Lords Sitting of 5 February 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD KIRKLEY.
Sir William Joseph Noble, Baronet, having been created Baron Kirkley of Kirkley, in the County of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD MACMILLAN.
The Right Hon. Hugh Pattison Macmillan, K.C., formerly Lord Advocate for Scotland, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Macmillan of Aberfeldy, in the County of Perth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with two of the Amendments insisted on by the Lords agreed to and with Amendments to the other Amendments insisted on by the Lords.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, that Standing Order No. XXI be considered for the purpose stated in the Motion itself.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be

467
now considered. Before that Motion is put, it might be convenient, I think, to follow the procedure which was followed the other day and for me to say the one or two words I have to say on the matter as it stands. I think the noble Marquess will agree with me that that is a convenient way of proceeding. The position is that the Government have given very careful consideration to the situation which arose on Monday in consequence of the decision of your Lordships to insist on the Amendment introducing a time limit and certain Amendments consequential thereon. We have been very desirous, I am sure I am very desirous, of meeting fairly both the dignity and powers of your Lordships in dealing with this question.
The Reason given by your Lordships for insisting on Monday last on the time limit Amendment to which the Commons had disagreed is in these terms. The terms are important because they show the matter which was raised:—
"Because they consider that, before passing permanent legislation it is desirable that opportunity shall be afforded to Parliament for further examining questions relating to unemployment insurance."
It will be seen that the objection raised was that before passing permanent legislation they desired further opportunity for considering legislation of this character. To meet this Reason, the Government proposed in another place, and I hope your Lordships will consider, what I should call a wise compromise. By "a wise compromise" I mean a compromise conciliatory without any concession of principle, so far as I can follow it, on either side. The Government desire, as I believe all your Lordships desire, that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible for the benefit of the insured without any period of intervening difficulty. When I make that statement I recollect specially the words used by the noble Marquess opposite [the Marquess of Salisbury] as to the desirability of dealing with social questions, which he said he regarded as quite essential. I do not question that.
The proposal of the House of Commons was not the deletion of the time limit, but its extension to a later date, June 30, 1933, the reason being that this would allow the administrative machinery to be adjusted reasonably
468
and efficiently, and that this time limit might be adequate to gain some experience. I do not think that this Amendment can be said in any way to impinge upon the dignities and the powers of your Lordships. It is a practical Amendment in order that we may get on to the very important business, the limitation of the time. The one year could not be accepted for reasons which I am not going into in detail, but which I will summarise. Firstly, it will take several months, perhaps nearly twelve months, to carry out the administrative changes required by this Bill, and at the end of a year it will not have been possible to have had practical experience of its working. That is the information that is derived from the Department. Secondly, if a new Bill had to be passed about twelve months hence it would have to be prepared at least three months in advance, so that little or no experience could possibly have been gained. Thirdly, some parts of the Bill do not come into operation immediately—for instance, those relating to young persons—and could not have been in operation at all at the time the year had expired. Fourthly, from an administrative point of view, it is most undesirable to complete the year on March 31, and the date proposed by the Government, June 30, is much more desirable.
Therefore, the effect of the Government proposals is to give a two years extension, and at the same time to alter the date to June 30, which, for administrative purposes, is much more convenient. I do not think I need say more except to commend the Amendments which have been made in another place. The terms of the Amendments are before your Lordships, and also the Reasons which have been sent up from the other House. I very sincerely hope that all talk of a crisis, if I may use such an expression, has passed away, and that in the practical way which has made the success of English administration and English life we shall deal with this matter on a business basis. It gives your Lordships the principle which I think you desire, and at the same time gives an adequate extension of time. I have nothing more to say. I hope your Lordships will, when the time comes, accept the Amendments of the House of Commons.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Lords Amendment.
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").
Lords Amendment.
Page 11, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that no person shall be entitled to receive benefit under the said subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment insurance Act, 1927, as extended by the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Act, 1929, or by the present Act, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("Provided that no person") and insert ("and accordingly this latest day in respect of which any person").
Leave out ("after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("shall be the seventeenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two").
Lords Amendment.
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").
Lords Amendment.
Page 12, line 22, at end insert ("until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").
Lords Amendment.
Page 12, line 31, at end insert ("cease to have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows.
Leave out ("first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("expiration of this Act").
Lords Amendment.
Page 14, line 13, at end insert:
("(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nine- teen hundred and thirty-one, and no longer, and thereafter the Unemployment insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed.")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-three").
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, for the reasons which I am going to state in a moment or two, I do not suggest to your Lordships that you should refuse the Motion which has been made by the noble and learned Lord. May I say in the first place how much I admire the moderation of the language of the noble and learned Lord—a moderation not altogether studied in all parts of the political field. I cannot help thinking that I have read of language used in another place and in the newspapers which is hardly conceived in that gentle spirit of accommodation which the noble and learned Lord has displayed. Well, I congratulate him, and I would respectfully say to the Labour Party that in the case of a political Party as in the case of an individual it is not always a good thing to have your own way.
The noble and learned Lord and the Government have accepted the principle of the Amendment which your Lordships sent down to the House of Commons—they have accepted the principle, not, I think, with a very good grace, but still they have accepted it, and that is a very notable circumstance. They have varied it certainly, but they have accepted it. The variation has taken the form of prolonging the period at the end of which a reconsideration of this measure is necessary. I do not pretend that I agree with that prolongation. I think it goes too far. A shorter period would be right, but the noble and learned Lord tells us that it would not be possible to bring the machinery of this Bill into operation within the period

