Lords Sitting of 19 April 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WALLASEY EMBANKMENT BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ancaster, who is unable to be here at the moment, I beg leave to introduce the Agricultural Returns Bill to facilitate the preparation of agricultural statistics; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the jurisdiction and business of the Supreme Court in England, and with respect to the officers and offices thereof, and otherwise with respect to administration of justice in England; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

WILLIAM BROWN NIMMO CHARITABLE TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, the general object of the Bill which I bring to your Lordships' notice this afternoon is to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission which was presented to Parliament in March last year. The circumstances which led to the appointment of that Commission are, of course, stated very fully in the Report, but at the same time the Bill involves a new departure so far as Oxford and Cambridge Universities are concerned, and I think I ought therefore to recall the circumstances as briefly as I can.
Until 1919 no State aid had been granted to the new Universities as such. Some comparatively small sums had been given to them by the Board of Education and Ministry of Agriculture for certain specified objects. At the latter end of 1918 the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Education received a deputation from the newer Universities asking for further grants to enable them to meet the increased costs resulting from the war. At that deputation Oxford and Cambridge were represented at the President's own request, and as it was perfectly clear that the same causes which operated in the case of the newer Universities were also operating in the case of these two Universities they were asked to submit at the same time statements as to their more immediate needs. These statements showed that for the first time in their history Oxford and Cambridge had to ask for considerable sums from the public funds. They asked for grants to meet their recurring expenses apart from their capital needs.
The then Government felt that they could not accede at once to this request without such an inquiry as would satisfy Parliament that the Universities were unable to meet their obligations from their own resources. They intimated to them that a Royal Commission of inquiry would have to be appointed, and they asked them whether they were prepared to co-operate. The answer of the two Universities was that they were prepared to do so. Consequently, the Royal Commission was appointed in November, 1919. The terms of reference, as stated in the preamble to this Bill, were as follows:—
736
"To consider the applications which have been made by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge for financial assistance from the State, and for that purpose to inquire into the financial resources of the Universities and of the colleges and halls therein, into the administration and application of these resources, into the government of the Universities and into the relations of the colleges and halls to the Universities and to each other."
The Chairman of the Royal Commission, as your Lordships know, was Mr. Asquith, It was divided into three Committees, which dealt respectively with Oxford, Cambridge, and the question of estates management.
It is impossible, within the compass of this debate, to go in great detail into the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Oxford and Cambridge are elaborate and intricate organisations, into every part of which the Royal Commission devoted a searching inquiry. The recommendations they made are very numerous and, apart from the question of the Parliamentary grants, to which I shall come later, the recommendations deal with matters of a very intricate character. The recommendations themselves number no fewer than 179, and I may safely say that every one of them is important from one point of view or another. I trust I am not going beyond my province this afternoon if I venture to express, what I feel must be in the minds of all of your Lordships, our full acknowledgements to the distinguished ladies and gentlemen who formed that Commission, for the thoroughness of their researches and for the time and trouble which, for over two years, they devoted to the work which they had undertaken, to the great advantage of the State and of the Universities themselves.
The Report was unanimous, subject to certain not numerous reservations, the most important of which probably is that relating to the position of women at Cambridge, signed by Mr. Graham and Miss Clough. On that also I shall ask permission to say a word later. I think it is recognised that it is practically impossible for Parliament to deal in detail, and by express enactments, with all the matters that must be taken into consideration in such a revision of such statutes. The procedure adopted in this Bill is that which was taken on a previous occasion. Then in 1877, again, after the Report of a Royal Commission, a Com-

737
mission was set up for Oxford and Cambridge respectively, with general directions to make statutes for the Universities and the colleges, which it was no doubt intended should have close reference to the Report of the Royal Commission. The chief distinction between that Act and the present Bill is that whereas under the Act the directions given to the Commissioners to make statutes were of a general character, and without any special instructions, except by way of limitation and general guidance as to the form those statutes were to take, the present Bill gives the Commissioners a more limited charter. It directs them to make statutes in general accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, but with such modifications as may, after the consideration of any representations made to them, appear to them expedient.
