Lords Sitting of 8 May 1923

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

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDPORT EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill entitled an Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health in relation to Bridport, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDLINGTON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to present a Bill entitled an Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Bridlington, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to present a Bill entitled an Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Brighton, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REPARATIONS: THE GERMAN NOTE.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I understand that the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is prepared to make a statement on the subject of the situation created by the German Note. I do not ask the Question for the purpose of initiating a debate; your Lordships will decide after you have heard the statement whether you wish to have a debate on the subject. I will simply ask the noble Marquess whether he is prepared to make a statement.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to the Question put by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, it is only necessary for me to make quite a brief statement in regard to the subject which he has raised. The German Note, which has already appeared in the Press,

3
was handed by the German Ambassador to me at the Foreign Office on the afternoon of May 2. It was a Note addressed not merely to the French and Belgian Governments, but to the principal Allied Powers. As such, it was the view of His Majesty's Government that the best and moat natural course of procedure would be to return a concerted reply from the Governments of Great Britain, France, Italy and Belgium, the more so as the German Note was in response to a suggestion which had been made to the German Government publicly and officially by the Foreign Minister of the British Government, and as the problem, namely, that of Reparations, is one in which the Allied Powers, and not France and Belgium alone, are deeply concerned. Nor, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government need any insuperable difficulty have been experienced in drawing up the collective reply, reserving for separate treatment by the French and Belgian Governments, if they so desired, the questions arising directly out of the recent occupation of German territory by their military forces.
His Majesty's Government had reason to believe that these views were shared by some of their Allies and they were quite prepared to make proposals to this effect, having already communicated their general ideas to the Allied Governments, when they were officially informed that the French and Belgian Governments had already drawn up a joint reply from themselves alone, the text of which was communicated to His Majesty's Government on Saturday afternoon, with the intimation that it would be presented twenty-four hours later to the German Ambassadors at Paris and Brussels. His Majesty's Government regretted what appeared to them to be the unnecessary precipitancy of this step as well as the loss of the opportunity which in their opinion had been presented of once more testifying by a joint communication to the solidarity of the Allied Entente. They do not, however, feel dispensed from the obligation of stating their own views in reply to the German Note and this they propose with the least possible delay to do. There is reason to believe that the Italian Government, whose attitude is in general accord with that of His Majesty's Government, contemplate a similar procedure.
4
As soon as the British reply has been communicated to the German Government it will be published.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I had intended to ask leave to make some observations upon this subject to-day; but, having listened to the statement made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—if I may say so, the admirable and restrained statement—I am so clearly convinced that what is important is that it should be made plain that the noble Marquess speaks for all Parties in this country upon this matter, that I shall not in any way protract the debate.

STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY, AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
HAWKSHEAD MISSION CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
LUCAS'S HOSPITAL CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
TANCRED'S CHARITIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Bill is designed to extend until 1924 the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act of 1921 and the Scottish Act of the same year dealing with the same subject. The first clause deals with London; the second with local authorities generally throughout the country; and the third with Scotland. I should state in the first instance, that the Act of 1921 expired on December 31 last, and possibly your Lordships may wonder why a gap has been allowed to occur between that date and the introduction of this Bill. The answer is that the process of formulating claims and their examination and auditing the payments takes such a considerable time that the claims for the half-year ending March 31 last will probably not be payable until the end of the year, so that no gap will occur. If Parliament passes this Bill this summer it will come into effect long before it is necessary to make any payments.
The first clause, which relates to London, deals with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund which was founded in the year 1867 and with the provisions of which I think your Lordships are well aware. As regards indoor relief the amount allowed was increased in 1921 from 5d. to 1s. 3d. and that provision is continued. As regards outdoor relief the method of calculating it on a prescribed scale was provided for in the Act of 1921 but it proved cumbersome and rather difficult to manage. Therefore it is proposed to substitute a flat rate for the prescribed scale. A conference took place between the various local authorities, and the richer authorities, the paying boroughs, sought to limit the sum to 8d. while the receiving boroughs asked for 10 d. A compromise was reached in agreement upon the sum of 9d. The, working of the 1921 Act up to March 31 last, for the last half-year, shows that the sum
6
expended in outdoor relief was £1,241,000, whereas had it been calculated on the flat rate of 9d. it would have been £1,183,000; so that there is a very close approximation between the flat rate and the prescribed scale.
With reference to Clause 2, we propose to continue the special provisions which were introduced by the last Act to ease the burden of local authorities throughout the country. The clause carries on Sections 3 and 6 of the Act of 1921, and is so drawn as to fill in the hiatus between April 1 and the time when the Bill becomes law.
Clause 3, the Scottish clause, consists of three paragraphs. The object of the first paragraph is to allow a parish council to arrange to pay in certain eventualities a contribution to a local authority employing a destitute able-bodied person a sum not exceeding the relief which would have been paid otherwise. The second paragraph extends the limits of Section 2 of the 1921 Act from five and ten years respectively to ten and fifteen years respectively. The third paragraph has been inserted since the Bill was introduced in another place, at the request of the Scottish Parish Councils' Association. It provides that the receipt of able-bodied relief like ordinary relief shall not affect the acquisition or retention of a settlement. I should say that a settlement is a residence of three years in a parish without poor relief. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, it may seem to some that questions affecting the Scottish Poor Law should be dealt with in a separate Bill, seeing that the Scottish Poor Law is totally distinct from the English Poor Law. The latter dates from the reign of Queen Elizabeth; while that of Scotland was inaugurated as late as 1845 and was only extended, as a temporary measure, to the relief of the able bodied poor in 1921. The two systems seemed to be destined to remain distinct and to develop on different local lines. But when the Ministry of Labour was established and a national scheme of insurance against unemployment came

7
into operation, the provision of poor relief became in reality, though not administratively, part of a very much bigger organisation of national relief. Therefore, it is proper that the subject should be discussed in a common Bill for the United Kingdom. The close association also of industry between the north and south of the Border accentuates the national character of the problem. They prosper together or suffer simultaneously from the same depression. Therefore, any acute crisis in any of our great industries affects the whole of Great Britain and can only be dealt with on national lines.
The necessity for pressing the clauses of this Bill as they affect Scotland is that the temporary Act, devised to meet the emergency in the winter of 1921, gave power to the central authority to extend it for another twelve months, and these last twelve months are due to expire on May 15 if this Bill is not passed. The power of parish councils to give relief to the able-bodied poor would cease, and we should revert to the situation tinder which assistance to this class is not permissible. Various alleviations have been given at the request of the parish councils, and the falling figures in unemployment will give rise to the hope that normal conditions are returning. That will finally relieve parish councils of the onerous duties which, despite their difficulties, they have carried through with much success. I have every hope that they will respond to the call we are making on them to continue this work a little longer, and that, though ill-equipped for the job, though operating under the glaring eye of the ratepayer, they will continue to administer the Act with the same efficiency and sympathy as they have shown in the past.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware the present Act comes to an end in Scotland
8
on the 28th of this month, and in England on June 24. The Government have in preparation a Bill designed to meet the situation which will arise when the present Act comes to an end. The time is very limited, and it will be quite impossible to pass such a measure through both Houses of Parliament before the date I have mentioned, May 28. This Bill, therefore, is simply to prolong the present Act until July 31, in order to give sufficient time for the matter to be thoroughly considered both in this House and in another place. Possibly your Lordships may consider that July 31 is giving rather a long time, but I think it is an error on the right side. It gives the opportunity, as I have said, for the matter to be thoroughly considered and thrashed out. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I may remind the House that it is the third time in the last three Sessions that this Bill has appeared upon the Paper In the first instance, when the Bill was introduced by my noble friend Lord Askwith, it was overwhelmed with ridicule by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, and perished in consequence. The noble and learned Earl proved satisfactorily—and I think it is the highest testimony I can give to his powers as an advocate—that objects such as card-board pigs, sausages and even bottles were not only not offensive in themselves, but were actually rather an aid to scenery, and served as convenient landmarks on journeys, say, from Liverpool to London.
The third Bill, which I am introducing to-day, is an even more modest measure than its two predecessors, and I would draw special attention to the fact that it has actually received the approval of