471
which was fixed in the Lords Amendment. It is possible that the period stated in the Lords Amendment might properly have been a little prolonged. Why did not the noble and learned Lord suggest it when it was before your Lordships' House?
LORD PARMOOR: I did state distinctly that one objection to the period then suggested was that from the point of view of administrative efficiency it was too short. It was part of my argument then.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After all the noble and learned Lord is the Leader of your Lordships' House, and he could have suggested the course he thought the House ought to pursue, but the only course he suggested was that the Lords should forego their Amendment altogether. He did not make that suggestion which I say he should have made. What has been the result of—what shall I call it? the accommodation—I think that was the word I used just now; some people might use a stronger term—the accommodation which the Government have offered to us? They will have the satisfaction, if that accommodation is accepted, of passing into law, notwithstanding the existence of your Lordships' House, this Bill, with all its defects, and the defects are notable. For those defects we do not consider ourselves responsible. We condemn those defects now, as we have always condemned them. At any rate the Government have the satisfaction of having passed a Bill full of defects through your Lordships' House. What on the other hand can we say on the other side? We have definitely secured for Parliament and the country the reconsideration of this hasty legislation within a very limited period. That is a very important and notable success which we have achieved. I hope that that will encourage your Lordships to continue to exercise this function of revision which belongs to you, and when the legislation which is foreshadowed to carry out Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill—the children's clauses—come before you I hope your Lordships will remember that your duty remains to revise that just as we have revised the present legislation. We ought to take our legitimate and due share in carrying out that legislation.
Well, the securing of the reconsideration of this measure is an important and
472
notable matter, but what else? What has become of Privilege? The noble and learned Lord's speech on the last occasion was almost entirely absorbed by the Privilege of the House of Commons. What has become of that matter on the present occasion? Do not let there be any misunderstanding about it. No one desires to respect the Privileges of the House of Commons—the genuine Privileges of the House of Commons—more determinedly than we do. We have no desire whatever to invade the Privileges of the House of Commons. These things belong to the settled order of this country and its history, and your Lordships would certainly be the last body to desire to interfere with what are the true Privileges of the House of Commons. But when it is sought to operate the doctrine of Privilege to an unreasonable length then it is right that your Lordships should not be deflected from what you consider to be your duty. The truth is, as anybody with any experience in the House knows, it is impossible for the Lords to keep off this arbitrary ground of Privilege if it is to be enforced in the manner which has been suggested in another place. When I was sitting where the noble and learned Lord sits now, over and over again we had to pass legislation in this House which was a violation of this exaggerated Privilege, and noble Lords opposite do exactly the same thing. The truth is you cannot carry legislation in these days—any reasonably drafted legislation—without the Lords passing this imaginary border.
I am not making any criticism for a moment, of course, of the method in which the House of Commons do their duty. They have great difficulties to contend with, but the result is that legislation comes up to this House in a condition in which it requires very extensive amendment. That is not a matter of controversy. That is conceded on all hands. Every Minister has to propose Amendments in your Lordships' House which are a breach of this kind of Privilege. The Government have found that to be the case. They have certainly used a good many hard words about your Lordships' House, but hard words break no bones and I do not think they will impress the country. The country does not care that an ill-considered Bill has been made of a provisional character. It does not mind that

473
a bit. The country does not care that this rather incomprehensible and mystical doctrine of Privilege is not allowed to interfere with the operations of your Lordships following the dictates of common sense. No, my Lords, about that the country does not care. In accepting this proposal from another place I think we may say that IVQ have secured three things. We have succeeded in placing a time limit upon this Bill. We have reasserted the doctrine challenged, inadvertently I believe, by the noble and learned Lord the other day, that it is not merely the function of this House to recommend but also to revise legislation.
LORD PARMOOR: I must intervene there.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I admitted it was inadvertent.
LORD PARMOOR: It was not inadvertent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to hear that.
LORD PARMOOR: If you look at the OFFICIAL REPORT you will see that was an entire misunderstanding. What I said was that we had complete power. Then I passed on to the question of Privilege. I should not have referred to the matter to-day except for a paragraph which was brought to my notice—it appeared in the Manchester Guardian—which puts the matter perfectly correctly. There was a gross misunderstanding of what I said in other reports. I am sure it was not the fault of the noble Marquess, but I think I ought not to let it pass without making it quite clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite certain the noble and learned Lord did not mean to say anything disrespectful of the functions of your Lordships' House.
LORD PARMOOR: Nor did I.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Lord says he did not I accept that, but at any rate he was thought to have said so, and therefore it was very necessary that what has been done should be done—that we should reassert the right and duty, the obligation of this House not merely to recommend Amendments but to revise legislation. That is the second thing. The third thing is that I hope that we have
474
now established that Privilege cannot be asserted successfully against the reasonable action of your Lordships' House. Those three things appear to me to be of very great importance. We desire to co-operate, of course, in every manner in our power with the House of Commons. As I said on the last occasion, it is part of our fundamental duty to treat that House with profound respect, but we owe a duty also to your Lordships' House and above all things we have a duty to the country and I hope your Lordships will always perform that duty.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I had not wished to take part in this discussion and I do not know that I should have done so but for some of the concluding remarks of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. He said that amongst other things they had secured on this occasion was the assertion of the fact that Privilege was not to be considered when in matters of common sense this House was at variance with another place. I am not prepared to say much on the question of Privilege this afternoon. That is a matter which I would wish to hear discussed by constitutional lawyers in this House before giving either an opinion or a vote. But I do feel bound to say that I do not think in this matter we have reached any conclusion. Although this Bill will receive the Royal Assent in the course of the next two or three days, the matter of the Bill is certainly not at an end. The noble Marquess spoke of the moderation with which the noble and learned Lord opposite had spoken this afternoon. I am not quite sure that I approve of moderation which conceals strong feeling. People who speak moderately when they are voicing the opinions of those who feel strongly are apt to leave a wrong impression upon the minds of those who listen to them. But I feel sure that however moderate the noble and learned Lord may have been in speaking to your Lordships' House, there is a very strong feeling on the part of many members of the Labour Party, not only in another place but throughout the country, with regard to what has been done.
I hardly know whether I ought to congratulate the noble Marquess upon the Pyrrhic victory that I think he has achieved this afternoon. I think the Title of the Bill suggests that it is a

