earned income is the clergyman, who is paid for his work by means of tithes. That is a relic of a previous state of affairs, when personal property was rated as well as real property. It has been generally allowed that it is an anachronism and a hardship which must one day be dealt with in any Act which reforms our whole rating system. But, for the present, I would only ask you to remember

329
that the clergyman alone is rated on his earned income. It is a matter of public knowledge that the clergy are, to say the least, not the richest class in the land. Many of those who are paid by means of tithes are at the present moment among the very poorest of our population.
The next point I ask the House to remember is in connection with the Tithe Act, 1918. That Act was passed to stop the quick rise in the value of tithes which was consequential on the increased price of corn. It stereotyped the value of tithes at £109 from the year 1918 up to 1926. I believe that if tithe had not been so stereotyped at £109 it would to-day be £130 or more.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: More.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The most rev. Primate says that that is an understatement; at any rate, the value of tithes to-day would be very high indeed. It has been estimated that what the tithe owners lost by the policy of fixing the tithe, between the years 1918 and 1926, amounts to £7,000,000. I have not made that calculation myself and I do not guarantee it, but it has been so estimated by perfectly competent authorities. And I would ask your Lordships to believe that this immense sum—immense considering the position in life of most of the people who would have shared in it—was taken away from the tithe owners for public reasons, and, so far as I know, they have never made any complaint of that Act. They accepted then, and have accepted ever since, this very serious diminution of their emoluments as a regulation for the public weal to which they did not object, however hard they might have felt the necessity to be.
But when the great leap forward in rates occurred, His Majesty's Government admitted that the position had become very unfair, and endeavoured in the Tithe Act of 1920 to remedy in part the grievance that had occurred—tithe stereotyped at £109 and the rates mounting up by leaps and bounds. The principal provision of the Act of 1920 was to the effect that an incumbent who received less than £300 a year should be relieved of the payment of rates for the time being; that is, up to the year 1926 when the Act of 1918 comes to an end. The result of giving that relief, however fair and necessary, to these poor clergy was an increase in the present burden of
330
other ratepayers. The drafting of the Act of 1920 had this unintentional effect: that the rate to make good the deficiency caused by the Act of 1918 was confined to individual parishes. The whole of the adjustment rendered necessary by a poor clergyman being relieved of his rates because his income was less than £300 a year was, by the wording of the Act of 1920, thrown on the parish in which he lived.
A demand note for rates really deals with three different kinds of rates—the parochial rate, the rate for expenditure in the parish proper, generally a very small portion of the total; the union rate; and the county rate. Of those three constituent parts of the demand note, the parochial rate, of course, is generally much the smallest. Now, supposing, for example, that a clergyman in a parish, with an income of under £300 a year, was paying, at the moment the Act was passed, £30 in rates, of which the major portion was for union and county purposes, as the Act of 1920 was worded, the whole of that £30 was thrown upon the other ratepayers in that particular parish in which the clergyman was an incumbent. In many cases the readjustment has been stated not only in the rate book but in the demand notes to individual ratepayers, in an absolutely unfair and even insulting manner. It has been stated as if the incumbent was a defaulter, and that because he was a defaulter his neighbours had to make good his shortcomings. In certain parishes where the whole history of the matter is not properly understood and where the relations of the incumbent and his parishoners have been, I believe, very harmonious, the effect of that has been to produce a state of immense indignation and irritation on the part of other ratepayers in the parish. To such an extent is that so that it has occurred, I believe, again and again that the clergyman has refused to take advantage of the Act of 1920, because he has said that he preferred to be poorer still than to have bad blood stirred up between him and his parishioners.
I have an instance which I can give your Lordships. I have in my hand a circular which was sent out by the Ministry of Health. Their attention had been called to the fact that in demand notes sent to individual ratepayers an item, in addition to the county, union, or parochial rates had actually been included in connection