In those directions, which will be found in Clause 6, the Government have followed the procedure laid down in the University of London Act, 1898, rather than the Act of 1877, so that the directions given to the Commissioners under the Bill follow almost exactly the precedent of the University of London Act. I would draw your Lordships' special attention to the general character of these directions. The Commissioners will not be bound to adhere textually to the Report of the Commission. They may use their own judgment. They may consider any representations made to them, but, under the words of the Bill, they will act in general harmony with, and according to the spirit of, the Report. As in the Act of 1877, a Commission is appointed, as I have said, for each University. Each Commission is composed of nine persons, and on each Commission is a representative of the smaller colleges and of the extra-mural boards. The Chairmen of the Commissions are, for Ox ford, Lord Chelmsford, and, for Cambridge, Lord Ullswater—two names which, I think, will give your Lordships every confidence that the work of these Commissions will be carried out thoroughly and in accordance with the Report. Under Clause 4 the expenses of the Commissioners will be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Under Clause 5 the powers of the Commissioners continue to the end of 1925 with power by Order in Council to extend
738
them for another two years. Clause 6 I have already practically dealt with; it 'relates to the purposes for which the Commissioners are authorised to make statutes. It gives them directions, and, though it may appear at first sight as if these directions were rather wide, your Lordships must read the clause in conjunction with the Schedule and especially with the clause in the Schedule numbered 14, where provision is made that regard must be had to the main design of the founder. Clause 7 deals with the methods by which the Universities and the colleges are to make statutes after the Commissions have come to an end. Broadly speaking, they follow the Act of 1877, but with one difference of some importance. The Universities are given the power independently of the colleges to prescribe what contributions are to be made by the colleges for University purposes. This is in accordance with the express recommendation of the Report.
Clause 8 embodies the provisions of the Act of 1877, but it makes two considerable changes. Under the Act of 1877 no trust could be altered if it was less than fifty years old at the tiny of the passing of the Act; that is to say, if it had been founded in 1827 or after. The result of that at this moment is that there are trusts very nearly 100 years old which cannot be touched. The Bill, however, goes a step further. It turns the fixed period of fifty years after the passing of the Act into a running period of fifty years, which is to count from the date of the making of the statute, whenever that may be. This, again, is in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commision. There is one further change, which is not expressly mentioned in the Report. Under the clause trusts less than fifty years old can be altered with the consent of the trustees. With the changes in University organisation going on at the present time there are many provisions of a trust which, if they enter at all into detail, become rapidly obsolete, and there is reason to believe that there are trusts which the trustees would be glad to see altered in minor respects, every regard, of course, being had to the main design and object of the founder.
The Schedule, to which I now come, is practically a reprint of those clauses of the Act of 1877 which are applicable to

739
the present day. There are certain modifications, but they are mainly modifications of date, to suit the change of circumstances between 1877 and 1923. The procedure of making a statute will be as follows: To the end of 1924 the Universities and colleges will have the opportunity of considering the Report of the Royal Commission and of making statutes in accordance with it. During this period the Commissioners will not make any statutes on their own initiative. But any statutes made by the Universities and colleges in this period will have to be submitted to the Commissioners for their approval, and, if approved, the subsequent stages of their ratification is identical with those of statutes made by the Commissioners. This is a repetition of the Act of 1877. I submit that it is a very convenient one, both because the Universities and colleges should have power to consider the Report and to act on their own account, and because, if they do so, they will very materially lighten the labours of the Commissioners.
At the beginning of 1925 the powers of the Commissioners arise, and the statutes which they make are divided, broadly speaking, into statutes for the Universities and statutes for the colleges. With regard to a statute for a University, it will have to be submitted to the governing body of the University, and the Commissioners are bound to take into consideration any representations made to them by that body. With regard to a statute for a college, the Commissioners give notice to the college, and the college is empowered to appoint three persons to act on the Commission for the purposes of that statute. These three persons will be practically Commissioners they will sit with the Commissioners, and their views are entitled to equal weight as to whether that statute shall be made or rejected, either in whole or in part.
A statute, when made by the Commissioners or by the Universities and colleges, will be submitted to His Majesty in Council and published, and within eight weeks of publication—this period was three months in the old Act—any body or person may petition His Majesty in Council for its disallowance. The statute is then referred to the Universities Committee set up under the Act of 1877, before which body the petitioners are entitled to appear and to
740
be heard by themselves or by counsel. The Universities Committee report their decision to His Majesty in Council The final stage of the statute is that it is laid on the Table of each House of Parliament, and if within four weeks either House presents an Address to His Majesty praying for its disallowance the statute does not become operative.