475
Pyrrhic victory, because it is called the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill. The fact is that the insurance problem is so full of complications, difficulties and uncertainties of all kinds that it is almost certain that we shall have every year a Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. With regard to this particular Bill, I think it is quite clear from its provisions that nobody can judge whether it is a success or not within twenty-four months. However that may be, it is quite certain that within that period, or even earlier, there will be another Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. Accordingly I venture to think that the insertion of your Lordships' Amendment has really been unnecessary, because another Bill upon the same subject is almost sure to be brought up before the expiration of that period. I wish, if I may, to repeat in one sentence that I do not think we can consider the question of Privilege as between one House and another as having been settled this afternoon.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I have only a few words to say, but I have felt it rather necessary to say them after having heard the remarks of the noble Marquess who is leading the Opposition. To begin with, may I with the greatest respect congratulate His Majesty's Government on having got out of a very difficult situation extremely well? The first thing that the noble Marquess said was that, by accepting this Amendment, we could still say that the House of Commons had accepted the principle which the original Amendment of the noble Marquess laid down. It has done nothing of the kind. Let there be no mistake about that. The object of the time limit was to get rid of the juveniles the effect of the House of Commons Amendment is not to get rid of the juveniles. It is idle, therefore, to suggest that we are now accepting the same principle as we accepted before. We are not. It is perfectly obvious to anybody who heard the speech of the noble Marquess when he proposed his original Amendment that its effect, if I may paraphrase it, was this: This is an experimental Bill; we do not want it to be a permanent Bill, and therefore let us give it a chance. If that is so, then logically it is obvious that, in order to give it a chance, you must give it sufficient time to enable one of its main
476
provisions to be given a chance. Clearly, therefore, if we voted for the original Amendment on those terms, we are logically bound to extend those terms in order to give the juveniles a chance. Whether, if I had had that point put before me at the beginning, I should have agreed to do so, I am not sure. It does not occur to me that it is a very good idea to put children in the Bill as an experiment for a year, and then take them out of it again. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are logically bound by the considerations that I have mentioned.
There is one other thing that I wanted to say. It is quite clear to my mind that, by adopting the course which the noble Marquess has suggested, which I feel bound to adhere to—that is to say, by agreeing to the Motion before the House—your Lordships will have done this: you will have established, or re-asserted, that de facto, if not de jure, your Lordships' House are taking the exact position which the noble and learned Lord who leads the House says that he does not accept. You are making this House into a House that is going to be merely a suggestive House, instead of one that really takes a matter into its own hands. I am merely saying that this is reasserting the position that the noble and learned Lord did not assert. In doing so, I am only pointing out that sooner or later we shall have to make up our minds. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said—and I listened with the greatest attention and agreement to everything that he said—sooner or later we have got to assert ourselves as to whether or not we are a mere debating society, whether or not we take a part in the Constitution.
I am not going into the question of Privilege. So far as I can see, the present position is that your Lordships have said: "We do not regard the ruling of the House of Commons regarding this Privilege as right"; and the House of Commons have said: "We do regard it as right." It does not seem to me that we are going to get much further by saying to each other: "We are right and you are wrong." Sooner or later a debate will have to take place when the constitutional question will be raised. All that I am pointing out to the House is that, if we are

477
merely going to play a private school game of prisoner's base, taking the place of the boy who dares to run out for three yards and then with great quickness gets back to the home base and tells everybody what he might have done if he had gone to the proper goal that he started out for, I do not think that we shall get much further. I suggest that the next time a Bill comes before this House that really raises a big question, we should get together and consider what we are going to do, instead of making a little run out and a little run back. This seems to me to do nothing for the dignity of the House nor to help legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (FYLDE WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
THE EARL of ONSLOW THE EARL of ONSLOW had given Notice to call attention to the statement made by the Secretary of State for War to the Central Council of Territorial Associations on the 11th February, 1925, as to the policy of the War Office in regard to the Territorial Army, and to ask His Majesty's Government if the statement of the then Secretary of State still holds good, or whether they have made or propose to make any, and if so what, alteration therein; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble you at any great length this afternoon, and I shall confine my observations strictly to the Motion that stands in my name. I do not propose to deal with the question of the Estimates, or with such information as has appeared in the Press about them, and about the economies that are to be effected in the Territorial Army. I dare say that other noble Lords who will speak this afternoon will deal with them, and I dare say that we shall have an opportunity of discussing and commenting upon them at some future date. I think that the particular question to which I venture to call attention to-day is so important that I shall confine myself
478
entirely to asking my Question of the noble Earl opposite, in the earnest hope that he will be able to give me a detailed reply. I make no apology for bringing the matter before your Lordships' House, because I think there could be nothing more important in regard to matters concerning the Territorial Army than to be perfectly clear where we stand. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I have put this Motion down, and I venture to hope that the Government will give me a categorical reply.
I shall venture to trouble your Lordships with a brief recapitulation of the previous history of this matter. In 1920 Mr. Churchill, who was Secretary of State for War in the Coalition Government, of which, of course, Mr. Lloyd George was the head, announced that the Territorial Army in future would be the sole means of expansion for the Army. In 1925, shortly after the late Government came into office, my right hon. friend Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, who was then Secretary of State for War, met the Central Council of the Territorial Associations. The meeting was on February 11, 1925, and it was a formal meeting, because not only did the Secretary of State attend but also a large number of his colleagues on the Army Council, and the Director-General of the Territorial Army. On that occasion the Secretary of State reiterated his predecessor's declaration in the most precise terms.
I think I may be forgiven if I venture to quote the exact words which he used, as they were reported in The Times of February 12, 1925. My right hon. friend said:—
"In any war—not only a war in which the whole nation were involved, but in any war of first-class importance—the Territorial Army would take the field overseas as soon as it could be made ready to do so. The Regular Army and its reserves were much smaller now than in 1914, and whenever they had to be supplemented the burden and the honour would fall on the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army would be required at least to duplicate itself in every particular, and to produce a further 14 Divisions together with Army and line of communication troops, and the reinforcements required for keeping such a force in the field."
That was a very clear and precise statement. Then he went on to say that to carry this into effect a detailed scheme

479
would be worked out—not as a matter of urgency, at the moment, but it would have to be worked out so that the policy could be put into operation easily if ever and whenever the need for expansion arose.
I would only ask the Government if they adhere to the policy laid down in 1920 and reiterated by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans in 1925. If the noble Earl can give an affirmative and satisfactory answer to that I personally shall be quite satisfied, and I feel that your Lordships will agree that it would be very gratifying news to hear that all Parties and all Governments are in agreement—for your Lordships will remember that the 1920 declaration was made it is true by a Coalition Government, but a Government which had a Liberal, Mr. Lloyd George, as Prime Minister, and the second declaration of course was made by a Conservative Government. If therefore the noble Earl is able to tell us that the present Government are in agreement with that policy, then we shall know that all Parties are in agreement as to the fundamental policy regarding the Territorial Army. That I think will be a very satisfactory state of affairs.
Now I come to the second point. If the noble Earl is not able to say that the present Government are in agreement with this policy, I hope very much that we shall be able to learn precisely what alteration they may contemplate and how and when they propose to carry out such alteration. It is of the utmost importance that we should be clear upon that point. I have seen in the Press that the members of the Territorial Army and the members of the county associations have expressed rather strongly a wish to know exactly how they stand—what the fundamental policy of the Government is—and they also want to know if there are any alterations in its functions or objects in contemplation. I feel myself that we have a right to ask—and I hope my noble friend will give it—for a clear and definite answer to this Question which I venture to put to the Government to-day. I confine my remarks only to that, because I wish to get a clear statement on that subject, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to give it.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I would like to say at once how warmly I welcome
480
the action taken by my noble friend in putting down the Motion that appears to-day on the Order Paper. It is perfectly true, as he has said, that it is of considerable importance that some pronouncement should be made at the present time with regard to the attitude of the Government towards the Territorial Army. We are all very anxious to know where we stand, and in saying "we" I refer not merely to those who are serving in the Territorial Army at the present time, but also to those who are working on the county Territorial associations. As my noble friend has said, there is considerable and serious concern among county associations wits regard to this matter, and one of the reasons for that concern is the position of recruiting at the present time.
We are all aware of the very prominent part that the present Government have taken in what may be called the "peace propaganda," and also the great movement that is being carried on in that direction up and down the country, and it is very natural that under those conditions such propaganda should have considerable psychological effect upon the minds of those serving in and of those endeavouring to administer the Territorial Army. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl opposite, who is to reply for the Government, will out of fairness to those who are serving, as well as, perhaps, out of consideration for those who are doing their best to administer and promote the recruiting of this force, be able to make a perfectly clear and definite pronouncement with regard to the attitude of the Government, so that at any rate with regard to this all-important question of recruiting we shall know where we are, and whether it is worth while pursuing or elaborating the many efforts suggested to improve the present position in this regard. We have disquieting reports from all parts of the country with regard to the question of recruiting. From places as far distant from each other as Glasgow and the City of London, as well as from the ordinary county associations in other parts of the country, the same story appears to be true.
For instance, with regard to the City of London, I observe that in the year 1926 the percentage of strength to establishment was some 74.10. I am referring

