Lords Sitting of 12 June 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Novar.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
RAWMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
BANK OF ENGLAND BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SWANAGE GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4 (Temporary treatment of mental disorder without certification):
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection:
"(6) A person receiving treatment under this section in any approved institution shall not be moved to another approved institution without the consent of the Board of Control."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put in because the Bill as it stands makes no provision for the transfer of a patient from one particular institution to another. The recommendation which a patient has received before he can be admitted into one of these institutions is for treatment at a specific institution. If the patient desired to change to another institution he would have to discharge himself from the first, and then obtain a fresh recommendation for admission to the second institution. Such procedure is cumbersome, slow, and probably expensive.
The effect of the Amendment is to give the Board of Control power to sanction a transfer from one institution to another if they are satisfied that such a transfer is desired. It does not empower the Board to order a transfer, and a change can only be made on the application of a patient, or, in the case of minors or patients incapable of volition, on the application of parents or guardians. The transfer would not affect the right of a patient to discharge himself on giving notice to the superintendent. I therefore venture to hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment which, I think, makes the Bill more conveniently workable.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Expenses of visiting committees.
7.—(1) Any expenses incurred by a visiting committee under this Act shall be defrayed by the local authority by which the committee
456
is appointed out of the county fund or out of the borough fund or borough rate, as the case may be.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), after "Act," to insert "including expenses incurred in conveying patients to or from institutions and any other expenses preliminary or incidental to the reception or discharge of patients. "The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking that I gave on Second Reading to endeavour to meet the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his proposal. The Amendment enables the local authority to meet expenses incurred in conveying patients to and from institutions, and other expenses incidental to their reception and discharge.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("(including expenses incurred in conveying patients to or from institutions and any other expenses preliminary or incidental to the reception or discharge of patients)").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Application to London.
8. The provisions of this Act relating to the constitution of visiting committees shall not apply to the administrative county of London, and the powers conferred by this Act on visiting committees shall, so far as relates to the said county, be vested in the London County Council, and Section thirty-five of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1915, shall have effect as though the said powers had been transferred to the London County Council by that Act.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Any expenses (other than expenses relating to the provision, equipment and maintenance of buildings) incurred under this Act by the London County Council or the Common Council of the City of London shall be defrayed as if they were expenses for general county purposes of the Administrative County of London, and the London County Council shall repay to the Common Council of the City of London at the end of every half-year all expenses incurred by the Common Council as aforesaid, as certified by the City Chamberlain.
Any expenses relating to the provision, equipment and maintenance of buildings under this Act shall be defrayed in the case of the London County Council as expenses for special county purposes and in the case of the Common Council out of the general rate.

457
If any question arises as to whether any expenses are or are not expenses relating to the provision, equipment and maintenance of buildings, the question shall be determined by the Board of Control, and the determination of the Board shall for all purposes be final and conclusive."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, by Clause 7 of the Bill the expenses incurred by local authorities are to be defrayed out of the county fund or borough fund or rate. Thus the expenses will not be recoverable from the poor law authorities. This has created a difficulty in the case of London. By Clause 8 the Corporation of the City of London maintains its present jurisdiction independent of the London County Council. At present the expenses of maintaining lunatics are equalised over the whole of London by what is known as the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and it has been necessary to make provision in this Bill to assimilate the incidence of expenditure in London to that already prevailing under the Lunacy Acts. While preserving the independence of the City of London as a separate authority this Amendment proposes that the expenses of maintaining cases under the Bill shall be defrayed as if they were general county expenses for the whole of London, and at the end of each half year the London County Council will repay to the Corporation of the City of London expenses incurred by them. Capital expenditure for the provision, equipment, and maintenance of buildings will be defrayed by the two authorities independently, and any question arising as to the allocation of expenditure will be determined by the Board of Control.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 (Short title, interpretation, and power to make adaptations):
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert in subsection (2), immediately before the last paragraph, " The expression 'minor' means an unmarried person under the age of eighteen years. "The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is inserted in order to meet the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, during the Committee stage. It is done by the method which the noble and learned Lord himself suggested.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, at end insert (" The expression 'minor' means an unmarried person under the age of eighteen years ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: The Amendment entirely meets my suggestion, and I think the alteration will be a great improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

