HL Deb 08 May 1923 vol 54 cc25-45

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.