481
to the figures for "other ranks." In 1929 it was 63.60. In the case of Glasgow the figures for 1926 were 91.74, whereas in 1929 they were 80.02. Similar figures—comparable figures—are to be seen in most of the returns in regard to the ordinary county associations, if I may so term them, up and down the country. Of course it is true that there are cases where the figures are more favourable than those I have indicated, but I hold in my hands a return, with which I do not intend to bore the House, which bears out this contention with regard to a number of county Territorial associations, and which points to the facts with regard to the subject of recruiting.
This diminution takes place not merely in the case of fresh recruits coming into the Army, but also in that of a most important and desirable class of men, the men who re-engage on the expiration of their four years term of enlistment. These figures give all the more ground for apprehension when you remember that the peace establishments of most of the units have been diminished since the War. It is true to say that a great effort has been made in many parts to get the best quality of recruit rather than a great number of recruits, but at the same time those efforts have been persisting now for a considerable number of years, and I think the figures that I have given—with, I am afraid, not enough emphasis or fullness in the effort not to speak at too great length—are sufficient to show that it is important at this juncture that the Government should as soon as possible make such a clear pronouncement with regard to policy as that which has been asked for by my noble friend.
I was very sorry to notice in the report of the proceedings in another place yesterday that the Secretary of State said that he would not make any pronouncement on policy with regard to the Territorial Army until he made his speech on the Estimates. I sincerely hope that we shall not have an answer similar to that this afternoon. I would make a great appeal to His Majesty's Government not to delay for two or three months a full pronouncement on their view of the position and the importance of the Territorial Army. After all, those of us who have experience in
482
the Territorial Army—and there are many noble Lords in this House who have more than I have—know how anxious commanding officers are to secure their recruits as early as possible before the training and camp period, so that that which is the most valuable period of the year from the point of view of the training of the Territorials may be made the best use of. If the pronouncement which we hope for is of an encouraging nature, a delay now of two, or possibly three, months would considerably diminish the force and utility of that pronouncement.
I sincerely hope, therefore, that the noble Earl who is to respond for the Government will help those who are endeavouring to administer this Force; and it has to be remembered that the responsibility for recruiting, so far as the War Office is concerned, is placed on the county associations. I hope also that the Government will be explicit in the expression of their views, so that those who are actually serving in the ranks or as officers in the Territorial Army will know exactly where they stand, and what really is the function which they are supposed to fulfil in joining that Force. That function has been laid down in emphatic and clear terms hitherto, and it is important that to-day, or at any rate at the earliest possible moment, in the best interests of the Territorial Army—with which is involved the full organisation for the defence of this country and of the Empire—an adequate pronouncement should be made.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Onslow asked this Question in very precise terms, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has gone rather further, and asked questions about recruiting at the present time. I understand that Lord Onslow's Question referred more directly to the general policy of the Government towards the Territorial Army. I should like to supplement that with another question, and that is: Have the War Office elaborated any scheme which is to be brought into effect on general mobilisation? Assuming that the answer of the noble Earl opposite is going to be satisfactory, that would only set the machinery in motion in case of an outbreak of war. What we want to know is what

483
would be their responsibility under a general mobilisation scheme. This is really most important. In 1928 Sir George Milne addressed the Council of Territorial Associations, and he then said it was under consideration, though he was not in a position to go into detail, that the whole question of recruiting should be joined up in a sort of general national mobilisation, and that a Committee was considering the principles on which this could be done.
That was two years ago, and I wish to know whether that Committee have considered this question, and, if so, what their decisions are. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans mentioned in 1925 how the Army at that date had suffered severe reduction, and of course, since then it has suffered further reductions, and the Territorial Army, too, has suffered reductions, not so much in numbers as in the amount of grants, which have been severely cut down. Therefore it is desirable that, in case of an emergency, there should be some cut-and-dried scheme on which the associations could work if they were called upon to put into effect a mobilisation scheme. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be able to say whether a scheme has yet been fashioned, and, if so, whether it will he made public.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, it is, I think, an extremely important question, from the point of view of the county associations and of the Territorial Army, that has been raised this afternoon. Recruiting is an eternal problem with a voluntary force, which may be said barely to receive its expenses, and is not really a paid force in any complete sense of the word. And recruiting has always followed phases of public opinion. I recollect very well the great expansion of numbers of the Volunteer Force at the time of the South African War. I recollect also, when Mr. Haldane, as he was then, did for the Territorial Army what Lord Wolseley had earlier done for the Regular Army—organised it and welded the material of it into a weapon fit to take part in war—with what earnestness and thoroughness the Force followed the change and accepted its new duties. The recruiting difficulty is no easier now than it was then. There have been fundamental changes. Not only is there the reaction that has followed the
484
War, but the engagement of the post-War territorial is a more drastic one than that of his predecessor. There is no longer an undertaking to take part in the defence of the country specifically. The undertaking is to serve abroad when Parliament shall require it. In addition to that, a very great responsibility has been put upon the Territorial Army because it now stands directly behind the Regular Army as the next source of strength and reinforcement as well as providing the machinery for expansion.
When men are asked, for no gain to themselves, to join an organisation such as that and to undertake responsibilities such as those, it is absolutely essential that they should know, as the noble Earl who asked the Question has said, where they stand. There is the most wonderful sense of duty and patriotism in this country. I do not know where else you could get people to serve, if called on, in any part of the world on a voluntary engagement when in fact you are merely paying them their expenses, and when, if such service were demanded of them, they would have to leave home and business and family in order to do their duty by their country. Necessarily, in a time of economic difficulty economies are made; but it must be remembered that all changes and all reductions are matters of difficulty in a going concern, and that they come home in detail to those upon whom the duty of recruiting falls. I would urge His Majesty's Government to give us the most clear assurance as to where the great Territorial Force stands now and as to what is expected of the Territorial Associations. I hope the Government will do that because I believe it will enable the Territorial Army to be more equal than possibly it is at this moment to whatever duties may ultimately be required of it.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it is a source of great satisfaction to me that my noble friend, with whom I was so closely associated at the War Office during the greater part of the life of the late Government, has thought fit to raise this question to-day. It is a very important question and, speaking in the dual capacity of a member of your Lordships' House and an active member of the Territorial Army, I very much welcome this debate. I hope that we shall