EX-SOLDIERS AS POSTMEN.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government how many men were taken on as postmen in the London postal area in 1922; of these how many were ex-soldiers; and whether it is not desirable that this clas6 of employment should be reserved for ex-soldiers?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government I should like to say a word on this subject, not because I have any claim to address your Lordships on the matter, but because yesterday I attended a meeting of the association which exists for the purpose of providing work for these ex-soldiers, and I there expressed the view that I hold strongly as to the position in which we find ourselves to-day. This association, which has hitherto existed only for ex-soldiers, has now succeeded in amalgamating all the three Services; it represents now ox-sailors and ex-airmen also.
It is a most lamentable fact that the employment offered by the State has recently fallen off very materially in the case of ex-soldiers. The report of the association, from April 1, 1909, down to this year, gives certain figures, and I find that whereas in 1909–10 1,417 ex-soldiers were employed, and in 1913, 2,742, last year only 346 ex-soldiers found employment in the Post Office. Knowing as I do that Ministers who have filled the high position of Postmaster-General have all been well disposed to His Majesty's Services—they have all been distinguished

459
men who have served their country with great advantage and with much credit to themselves—I cannot understand how this position arises. In this country we have deliberately adopted the system of voluntary service, and although we did enforce compulsory service for a few years during the war we were the first to revert to the old system after the war. Surely we cannot practice the virtue of not compelling men to serve their country without accepting the responsibility which follows as a result of that practice. If we rely entirely upon voluntary effort, is it not our duty to make it clear to those men who serve their country that, providing their character is good, they will have a prior claim to employment by the State over any one else?
I am aware that in a great country like this, with an immense and growing population, a decrease in employment and an increase in unemployment, the claim of the civilian is strong. He is entitled to full consideration. But is it not also the fact that men who join the Navy, Army and the Air Force surrender their liberty, submit themselves to control from the centre, are ready to go wherever they are sent, and are ready to risk their lives in the defence of the Empire? Surely this constitutes a greater duty than anything else which exists at this moment in respect of public service.
The time has come when the Government should endeavour to give a recognised number of places every year to ex-Service men, provided they can be found in sufficient numbers and are of good character. I need not remind your Lordships that they have gone; through a very severe ordeal. The test they have to pass is very high, and if they come out of it with a good record and a good character there cannot be much doubt as to their fitness for such employment. You have, therefore, these two conditions. First, the fact that these men have voluntarily given the best they have to the State, and secondly, that they have been under close observation for a considerable number of years and have come through it with a good character. On these grounds I urge that the Government, wherever it is possible, should find employment for these men before it is offered to others.
There is no Department where the employment is so suitable as in the
460
General Post Office. The work which the ordinary postal servants have to perform is work which these men can well do. I venture to urge upon your Lordships' House and upon the Government, not merely on behalf of these ex-Service men but on behalf of the country which must have these forces and which these men have served so well, that it is really in the interests more of the State than of the individual to give the most friendly consideration to the Question which my noble friend Lord Raglan has raised.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who asked this Question and also the noble Viscount who has just spoken that the Post Office, at any rate, have the interests of ex-Service men very deeply at heart. I do not know if the figures to which the noble Viscount referred relate only to the Post Office or to other branches of the Civil Service as well.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Only to the Post Office.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The facts are that an arrangement was made so far back as 1897 by which fifty per cent. of the vacancies for postmen and porters are reserved for men who have served in the Army or Navy, while the remaining fifty per cent. are reserved for Post Office boy messengers who are employed with a definite view to appointment on reaching adult age. This figure has now been exceeded, because during the war, the number of boy messengers was considerably reduced by the employment of girls on telegraph delivery work, and it has in consequence been possible since the Armistice to give more than fifty per cent. of the nominations to postmanships to ex-Service men.
The specific answer to the noble Lord's Question is that during the year 1922, 402 ex-Service men were appointed as postmen in the London postal area, and no more than 223 boy messengers. It is, however, probable that the proportion of vacancies required for boy messengers will approximate more nearly to fifty per cent. of the total vacancies in the near future as more boys are employed and grow to adult age. It may interest your Lordships to know that during the last two years 6,582 ex-Service men—4,884 disabled and 1,698 able-bodied—

461
have been appointed to postman and porter vacancies throughout the country, as against 900 boy messengers. The total number of ex-Service men now in the employment of the Post Office is 90,000—including nearly 25,000 disabled men—or considerably more than half of the total male staff.