Now the statutes made by the Commissioners will relate mainly to University organisation, and they will not deal with Parliamentary grants which form an important part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. While that Royal Commission was sitting each University was allowed as an interim measure a provisional grant of £30,000 a year, and one of the main objects of the Royal Commission was to determine what that grant should ultimately be. The Commission recommended that there should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament £90,000 a year for general purposes and £10,000 a year for the University library, making a total of £100,000 a year to each University. They proposed also that a grant of £4,000 a year for ten years should be made to the Women's Property Committee for distribution among the women's colleges, and that £6,000 should be paid to the extra-mural board of each University for academic work outside their own walls. The Commission recommended also the payment of a lump sum in respect of pensions arrears.
The time is not very favourable for imposing additional charges upon the Exchequer, and, having regard to the paramount necessity of limiting public expenditure to the lowest possible figure, even on objects which are in themselves highly desirable, the Government do not feel able at present to increase their grants to Oxford and Cambridge by so large a sum as was recommended by the Royal Commission. They recognise, however, the very serious financial position of both Universities, and are now seriously considering the possibility of giving such additional assistance as may enable their most immediately urgent needs to he met. I ought to add that if it is found necessary to reduce the grants from the sums mentioned by the Royal Commission, the cut will be made proportionately, so that the women's colleges and the extra-mural boards will get their share of the money.

741
There is another matter on which I must say a word, and that is the vexed question of the position of women at Cambridge. The Royal Commission expressed a definite opinion that women should become full members of the University, but they were almost equally divided as to the methods by which that result should be attained. One side desired that immediate effect should be given to this by Act of Parliament. The other side desired that the reconstituted University should be left to deal with the matter by internal legislation. The Royal Commission early in its Report uses these words:—
"The progress of reform in Oxford and Cambridge in the nineteenth century is one of the strongest cases that can be quoted by those who hold that ancient institutions are always capable of adaptation to the needs of a new age."
There is every probability that the governing body of the University as now re constituted will be able to settle this question for itself without Parliamentary interference, and the Bill, therefore, does not directly impose this particular obligation upon Cambridge.
This is the Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give your assent. The Royal Commission more than once in the course of its Report pays generous tribute to the attitude and the work of our two senior Universities. They say in one place:—
"Oxford and Cambridge have entered on a great work of education outside their own walls in connection with extension lectures and tutorial classes. Inside their own walls they have advanced and are daily advancing, so far as their limited resources permit, to make the whole range of modern learning and science their province. They have trained up a great proportion of the leading men in almost all learned subjects, humane and scientific, and have sent out from their midst many of the leaders of public life and administrators of distant parts of the Empire."
It is in the belief that your Lordships desire to give to Oxford and Cambridge the unfettered opportunity of carrying forward their good work and to give them the assistance which they have shown they so earnestly need, that I now move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Marquess of Bath.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Marquess, in a speech of great
742
lucidity, has explained the provisions of this somewhat intricate Bill. It is intricate because the substance of the Bill is not to be found within its four corners. It is a Bill for the purpose of enabling new Commissioners to carry out the Report of an earlier Commission. Speaking for myself, I am not at all complaining of the form which the Bill has taken. I think it is the best form. It follows the form of the London University Act of 1898, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, and in doing so it follows a form which, I think, is almost inevitable. The time has gone by when you could appoint. Commissioners in the air to do what occurred to them with a University. A policy can only be carried out if that policy has been founded on investigation and arrived at after evidence has been taken.
The Royal Commission, on the Report of which this Bill is founded, have done their work thoroughly. There can be no doubt of that in the mind of anybody who has studied the Report It is a very elaborate Report, and it contains just the kind of substance which is valuable as a direction to fresh Commissioners appointed with statutory powers, and who are told to follow the general lines of the Report, but who are free to consider and make variations as fresh information may reach their notice. I think we ought all to join with the noble Marquess in his expression of gratitude to the Royal Commission for the work it did. It was, I think, a very admirable Royal Commission. It did its work in a conservative fashion, and in University matters that is sometimes not undesirable. It made a Report which, conservative as it was in tone, was not lacking in thoroughness.