331
with the default of the incumbent. The Ministry of Health sent a circular note in August of last year to say that it was irregular, most improper and unfair. Here I have an actual case, the particulars of which have been sent to a friend of mine by an incumbent in the diocese of Bath and Wells, who writes as follows—
"At a public meeting held in my parish it was mentioned that the parishioners were paying £31 for me in rates. I felt it so much that I returned the money that had been paid. The Government meant to be kind in passing the Act of 1920, but in the way in which it was done it is proving a cruel wrong. The clergy all round here are experiencing the same thing."
The Amendment I propose to your Lordships is designed to remove this cruel injustice. It really amounts more to a change in account keeping than to anything else.
If your Lordships accept this Amendment the effect will be that instead of the union and the county rates, no longer paid by the poor incumbent, being charged on the parish in which he lives, the parochial rate only will be spread over the parish, the union rate being spread over the union, and the county rate over the county. If that is done, I am advised that the misunderstanding and grievance will disappear; that the ill-effects of the wording of the Act of 1920 will disappear with it; that harmony will once again reign where there is now misunderstanding and discord; and that instead of a sensitive clergyman, ground down by poverty, being unable, owing to misunderstanding among his parishioners, to take advantage of the relief which Parliament meant to give him, he will be able to benefit in the way which was intended by this and the other House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I think the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships has given a very clear description of the unfortunate state of affairs which occurs in certain parishes owing to these recent Acts connected with tithe and the rating of tithe. The Ministry considers that the Amendment which the noble Earl has placed upon the Paper is a better arrangement than the existing one, but I must
332
point out to your Lordships that the Amendment is such a substantial alteration to the character of the Bill, and raises financial questions of such a novel and intricate nature, that no definite undertaking can be given that time will be found for the further stage of the Bill, if it be thus amended, in another place.
The Minister of Agriculture, I believe, has stated that he will do his best to find time for this Bill if this Amendment is put in. It must, however, be apparent to your Lordships that it is a very far-reaching Amendment, and is a matter dealing with finance. There is a chance, therefore, if your Lordships put this new clause into the Bill, that it may have the effect of killing the Bill altogether. It is, therefore, rather difficult for me to know exactly what advice to give to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Dynevor. I think he must judge for himself whether he will accept this Amendment, and take the chance then of his Bill becoming law with the Amendment inserted in it. If he thinks the chances of his Bill becoming law will be very much endangered, and prefers not to accept the Amendment, I should recommend him to divide the House against the Amendment, though I must tell him that I think the Amendment is an improvement of the Bill and that I personally shall have to vote for it.
I cannot explain the matter better to your Lordships than the noble Earl has already done. Undoubtedly, there is a good deal of unrest in certain parishes owing to this extra rate having been thrown on other ratepayers, and where the question is not understood, the clergyman is held up as trying to get out of his just payments, although, of course, that is not a fair and proper statement. In view of what I have said respecting facilities in another place it is for the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to decide whether or not he will accept the Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, this Amendment no doubt will relieve certain parishes from a heavier rate. On the other hand it will impose a heavier rate on other parishes. It has been found in certain parishes that under the Tithe Act of 1920, owing to the relief given to incumbents whose incomes do not exceed £300 a year and £500 a year, a heavier rate has been imposed. I think there is something to be said against imposing a heavier rate on other