IRISH COMPENSATION CASE.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had given Notice to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the damage to the contents of the mansion "Woodstock," Co. Kilkenny, whilst in the occupation of the R.I.C. Auxiliary Forces between 26th August, 1920, and 14th February, 1921, and to the amount of compensation offered by the Lands Department of the War Office to the owner. And to ask whether such compensation was not based on a Marching-in Report made six months after the occupation by the R.I.C. Forces; and whether in these circumstances the Lands Department is prepared to make a reasonable increase in the offer.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question is concerned with a claim against the Imperial Government for destruction and damage to furniture and effects at a mansion known as "Woodstock," in the County of Kilkenny, caused by the Royal Irish Constabulary Auxiliary Forces knows as the "Black and Tans." I wish your Lordships to understand that the mansion of Woodstock is the property of the trustees of the late Captain Tighe's settled estate, and that any remark which I may make this afternoon is not concerned with any damage to the mansion itself, though I may say at this stage that the mansion, together with its entire contents, was destroyed by the Republicans in July, 1922.
The Question in regard to which I have to ask for the good offices of His Majesty's Government is that of the articles of furniture, many of them valuable, which were the personal property of Mrs. Tighe. When this mansion was taken over by the Auxiliary Forces all the valuable articles of furniture and effects belonging to Mrs. Tighe were removed by her and locked in certain rooms of the mansion which were not required for the occupation of the Auxiliary Forces. The point upon which
462
the whole of this claim turns, and to which I particularly wish to call the attention of His Majesty's Government, is that that which is known as the Marching-in Report, which is a kind of inventory of the furniture and valuables in any given mansion, was not compiled by the officer who commanded the "Black and Tans" until six months after the occupation actually took place, so that there is a complete period of six months which is not accounted for in the Report. It must be obvious to your Lordships that in order to be fair to the owner of the mansion that Marching-in Report, which, as I have said, is in the nature of an inventory, should have been made immediately the occupation took place. The occupation was arranged forcibly without the permission of the owners of the mansion, but I will let that pass. The facts are that the mansion was occupied and that no Marching-in Report was made until after the house had been occupied by the "Black and Tans" for six months.
Your Lordships will easily understand that I am not overstating the case when I say that during the occupation by the "Black and Tans" a considerable amount of damage took place. I am not bringing any particular charge against the officers and men who occupied this house. However well trained and well disciplined a force may be, when a country is in a state of war damage to articles of furniture—valuable articles, as they were in this case—is certain to take place. Even if an army were entirely composed of such well disciplined gentlemen as the eldest sons of Peers I have not the slightest doubt that in the course of six months the furniture and effects of any given mansion would undergo a certain amount of deterioration. As a matter of fact considerable damage was done to furniture and effects during this occupation. The locked rooms in which Mrs. Tighe had placed all her most cherished possessions and heirlooms were forcibly broken into, and many articles were wilfully burnt and totally destroyed.
To make a long story short, Mrs. Tighe estimated the damage at a sum of £1,300. I do not wish to overstate her case. I have taken very great pains to arrive at the facts of this case and not to exaggerate the claim in any way whatever. I may tell His Majesty's Government that since the claim was lodged articles to the value