9
the London Chamber of Commerce. In those circumstances I find it very difficult to believe that there will be anybody who will offer any resistance to it. I think it ought to pass more or less as an agreed measure. Its main object is to preserve, if possible, the rural scenery of this country. In order to avoid opposition, we have on this occasion practically left the towns alone, except those which are frequented solely or chiefly on account of their beauty or historic interest.
There are only two towns. I believe, which have powers to deal with nuisances of this character—namely, Dover and Edinburgh. So far as I know, there is nothing in the law which would prevent an enterprising tradesman in the neighbourhood of Canterbury Cathedral or York Minister, or any historic building, disfiguring and vulgarising the place with some bare advertisements of his own wares. This Bill provides for a contingency of that nature. There has been lately considerable discussion with regard to what is described as the art of hoardings, and I observe a tendency on the part of many people to make out that these posters which appear on hoardings are very much better than they are in reality. I am not going to dispute the fact that there has been great improvement, and that there are certain posters which even occasionally merit our admiration. On the other hand, it must be admitted that a very great number of these posters are not only extremely vulgar but occasionally verge on indecency, and the only defence to abject surrender to vulgarity and ugliness is that it is good for trade. I dare say it is good for trade.
I dare say it would be an excellent thing for trade if Hyde Park were delivered over to these people. No doubt considerable revenue could be derived from that. I dare say also that, it would be an excellent thing for trade if Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral were converted into offices. No doubt a large sum of money could be derived in that way. The answer to all this is that money is not everything, and that there are certain monuments and buildings in this country which we would not part with in any circumstances. Not all the gold and dollars of America could buy from us Westminister Abbey or St. Paul's. I may also say in connection
10
with this point—to take a small instance, but one which is extremely creditable—that my noble friend Lord Desborough, who administers with so much efficiency the Thames Conservancy, has always refused to be tempted by offers to plaster the locks on the Thames with those advertisements with which we are so painfully familiar.
However much we may deprecate the disfigurement of architecture and the disfigurement of streets, I think there is no doubt that the general public is far more appreciative of landscape than it is of architecture, and the person who will be comparatively unmoved by atrocities perpetrated in a town will occasionally show great indignation if he finds a landscape disfigured by advertisements of this character It is for that reason that this particular Bill deals chiefly with advertisements in the country. I think everybody will be ready to admit that here we have a very strong case. If anybody doubts it I would suggest his making a short expedition from London in whatever direction he pleases. Should he wish to sec this process in full operation he should select the Bath Road. Anyone proceeding along that road will find at every couple of hundred yards huge advertisements recommending gripe water, whatever that may be; and at more frequent intervals he will see plates covered with the Union Jack and bearing upon them the mystic letters " B.P." For a long time I was under the delusion that these mystic letters had a remote reference to General Sir Robert Baden-Powell, but they appear to be an advertisement of a motor spirit, of which I personally am not going to make any use whatsoever. This particular motor spirit, with the Union Jack and the letters B.P., is the most ubiquitous offender and is to be found in every part of the country. You cannot go into a single road without this advertisement staring you in the face.
But to return to the Bath Road. In the much frequented portion between Hounslow and Staines not only are there all the usual monstrosities, but they are actually turning it in some places into a sort of corridor. Hoardings erected on each side of the road are covered with advertisements; and you might just as well be in the Tube or the Underground Railway for all that you can see of the country. It is astonishing to me that the

11
Middlesex County Council, which I believe is the responsible authority, should allow this state of things to continue. I can only explain it by the fact that the Act which I am seeking to amend is defective. The present Bill will put it right.
We are confronted with these atrocities wherever we go. I would put it to any oil Lord, or soap Lord, or whisky Lord or any beer Lord, who happens to be here to-day: Is any real good done by persistently flaunting these things before us? I am, I believe, an ordinarily constituted individual, and the effect upon me is the precise opposite of what is intended. When I am confronted with these various inducements my inclination is at once, at all costs, to buy something else and not to avail myself of these numerous invitations. I should not so much object to them if they adhered to the truth, but they are obviously of a clearly mendacious character, because you have an enormous number of people all booming the same commodity and claiming that their own particular production is the best, which is, as Euclid would say, obviously absurd and impossible.
There is no hostility on my part, or on the part of anybody else, to advertising in itself. Advertising is a thing which we cannot do without, and as long as it is confined to a statement of facts it is of assistance to everybody. There is nothing objectionable about posters in the right place. There is nothing objectionable about posters in railway stations and in tubes and certain places in the City, but they are most objectionable in the country. The place where advertising ought to be carried on is in the columns of the Press, and, speaking for myself, an advertisement worded in ordinary common-sense language, would make a greater appeal than any number of these flaunting and glaring posters which I encounter when I go out. Everybody will agree that the last place where these things ought to be tolerated is in the country.
May I quote a sentence from an admirable article in The Times which appeared to-day. It states that if Parliament and the local authorities do their share of the necessary work
"those who fly to it [the country] from the towns will no longer find it full of the very things from which they most wished to escape."
12
That clearly expresses the general feeling with regard to advertisements in the country. By way of illustration as showing how far this plague has gone, may I say that in Palestine, where they are now enjoying the blessings of European civilisation, the High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, has been obliged to forbid all advertisements unless under Government authority; otherwise, the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane, and the sacred places we all know, would be covered with advertisements by now:
There is only one new feature in the present Bill to which I will allude, and that is in Clause 2. Clause 2 deals with smoke advertisements. I remember that last year when I introduced this Bill the, noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, expressed the opinion that if these advertisers had their way they would paint the rainbow. That statement was received with a certain amount of derision, but Lord Buckmaster proved to be an extremely accurate prophet, because, within a few days of that statement being made, the Daily Mail burst upon an astonished and disgusted world with their smoke advertisements in the sky. We suffer quite enough from the Daily Mail on earth without being plagued by it from heaven. The only good thing I know to the credit of that blatant organ is that it once had to pay me £5,000 for aspersing my character. I have sometimes wished, when in financial straits, that they would renew their attack upon me.
The sky is already sufficiently polluted by atmospheric pollution without adding to it the fumes of the Daily Mail, and the prospect of the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, bawling and shouting across the sky, not in letters of fire, but in letters of smoke: "Hats off to France," or "Business as Usual," or "Bonar Law must go because he will not do what I want," is a prospect which no reasonable being could tolerate for a minute. When this Bill was in preparation a gentleman who represents the advertising interests came to the promoters of the measure and said: " For Heaven's sake, stop this awful Daily Mail stunt. It is most horribly expensive; it costs millions, and they have millions at their back and we cannot afford it. Whatever you do put an end to that." I think I shall have