333
parishes to make up the difference. In some parishes a heavier rate has already fallen on certain of the parishioners owing to tithe having been redeemed, and this Amendment would impose, in certain eases, a still heavier rate.
I am extremely anxious not to lose this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that it has already passed through all its stages in another place, and my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, has just hinted that the session is very far advanced. I was anxious to hear the views of the Government upon this Amendment, and upon the possibilities of it becoming law. My noble friend, Lord Ancaster, has pointed out the extreme danger—perhaps I am putting his words too high; I will say the possibility—of the Bill being lost in another place. Although the Government might help to a certain extent, they are unable to give any guarantee that this Bill win become law, and I think the small Bill that I introduced is so important, and I am so anxious not to lose it, that I feel the only thing I really can do—although to a certain extent I have sympathy with the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Selborne—is, rather than lose the Bill, to ask your Lordships to decide the question.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to find myself inclined to take an opposite course to that which my noble friend, Lord Dynevor, has advised. I understand he is going to ask your Lordships not to accept the new clause. I think these prospects of the dangers to Bills are apt to be very much magnified and exaggerated. After all, this will be just a Lords Amendment, and my recollection of the procedure of another place is that it is generally not difficult to find time for the discussion of a Lords Amendment, probably at what the ancients would have called an intempestive hour of the night. Still, it gets discussed, and this will be disposed of in one issue. No doubt, it may be opposed in another place. If it is opposed, and serious opposition arises, and if it be defeated, it will be perfectly possible for my noble friend when the Bill comes back to this House to move that we do not insist upon our Amendment. Probably statesmanship and good policy points to this House not insisting upon the Amendment in such an event, but I think there is so much justice in the Amendment itself that I should be inclined to support Lord Selborne in asking the House to agree to his new clause.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not reject the new clause proposed by Lord Selborne. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that it was a far-reaching clause. That means that the grievance is a far-reaching one. The Bill seeks to remove an admitted grievance, and, if it be far-reaching in its character, it means that the grievance is affecting a great many people. The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, says he is anxious to secure the passing of his Bill, which is designed to remove an admitted grievance spread over a very large number of people, and to a very small amount. This new clause is to remove what is at present a very much larger amount imposed upon a few individuals, and not spread over a large portion of the community. If this clause be not put in you are inflicting upon the clergy, who are subject to the provisions of the relieving Act, a very real hardship, for you are placing them in the invidious position of appearing to be what they are not—men who are taking advantage unfairly of something that has been a kind of windfall to them, at the expense of their neighbours and fellow parishioners. That is a most unfair presentation of the case, and it is put in that kind of form, as the noble Lord, Lord Selborne, has pointed out, in some of the demand notes and documents circulated upon the subject.
I very much hope that this House will at least assert its desire to act fairly to these men, and not subject them to this cruel hardship of misrepresentation of facts, done under what looks like Government authority. I hope the House will follow the line taken by the noble Earl who speaks on behalf of the Government. He has expressed his personal sympathies with those who are thus suffering and is prepared to accept the new clause moved by Lord Selborne, which, it seems to me, is in the largest sense perfectly fair. No one has argued that it is not a fair clause, that it is not doing a justifiable thing rightly, and I feel that it would be a narrow and petty view to take of the whole subject to reject that Amendment because of the possibility—and it is only a possibility—that it might affect the further progress of the Bill. I do not see why that should be so, and I earnestly hope your Lordships will accept the new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
TITLE.
An Act to amend the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act, 1920, in respect of the relief or abatement to an owner of tithe rentcharge who holds more than one benefice.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved at the end to insert, "and to provide for an adjustment of payments in consequence of the reduction of rates authorised by that Act." The noble Earl said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
In the title, after ("benefice") insert ("and to provide for an adjustment of payments in consequence of the reduction of rates authorised by that Act").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Debate on the Motion of the Earl of STAFFORD, That the Bill be now read 2a—resumed (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether many of your Lordships were present when the Bill was originally moved, but may I remind you how it came about that the debate was adjourned? My noble friend moved the Second Reading of the Bill in a very complete speech, but as the Bill had only just been printed an objection was taken to proceeding with it before any of your Lordships had had time to examine it, and on the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Stanhope, the debate stood adjourned.
This Bill is one of a large class of measures which have for their object the establishment of a superannuation system. Upon the general principle of the Bill I imagine there will be only one opinion in your Lordships' House. It is a very good thing in any service, especially in any public service, that there should be a superannuation system. There is an additional reason why it is important that this matter should be considered. The point was dwelt upon by Lord Strafford in his opening speech—namely, that there are a considerable number of private Bills in which superannuation arrangements are inserted, and it seems better, from the general point of view, that the matter should be put on a regular footing and a general Act passed
336
affecting all local authorities. If the matter rested there I should have no hesitation in accepting this Bill as it stands, with perhaps one or two minor Amendments.
But it is right to point out that this is not a very opportune moment for the production of this Bill. However you regard it, there is no question that the measure constitutes an addition to the emoluments of local government servants; the superannuation arrangements which it proposes really involve an addition to the emoluments they enjoy. The question which must occur to every one is whether this is an occasion for raising the salaries of local government officials, and I must say that I regard such a proposal with some hesitation. After all, the burden upon the rates is very heavy indeed at the moment; that is notorious. Complaints come in from all directions urging us to reduce the burden of the rates, and we should be very chary of lending ourselves to any legislation in the direction of raising them.
I am aware that this Bill is not compulsory. It is a permissive measure, and the noble Lord has suggested that we are not throwing any additional burden on the ratepayers because if local authorities do not like it they need not adopt it. To a certain extent that is true, but it would be much truer if the Bill was in the same condition as it was when originally introduced in the House of Commons. If I am not mistaken the measure could only be adopted when it was approved, not by the local authority itself, but by the electors themselves voting by a large majority. That, at any rate, would make the consent of the local authority more direct than it is as the Bill now stands. We are all aware that the pressure which can be put upon members of local authorities to adopt a Bill of this kind is very considerable. When the time comes for candidates to stand for election upon local authorities the officials can bring great pressure to bear upon them, and I am sure that the combined efforts of a large number of officials might have great and undue effect upon the election if they were minded to use all the power they possessed.
While, then, it is true that no local authority is compelled to adopt this Bill yet it is evident that there is great danger that pressure, and considerable pressure, will be exercised upon a local authority which does not adopt it, when perhaps a neighbouring local authority has adopted