In the conclusion of his speech the noble Marquess repeated some eloquent words with which the Report of the Royal Commission closed. It was a tribute to the work that Oxford and Cambridge have done in the past for the nation. But there is something with which we are at least equally concerned, and that is the work which Oxford and Cambridge are doing, and are promising to do, for the future of the nation. I speak with detachment, except that I hold their honorary degrees. I never was really a member of either of these Universities, although I have examined in them, lectured in them, and had to do with

743
them in other ways. I am connected with other Universities, but that fact has not in the least detracted from the admiration I have, and always have had, for these two old Universities.
I remember well sitting with the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at Highbury some years before his death. It was a time when he and I were both engaged in plans for the new Universities which have grown up in such numbers during this century. I remember Mr. Chamberlain turning to me and saying: "Now let us make a covenant. Whatever we try to do in the way of reform, let us do nothing that hurts by a hair's breadth these two old Universities. They have an atmosphere and a tradition which we cannot reproduce in anything else, and which are precious." I have always thought of those words coming from so high and so disinterested a source.
It is not only in material things that Oxford and Cambridge have rendered, and are rendering, great service; but they are in those material things rendering very great service. We live in a century which is distinguished by the almost appalling variety of its new discoveries and new knowledge. We are only at the beginning of that. It is knowledge that will revolutionise almost every kind of business, and that requires those who are carrying on the businesses from which the wealth of the nation arises to be masters of the new secrets of science so as to be able to apply them in revolutionising the processes which may have been in use for generations. Not in one direction only but in many directions that is so. In the case of physics and chemistry enormous work has been done by the Universities which have helped our manufacturers very greatly. In the ease of biology and of medicine the two old Universities have done a tremendous deal more work of quite a different kind which has assisted materially in prolonging life in the nation, and has helped to develop our hospital system. There are other departments of knowledge in which the contribution is scarcely less startling. The new Universities are doing the same work, but the important thing is that some of the best of the work is coming from the two old Universities.
If that is so—I am confining myself now to material benefits—then surely the wellbeing of these Universities is an integral
744
part of the life of the nation, and it is necessary for us to see that their strength is maintained, and not only maintained but something more than maintaied. We live in times when every nation is competing with us. Even new nations are developng science and knowledge, and in the United States of America the progress of the Universities and the advance of science in its application to industry have been enormous and are increasing every month. In the Empire—in Canada and in Australia—it is the same. So is it in other countries. You have only to turn to Germany, and if you watch closely there you will see that, notwithstanding her poverty, she is sparing nothing upon education. She is doing all she can to strengthen her educational system in the belief that upon that her future and wealth depend. If you take France it is the same. In that condition of things are we, as prudent people, going to put knowledge upon the footing of those other things which may be cut down, and which may be the subject of easy-going economies?
I am all for the policy of cutting down the national expenditure to the bone, and I think that there is still more that can come off the national expenditure. I gather from the recent utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is of that opinion, too. That is all right. But what I do wish is that people would put things intelligently in order of urgency when they are considering the services we can spare. We had a debate the other day upon national defence, in the course of which it became apparent that we must walk warily before we cut down the Air Service. I say the same of the Education Service, because upon that depends our future and our wealth. If you cut off money which is essential in order to enable us to keep our place in the competition with the world, you will undermine the strength and destroy the wealth of the nation. If that is so, then it is not to be wondered at that the Royal Commission made a Report which involves further expenditure in the case of these two Universities. It was not for merely material purposes that they did so, but they did so because at every turn there has been poured out from these Universities a new class of student.
They tell you in the Report that these two old Universities cannot exist any

745
more merely for the purpose of encouraging the old-fashioned Varsity man, as he used to call himself, who went to a University and had a good time there, and came back and was, I dare say, all the better physically for the time he had there, but had not profited from the opportunities of learning which were at his disposal. Now these Universities are required more and more to engage in research by men who have to teach those who are to be the leaders, in the language of the Commissioners, in the various things which we are called upon to do if we would preserve our life as a nation. Therefore, say the Commissioners, we must preserve the Universities more and more for people who will make a better use of them than to come out at the end merely as the old-fashioned 'Varsity man. The people who come out will be those who are to discharge the high functions for which only knowledge and training in the atmosphere of the Universities can fit them. That being so, the Commission reports that more money is wanted to bring the Universities up to the requirements of the time, and that it is wanted for certain special purposes.