485
succeed in eliciting something from His Majesty's Government, so that we may tell where we stand in this matter and whither we are going. I must inform the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State that this matter is of great interest to Territorial officers themselves. As the commanding officer of an infantry battalion, I find that the uncertainty as to whether the Territorial Army is to be used as the only expansion of the Regular Army in time of war is a great source of anxiety to my officers, and anything that can be said to-day to put their minds at rest will be very welcome.
My noble friend read out to your Lordships the statement made by my right hon. friend, the late Secretary of State, five years ago. That was a very clear and explicit statement and was welcomed by the Territorial Army. But that was five years ago. I must say that it is a great pity—I will not put it stronger than that—that since His Majesty's present advisers took office, about eight months ago, there has not been a single statement on this subject either by the Secretary of State for War or by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary. I am not sure and I speak under correction, but I think that statements of this kind are usual when a new Government takes office. One might almost describe this as a conspiracy of silence on the part of the right hon. gentleman and the noble Earl. It may be that no news is good news; but I must confess that some of us are a little uneasy as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government towards the Army both on account of certain rumours which we hear and also on account of the very serious cuts which have been made in the grant to the Territorial Associations.
I should like to give your Lordships some figures for the association with which I am connected and of which I am a member—the Hampshire association. This year we have to make a refund in cash of £11,000. We have to do that out of savings, and it means a diminution in our income this year of nearly £500. That is for clothing and equipment. In addition to that, there is a reduction of 6s. 6d. per head on account of clothing, which means a diminution to us of another £1,050, and there will be a total diminution in our income this year and in future years of £1,550. Whatever
486
people may think, these county associations are not usually very wealthy bodies. In my own association every item however small is most carefully considered now and will have to be more carefully considered in future. Even now we are debating whether we can afford to retain the telephone in some of our distant drill halls in the area, although, as your Lordships are well aware, the telephone is absolutely necessary for any up-to-date institution. We have got as far as that, and what the result will be I know perfectly well. Certain grants which have been given for bands, sports and other matters of that kind either of a military or semi-military nature, such as you must have in the Territorial Army, will not be given. The units will either go without those things or they will have to be paid for by the officers, by the members of the association or by other charitably disposed persons. I do not think that is a very satisfactory way of carrying on the finance of your Army.
I am going rather further afield than my noble friends who have just spoken, and I must refer to a very alarming paragraph which appeared in a London daily paper, the Daily Telegraph, on January 21 last. The Daily Telegraph is particularly well known, as your Lordships are aware, I will not say for the soundness of its views because that might be controversial in a debate like this, but for the goodness of its news and for the very excellent military articles which it publishes. This article, in which I read what I am afraid is rather more than a rumour, foreshadows cuts in military expenditure of about £3,000,000 which are to be obtained not by the abolition of units—I expect the Lord Privy Seal would have something to say to that—but by the simple expedient of neglecting to renew equipment and stores, and by what is called marking time on mechanisation. I am not going into the whole question of these rumoured economies and what effect they would have on the Army in general. That would hardly be in order in the present debate, even with the latitude of the rules of your Lordships' House. That may have to be a subject of debate later on when we have seen the Estimates. But I should like to bring forward one or two points which may be affected by

487
those rumoured economies which specially affect the Territorial Army.
Those of your Lordships who study these matters will remember that two years ago—in 1928—the General Staff of the War Office decided that Territorial battalions should, as from April 1, 1930, be organised like Regular battalions—that is to say, with headquarters wing, three rifle companies, and machine gun company. Then last year we were allowed to forestall that re-organisation and to train with our machine gun company on the condition that the new guns and equipment would not be issued until April 1 next. We did so, and I think we may say that we made an exceedingly good business of it. I was astonished and very pleased at the way in which the officers and men in my battalion seemed to tumble into the work at once, and, with their old guns and dummy guns, make an exceedingly good show on some field days that we had. What alarms me is that, two months from the date of the re-organisation of the forces, according to my latest information, which is only two days old, my battalion and the Hampshire Infantry Brigade have been given no orders whatever to draw out the extra guns and equipment which will be wanted on April 1. I hope the War Office, for motives of economy, are not going to call a halt in this reorganisation. We have taken a great deal of trouble. I have tried to make the machine gun company the star company in my battalion. I have no doubt other commanding officers have done the same, and I think, if a halt is called to this re-organisation now in the way I have mentioned, it will do great harm to the training and morale of the Territorial Army. I also hope that the schedule of mechanisation of the Territorial artillery will be proceeded with, and not be retarded in any way.
If the noble Earl can give us comforting information about these two points I shall be exceedingly obliged to him. I am quite aware that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary may say that the rumours I have quoted are only newspaper rumours. I well remember that rather more than three years ago, when I raised the question of Territorial Army recruiting, my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Onslow) said I must not
488
believe all I saw in the newspapers. I have no doubt I accepted the reproof with due humility, but we are not in office and we do not know what is going on. We only have, like the general public at present, what the newspapers say to go on. Leaving the newspapers out of consideration altogether if your Lordships consider the matter you will realise that the omens are not propitious. The Chancellor is bound to be faced with a very large deficit in April, and where is he likely to turn for the money to effect economics? If we are to judge from the speeches of Ministers when they are in Opposition, naturally to the armed Forces of the Crown. Of course when I say that I make an exception in the case of the Air Force, because I see the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary of State for Air in his place, and I believe that, no doubt exercising that diplomatic and persuasive manner with which he so often charms your Lordships' House, he can get anything he likes out of a stony-hearted Chancellor. The noble Lord shakes his head. I think that is only his innate modesty, because I hear something very different. Good luck to him! May he go on with the good work.
But that is very poor comfort to the older Services if they have to bear the brunt of these economies. It is not made more pleasant for us who take an interest in these things when we see this money, which is to be saved apparently on the Forces, not spent on proper methods of social reform, from which we on this side of the House, whatever may be said, are no more averse than anybody else, but squandered very often on bad Bills—Bills which Ministers themselves know to be bad, such as the measure which passed your Lordships' House about an hour ago. I can understand a policy—although I should oppose it—of the abolition of battalions or units, but what I cannot understand, if you keep an Army, is the policy of neglecting its arms and equipment. I can only say that if that policy is to be pursued it is a policy which none of your Lordships or anybody in his senses would think of applying, if he wanted to economise, to his own estate or his factory. I think if we did it would be absolute madness. I do not know what the noble Earl is going to say this afternoon, but, what-