337
it. It may be difficult to resist the pressure, and I am reluctant that we should agree to such a possible increase in the weight of local taxation at such a moment as this. Prices are falling. There is not so strong a case now for increasing the salaries of these officials as there was last year, or the year before, and probably twelve months hence there will be still less reason for doing so. That is an additional argument against too hasty legislation. I hardly like to suggest that the Bill should not be allowed to have a Second Reading, but my noble friend must not think that we are treating him badly if he finds that the subsequent stages of this measure do not pass with the same smoothness; that is, providing your Lordships agree to the Second Reading. So far as I am concerned I shall desire to scrutinize the Bill very closely in its subsequent stages in order to avoid the charge being levelled against this House that at such a moment as this it lent its influence to assist the passage of a Bill which will mean an increase in the burdens of local authorities.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships will disagree with the concluding remarks of the noble Marquess who has just spoken, or with the position which he takes up. I am sorry that I was not present last week, when this matter was discussed, but no notice of opposition had been given, and I was not aware—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was no time.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Possibly that is the explanation. I am not complaining of the fact that the matter was discussed. Indeed, I am very glad that it was discussed, and I hope the Bill will be thoroughly discussed in Committee. But I think it right to tell your Lordships that, in reading this Bill a second time, your Lordships are not out of harmony with what has been the policy of Parliament for the last ten years. The noble Marquess complains that this Bill means a possible increase of the pay of officers of local authorities. That is true. At any rate, I will go with him so far as to agree that the Bill would improve their position. At the same time, I am sure the noble Marquess has not forgotten Clause 15, which provides that all officials of the local authority who get the
338
benefit of the Bill shall make a contribution of 5 per cent. I have never been in the fortunate position of having to contribute in any way to a superannuation fund, but I have never yet come across anybody who did contribute who thought he got full value for his contribution when he came to draw benefits. I think it is fair to mention that, as mitigating the extravagance which it is suggested may be encouraged in the local authority as the result of your Lordships passing this Bill, if you do pass it, this would provide only for a contributory scheme, and would not be a direct charge upon the rates, so far as the whole amount is concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It will be partly so.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Undoubtedly; the local authority is at the back of the fund. I ought to tell your Lordships, on the general point referred to by the noble Marquess at the beginning of his remarks, that I welcome this Bill. There have been a number of proposals of this kind before Parliament in the shape of private Acts during the last eight or nine years. I think there have been fifteen occasions where Parliament has passed provisions of this kind, applying them to particular authorities, and there are five Bills this session.
On the general question of our passing such legislation, and making the provisions of that legislation adoptive, so that local authorities can adopt the provisions without having the expense of coming to Parliament themselves to ask for those provisions to be applied to them, I think there can be no two opinions. I wish we had more of these adoptive Acts. To mention only the Public Health Act, if I might make the suggestion to His Majesty's Government, a new Public Health Act is long, overdue. The big municipal authorities have to come to Parliament for local legislative powers, which they ought to have, and ought to be able to get in a cheaper way. On general principles, therefore, I welcome this Bill. In the end it will save money indirectly on the rates, which, perhaps, may slightly counterbalance the evils of direct expenditure which some of your Lordships fear. I hope your Lordships will read this Bill a second time.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who has last spoken that this Bill, in the ultimate result, will effect a saving. To whom does it apply? Under Clause 6 it applies to a man

"(a)who shall have completed ten years' service and shall become incapable of discharging the duties of his office or employment with efficiency by reason of permanent ill-health or infirmity of mind or body; or

"(b)who shall have attained the age of sixty years and have completed service as aforesaid of forty years; or

"(c)who shall have attained the age of sixty-five years."

This is a Bill which can be adopted. It is also a Bill which indicates the line which local authorities can take without having special schemes, and without applying for a special Act of Parliament. My own view is that, in the long run, it will really be the safest, and give a general rule for superannuation which might be safely adopted by the country, without too much expense, and without causing jobbery and attempts by the different authorities to obtain more than the special scale that happens to be laid down in the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 12:
Application to Scotland.
12. This Act shall apply to Scotland, with the following modifications:—
(c) The expression "court of summary jurisdiction" means the sheriff.
(d) Subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall have effect as if there were inserted after the term "certified," wherever the same occurs therein, the term "Grade A. (tuberculin tested)."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert "subsection (3) of section two of this Act shall not apply provided that any decision by a sheriff-substitute under subsection (2) of the said section may be appealed to the sheriff." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have three Amendments which are practically
340
drafting. The first of these applies to Scotland the same right of appeal as exists in England, while the second concerns the expenses of the clause. Conditions in Scotland are different from those which obtain in this country, and this clause is to put Scotland on all fours with England in that respect. There are other minor Amendments which were not on the Paper in time, and it is proposed to move them in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, at end of paragraph (c)insert ("subsection (3) of section two of this Act shall not apply provided that any decision by a sheriff-substitute under subsection (2) of the said section may be appealed to the sheriff").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 21, at end insert the following new paragraph:
("(e) The following subsection shall be substituted for section ten of this Act:
"The provisions of this Act shall be enforced by the local authorities under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and any expense thereby incurred shall be defrayed out of the public health general assessment").
Clause 12, page 7, line 9, at end insert the following new paragraphs:
"(f) In subsection (2) of Clause 9 of this Act references to the procurator fiscal shall be substituted for references to the local authority.
"(g)Clause 11 of this Act shall not apply."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Readin read.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, this is a small measure, which can be explained in a very few words. It was originally proposed to hold the British Empire Exhibition in 1923, or at some earlier date, and, in 1920, an Act was passed empowering the Government to guarantee, up to an amount not exceeding £100,000, any loss which might result from holding the exhibition, subject to private guarantees being forthcoming up to £500,000. As a matter of fact, the private guarantees have amounted to a very much larger sum than this, but it is now proposed to hold