It is a common superstition, and I dare say some of your Lordships entertain it, that when you send your sons to Oxford and Cambridge, and indeed to the other Universities in this country to a still greater degree, in paying the fees and making the provision for the undergraduate you are paying the whole cost. You are doing nothing of the kind. If you take the Universities of this country on the average you pay only a third of the cost of keeping a student there. The State, in some cases the rates, and in all cases the endowments—which in the case of 'Oxford and Cambridge are very large—do the rest of the maintenance, and make up the two-thirds which does not come from the parents' pockets. That fact is getting to be appreciated.
A question has been raised of late by the working classes, or by that vast proportion of the democracy which never goes near a University because has not the chance: Why is it that out of taxes money should be taken for the upkeep of Universities to which we have no access? The problem has been partly solved during late years. Universities have taken on a new function, the function of exercising their influence extra-murally, out-
746
side their own walls. The Universities of this country in general—Oxford and Cambridge have been the leaders—now send out their tutors and lecturers to industrial and populous centres where they give education to the adults who come from the pit where they have been working, to the women who come from the factories where they have been working, and sometimes to the labourers front the fields. This goes on to an extent which would astonish those who have not been privileged, as I have, to see it.
The working classes are showing a thirst for knowledge, and, what is quite new, a thirst for knowledge of the University type. They are asking more and more that the Universities should extend their functions so as to place these opportunities locally within their reach. Nothing could be better than that in our populous and in lustrial centres there should be tutors and fellows of the Universities, tutors who go there bringing the best qualifications of the Universities from which they have come and exercising an influence which they alone can exercise upon the working classes who come and work in the evenings at a regular and systematic course, as near as possible to that given to the undergraduate in the University itself.
The Workers Educational Association has not nearly sixty centres with about 20,000 people tinder instruction. This is the very thing which Oxford and Cambridge are trying to develop, and it is the very thing on which the Commission reports in emphatic terms. You must do it because the people are demanding that the resources of the Universities, for which in a large measure they pay, should be available in this fashion to them, and the Universities are demanding it because they recognise that they are fulfilling a national function, and so far as they do it they grow in stature and become much more important in the life of the nation than hitherto. It is for adult education that part of the money recommended by the Commission is earmarked. It is a small part, £6,000 to each University. The hulk of the money recommended is for the general necessities of the Universities, and without that money, the Commission point out, the Universities are bound to go down in strength and cannot continue their work.

747
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Marquess on the subject of finance. In this House we cannot deal with taxation, nor are we supposed to be too curious about it, but when a Bill comes before us, the efficiency of which depends on support from public funds, we are entitled to comment on the extent to which that support is likely to be given. As I say, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Marquess, and I congratulate hint on a certain obscurity in exegesis which he imposed on those who were hanging on his words as to how much the State was likely to give. I gather that the £30,000 war grant is likely to be continued. I am not presuming to ask; I am rather assuming it. But when we come to the rest, there was the usual reference to the necessity for economy, and no indication that the State was putting the maintenance and upkeep of this vital factor in our national life on a footing of its own. Still the noble Marquess did not send us away altogether unhappy, because there was something encouraging in his tone. My own doubt was whether it was possible to get any definite view as to what was likely to happen. The importance of it is that this Bill is largely a Money Bill. Without public money you cannot keep the Universities up to their strength. The Commission made a notable Report, but that Report will come to nothing unless the means are placed within the hands of the Universities to enable them to work out its conclusion.
One other thing I desire to say. The noble Marquess, towards the conclusion of his speech, touched on the question of women, and he said what is true, that there are two views expressed in the Report. One view is that it would be better to leave it to Cambridge to work out the necessary reforms. That is all very well, but Cambridge is the sole University in this country which is refusing to accord women the status of equality with men. They are willing to give them titular distinctions without membership of the University. Cambridge University, under this Bill, is in the position of coming to Parliament and asking for public funds, and, therefore, Parliament has a complete right to say: "We will give you public funds but you must keep up to the standards of the times." I only say that because I have a strong view that it is impossible for any
748
University to hold out against women coming in. Oxford University has let women in completely; I suppose there is more conservatism in Cambridge still. But Parliament will have to decide whether it will give public money without insisting on modern standards being maintained.