13
universal sympathy with regard to this particular provision of the Bill unless, strange to say, the Daily Mail has admirers in this House.
That is all I have to say. The Bill deals mainly with the disfigurement of the country. Our country is small and very densely populated, and there is, therefore, all the more reason for preserving its amenities. On the whole the Bill is a measure to which no reasonable person can object, and I feel some confidence that it will have an easy passage in this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that on this occasion I have to say that I am a supporter of the noble Lord's measure. On other occasions, with the assistance of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, it has been, shall I say, my sorrowful duty to oppose. The whole House will agree that the noble Lord has delivered most interesting and amusing speeches on this subject and if the Bill goes through we shall be deprived of the pleasure of hearing any further speeches from him on this topic. I have no doubt, however, that he will burst out in a new-direction and that we shall listen to him again with great pleasure.
The Bill in its present form shows the wisdom and necessity of the opposition of the noble and learned Earl and myself. If you will look at this Bill and that of 1922, you will find that all the objectionable matters have been erased, and that this Bill contains everything that will be approved by business men and by chambers of commerce. In fact, as the noble Lord said just now, this is a most modest Bill. It is also most practical, and will be approved generally. I do not wish, therefore, to waste the time of the. House, but will merely say that this is an agreed Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord knew that a little wisdom and discretion had to be shown, and that before introducing this Bill to the House again some concessions ought to be made. They have now been made; the matter has been fully discussed, and agreement has been reached; so that I am in a position to say that this Bill is approved by chambers of commerce and business men, whereas the other Bill would have been
14
regarded as most disastrous. I think business men will be pleased to notice the alteration in the tone of the noble Lord's references to advertisements. If you read the speeches delivered at the Royal Academy the other day, you will realise that high-class advertisements may be an education. Possibly this fact has come home to the noble Lord, and that that is the reason why he is to-day such an enthusiastic supporter of high-class advertisements.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, after what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken, I do not think there is very much for me to say. Of course, the Government will not oppose this Bill, which has received the support of everybody concerned. The noble Lord said that this is the third time a Bill dealing with this matter has been introduced. I thought it was the fourth time; I thought that he had introduced three Bills and another noble Lord one. At any rate, the Government will not oppose such a Bill. At the same time, I would remind my noble friend that the state of business in another place is somewhat congested, and in what I have said I should not like it to be thought that I was giving any undertaking that the Government would afford any facilities for passing the Bill into law this Session.
There is one point of detail which I should like to mention. I refer to the question of procedure. The procedure under the Bill is by means of by-laws, to be enacted subject to the approval of the Home Secretary and to the Act of 1907. As I think I have suggested on previous occasions when a similar Bill was before your Lordships' House, this procedure by by-law is somewhat cumbersome and difficult. It is not easy to frame by-laws to cover every eventuality. If you wish to prevent advertisements from disfiguring a landscape, as the noble Lord proposes, it is rather hard to frame a by-law which will exclude those advertisements which are a disfigurement and not exclude small advertisements which nobody would wish to be excluded and which would not disfigure the landscape in any way. It is a difficult procedure. There is another point. Some advertisements, as the noble Lord said, are not offensive, while others are

15
very offensive in certain places. To frame a by-law to cover both would be very difficult. I mention this matter so that the noble Lord may give it his attention, if he desires to do so, before the Bill proceeds to another stage. I have nothing further to say on the matter, and I trust that the Bill will receive generally the support which your Lordships are good enough to give it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I welcome this Bill very heartily. I welcomed the more extensive Bill, and I think I should welcome a Bill even more extended than that. I regret a little the attitude of the Government. The noble Earl has told us that they have no intention of opposing this Bill. I am sure that the Government will not think that I mean any disrespect to them if I say that if they were to oppose it in this House I do not think it would make any difference; the Bill would be carried just the same. Then what is the effect of the noble Earl's benevolent neutrality? It really does nothing at all except save us from the trouble of going through a Division here. It is not going to make any difference in another place, and the noble Earl has not promised any assistance there. But if the Government really wish this Bill well, I think they might have given us a little more encouragement, because, after all, this Bill would make very little difference to the business of the House of Commons. It might at any rate have a chance. It would not take half an hour to introduce, and the House of Commons would at least have an opportunity of considering one of those measures which from time to time pass through this House by overwhelming majorities and then perish miserably in the cold passage between this House and another place. I wish very much that it were possible to secure that Bills which passed this House had some opportunity of being considered elsewhere.
May I say further that I should like to see additional powers given to restrict the character of these advertisements? I remember quite well, when the Bill establishing the Ministry of Health was before this House, urging very strongly indeed that special provisions should be introduced to deal with advertisements of patent medicines. A Commission had been sitting upon this matter and had
16
found that in many cases these medicines were absolutely deleterious and were being recommended by statements that could be justified in a court of law only upon the ground that they formed part of an advertisement. Apparently, if you only advertise you may tell what lies you like, and induce people to buy your medicines or other goods by whatever false statements you please, because the courts, having regard, I suppose, to the weaknesses of commercial humanity, say that this is nothing but a form of "puff" which cannot be the subject of legal proceedings.
None the less, such advertisements ought to be the subject of control, and I should have thought that such a provision might well be introduced into this Bill. When I urged this point on the other Bill, I was told that the Minister of Health would do wonders as soon as he was installed in power. I have not been able to discover any wonderful developments in the direction of controlling these advertisements. I wish this Bill all success, and I hope that the Government will see whether it is possible to take a little more interest in the matter than they are taking at present, and give it an opportunity of becoming an effective Act of Parliament.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I quite understand that at the present stage my noble friend Lord Onslow finds it impossible to give anything in the nature of a pledge as to what shall happen to this Bill in another place. I think it would be unreasonable to expect him to do so. At the same time, I hope that the Ministry of Health will realise that public sentiment upon this subject is very much aroused, and that there is a growing demand for public protection against these enterprises.
I am not in the least opposed to advertising or advertisements. I like many advertisements; some of them I love. During the last year or two a group of advertisements has appeared on the Underground Railway which is a lasting credit to British art; and there are many such. I believe this kind of advertising to be far more effective than the vulgar and ostentatious iterations to which my noble friend Lord Newton has alluded. But everybody who goes into the country knows that there

17
is class of advertisement which is not merely an offence, but which is a positive trespass upon the common rights of our eyesight, and I always notice that the fields which are disfigured by those outrages are precisely those fields where the occupying farmer does least justice to his land. So we have the double offence of the passer-by having these ostentations forced upon his company, and the knowledge that the occupier of the land is using those offences for his own object, and to save himself the trouble of working his own land. I really think that these things are unpardonable, and I am convinced that the public is becoming more and more alive to these matters. Many people, of course, as Lord Newton said just now, will refuse to buy any article puffed and advertised in this manner. So far as the greater public are concerned that probably docs not apply, though I am one of those who believe that, in the long run, an advertisement which is unintelligent cannot pay.
This Bill is extremely modest in its scope. I should like to go much further, but I think it would be unwise to accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, and try to extend it in Committee. I believe that the principle of this Bill is universally approved by your Lordships, and it has received the support, as you know, of various chambers of commerce. It is to that extent an agreed measure, and whatever be its shortcomings, I think it should be maintained as an agreed measure, for it is really very important that we should exercise promptitude in dealing with this Bill. I hope that Lord Newton will bring forward the next stage very soon, and that he will receive the support of the Government in so doing, so that the Bill may pass through this House and reach the other House in time for it to be effectively dealt with this Session. Another opportunity may not occur for three or even five years, and therefore I hope we may have the support of the Government in passing the Bill.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I only wish to say a word or two as to the prospects of this Bill in another place. I do not think it is necessary to forecast what the action of the Government will be when the Bill reaches another place, until they are in a
18
position to know whether the Bill is likely to receive any opposition. If it reaches us as an agreed measure, and is so regarded in another place, then very little help on their part will enable it to pass into law. Now, I am very familiar, as is the noble Earl who has just spoken, with the practice of starring Bills in another place. We understand how very heavy is the pressure of business at the end of the Session, but, as everybody knows, frequently at the end of the Session it is a perfectly easy thing to star four or five agreed Bills, and so to secure their passage into law. I hope that the Government will agree to do that for this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will make its powers applicable, notwithstanding the protest of the noble Earl who has just spoken, so that there shall be some control over advertisements.
I am not going to follow the example of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. He gave gratuitous advertisements to a number of articles, and also to a newspaper, which might have done without his very valuable assistance. I think it is an outrage that if people want to advertise their wares they should be allowed to do so in a way which not only leads to competition with our own native industries, but also is in itself a ridiculous libel upon our industries. I am familiar with an advertisement along the Bath Road, which advertises a particular kind of beverage extracted from a four-footed animal. There is a picture of the animal and a dairy and a dairy-maid, the last-named being in such a position that she could not possibly get an ounce of milk out of the cow, and, if she attempted to do so, the quietest cow would very speedily kick her over. Yet every time I travel upon the Great Western Railway I see this outrage upon the industry with which I happen to be connected. I think the Bill should take care that whatever they may say with regard to their own commodity, these advertisers do not libel and traduce other industries.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, perhaps, as an appeal has been made to the Government by several noble Lords, it is only right that a member of the Government should say a word in