341
the exhibition in 1924, and, in order to remove doubts whether the Government will still be prepared to give the guarantee up to £100,000, this Bill is now proposed to Parliament. It has already passed the House of Commons without amendment, and it is hoped that your Lordships also will agree to pass it as it stands. It may be added that the exhibition is being privately organised, but is receiving official recognition and support. His Majesty the King is giving it his patronage, and the Prince of Wales is President of the General Committee.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WIDOW'S PENSION CLAIM.
LORD ST. LEVAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government why no decision has been given in the case of Mrs. Pinch, Hillhead, Penryn, Cornwall (widow of the late Sergeant Albert Ellerick Pinch, R.E.), for whom an application for a pension was submitted on the 27th October, 1921.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this case is one of those in which serious difficulties arise in determining whether connection between the fatal illness and the man's service can be established. Where a man dies after discharge or demobilisation of a disease for which he was not discharged from service and of which there is no medical record during his service, and in respect of which he made no claim to pension during his lifetime, the presumption must ordinarily be against his death being due to his service. The onus of showing the contrary rests upon the claimant, but the Ministry take a wide and sympathetic view of these cases, and assist her in presenting her claim to the best advantage.
Those who complain of delay should understand that if the Ministry took the case presented by the widow and judged the claim on the evidence which she produced, there would be very few admissions to pension. The evidence connecting death with service is almost invariably incomplete and unconvincing, and from the point of view of administration, there would be nothing simpler than for the Ministry to
342
insist strictly on the claimant bearing the onus of proof and to judge the case accordingly. Justice would not be done, however, by adopting this course, and there is no alternative but to continue the present careful and sympathetic consideration of these claims, even though this so frequently involves special reports from hospitals or private medical practitioners, references to the Medical War Records Section, to Approved Societies, former employers, and other persons in a position to give evidence as to the man's health before enlistment and after discharge and, finally, a most careful examination of the whole of the facts by expert medical advisers.
The late soldier who is the subject of this Question was demobilised in March, 1919. He had an opportunity then of applying for a disablement pension if he considered that service had impaired his health, but I am informed that he did not make any such claim at that time, nor, I understand, was any application made for disablement pension during his lifetime. He died on September 9, 1921, from peritonitis. After the widow claimed a pension on her own behalf towards the end of last year, the Ministry of Pensions went to considerable trouble to find out what circumstances gave rise to the late soldier's fatal illness. The widow herself has been able to furnish very little information, and it has proved exceedingly difficult for the Ministry to obtain proper medical data. The medical information so far obtained only carries the case back to June, 1921, more than two years after demobilisation, and does not in any way establish that connection between the death and active service which is necessary to entitle the widow to the benefits of the Royal Warrant. Further inquiries are, however, being made in the hope that additional medical particulars may yet come to light, and the matter has, I understand, reached a stage when a final decision may be expected at a very early date.
Your Lordships may think that there has been undue delay in dealing with this matter, having regard to the fact that the man died some ten months ago, and if a certain interval of time has elapsed since the widow's application for pension was made, I think I can assure your Lordships that the case has not been under consideration longer than the circumstances have warranted. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that my right hon friend