I hold very strongly that the day has gone by for making distinction between the sexes on such occasions as this, but I do not propose to move any amendments to the Bill in Committee. Possibly there may be amendments in another place, and I have reason to think that that is not altogether improbable. I am quite aware of the difficulties the Commission had with regard to local feeling in Cambridge. I hope that that local feeling will he warned, and that, like the Corporation of Croydon yesterday, they will take warning from the discussions in Parliament. I only wish to add that many of us cordially support the main purpose of the Bill. It is a good and useful Bill, and subject to the question of the women and the proper provision of sufficient money to make the Bill a reality, something more than a mere shadow, I am in cordial support of it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, as an Oxford man I speak with some diffidence on anything which concerns intimately the University of Cambridge, but I should not like this stage of the Bill to pass without associating myself with what the noble and learned Viscount has just said about the full admission of women to the privileges of Cambridge University. He is quite accurate when he says that this matter has passed beyond a local matter and has become a national question. It has become a national matter in two senses. In the first place, the whole attitude of Parliament and the public towards the position of women in public life has changed within recent years.
Cambridge University is now the only University in England that will not concede to women the full privileges of membership, and Cambridge University is now coming to Parliament asking for assistance from public funds. Really it is quite incredible that the circumstances of Cambridge should be so peculiar or the characteristics of women educated at Girton and Newnham so different from

749
those of other women that at Cambridge alone is it dangerous to admit them to the full privileges of membership. I understand that no Amendment is to be moved in this House, but I sincerely hope that in another place an instruction will be given to the Commission to do for the women of Girton and Newnham at Cambridge what has been done for the women of the women's colleges at Oxford by the University itself.
I was very glad to hear the unqualified eulogy which my noble and learned friend has passed upon the great and ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I fully admit the necessity for this Bill, but I confess to a very real regret that the Universities have had to come to Parliament for the assistance of public money. If it had been possible for them to do what is necessary out of their own old endowments, assisted by fresh endowments, I think they would have been standing on surer ground than they will occupy when once the intervention of Parliament, or rather of a public Office, has been admitted in their internal affairs. Surely there is a very peculiar and humiliating contrast between the position of the ancient Universities of this country and that of the new Universities in the United States of America. If a modern University in America wants money for any purpose, either for its existing work or fem its development, I understand that the millionaires of America, almost by return of post, furnish the funds which it requires. And yet the University of Oxford, notwithstanding the herculean labours of my noble friend the present Chancellor, and the University of Cambridge, notwithstanding the corresponding labours of the late Duke of Devonshire and others, have failed entirely to arouse the imagination of the millionaires of England, who apparently prefer to leave half their fortunes when they die to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (which I should have thought to be the least attractive form of disposing of your fortune), whereas if these Universities had been in America there can be no doubt that there would never have been any necessity for an appeal to Parliament.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, as a member of the Universities Commission, as a former M.P. for Oxford University, and as sharing with the Leader of the House
750
what your Lordships may perhaps consider the indelible disadvantage of having once been a don, I feel that I should like to say a few words on the points raised in this discussion, and more especially to take a wider view of the question of the admission of women.
I think there has been some little misunderstanding on the part both of the noble and learned Viscount and of the noble Marquess as to what the proceedings of the Commission in that respect actually were. As Lord Selborne has pointed out, the Universities are running a considerable risk in asking Parliament for State assistance. There is a possibility, even a probability, that some sacrifice of their independence will be exacted as the price of financial help. That is the very thing the Royal Commission hoped to avoid. We were divided on many points, no doubt, but on one point we were practically unanimous; namely, that we would endeavour to preserve the autonomy of the University, to maintain its independence, and to secure its freedom. We thought that it was voluntarily and of its own motion adapting itself rapidly to the changing needs of the nation, and we were convinced that that, spontaneous development was more consistent with our political tradition than could be the action of any State-controlled University. We were determined, if any recommendations of ours could secure it, to leave the Universities masters in their own house. Nay more, we wanted to make them more efficient and complete masters than they were before the Commission opened; and we sought to do this by reducing the obstructive power of non-residents—whom, if I may use a word which is confined to the vocabulary of this House, I may call "backwoodsmen"—and by increasing the power of those who were actually engaged in the educational and administrative work of the University.