19
reply. I think that every member of the Government present shares the general view of the House in favour of this Bill, and the only question is how much help the Government can give to the measure. May I say to my noble friend, with great respect, that I think if he had studied the best interest of his Bill he would have had it read a second time a little earlier than just before the Whitsuntide Recess.
LORD NEWTON: I may, perhaps, be allowed to explain that we have been endeavouring to negotiate with the opponents, and have only just arrived at an agreement with them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is a fair reply, and perhaps I ought not to make the delay a matter of reproach. But it does not help the prospect of the Bill that it should only be read a second time so late as this. If, however, your Lordships will exercise that despatch which we often exercise with respect to legislation, and which is sometimes the cause of adverse comment on the part of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, no doubt this Bill might be passed through quickly, so far as this House is concerned. I will not prophesy what will happen to it in another place. It may be possible that opportunity may be afforded to the promoters of the Bill to pass it in another place. Personally, I hope it may be so, and I think I speak for all my colleagues in this House when I express that hope; but we cannot enter into any pledge, and I am sure that nobody expects that we should do so.
The condition of business in another place is already very congested, as I have special reason to know, and I am sure that it would be impossible, to introduce anything which was of a contentious character into the already overloaded programme of the Government. Still, anything which can be done will be done, and we will bring the views of your Lordships to the notice of the Home Secretary in the hope that something may be done. May I add one word of caution? I think the Bill would have a better prospect if it were not overloaded, and I can conceive that Amendments might be put into the Bill, as it passes through Committee, which will not help it in another place,
20
That, of course, is a matter for your Lordships to consider. I think I have said all that I can say on the subject.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think I must ask the attention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to this Bill. Here is a measure which was read a second time on Thursday last. We now have it down for the Committee stage, and I venture to think that, unless there are some special circumstances which were not explained to us by the noble Viscount, there really is no need for hurrying on the business of the House in this fashion. It is conceivable that there are Scottish members of your Lordships' House who might like to write to Scotland, to ask whether there is anything to be said on this matter and who might wish to introduce Amendments. It may be within the knowledge of the noble Marquess that I have complained during the past week of the way in which noble Lords are precluded from moving Amendments to Bills which are introduced into this House, owing to the unnecessary despatch with which the Committee stage follows the next day after the Second Reading of the Bill, and the Third Reading follows the day after the Committee stage. This Bill, I think, affords an instance of the procedure to which I refer. Although we should be very willing to assist His Majesty's Government on any occasion when there is real reason for despatch, the Third Reading of this Bill, unless there is reason for haste, might at any rate be postponed so that, if noble Lords have Amendments which they wish to put down, they may have some opportunity of discussing them with their friends beforehand.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I only put down the Bill because it was a perfectly non-contentious Bill, but I am willing to put off the Third Reading if that meets the views of the noble Earl.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—[The Earl of Ancaster.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to require returns.
1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, in any year by notice served on the occupier of any agricultural land in England or Wales or the person having the management of any such land, require him to make within such time as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as tile Minister may prescribe by regulations made under this Act, a return in writing for that year with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or live stock thereon, or the persons employed on the land, and, if the occupier is also the owner of the land, that fact shall be stated in the return.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, there is one point upon this clause which I should like to bring before your Lordships for the purpose of ascertaining what meaning is attached to the word " cultivation " in subsection (1). What I understand is required by this measure is to get statistics of the area under cultivation and the crops which grow upon that area; but the term " cultivation " may have a very much wider meaning, and may include such matters as the method of cultivation, or the. rotation of crops, or the manure used, ft seems to me very unnecessary for the purposes of the Ministry that such a question should be asked, and there is a real objection to bringing into this Bill anything in the nature of a difficult question to answer, or, indeed, more questions than are absolutely required. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is aware, there is great difficulty in getting questions answered at all. If it is necessary to bring in detail? of these matters it would be of very great advantage if the form which is going to be sent out could be included in the Schedule of the Bill. But if the noble Earl can tell us what is the actual
22
meaning attached to "cultivation" it may be unnecessary to proceed further in the matter.
There is a further point I should like to raise, namely, as to the meaning of "agricultural land." In the Definition Clause "agricultural land" is said to include woodlands. It is rather important to know what questions with regard to woodlands the Minister of Agriculture proposes to ask. The Forestry Commission is now gathering statistics upon the area of woodlands, and the nature of the crop, and I do not want to see those questions duplicated unless it is absolutely necessary. I hope that before any Regulations with regard to woodlands are laid before the House the Minister will take steps to consult the Forestry Commission and see if we can work closely together in the matter.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, the noble Lord partly answered his own question, because I understand that the word "cultivation" would refer to such land as woodlands or rough pasture which would not come under the heading of crops. His whole question is answered by subsection (7) of Clause 1, because he will find there the provision that any Regulation as regards these Returns is to be laid on the Table of the House, and, of course, that would afford the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord interested in the subject, an opportunity of discussing the form of these Regulations. At the present moment I may say there is no intention of altering the present Regulations, which are already being sent out for these Returns under the voluntary system.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is an example of the advantage of not taking Bills in the hurried way in which they have lately been taken in your Lordships' House. This Bill was read a second time last Tuesday, and it was put down for the Committee stage last Thursday. The noble Earl in charge of it was good enough, when I remonstrated, to put it down for to-day, and I am very much obliged to him. It has allowed the noble Lord to get an explanation about the Bill which is very valuable. I think it would not have been a bad thing if the

23
Bill had been postponed even a little longer. The noble Lord has not put down any Amendment—probably because he had no opportunity and no time for putting down an Amendment—but, at any rate, owing to the delay, he has been able to get an explanation, which I am sure he is glad to receive and which, to a great many agriculturists throughout the country, will also be a matter of satisfaction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl harps upon this point, and he drives me to say that I do not accept the charge of undue haste in respect of this legislation, which he brings against the Government. There was, undoubtedly, a case in which, by inadvertence, a Bill was hurried on too much, and I wrote to the noble Earl and expressed to him my apologies for what had happened; but it is not by any means true of all the Bills which the noble Earl has in his mind. I have taken the trouble, since the incident to which he refers, to acquaint myself with the history of several of these Bills, and I find that they have been a much longer time before your Lordships' House than the noble Earl had any idea of. This Bill itself was read a first time on April 19. I do not think the noble Earl realises that. The fact is that the noble Earl, who is a man of very many occupations and employments, probably has not time always to read the Notices of the House which are circulated to him and so he omits to observe that the Bill is before your Lordships' House.
But we are most anxious to defer in every way not only to the noble Earl but to any noble Lord in any part of your Lordships' House, and I can assure your Lordships that whenever any noble Lord desires the postponement of a Bill, unless it really interferes with the public interest we shall be only too delighted to comply. I only ask for the co-operation and assistance of the House in carrying out what I think is their wish.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. I realise how good he is in always postponing an Order when anybody asks him to do it but that is not altogether the point. There are noble Lords who do not know—and I do not think they are expected to know—the contents of a Bill until it
24
has been explained by the Minister in charge and this Bill, though it was read a first time on April 19, only came before your Lordships' House for Second Reading on Tuesday last. It was put down for Committee on Thursday. The interval between the two stages really did not allow members of your Lordships' House sufficient time to go into the question of amendment, and the noble Marquess was good enough to postpone it. But on the same evening there were put down other Bills. There was the Petroleum Bill to which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, also referred, complaining that he had not had an opportunity of contributing the question; and there was the Dangerous Drugs Bill which has also been postponed and on which we have been obliged to take all our Amendments on the Third Reading.
Now that, I venture to say to the noble Marquess, really is not a very convenient form of dealing with Amendments. Whenever possible Amendments ought always to be dealt with in Committee of this House. That affords your Lordships a very much better opportunity for discussing them. On Third Reading we cannot speak more than once, and it is obvious that Amendments which are passed in Committee are very often the better for being considered and, perhaps, amended on Third Reading. If we got into the habit in this House of taking our Amendments on Third Reading I am sure it would be a very bad practice. I venture to hope that it will become the normal practice of your Lordships' House that a Bill read a second time in one week should not be put down for Committee until the week after.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I
agree.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
Road 3a (according to Order). Privilege Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EX-SERVICE TERRITORIAL SECRETARIES.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND had given Notice to move, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into and to report on the claim of secretaries of County Territorial Associations who served as such during the war, and were prior to the war in receipt of retired pay or pension, to have such pay or pension reassessed according to the terms of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion as amended by Army Order 324 of 1919.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, before dealing with my Motion, I should like very briefly to tell your Lordships why I have raised this matter in this particular form. The question at issue is really a comparatively simple one. It is whether secretaries of Territorial Associations were or were not performing military service in carrying out their duties during the war. If they were performing military service they are entitled, under the Royal Warrant, to have their pay or pension re-assessed at a higher rate. It has always been the contention of the War Office that the service of these gentlemen was not of a military but of a civilian character and, therefore, that they were not entitled to a re-assessment of their pensions. On the other hand, your Lordships have taken the opposite view on three separate occasions. In 1918 and 1920 the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, brought the question before your Lordships' House. The Government acknowledged the great weight of opinion and of authority which favoured the view that the service of these gentlemen was of a military nature. Nevertheless, nothing was done. Last year I moved a Resolution to the same effect and so overwhelming was the opinion of the House in favour of this view that the Government accepted the Resolution and admitted that it would be futile to go to a Division. That was on May 17. 1922.
For three months nothing was done, nor was any action taken upon that decision, although both privately and in this House I continually asked what action the Government intended to take. On the last day of the Session, when it was, of course, too late for any further discussion in this House, I was informed that the Cabinet had considered the matter and would not consent to the re-assessment of these pensions. The position is, therefore, that on three occasions this House has come to a decision, on one occasion by way of a formal Resolution, and each time that decision has been entirely ignored by the Government of the day, which, on the last occasion, studiously refrained from even expressing an opinion on the matter until this House was prevented by circumstances from taking any further action. Such treatment really relegates the House of Lords to the position of a debating society.
On the advent of this Government to power the Territorial Associations hoped that at last a long-delayed act of justice would be done to these unfortunate gentlemen who, for five years, have been deprived of what we believe to be their due. But I regret to say that the War Office still adheres to its previous view of the matter and absolutely declines to grant this claim. Therefore, we—and when I use the word "we" I think I am speaking for all Territorial Associations, who are practically unanimous in this matter—felt compelled to ask your Lordships' House to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of both Houses in order that the matter might at least be settled one way or the other and, if it is settled in favour of these gentlemen, the Government might be induced to take the necessary action.
I am perfectly well aware that the, failure of the War Office to see eye to eye with the Territorial Associations on this matter is not due to any lack of sympathy on the part of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War. The noble Earl's services to the Territorial Associations and the Territorial Army in general are so well known that it would be almost an impertinence to dwell upon them in this House. Un-fortunately, he takes a different view of this question from that which is taken by the Territorial Associations