489
ever he says, I hope he will not keep us too much in the dark, that he will not simply say: "Wait for the Estimates." With all due respect, that will not do.
We have heard a lot lately both here and in another place of the position of your Lordships' House as regards foreign Treaties. I am not going into this matter now; it is not the occasion for it. I have no doubt, as regards that, noble Lords on the Government Bench hold diametrically opposite opinions to those on this side, but I do say that if there are two subjects upon which this House has a right to be informed and consulted they are the subjects of national defence and the Forces of the Crown. I have very little more to say. The noble Earl who has brought forward this Question to-day, and those of us who have supported him, regard this as a vital matter. I see that the matter of the Territorial Army has not been debated in this House for three years. I think it was time there was another debate, so that we may know exactly where we stand. Those of us who have spoken this afternoon, and those who have not but why take an interest in these things, are very uneasy as to the position. We think that the economies which we know about, and the others which are only threatened and rumoured, would, if carried out, prove very detrimental to the Territorial Army and the Army in general, and feeling as we do we should be failing in our duty if we did not bring them to the notice of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I should not have thought it necessary to rise after the speeches we have heard from experienced Territorial officers but that I should like to make one point which has not been made in the debate, and that is to remind the noble Earl that if the War Office should decide, as I hope they will, to base in future large levies on the Territorial Army, they will be only returning to what was the practice until it was broken by Lord Kitchener after the declaration of War. We did use during the Boer War the Militia as the means of bringing the second line most quickly into the field. We then based ourselves on the Militia and I think forty or fifty battalions of Militia went to South Africa in a much
490
shorter time than battalions could have been raised in any other way, because the cadres were there and the organisation was able to be built up.
I do not think it is generally known—I am not sure that it has ever been made public—that at the beginning of the Great War, three or four days after War broke out, when Lord Kitchener decided to raise the Army so well known as "Kitchener's Army," he called together a committee consisting of two or three prominent officers and three civilians. He committed to them the task of raising the whole of the troops who were to compose his army, with the exception of a small number which he wished to get at once. That committee based its plans for that large force entirely on the Territorial Army and made the Lords-Lieutenant of the counties responsible. Then Lord Kitchener who had very little interest in, and I think very little sense of, local peculiarities and feelings, as was shown specially in his dealings with regard to Ireland at the same time, suddenly changed his mind, declined to base the force on the Territorial Army and raised a force entirely independent of it. I served on that committee and I can only say that the confusion which resulted in the first fortnight or three weeks from that decision was unparalleled. I know as a matter of fact that 2,000 men had to lie out in heavy rain for two days because no provision was made for housing them.
I only mention that because it is really important to remember that when you have a regular organisation like that of the Territorial Army, with commanding officers and some staff and the Lords-Lieutenant, you can do in a short time, and with much greater efficiency in my opinion, what could only otherwise he done in a very extended period. Of course everybody knows that public opinion and national excitement and loyalty were so great at the time that we were bound to put the scheme through in whatever way it was carried out. I only say in confirmation of what has fallen from my noble friend the Earl of Onslow that I am convinced that you cannot so efficiently or so quickly recruit the front line in any other way as you can by making the best of the Territorial Army. I entirely agree with the

491
commanding officers who have spoken in thinking that if you give the go-by to the Territorial Army in this respect you will greatly discredit a force on which ultimately you must depend.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has raised a question that I think we are all agreed must be of immense importance to everyone connected with the Territorial Army. Those officers and men who join the Territorial Army do so without any hope of gaining anything for themselves except the opportunity of serving their country. Their service is freely given, their work, as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, I think, particularly remarked, is arduous and continuous, and the bulk of it is performed, with the exception perhaps for a few during camp, in their spare time. In return it may be said that they receive a certain social and club life, but that is usually obtainable elsewhere, and I do not think any of us would pretend that it in any way compensates them for the time and energy they put into their work. It is, therefore, very understandable that the Territorial Army should be asking themselves at the present moment whether they are really required to-day at a time when the minds of the public and of statesmen seems to be so exclusively concerned with establishing international security and disarmament. There is also, of course, the further question which was specifically referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as to whether the Territorial Army still forms the main basis for the expansion of our military forces in the event of war.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The sole basis.
EARL DE LA WARR: The sole basis; that, I think, is the Earl of Onslow's particular position. But some noble Lords have gone rather further than that point, especially Lord Templemore, who has asked me to discuss with him questions on certain details of our Estimates that he thinks he knows. I would only inform him that the Estimates of the War Office are still under discussion. They are not completed and they are not published. Any information that he has been able to
492
gather from the Press is therefore like, I think, some information that he passed on to me the other day in the form of a Question—certainly incomplete, and very probably containing a great number of inaccuracies. In due course our Estimates will be completed and will be laid before Parliament by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State. Until then, of course, my noble friend will understand that we cannot anticipate discussion. But he did raise one or two points on which I can give him specific answers.
His first question was whether we are retarding the development of machine-gun companies and whether we are holding up the supply of machine guns to those companies. The answer is that we are not doing so. He also asked me how far we are gutting on with the mechanisation of the Territorial artillery. That is proceeding slowly. About half the Territorial artillery is mechanised at the present moment or training on a mechanised basis, and we are very favourable to that development; but for the moment we are not willing to compel those units that do not wish to train on a mechanized basis to do so. There is one further point with regard to Lord Templemore's question on Estimates, and to a certain extent this applies also to the Earl of Onslow's question, although not quite so much. It is, of course, the practice of the Secretary of State every year, in presenting his Estimates to the House of Commons, to lay before them his views on general Army matters. My right hon. friend has already refused to anticipate that statement in another place. Indeed, it would really be quite impossible for him to do so, because as the Estimates on which he is to base his policy are not yet complete, so his policy is not yet complete.
However, the Question which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has raised deals really in the main with a very general issue and I do not think it concerns very much the points which are under consideration by the Secretary of State. He has referred to the speech made in 1925 by the then Secretary of State. It dealt with the use of the Territorial Army in case of war and the part it would have to play in mobilisation. This is to a certain extent an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, though I am