343
the Minister of Pensions has in these very difficult cases to choose between an immediate decision against the applicant, because of insufficient evidence, and a protracted investigation in the hope of securing definite evidence on the point at issue. The time thus occupied may appear unreasonable to the applicant, but if eventually, as often happens, grounds for an award of pension are found by this means alone, it cannot be said that the procedure is other than in the applicant's best interests. I cannot, of course, say what the eventual decision in the present case will be, but I know that the Ministry of Pensions are doing all that is possible to arrive at a just decision, and the widow will hear of the result at the earliest date possible.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I am very much obliged to my noble friend for his long answer. I think the reason for asking this Question is made quite clear by the terms of the Question itself. Nine months seems a long time for one of these applicants for a pension to be kept without any answer at all. It constitutes a matter of hardship, because they are kept in great anxiety on the subject, and if they could have an answer, one way or the other, within a short time, it would be greatly to their advantage. From the answer which we have heard to-day from my noble friend it seems that the Ministry of Pensions has been occupied during the whole of these nine months in trying to put on the application of this woman a complexion favourable to her request, and I ant not going to say that, if that is the result of such a long investigation, it would be an unsatisfactory result. Nevertheless, the fact remains that nine months have elapsed, and that seems, even in the circumstances mentioned by my noble friend, a long time for the Ministry, with its large staff, to take in a case of this kind.
There have been other cases of delay in connection with applications for pensions, but this is one particular case which came before the county committee of which I am a member, and on which a considerable amount of feeling was displayed. I hope that now, after all this time, the Ministry will come to a decision very shortly. Everybody who has had to do with these Pension Committees in the country will feel that it is desirable that every effort should be made to expedite decisions. It is not only that this applica-
344
tion was made nine months ago, but I am informed that repeated applications have been made in this case, and that it has been impossible to get an answer. At all events, I accept the statement we have heard that the Ministry are doing all they can in the case, and I hope that there will be no further or unnecessary delay.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord is an old soldier, and I am at present serving as one. I am grateful to him for having raised this Question, as the Government is only too anxious to get these matters carried out with expedition, and where there is delay, whether necessary or unnecessary, a Question in this House not only elucidates the explanation or expedites matters, but also very often serves to prevent misunderstanding and consequent injustice.

CAPITAL SHIPS.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had given Notice to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—

1. Whether His Majesty's Government has reconsidered its decision to proceed with the construction of the two new capital ships sanctioned by the Washington Naval Treaty; and, if so, whether such change of policy has been due to any developments in connection with either aerial or under-water attack;

2. Whether it is the view of the Admiralty that such capital ships can be constructed so as to be reasonably proof against the new methods of attack;

3. What is the estimated total cost of these two new ships, including any necessary accessories afloat or ashore;

4. What is the present relative position of the British Navy as compared with the navies of foreign Powers in the matter of post-Jutland capital ships.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, there has recently appeared in the public Press the suggestion that His Majesty's Government have reversed their decision to proceed with the construction of the two capital ships sanctioned by the Washington Conference, and the construction of which has already been sanctioned by Parliament, These suggestions have been accompanied by at least a hint

345
that the reason for such a reversal of policy lies in the acceptance by His Majesty's Government of the theory that the capital ship has had its day and that the money involved had better be spent on aircraft. if this suggestion is well founded, and if, in fact, His Majesty's Government have effected this volte face, then, having regard to the answer which the First Lord of the Admiralty made to a Question in my name some months ago, when he made it perfectly plain that in his view and in the view of his advisers the capital ship remained the substantial basis of sea power, I hope the noble Lord will see his way, to-day, to give us a fair indication of the reasons which have influenced him in this change of mind.
None of us doubt that the bomb dropping aeroplane is a weapon of terrible power when used against thickly populated areas, or that its power to destroy material and dislocate industrial efforts may in some circumstances be immense. Equally, no one doubts that aircraft now form an essential and most important adjunct both to armies and to navies, but upon what ground can it be held that air supremacy will give to the belligerents that can obtain and keep it those military advantages which, as the experience of centuries has proved, belong to the nation which possesses the command of the sea? The command of the sea brings with it the capacity to transfer forces by sea to distant theatres of war and to maintain them when so transferred. It bestows the power to carry munitions, merchandise, and food across the sea, and it implies also the power to deny these immense advantages to your enemy. We live on an island, and until you can transport the Armies of this country and of the Empire to distant theatres of war in aircraft, and until you can feed your population in this country upon food carried through the air, so long must you count the command of the sea as vital to the success of this country in any future war.
No one outside Bedlam will tell us that in all seasons and weathers, by day and night, over long coast lines and across great oceans, aircraft are capable of either effecting a blockade and of destroying enemy commerce, or, per contra, of preventing the enemy from taking such action against our Own commerce. Equally, it would appear to be very unlikely that even our most enthusiastic airmen would be prepared to challenge the view of every naval
346
expert to-day that hitherto the capital ship has been the foundation upon which has rested the whole structure of a modern navy, including the lighter and more specialised craft which are the actual instruments of commerce protection or destruction.
The case of those who hold that aircraft must now and for the future be regarded as the deciding factor in naval warfare rests upon the assumption that in the next war the bomb-dropping or torpedo-firing aeroplane will be able completely to neutralise the fighting value of the capital ship. Does that contention rest upon the safe ground of formulated war experience? Not a bit of it. I do not think I shall be corrected when I say that during the recent war, the concluding stages of which were fought cut only four years ago, not one single fighting ship of any belligerent was destroyed by attack from the air. Is such assumption, then, grounded upon any sound experimental basis? There was a series of experiments carried out in American waters by the United States Naval and Air Forces against a pre-Jutland German battleship and, I think, an oldish one at that. This unhappy vessel was assailed on, I think, two successive days, after having been anchored in a suitable position, and it is, I believe, a fact that on the second day she sank.
But I would point out that during those experiments not an, anti-aircraft gun was fired from the decks of this German battleship, her speed was not used in her own defence, and no friendly aeroplane climbed the skies in order to shake the aim of her aggressors. Is it upon evidence such as this that we are bidden to cease to build capital ships? How comes it that, although we are told that our one hope of defence against attack on our towns by hostile aircraft is that we ourselves should build more aircraft, no credit seems to be given to our own airmen for the protective action which they will be able to afford to our capital ships when these are assailed by hostile aircraft?
Our fears as to the effect of what some of us hold to be misguided counsels upon the Government's view may be easily removed to-day. Yet there remains another point upon which I, at least, am equally apprehensive, and it is lest the stream of interested propaganda at present being directed against the capital ship should shake the confidence of our people in