27
and, greatly to our disappointment, he has decided that this claim cannot be acceded to. There are only 29 secretaries who are affected. There were 31, but I understand that two have died since the war and, therefore, there are only 29 secretaries out of a total of 77 who were in receipt of retired pay or pension before the war and whom we consider are entitled to have their pensions re-assessed.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating what has been said at length on previous occasions and I will, therefore, recapitulate as briefly as possible our reasons for believing that these secretaries were performing military service during the war and are entitled to have their pensions reassessed. Without entering into the vexed and somewhat academic question, as I think it is, as to how far Territorial Associations are military bodies, they are, according to the description given by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, who I am glad to see in his place, in introducing the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907, in their nature military committees—those are the words he used—of which at least half the members must be military members. They are responsible for the administrative services of the Territorial Army in exactly the same way as the Quartermaster-General's Department and the Adjutant-General's Department are responsible for the administrative services of the Regular Army, and the secretaries have entrusted to them the combined functions of both those Departments. It is ridiculous, therefore, to contend that because these bodies contain a civilian element they are therefore civilian bodies.
But, whatever in theory may be the nature of Territorial Associations, there is no doubt at all that the service which these secretaries performed during the war was of a military nature. The War Office threw upon them work which was wholly outside their ordinary province, and which is normally discharged by officers in the administrative services of the Army. Perhaps I may be allowed to give your Lordships a few instances. They had to provide clothing and boots for various units which were formerly administered by the military authorities and to purchase clothing for second line
28
territorial units, and equipment of all kinds for home service units. All this was done in order to relieve the Army Ordnance Department. They relieved the Pay Department by undertaking the payment of recruits pending the introduction of a normal system. They were charged with the feeding of recruits prior to transfer to their stations, and with the provision for them of blankets, crockery, and other necessaries. These duties should all have been discharged by the Army Service Corps and Barrack Department.
In order further to relieve the Army Ordnance they were asked to undertake all the renewals of clothing for the mobilised unite of the Territorial Army for several months after the outbreak of war. They had to undertake the renewal of equipment of the Territorial Force General Hospitals. They were also entrusted with the mobilisation of ex-warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the new- Armies, the mobilisation of the National Reservists for protection of vulnerable points, all of whom had to be interviewed before being sent up for attestation: and innumerable other duties outside their ordinary province. That was at a time when the whole burden of the work of the Territorial Associations fell on their shoulders. To give some idea of the extraordinary burden of work thrown upon them by the War Office I may mention that in one Association the expenditure thrown upon it by the War Office for these extraneous services, which really had nothing whatever to do with them, was £214,000, and that, so far as I can gather, is by no means an exceptional case. Many million pounds of public money must have passed through the hands of these secretaries dining the war for services for which the War Office were really responsible, and that Department after throwing all this purely military work upon these officials now turns round and declines to regard their service as being of a military nature.
In the crisis of the war, when the War Office urgently required the help of these gentlemen, it was a rather different story. In a letter of June 26, 1915, the War Office pointed out that "the work done in the Association offices approximates to that carried out in Military Administrative Offices throughout the country, and that some means should be found of recognising