493
afraid not completely. He then stated that it would form the sole basis of the expansion of our Forces in the event of a war of national importance, a war in which more than the existing five regular Divisions which are kept in this country are required, and that, if even more than the fourteen Territorial Divisions were required, then, if I might again quote his words, to which the noble Earl has already referred, the Territorial Army would—
"be required at least to duplicate itself in every particular, and to produce a further fourteen Divisions, together with Army and line of communication troops and the reinforcements required for keeping such a force in the field."
That policy remains unchanged.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: How far that statement is really going to affect recruiting I should not like to say. It has been implied in the debate to-day that the undoubted falling off in recruiting that has taken place in the last year is due to the supposed policy of His Majesty's present Government, and certainly that might superficially seem likely to be true. But I think that, if you undertake a close examination of the figures for the last three years, you will not find very ample justification for that statement. The figures for this year are down by about 900. In 1927 the figures for recruiting were 22,900, and in 1928, 29,000. There had been a fall in 1927 because of the abolition of the bounty. Now they have dropped from 29,000 to just over 28,000, a drop of about 900. I have been glancing through the monthly figures while noble Lords were speaking, and I noted down some of them. This Government came into office in April.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In June.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that strengthens my ease. In February, 1928, the figures were 2,900, and in February, 1929, 2,300—a reduction of 600 before we came into office. We are dealing with a total reduction of 900 in the year, and that was in one month. In March there was a reduction of over 500, and in April a reduction of 300. There have been other, months since in which there has been an actual increase. There are two months since we have been in office in which there has been an increase. I am
494
not trying to make a Party point of that, but I am trying to show that I do not think that a close examination of the figures will really bear out that explanation of the reduction in the number of recruits. Lord O'Hagan gave figures dealing with strength as compared with establishment in certain areas. I have not the figures for these actual areas, but I can tell him that there is a smaller shortage of establishments to-day than there was in April and May, and it is about the same as in June. It is true that this is to a certain extent explained by the mechanisation of certain brigades and so on, which has reduced establishments.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The establishments are lower now.
EARL DE LA WARR: Due to mechanisation and so on. But I think it is fair to compare the two figures. There is only one further point that I should like to touch upon. It has not been raised in this debate, but it is very relevant, and it is one that we are considering with the closest interest at present in the War Office. I refer to the growing co-operation between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. Not only have we the appointment of regular adjutants and permanent staffs and so on, but the affiliation between Territorial and Regular units is rapidly becoming a very great reality. A great deal of assistance of a voluntary character is given in the way of annual camps, weekend training and even in the day-to-day work of the units. There are also special courses arranged for Territorial officers in addition to those which they can pursue side by side with Regular officers. It is only a few weeks ago that a staff conference was held at Camberley, and this year for the first time a special day was allocated to the discussion of Territorial affairs and Territorial Army officers were invited to attend. It was generally agreed, I think, that the discussions held on that day were amongst the most successful features of the conference. This tendency to come closer together is rapidly increasing, and I hope that by the time my right hon. friend is prepared to make his statement in another place on the Estimates, he will be in a position to show how arrangements have been made to carry this tendency a very great

495
deal further than it has ever been carried up till now. So much for the present.
With regard to the future, I can only say that only a very unwise man attempts to prophesy. The increase of international security and disarmament is in all our minds in all parts of the House, while from year to year military methods are gradually changing. They are being influenced not only by scientific and technical discoveries, but by economic developments as well. The industrial capacity of a nation is to-day as important as its man-power. The kind of force that will be required in time to come may, for all we know, be vastly different from that which is considered suitable to-day. I do, at the same time, most willingly assure your Lordships and all those who are interested in the Territorial Army that the Government fully realises the importance of the part that the Territorial Army will have to play and does play in our present military organisation. It is worthy of the responsibilities that it would have to bear in the unhappy event of war. At the same time we note with pleasure the growing co-operation between the Regulars and the Territorials and the fact that they regard each other increasingly, not as rivals but as comrades. And lastly I can assure them that they will always receive from us a sympathetic hearing in their difficulties and a really genuine appreciation of the loyal service that they offer freely to the country.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am very glad indeed, as I am sure all of your Lordships are, to hear what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite. When he began his speech, coupled with the answer in the House of Commons yesterday, I was a little bit afraid lest we might find that he was somewhat chary of information; but whether it was that he was encouraged by the expectant attitude of noble Lords behind me, or whether it was that when he got on his feet he warmed to his work, I am sure your Lordships will agree that he has given us a great deal of information of a satisfactory kind. He has paid a very warm tribute, with which we gladly associate ourselves, to the Territorial Army. That service of pure patriotism referred to by Lord Cottesloe was thoroughly acknowledged by him. So far
496
as I am concerned I was very careful to confine my remarks rigidly to one particular point. The noble Earl has answered that point categorically. He has said that all three Parties are now agreed upon a fundamental policy with regard to the Territorial Army, and he has quoted, as I quoted, the statement made by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans in February, 1925.
I hope very much indeed that this statement which he has made, and the answer which he has given, will assist recruiting in the manner it is hoped it may be assisted by Lord O'Hagan and Lord Cottesloe. The noble Earl gave certain figures for recruiting. Their relative satisfactoriness or unsatisfactoriness may be his fault or my fault, but we will not quarrel about that, and I hope that whatever he has said to-day may help those noble Lords who are engaged in endeavouring to get recruits for the Territorial Army. I think it will. I think what the noble Earl has said will be of assistance to them. He said he was not going to tell us very much, and that we should have to wait for some time, until the Estimates came out in the House of Commons, and that the Secretary of State was going to tell us a great deal then; but he went on to answer certain questions put by Lord Templemore. I should not have complained if he had not done so, because they were not nut by me. They were with regard to bringing into force the scheme for the adoption of the same principle in the Territorial Army as we brought into force in the Regular Army, and also for the encouragement of the mechanisation of the Territorial Army artillery. I understand that the Government have no desire to make any change in that and I am glad to have his assurance upon the point.
He also to a certain extent referred to the supplementary question put by Lord Lamington. I specifically said that I did not want to raise that particular point, because we should probably have an opportunity of doing so later, but I am very grateful to the noble Earl for telling us what he did with regard to that matter. Then we come to the last matter which the noble Earl himself raised, and that is the co-operation between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. When I had the honour of