347
a weapon that has stood them in good stead in the past, and which there seems no ground yet to discard. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, I do not in the least complain of the Questions which the noble Marquess has placed upon the Paper, and I have, of course, been aware of the remarks in the Press to which he refers, that the Government either had executed, or were about to execute, what he calls a volte face with regard to the building of these capital ships. I think I can reassure him at once with regard to the main facts by stating that the Government have not reconsidered their decision, nor do they intend to do so.
Having stated that, I prefer, on the whole, not to go in any detail into the technical question of what aircraft are, or are not, capable of in attacks upon surface vessels. After all, that matter was considered fairly exhaustively in a previous debate in your Lordships' House, in the course of which it was my duty to expound the technical views of my naval advisers and experts; and to that statement I really have nothing new to add at the present time. I think that statement and the arguments then adduced still hold, and it would be merely a repetition if I recurred to them this afternoon. I am particularly anxious not to say anything which would suggest in any way—because it would be entirely false—any hostility or lack of sympathy on the part of the Admiralty towards the Air Force or to its continued development. Indeed, for obvious reasons, there is no portion of the fighting Services which is more interested in the development of aircraft than the Royal Navy.
It has become an essential and vital weapon of the Fleet and must be developed and made use of to the utmost possible extent. But I will say this in answer to the noble Marquess: that, quite apart from other and higher considerations—international questions, and considerations affecting our security and prestige throughout the world— there have been no new developments in connection with either aerial or under-water attack which could necessitate any reversal of the decision of the Government to proceed with these capital ships, or, indeed, any modification in the constructional designs which have been already approved. That, I think, is a sufficient
348
answer to the first Question of the noble Marquess.
With regard to his second Question, I can say categorically that in the view of the Admiralty and its naval advisers, fortified by and based upon the experiences of the late war and by prolonged practical experiments which have taken place since, it is feasible both constructionally and financially to build capital ships which shall be reasonably proof against any known and, so far as one can see, any likely methods of attack. More than that, the necessary designs for this purpose have, as I have said, been worked out already and approved, and are ready for the use of the builders.
The third Question of the noble Marquess—"What is the estimated total cost of these two new ships, including any necessary accessories afloat or ashore"—is prompted, I assume, by the fact that there have been some very remarkable allegations made in the Press and elsewhere to the effect that if this policy of building capital ships is pursued the taxpayer will be let in for an expenditure in connection with these two ships and their accessories of anything from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000—I am not sure that some estimates have not been even higher. If that were so, it would be a very formidable expenditure for us to contemplate in these times, and, whilst the decision to proceed with these ships stands, I think it is only fair to relieve the anxiety of the taxpayer by telling him, as nearly as we can estimate it, what the actual cost will be as against the fanciful figures which have been used to buttress up interested arguments in the other direction. It is estimated by the Admiralty that the two ships, taking into account present-day prices for material and labour, both of which we hope are likely to go down, are calculated to cost approximately £6,500,000 apiece, or, including all accessories, reserves, stores, etc., both afloat and ashore, something like £8,000,000 apiece, making a total, which varies according to whether you take merely the cost of the ship or of all known accessories afloat or ashore, of between £13,500,000 and £16,000,000, which is a very different figure from that of £30,000,000 to £50,000,000, or even higher, with which we have been regaled.
In that connection, on a financial point only, I may, perhaps, point out to your Lordships that when these two new ships