29
this officially." It went on to state that " the County Association office was the centre of military activity in many important cities and towns throughout the United Kingdom, and that the wearing of uniform by the secretary, as the chief permanent official, would tend to emphasise the military character of the Association's functions." The letter then went on to say that in view of the fact that many secretaries had served in His Majesty's Forces, and were entitled to the rank and style of officers and in certain cases were eligible for active military command, and were only prevented from taking up such commands by the refusal of their Associations to spare them—in view of these circumstances, the letter expressly stated that it was desirable that those secretaries who were entitled to wear uniform should do so, and be granted an outfit allowance of £20 for the purpose. The letter further stated that in the case of those secretaries who had not held a Commission, or who on retirement were not entitled to retain their rank and wear their uniform, the War Office would be prepared to appoint such secretaries to a Commission in the Territorial Force Reserve. So desirable was it in the view of the War Office to make the essentially military character of the work upon which Associations were engaged evident to the general public that it entitled officials of Associations to wear the official badge " On War Service."
The terms of that letter showed quite clearly that the War Office did admit in 1915 that the secretaries and staffs of Associations were performing military service. Later on in the war the War Office went even further by granting Commissions to assistant secretaries because they were not considered to be properly qualified for their duties unless they did receive Commissions. After the receipt of this letter no further doubt existed in the minds of these secretaries that the Army Council definitely acknowledged that the service they were performing was military service. Accordingly they refused to pay Income Tax except at military rates. In order to decide the question as to the rate of Income Tax they had to pay it was agreed that a case should be brought to the High Court to decide not the question of the amount of the Tax payable, but whether these secretaries were, by virtue of then position, serving as military officers, and thereby
30
entitled to be taxed at military rates only. The Surveyor of Taxes, who brought the case against these officials, lost it, and he appealed. The appeal was heard on June 19, 1919. The Surveyor of Taxes was represented by the Solicitor-General, and judgment and costs were given against him. Thenceforward these secretaries were taxed as military officers. The Solicitor-General felt that his case was so weak that he did not even attempt to argue it. He admitted at once the military nature of the services which these gentlemen performed.
It will thus be seen that the War Office, by its own Regulations during the war, and the High Court, by its decision, admitted the military nature of the service, and it naturally came as a great blow to these secretaries when they were informed after the war that their pensions were not going to be re-assessed. Since then the War Office has produced a whole host of further reasons for refusing this claim. Most of them it is really impossible to take seriously. It is said that the possession of military rank is not necessary for the discharge of a secretary's duties, and that the Association is perfectly free, if it chooses, to select a civilian for the post who may have no military experience whatever. It has even been stated that a large number of these secretaries are civilians. This, of course, depends upon your definition of a civilian, but the fact remains, so far as I have been able to discover, that there are only three cases of the appointment of a secretary who had not previously held a Commission in His Majesty's Forces. Two of these cases are the very small Associations of Kinross and Orkney, which between them provide less than the equivalent of one battalion. In the third case, the gentleman, although he had not held a Commission, had bad ten years experience as chief clerk in the Secretary's Office before his appointment. When these are the only cases where gentlemen who had not served in His Majesty's Forces have been appointed, surely it is stretching a point to contend that Associations could employ civilians if they were pleased to do so. It is unnecessary to labour the point. Would any Association in its senses, in view of the nature of the work which the secretary had to perform, select a man who had no knowledge or experience of military administration?
It has also been stated that these secretaries are not entitled to this reassessment because they do not come within the terms of the Army Order referred to. This Order refers to officers who, having retired on retired pay before the war, have been re-employed as officers during the war to the satisfaction of the Army Council. It is said that these secretaries were not called up on mobilisation and were not, therefore, re-employed. Surely this is a quibble. Of course, they were not called up because they were at their war stations when war broke out. Again, it has been said that they were not subject to Military Law. This is a very difficult question which I do not pretend to be able to decide, but it is certain that executive duties which could only have been performed by officers subject to military discipline were performed by the secretaries. One secretary, for instance, performed executive duties as a General Officer in interviewing candidates for Commissions, signing on Army Forms certificates which could only be signed by a General Officer, while his assistant carried out attestations at the recruiting office. He even went to France on the staff of the Director General of the Territorial Forces when he went on a visit to the Front. He went as a General Officer on the Staff, received field allowance as a General Officer, and was awarded a medal. But after all, as I have already shown, the War Office entrusted these men with work which could only be done in normal circumstances by fully qualified military officers, subject to military discipline, and, after doing that, it is surely hardly fair to try to escape from your obligations on a technical objection that they were not subject to the Army Act, which may or may not be correct.
It is also stated that they are not paid directly out of Army funds. This, again, is a mere quibble. The money is paid to Associations out of Army Estimates, and out of those funds the secretary is paid. But the weakness of this contention may be judged by the fact that according to the Army Order referred to these gentlemen must have rendered paid military service during the war. It only says "paid military service." It makes no distinction whatever as to the way in which the money is actually transferred to the recipient. I have already shown
32
that the War Office, by their letter of June, 1915, really admitted the military nature of the service. But that is not all. In 1917 an Army Council Instruction was issued which stated that service during the war should count for promotion and precedence for secretaries of Territorial Associations, and under this Instruction at least eight secretaries have been promoted to their present ranks. If this is not an admission of the military character of the service, I do not know what is. Further, in order to emphasise the military nature of the work, the secretaries who received the Order of the British Empire for their service during the war were transferred to the Military division of the Order, thereby showing clearly that the War Office regarded the awards as having been made for military service.
I understand that the War Office explanation of all this is that these were concessions bestowed out of kindness of heart; and that because the War Office is kind enough to let a man's service count for promotion and for the purpose of receiving a military decoration, and also for the purpose of wearing a military uniform, that is no reason why it should be regarded as military service when it comes to a question of pay. To put the matter quite plainly, what the War Office is really saying is this: "It is quite true that we threw upon you during the war an immense burden of work which should have been discharged by regular officers. We are extremely grateful to you for doing all this, so grateful, indeed, that we will actually let you wear uniform, if you want to do so; we will let your service count for promotion and we will give you a military decoration. All these things are cheap, but when it comes to reassessing your pensions, there we draw the line. The High Court of Justice says that you were performing military service, and you, therefore, pay Income Tax at military rates. We also say your service is military when it is a question of the work you do or the decoration you wear or the rank you hold or your precedence in the Army List. But when it comes to a question of your pension we must insist on the fact that you are, always have been, and always will be civilians."
I hold that that attitude is utterly illogical and unjust. I have been quite unable to discover any explanation, except one, of this illogical and, as it seems to me, most unjust view of the War Office in this matter. I am convinced that this is the real explanation: The War Office believe that if they granted this claim they would have to grant the claims of various other categories of individuals who were similarly situated to these Territorial secretaries. The only observations I have to make on this are, first, that even if that were true it would be no reason for refusing to do justice to these gentlemen; secondly, that this re-assessment of pensions has already been very freely given, and in cases which would seem to be not nearly so clear as those of Territorial secretaries. For instance, Royal Engineer officers on retired pay, who were re-employed by the Ordnance Survey during the war, have had their pensions re-assessed, although this Department was under the Ministry of Agriculture, although these officers were remunerated from Civil Votes at a special rate, and although they were not mobilised and not under the military authorities at all.
I am sure we all sympathise with the War Office in desiring to enforce the strictest economy, and if there was the slightest element of doubt in these claims it would be a strong argument in favour of the War Office view. But I have been unable to discover during the last year, and I have made many inquiries, what all those other categories of civilians are who would have to have their pensions re-assessed if these secretaries of Territorial Associations have theirs re-assessed. Perhaps the noble Earl when he replies will be able to give us more information than I have been able to collect. It would be a great help if he will tell us what other civilians were treated in the following manner—when belonging to the Reserve were not called up on mobilisation; were authorised to wear uniform and given a grant for its provision; whose service counted for promotion and precedence; were appointed to the Military division of the Order of the British Empire; had their claim to pension decided by the High Court; had their service pronounced by the High Court to be of a military nature and were in consequence taxed at military rates. It
34
would be a great help if he would tell as also what other civilian holds a post from which he cannot be dismissed either in peace or war without the consent of the War Office. If he can give us any other cases similar to that of these secretaries, I should acknowledge that there would be some risk in granting this claim; but, if not, I cannot believe that there are any other civilians who would be affected if this claim was granted. I believe the claim of these twenty-nine Territorial secretaries is wholly exceptional.
I have heard a suggestion of another possible objection on the part of the War Office—namely, that the only Association official whom the War Office can regard as acting in a military capacity is the Chairman, that all orders to Associations came through him, and that the other members have no official military standing in the eyes of the War Office. If there is anything in this contention it is rather strange that we have not heard something about it during the last four years. In any case it does not seem to be based on any principle, or any discoverable Regulation governing the constitution of the Territorial Force Association. I must admit, however, that it opens up a vista of quite attractive possibilities, for if the Chairman is the only official performing military service, he must obviously be entitled to have his pension re-assessed, and there must be no inconsiderable number of Chairmen who are in that happy position. On the whole the War Office might find it cheaper to admit the claim of these secretaries.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House in explaining a question which has already been exhaustively considered on three previous occasions. I hope the House will support the Resolution as the only means at this stage of effectually dealing with the situation.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into and to report on the claim of secretaries of County Territorial Associations who served as such during the war, and were prior to the war in receipt of retired pay or pension, to have such pay or pension reassessed according to the terms of the Royal Warrant for Pay