463
of £165 have, in fact, been found, though Mrs. Tighe thought that they were lost, so that this amount comes off her claim of £1,300. This claim is based upon vouchers which she has in her possession and which will tell His Majesty's Government the value of the articles which were destroyed and damaged. The other basis upon which the claim rests is the valuation of a competent and reputable valuer in Ireland. Up to date she has received two offers. The first offer was made in October, 1922, by a certain Captain Taylor, the War Department Land Officer of Munster, in respect of the articles comprised in the Marching-in Report, that Report having been made, as I have said, six months after the occupation, and instead of paying her the £1,300—I admit that some sort of compromise might have been arrived at—the original offer was only £62 17 s. 6d. in respect of articles which she had estimated at £1,300. I should add that this mansion, the property of the Tighe family, and its entire contents, were totally destroyed by the Republicans in July, 1922.
After that she preferred her claim again, and Captain Brennan called, and declined to consider any question of loss or damage on any article which was not included in this Marching-in Report. Again I must call attention to the fact that this Report was not filed until after six months' occupation by the "Black and Tans." After a considerable discussion the offer to Mrs. Tighe was increased from £62 17 s. 6d. to £200. This case was brought to my attention, and I considered it my duty, with great respect, to lay it before His Majesty's Government, not with any hostile intent towards His Majesty's Government, but because it is our duty in this House to consider cases of this kind. I beg to be allowed to recommend the case of Mrs. Tighe to the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government, and if they will at least show some sympathy towards her claim, Mrs. Tighe and her representatives will be prepared to lay before them the fullest information, the authenticity of which I have been myself at some pains to probe. I can assure His Majesty's Government that her case is very well founded, and I trust that, as a result of any inquiry which the Government may choose to make, she will have some reasonable increase granted to her on the
464
very small sum that has been offered, in respect of damage which, after all, cannot be entirely assessed at a money value.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, the War Department is not really concerned in this case, but as the case has been handled, on behalf of the Treasury, by an officer of the War Office Lands Department, I hope my noble friend will allow me to answer. My noble friend made a great point of the fact that there was no Marching-in Report made until after six months, and he based a great deal of his claim upon that fact. Your Lordships, however, I think will see that that is not a very substantial point on which to base a claim when I tell you the facts. I agree that no Marching-in Report was made until after six months, but the lady's agent's own inventory, made I presume in consultation with her, of what was in the house at the time of entry, was accepted as the basis on which to found a valuation. Therefore the fact of there not being a Marching-in Report until six months after the occupation began does not seem to be a very substantial factor in the case.
The original inventory upon which the basis of compensation was founded was an inventory handed in, as being correct, by the lady's own agent, at the moment when the R.I.C. went in. I am sure that my noble friend will not ask or expect me to canvass in detail, over the floor of the House, the technical merits of a controversy as to a particular valuation. This valuation, I can assure him, has been most carefully examined by a qualified and responsible officer, in whom I have every confidence. He and his assistants have seen the owner's representatives personally, and have also corresponded with them at great length, and they have made every effort to arrive at agreement.
The noble Lord is perfectly correct when he says that the sum of £200 was offered in compensation. It is a great deal less than the sum demanded, but those connected with the valuation have assured me personally that, as a matter of fact, it is really a generous construction to place upon the amount of damage done. Certainly it is much less than the sum claimed, but I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the claims made in this case may be somewhat