349
are completed four of our existing capital ships will have to be scrapped under the Washington Agreement. The annual cost and upkeep of these two ships must, therefore, be subtracted from the annual cost and upkeep of the four ships which we shall retain up to that time, and will, as a matter of fact, be considerably less. I have had the figures worked out, and so far as can be ascertained the actual saving in personnel by building these two ships as compared with retaining the four ships which they are to replace will be 1,100 men, and the animal saving in upkeep, etc., will be about a quarter of a million sterling. That is something to put on the other side.
The last Question of the noble Marquess is: "What is the present relative position of the British Navy as compared with the navies of foreign Powers in the matter of post-Jutland capital ships?" The position is this. The United States of America has three of these post-Jutland capital ships practically complete; Japan has two actually complete; Great Britain has but one and that only a hybrid—the battle cruiser "Hood"—which was partially constructed before Jutland and only partially embodies the lessons of that battle; and other countries have none. So that we arrive at this position, that unless the two capital ships, which were sanctioned at Washington and have already been approved by Parliament, as I would remind the noble Marquess, during the present session, were proceeded with, we should definitely have to abandon the one-power standard which we have lately adopted and should have to permit the British Navy to fall to the third place in the most essential fighting spear-head of the Fleet. I venture to say that that is a course which would not only be fatal to our prestige throughout the Empire and the world, but would be quite incompatible with the pledges which the Government have given to Parliament and to the country in the course of the present session, and certainly one which the Board of Admiralty could not possibly accept.
I hope I have now answered in sufficient detail the actual Questions which the noble Marquess has placed upon the Paper. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything on this occasion beyond expressing some surprise that this campaign against capital ships should be pursued in any responsible or instructed quarter; because the whole question of the value of the
350
capital ship was gone into very thoroughly and exhaustively only last year by a special Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, presided over by Mr. Bonar Law. That Committee reported that they heard no evidence adequate to the support of the contention that the capital ship was obsolete, and, further, that in the naval warfare of the future such ships would play the same vital part as they have done in the past. That was their finding, and may I say that it coincided with a similar finding in practically every country in the world that maintains a Navy. This question was investigated quite independently by those countries, and they all came independently to the same conclusion.
I can assure your Lordships that was not a hole and corner Inquiry on our part, and all the critics and those who attacked the capital ship were invited to state their views before the Committee. Some did so. Perhaps the most vocal and persistent of them, Admiral Percy Scott, who is now leading the agitation against these ships, declined to attend or to state his views to the Committee, or to give them any assistance whatsoever, preferring, apparently, to conduct his campaign in the Press outside. This, coupled with the fact that he has not had the advantage of serving in a capital ship for more than thirty years, somewhat diminishes, in my judgment, the force and responsibility of his argument, and, on the whole, I prefer to lean on the advice of the great sailors, headed by Lord Beatty, who actually commanded our Fleets throughout the late war, and who are unanimous in the advice which they give to the Admiralty and the Government that these capital ships continue to be an absolutely essential and vital factor in the Navy of the future.
In any event, it is difficult for me—and it is here only that I wish to touch at all upon the arguments that have been used by the noble Marquess—to understand why, if this development of the air menace has reached the stage that is claimed for it by some, it is this particular class of ship, the capital ship, which is to be abandoned. The capital ship is the embodiment of the maximum power of defence and offence, and it is, therefore, obviously best equipped against the new menace of either aerial or under-water attack. I cannot understand therefore why this type should be the special one which the critics are seeking to abolish. Is the argument this: that the British

351
Navy and all surface fighting ships should be abolished altogether? If that be so, then there would be no means, so far as one can see, of protecting our ocean routes, or maintaining our food supply. I am sure the noble Marquess did not refer seriously to feeding this country by air. I believe at one period the Israelites were nourished by that means, but it is not a method of supply upon which it would be prudent to rely in the future. Unless, then, the real argument is that the Navy should be abolished altogether, surely the most essential class of ship to maintain is the capital ship, which is, of all types, the strongest and best qualified to resist this new menace.
352
In conclusion, I would only reiterate what I think I have said on a previous occasion, that in the considered judgment of the Admiralty and its advisers the capital ship is the supreme embodiment, up-to-date, of offensive and defensive qualities for sea-fighting, and, as such, it always has been, is, and so far as can be foreseen always will be, the essential basis of sea power. For that reason, if for no other, the Government have no intention whatsoever of abandoning, or of reconsidering, their decision to proceed with the construction of these ships.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.