35
and Promotion as amended by Army Order 324 of 1919.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? It is a subject in which I take a great deal of interest, and as Chairman of the Council of Territorial Associations I should like to say a word in support of the noble Duke. The Council of the Territorial Association is practically unanimous on this point. I extremely regret that on this particular matter there is a difference between my noble friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) and myself. We have had a good many arguments in connection with the Territorial Force, but we always look upon him as one who has done a great deal to help us and as one who has much sympathy with its success. It is particularly unfortunate that on this matter we should have a difference of opinion, and I can only hope that before the evening is over we shall be more or less in agreement.
As the noble Duke has said, this question has been raised on many occasions. I have raised it myself, I think, three times, and on each occasion I and my friends went home perfectly happily, thinking that we had convinced the House that the opinions we held were right. As the noble Duke has told us, a Motion was actually accepted last Session, but nothing has come of it, and we are still in the position of striving to secure what we believe to be a distinct act of justice to men who have rendered very valuable services. I take it that the alteration of the terms of the Instruction from "service of a military character" to its present form, "paid military service," was intended to deal with this case. I do not know whether it was done particularly with a view to this case, but it undoubtedly does affect the position.
But so far as I can see it does not in any way alter the status of a secretary. One of the particular hardships in this connection is that when the war broke out a great many secretaries—I think nearly all of them—desired to go to the Front. A number of them, under great pressure, remained behind in a position in which they were able to carry on very valuable work. It so
36
happens that those who went have had their pensions re-assessed, and those who remained behind have been penalised for their patriotic action and have not had their pensions re-assessed in the same way. That is a very great hardship, because we realise that in the war it was not only those who got into the limelight who did really useful and serviceable work. There were plenty of people left behind in unattractive positions who were quite willing to do their best without attempting to get into the limelight.
If I am correct in my view as to the change in the terms of the Instruction. I take it that the point with which we have to deal is that "paid military service" is distinct from "service of a military character." I cannot for the life of me see in what the difference consists. As the noble Duke has pointed out, the salaries of the secretaries come out of the funds of the Associations which are voted in the Army Estimates. On my own estate I have an agent, a bailiff and labourers. I fix the amount that each is to receive. I tell my agent what to give my bailiff, and I give my agent the money, but no one questions for a moment that if anything goes wrong it is not my agent who is to blame; it is to me they would appeal. In the same way, in the case of the money by which these secretaries are paid, it must not be forgotten that up to now at any rate it has been the War Office that has fixed the maximum and told us how much we are to give. Surely this is paid military service.
The last time this question was raised the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, gave us a very interesting little history of the whole of the Reserve Forces from the time of the old Volunteer Force, which I joined myself in 1866, having served with it and with the Territorial Force ever since. The noble Viscount showed distinctly the continued increase and improvement from the Volunteers to the Territorials and the great addition to their discipline, and to the value of their services. Surely Lord Haldane, if I may say so, is a person who has some right to speak as to what were the intentions when the Territorial Force was started. He has been Secretary of State for War and he has been Lord Chancellor, and we look upon him in the Territorials as

37
our Little Father. He was the originator of this Force. Your Lordships—particularly those of you who are Lords-Lieutenant—will remember that it is not very long ago that Lords-Lieutenant were summoned by His Majesty and given instructions to form a Territorial Army, as distinct from a Territorial Force, and this is the second Army in the country. The curious thing is that although we have been Volunteers, although we have been a Territorial Force, it is only when we become a Territorial Army that we are told that one of our principal officers is a civilian. That is what we do not quite understand.
In addition to the points raised by the noble Duke proving the military character of these secretaries, it will be remembered that in the old days we used to look upon the Deputy Lieutenant as our High Sheriff, who was assured of a uniform. Nowadays, only a military man is allowed to be made a Deputy Lieutenant, but among those specially mentioned as being eligible for a Deputy Lieutenancy are members of Territorial Associations, and in many cases the secretaries of these Associations have become Deputy Lieutenants. That, I think, is a little extra proof that the work of secretaries of Associations is military work. I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer. We look upon this as an act of justice. We maintain that we have proved our case over and over again. We have drawn our picture and presented it to the House; we have given the outline and filled it in with complete detail, but, as often happens in these cases, there are two points of view. We do not always see eye to eye, and although we are perfectly convinced in our own minds that our point of view is the right one, we have to confess with sorrow that we have not been able to convince those who look upon the picture from another point of view. All we ask now is that a Committee of experts shall be appointed to tell us which point of view is really the right one, and I hope we shall have your Lordships' support in this demand.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down I have addressed your Lordships before on this subject, and I have no intention of addressing the House for very long this afternoon. I do not propose to go over the matter again, because the noble
38
Duke has most exhaustively and fully provided us with the materials for judging it. I wish to say at once that though I have formed my own impression of the rights and wrongs of the meaning of the words—an impression which is the same as that of the noble Duke and of my noble friend who has just spoken—I have come to that conclusion with a full sense of the enormous difficulty in which the Secretary of State for War is placed. To begin with, it is perfectly plain from what has been said that his is an inherited position. I would venture to say that there is no man who is doing more, or has done more in the past, to show his sympathy with the Territorial Army. He has worked as hard as any man could work in raising divisions of Territorials and in looking after their affairs in his own county. It is certainly not from want of sympathy that the noble Earl takes up the position he does at the present time, but he cannot help himself.
It has become a. traditional view among the permanent officials of the War Office that this Regulation has a certain meaning. The noble Earl is bound to support them, and I would not ask him to let down his officials. I would point out, on the other hand, that it is just the very quality in which the permanent officials are defective, that they never do recognise what masses of public opinion they are often up against. It is true that there are only a few of these secretaries, that only a trifle of money is involved. It is true that the point is apparently a very small one, but it has become a point of sentiment with both parties. On the one hand the permanent staff of the War Office says: "Never! Never! Never!" and, on the other hand, the public says: "Never will we move," and the feeling that has arisen in the Territorial Force over this very small point is not in the least to be measured by the size of the question concerned. It is a matter of public sentiment, and the strife which is aroused is very bad for the Territorial Force.
In these circumstances the noble Earl has, I think, a way out. He is not bound to say himself who is right, but it is possible for him, without taking the rather extreme course suggested by the Motion on the Paper, to let the matter go to impartial adjudication. The whole question here