465
excessive. For instance, it was claimed by the owners that the damage to the house itself was £1,806, but as a matter of fact that claim, after negotiations, was reduced to £447, and this was accepted in full discharge on the recommendation of the agent of the estate. Having gone into the matter, I am convinced that the amount now offered is full compensation for the amount of damage done, but if the lady in question is not satisfied there is, I may say, a much better course for her to pursue than to have these, items debated over the floor of this House. There is the War Compensation Court, set up under the Indemnity Act of 1920, which is presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England. That Court is competent, and is formed for the purpose of dealing with such claims when they cannot be settled by private agreement, as I hope this case may be. If, however, the lady in question is dissatisfied with the valuation put upon her property on behalf of the Treasury by the War Office land officer, then I hope she will go to that Court. So far as my own feelings are concerned I am convinced that the amount now offered does give full compensation for the damage done.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, as I have some acquaintance with this case perhaps you will allow me to say a very few words, in reply to what has been said by the noble Earl. I was not aware that the valuation was based upon an inventory which was prepared by the agent of the estate, and perhaps the noble Earl will therefore forgive me if I do not reply to that point, before going further into the matter. I know the house "Woodstock" very well. It is a very handsome Georgian house, filled with very good Chippendale furniture. The "Black and Tans" were no doubt very gallant men but not in the habit of using furniture of that kind, and they perhaps thought it more useful to employ as firewood than for sitting upon. It is probable, too, that the gentleman referred to who acted as valuer may not be aware of the value of old Chippendale chairs. The house was extremely well furnished with eighteenth century furniture, and one can easily understand that it does not take a great deal to make up £200 when that furniture is destroyed.
The noble Earl said that the lady in question, instead of having the matter
466
discussed on the floor of the House, might have had recourse to the War Compensation Court. May I say that before this case was brought to the notice of my noble friend this lady particularly asked whether there was any further measure which she could take, short of bringing the matter before Parliament. She was specially anxious that this should not be done, and I happen to know that her solicitor communicated with the Lands Department, and the suggestion was made that a Departmental Committee was now being set up, consisting of representatives of the Treasury and the War Office, to consider such matters, and that she might possibly be allowed to appear as a witness before it. She applied to be so allowed to appear, and was told that it was perfectly impossible, and that no further consideration could be given to her case.
It was only when she heard that that she determined to ask my noble friend to bring the matter to the attention of your Lordships and of His Majesty's Government. I still hope that the War Office may consider that the sum of £200 offered is very small in the circumstances, and may be willing to increase it. But, if that is impossible, I am glad to hear that the lady to whom the furniture belonged has a remedy by applying to the War Compensation Court.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should like to correct one misapprehension. The War Office has nothing whatever to do with this. I am only answering the Question on behalf of the Treasury because the Treasury employed a War Office valuer. I am informed that this lady has a perfect right, if she so wishes, to appeal against this valuation to the Court set up under the Indemnity Act.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, Mrs. Tighe is the widow of one of my oldest friends, and I should like to say something about what happened at this house. I know the house very well, I have often stayed there; and I also know the furniture very well. When the "Black and Tans" occupied it certain articles of furniture of great value were locked up. As a rule, in such circumstances as these, even when one lets one's house, there are certain household gods that one locks up and puts away. To

467
speak the truth quite plainly, the first lot of "Black and Tans" sent over to Ireland were, without exception, some of the greatest blackguards I have ever seen. I have had experience of them, and very serious experience, too. There was a member of White's, a friend of mine, who thought it his duty to go over and join in order to help to put down the rebellion in Ireland. He was put in charge of the "Black and Tans" at "Woodstock," and he told me himself in the club that he stopped the sort of blackguardism that was going on in the neighbourhood—going into houses, and pulling the peasants out of their beds, and so on. In some cases that may have been necessary, but, at any rate, that is what this gentleman told me at the time.
With regard to the Government answer to-day, nothing was said about the rooms being broken into. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby do Broke, said the rooms were broken into, and that is perfectly true. The rooms were broken into, the furniture destroyed, and some of it burnt. Surely, when something of that kind occurs as the result of the conduct of men who are employed by His Majesty's Government, the damage should be paid for. Lord Oranmore and Browne mentioned that this was Chippendale furniture. You do not light a fire with Chippendale furniture. Mention was made of a Commission, but once this has been settled by a valuer appointed by the Government I do not see what status one has if one goes before this Commission.
THE EARL OF DERBY: You can appeal.
THE EARL OF MAYO: To whom do you appeal?
THE EARL OF DERBY: You appeal to this Commission against the valuation.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Supposing I put myself in the position of Mrs. Tighe and go before the Commission, this valuation having been made, what status have I before that Commission? I hope the Government will reconsider this case. I know the whole of the inner facts, and I think that it is a very bad case indeed.

THE DEATH OF H.R.H. PRINCESS CHRISTIAN.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to give notice on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House that he will to-morrow, at the commencement of business, move:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the great loss that His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness Princess Christian, and to condole with His Majesty on that melancholy occasion: To assure His Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns His Majesty's domestic relations: and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of His Majesty and of His Family."
House adjourned at five o'clock.