497
occupying the position which the noble Earl adorns at the present time, and had the privilege of daily consultation with my colleagues of the Army Council, that was a matter in which we took the deepest interest, and I am very grateful to the noble Earl for telling us that that policy is being carried on, and indeed carried still further. It is of vital importance to the Army as a whole. There is also the point which he mentioned, and which I am glad he mentioned, about the opportunities offered to officers of the Staff College for seeing the actual working of the Territorial Army. I understand that that is being carried further forward, and that Territorial officers are invited to the Staff College and there have opportunities of listening to lectures.
EARL DE LA WARR: They lecture to the Staff College.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is even better still, and I must congratulate the noble Earl upon having so well looked after the Territorial Army, and upon having brought that about so shortly after coming into office. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with anything further. I think we may be very glad of the result of this debate. The main point I ventured to put to the Government has been secured—namely, that all three Parties are agreed upon one fundamental policy with regard to the Territorial Army. I do not suppose that the noble Earl wants to lay any Papers.
EARL DE LA WARR: There are none.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would therefore ask leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PSITTACOSIS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
[The Question was as follows:—To ask His Majesty's Government how many cases of psittacosis or "parrot disease" have been recorded since 1st June, 1929; what steps have been taken to prevent the spread of the disease, and whether there are any restrictions imposed on the importation of parrots, and, if so, to what nature?]
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I desire, for a few minutes, before the noble Lord answers on behalf of the Government, to draw attention to a few facts. I do not do so in any critical spirit, because the present health administration of the country has rightfully the confidence of the public. This is not really a new disease. It is a disease which has been known for some time, but it is new in this respect, that it has recently become a matter of some anxiety in certain districts of England. There is no fear of it becoming rapidly diffused, like the disease of influenza. It will not spread in that universal way, but it will spread in patches. It is a disease which breaks out among small communities of people and families, but in the patches where it does appear you are liable to get a mortality which is very depressing.
I will illustrate that by this instance. A boy bought a parrot a little while ago—because the incubation period is anything from ten days to three weeks—and it was noticed by his mother that the parrot was not very well. The mother attended to the parrot and cleansed the bird's eyes. The next thing that happened was that the, parrot died, and a daughter who had never had any contact with the parrot during its life, took the body and deposited it in the dust bin. The girl who had removed the body of the parrot died after a week's illness, and at the present time the mother and two sons are gravely ill from the disease. That is apt to give a very serious importance to this disease, because it is liable when it does break out to have somewhat dire results. On the other hand it does not carry with it any necessary anticipation of what is really a widespread epidemic, like influenza.
Now as to the parrots. This is a serious question. It is mainly the parrots of South America which are responsible. Some months ago 500 parrots were despatched from the Argentine to France. Some 200 of them died en route and the presumption is that the remaining 300 were not desirable visitors to the French Republic, for the result of their being landed was that France had an outbreak of this disease; and the Argentine itself had an outbreak last July. That leads me to this. It seems to me that there are two courses open for consideration. Of course, the Ministry of Health know the

499
difficulties of each of them far better than the rest of us. One is to put the parrots into quarantine. There always is a lighter side even to serious happenings. I picture a quarantine of parrots. I hope they will be in some remote island, like Lundy Island, because they will provide serious entertainment for those who survive. If you were to put on to that island certain members of His Majesty's Forces you would find that those which survived had a knowledge of language which would make them highly saleable when this epidemic was past.
The alternative to that is an embargo. I know that is a dangerous word for me to use to those who use it in a political sense. But I would point out that we had to put an embargo upon diseased meat and animals which are likely to be diseased when they are killed, and I would suggest for the consideration of His Majesty's Government whether, seeing that the parrot is, after all, only a luxury, and that if the parrots arrive in this country now the public will put them out into the streets, as they have been doing quite frequently already, it is almost better to put an embargo upon the importation of these parrots for a reasonable time till the disease is past. I think you would find that the mere announcement that you were going to raise an embargo would probably put a stop for the time being to their despatch here from the Argentine. Because, really, when you have the experience of 500 parrots being despatched to France, and 200 of them dying en route, you are really unnecessarily spreading a disease which can be serious in patches, although I admit that I do not think the patches will spread over the country. I think it is very important that no alarm should arise over that, beyond what is proper and fitting.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Question put by the noble Earl divides itself into three parts, and I feel sure your Lordships' House will welcome the intervention of the last speaker, who is able to speak with such authority on this matter. I found myself in a difficulty at the beginning, in that I did not know how to pronounce the name of this disease, and I got no guidance. But I know that His Majesty's Government will welcome the support which the noble Lord has
500
given to the reply which I have to make on behalf of the Ministry of Health. He paid a tribute to the work of the Ministry of Health which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is well deserved.
In the first place the disease is not a compulsorily notifiable disease, and as a result we have no complete records of the disease; but since June 1, to which date the noble Earl referred, the Ministry has received information of forty cases in this country, in some of which the available particulars establish only a suspicion of the disease. The next point was the question of the danger of the spread of the disease. The Ministry are advised that the danger of the spread of the disease from the human case is practically negligible, and I think that accords with the information that has been given. That means to say that human beings cannot pass it on from one to another. If, for example, there were no parrot in a house, those who were in the house would appear to be safe. To deal with the spread of the disease therefore we have to rely upon precautions adopted with regard to the parrot itself. The Ministry are advised that the matter might become serious. They have therefore prepared a Memorandum, setting forth such information as is available with regard to the disease and the precautions which should be observed in the care and handling of parrots. This Memorandum will be circulated shortly to local authorities, and will be on sale.
With regard to restrictions as to the importation of parrots, there are at present no such restrictions. I do not think that any members of His Majesty's Forces would welcome being placed on Lundy Island with imported parrots, and I was not quite certain to which—the parrots or the members of His Majesty's Forces—the noble Lord referred when he said that they would learn bad language. But under the existing law I am advised that restrictions could only be imposed if it were established that measures of this kind were necessary in order to prevent the spread of the disease. The Ministry of Health feel that further information is necessary before they would be justified on grounds of health in imposing restrictions on importations. They are further informed that practically no

501
commercial consignments of parrots reach the country during the winter months.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Bill then read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at six o'clock.