39
is a very small question indeed—as to the meaning of words. They are not technical words. What military service means is nor a technical matter. I am very familiar with the Royal Warrant and the question which arises here, and really it is a question of words put in by lay hands. The words are not voces signatae. It is a question of interpretation. What you have to ascertain is what plain people, with reasonable knowledge, will understand, and I venture respectfully to submit that the noble Earl has a way out. Let him say: "What I want is to ascertain what these words mean. I will appoint a very small Committee." The smaller the Committee the better. Let it consist say, of a Judge, a first-rate man of business, such as a banker or a shipowner, and a first-rate permanent official or soldier. Let these three be free to say what the words mean. If they agree with the secretaries, then the secretaries come out all right. On the other hand, if the secretaries are wrong, then I think everybody will accept what will be, in effect, a judicial decision settling the matter.
As to the danger of the door being left open. I know these Army Regulations, and would be prepared, in two or three minutes, to add words which will preclude this question from ever again arising. It does not say that anybody who has performed military service is to have his pension re-assessed, but any retired officer who has taken up duties again. That is the person who comes in. and it is a very small matter. At any rate, here are these twenty-nine secretaries, who stand out as martyrs just now among a great many people in the Territorial Army, and the question turns upon which view of the construction of these few words is right. I suggest to the noble Earl as a way out that he should appoint an impartial judicial authority such as I have suggested, to settle the meaning of these words. I remember that Lord Lansdowne on a previous occasion, when this question was discussed, suggested some such course. Let us have the meaning of these words settled, and then we can take what steps may be thought right to preclude this question from again arising.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should not like this debate to end without saying a few words. I have
40
listened to three debates on the subject, and on each occasion the impression has remained upon my mind that if the question were regarded from a plain, common-sense point of view all the weight of the argument was in favour of my noble friend and those who have been acting with him in this affair.
Before I came to the House this evening I looked up in the OFFICIAL REPORT the debate of last year, and I found in the speech then delivered by the noble Duke a paragraph which seemed to me to summarise so admirably the whole of the necessary argument that if the noble Duke will forgive me I will read it. What the noble Duke said last year was this: He said that the Government are, in effect, saying to these secretaries of Territorial Associations something of this kind:—
"We regard the loyal and devoted service which you performed during the war as military service for the purpose of awarding you a decoration. … We regard that service as being so distinctly military as to demand the wearing of uniform while performing it. We admit that it could not fittingly be performed by anybody who did not hold a Commission. We regard it as military service for the purpose of your promotion and your precedence in the Army List. We regard it as being military service fur the purpose of throwing upon you a lot of extra work and an immense burden of responsibility, which could not have been performed by Service Departments during the war. We regard it as military service for the purpose of assessing your Income Tax, but, when it comes to assessing your claims to a pension, we regard your service as being of a purely civilian nature."
I venture to echo the words with which the noble Duke closed that part of his speech. He said:
"I contend that such an attitude is illogical, arbitrary, unjust and absurd."
With those arguments to meet, and, as I conceive, not yet met by any effective case on behalf of the War Office, we are here to urge the Government to allow this question, which is after all, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, a question of interpretation, to go to a Joint Committee. It seems to me that on the face of it that is an eminently reasonable proposal, and I shall be greatly disappointed if the noble Earl entrenches himself in the same obstinately-held position which the War Office held on former occasions of discussion. I am very glad to support the noble Duke.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the kindly references that they have made to me and to my association with the Territorial Force. It really is rather the irony of fate that the first time that I have had to deal with this matter in this House is in opposition to a body of men of whom I have the highest opinion, the secretaries of the Territorial Associations. I should like to make quite clear what my position is. This decision has been spoken of as an inherited decision. That is so, and it is not inherited only from my predecessor in the War Office; the question was referred to the Cabinet, which came to a definite decision that this re-assessment was not to be granted. When I succeeded to my present post I went into the matter, and I am bound to say that I myself held very much, if not entirely, the same opinion as my predecessor held, but I differ in one respect from the attitude that was adopted in the last Parliament, namely that I fully understand that there are two sides to the question. And the one thing in the world that I would wish to avoid is that there should be a feeling of resentment among any class of Territorials against a decision of the War Office.
I want to see how far I can go to meet the views of the noble Duke. In the first place, I entirely agree with him that, if wrong has been done to these men, one has no right whatever to say that this wrong is being done because it would cost a certain amount of money to remedy it. If they have right on their side we have to see that this right is given to them. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I very gladly welcome the appointment of a Committee which will decide this knotty question, and which will say whether the noble Duke is right or I and my predecessor are tight. I want some body which will decide that, and which will do away with the grievance. But I prefer the alternative Committees which have been suggested by Lord Dartmouth, who spoke of a Committee of experts, and by the noble Viscount, who spoke of a Committee with members of certain qualifications. I prefer them for a reason in which I think I shall have the noble Duke's agreement—namely, that if such a Committee is formed I think we can bring it into being
42
very speedily, whereas, if this Resolution is passed, I doubt whether you will bring a Committee into existence at all, because this is rather dangerous ground to tread on. There is always a little difference of opinion between the two Houses as to what constitutes a money matter, and I am given to understand that if we initiated such a Committee in this House, it would be looked upon as trespassing upon the privileges of the other House. I do not want to do that. It is a big subject to come out of what is, after all, a comparatively small matter. If the noble Duke will agree, I am perfectly ready to appoint a Committee, of which I will settle with him the members and the terms of reference, and if the Committee reports against, me I shall do my best to give effect to anything that it says.
I should not like it to be thought, however, that, simply because I have agreed to this. I consider that the noble Duke's ease is unanswerable, and that we on our side have no case. The noble Duke has made a great point of the High Court of Justice deciding that the secretaries of County Associations were military officers, and entitled to be assessed for Income Tax as such. That is perfectly true, but that was because their services were of a military character. The Court were asked about Income Tax: no question of pension was referred to them. Pension is not the same as Income Tax, and the High Court ruling has no effect on the. Royal Warrant, the sole interpreters of which, it is laid down, are the Army Council. Under the Superannuation Act any retired officer who takes an office in which he receives public remuneration has a deduction of 10
per cent. made from his salary.
A question was put in the House of Commons some years ago as to whether that should operate in the case of these secretaries, the noble Viscount opposite (then Mr. Haldane) being asked whether the post of secretary to a County Association was a civil appointment; whether, if the incumbent were a retired naval or military pensioned officer, he had offered to exempt him from the rule under the Superannuation Act by which a deduction of 10 per cent. was made from his salary; and whether the Treasury had given its consent to the offer. This is

43
Mr. Haldane's answer—it rather differs from that of Lord Haldane—
"The post is a civil appointment. The Treasury have decided not to declare the funds of County Associations to be public funds within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Rules under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, and accordingly a retired naval or military officer in receipt of pension, if employed as secretary to a County Association, will not be liable to any deduction from his salary as secretary."
Therefore, what happens is this: He is a civilian, and has no deduction under the Superannuation Act; but on the other hand he is a military, and ought to get that pension re-assessed. In other words, it appears to me—but, again, it will be for the Committee to decide—that the secretary is getting the best of both worlds.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: May I point out that the secretary may be a civilian and r the Act, and he may be discharging merely civilian duties? This announcement was made dealing with the position in time of profound peace, when I have no doubt that the military duties of the post were very few. What we are discussing now is the case of a retired officer who is called up to do duty during a great war, and performing military duty. I do not know what my opinion would have been if the case had been put hypothetically, but it was quite a different question from this.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am afraid that is one of the points of difference, because I do not agree that the duties were of a military character. I may be entirely wrong, but, of course, that has to be decided. There was the question of the Territorial Association being a military body—a body of a military character, I think the noble Viscount said. Quite so. But I have never—and here I am speaking not from a War Office point of view, but from my own point of view as Chairman of a Territorial Association—I have never looked upon the secretary as being part and parcel of the Association. He goes far in that direction. The noble Duke said that he has practically the whole of the Council of Territorial Associations with him in this matter. They look upon the secretary as performing work of a military character, and as being a military personage.
But the curious thing is that, though they want that argument for this case, in
44
another it does not appeal to them in any way, and they use a diametrically opposite argument. There was a question that has been going on for some time with them—a question of amalgamating secretaryships to which the noble Duke referred. They wrote a letter the other day in which they opposed a certain proposal, and they expressed the opinion that if it were carried out it would make the secretary a military official rather than the servant of the Association. How do you reconcile those two opinions? There are other points in the noble Duke's speech on which I might comment, but I am not going to argue them. Such a matter as this cannot be argued across the floor of the House. I only wanted to show to your Lordships' House that there is another side of the question. The noble Duke quoted from the circular which dealt with the uniform and so forth of secretaries of Territorial Force Associations, but he quoted it in part only. I will make a further quotation from it. There is a paragraph in the circular which says that:—
".… apart from the initial outfit grant, no charges of any sort can be admitted against Army or Association Funds in respect of the arrangements hereby sanctioned."
Yet the giving of a uniform, which I think was a mistake, and the making of a grant for that uniform are now urged as a reason why those to whom it was granted should secure a further assessment of their pensions.
I will not weary the House any further. I have only attempted to show-that, as I have said, there is another side to this question. However, if there is one thing in the world that I wish to avoid it is that any sense of injustice should remain. Whether the noble Duke is right in his contention or I am right in mine, let it not result in somebody feeling aggrieved against a decision of the War Office and of the Government. If the noble Duke will consent either to amend his Motion or to withdraw it altogether, I will undertake to confer with him within the next ten days in regard to the setting up of a small Committee. I will agree with him and with the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, as to the terms of reference to that Committee. Then let us have this matter threshed out by those who can do it not across the floor of the House but in a

45
room with all the evidence before them that they may want. If it is decided against me, all I can say is that though I cannot definitely pledge the Government—I have no right to do so—I will do my best to see that the decision is carried out.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what he has said in reference to my Motion. He has given some very valuable reasons why it is undesirable and. perhaps, impossible to appoint a Joint Committee, and in view of the suggestion he now makes of a small Committee—a very fair suggestion for which I am obliged to him—I shall be glad to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House of Tuesday last, namely, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills: that the Lords following be named of the Committee—
46

V. Chelmsford.

L. Parmoor.

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Askwith.

L. Trevethin.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request them to appoint five members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I be allowed to ask the noble Marquess what arrangements he is able to announce to your Lordships' House with regard to the adjournment for Whitsuntide?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for asking the Question. The Government thought that probably your Lordships would wish to adjourn for the same period as that which has been settled for the House of Commons. That would be to adjourn on May 17 until May 29. Of course, if it appeared that we could get a little longer holiday, no one would be better pleased than myself, but I think I ought not to go further than that at the present moment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.