This has an important bearing upon the question of the admission of women to membership. Of all the things that are necessary to the independence of the Universities, complete control of the regulations and conditions concerning the membership of the University is to my mind the most essential, considering the variety of the ramifications which spring out of it. The Universities Commission was unanimously agreed that membership

751
of Universities ought to be conceded to women both by Oxford and Cambridge. At Oxford that concession had already been made, and the Oxford members accordingly withdrew from the discussion, because they felt that if membership of the University were conferred upon women at Cambridge by votes from Oxford it would not lead to harmony of relations. The Cambridge body therefore discussed the question alone, and although it is true that they were divided as to whether or not legislative interference should be asked for, they did decide, with only one dissentient, that they would not ask for it. They decided, in fact, that the best way in which it could be carried out, the way which was most promising of harmony in future relations, the way which would produce the least friction, was for the University of Cambridge to do it by its own spontaneous action. The Cambridge members were convinced that the opinion of Cambridge itself, of those who were engaged in the administration and educational work of the University, was in favour of granting the membership to women, and that if the obstructive powers of the non-resident backwoodsmen were reduced it would be carried, and carried at once. It is therefore a question of means.
The noble and learned Viscount has thrown out a suggestion that it might be forced upon the University as the price of financial assistance. That, if I may venture to say so, is the very kind of argument that we on the Commission wished to avoid. We wanted to say: "No, it is the spontaneous action of the University which will do it. It is in that way that you can hope for the greatest success of the women's movement in the future, and we will not make a bargain with the State over a question of money on a point like that." And, although it is only a question of means, it seems to me to be a point which is capable of very large and dangerous extension. There is an appeal, as some of your Lordships have seen, from the political side of the women's movement for equal citizenship. What they say in that appeal is practically this: Women taxpayers are asked to contribute to the upkeep of the University and therefore they have a right to demand equal citizenship and equal membership of the University.
752
Look for one moment at the parallel ease to which the noble Viscount has alluded, of extra-mural work. The working man is a taxpayer, and is taxed to support the Universities. He may say that it is only possible for him to get any advantage from the Universities if he has such and such concessions in the way in which membership is granted. You are running quite close to that if you apply the same principle as is sought to be applied in regard to women's membership. For this reason I hope that, in this House at all events, where we are under no political pressure, we shall look at this Bill only from the point of view of what is best in the interests of the University, because, after all, if Universities are to hold their own in national life it must be by their own spontaneous action, and they may be trusted, I believe, to make concessions, both in the direction of women's membership and the extension of extramural teaching, which will meet the national aspirations.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not know that there is any matter on which the Government is called upon to reply in the speeches delivered this afternoon, except to say how grateful they are to noble Lords, in all quarters of the House, for the very cordial reception which the Bill has received. It is a matter of great satisfaction to us, and we were very grateful, notably to the noble and learned Viscount opposite, who is a great authority in these matters, for the reception given to the Bill Indeed, the noble and learned Viscount was so cordial that he, I think, ventured into a domain of Conservative enthusiasm, with which we are now becoming familiar on the Bench opposite, and which in every instance of its repetition is very gratifying to us. He recognises, I think quite as much as we do, the influence and importance of the great traditions of the older Universities. That is a great thing.
I think, perhaps, he was inclined to be a little sarcastic over the advantage which these great Universities have in the past conferred upon the upper and middle classes of this country. I shall not yield to him in my desire to see as much progress and development in the education of the working classes as is possible, but I think it would be very short-sighted to think that because we

753
want to see the working classes better educated we should despise the education conferred in the past upon the upper and middle classes. On the contrary, the greatness of our country, and its success in the world, has depended in no slight measure upon that very education which these old Universities have given to the upper and middle classes of the country.
Every speaker, or at any rate several speakers, dwelt upon the faculty which these old Universities have shown to adapt themselves to modern requirements. It is a great sign of vitality that, notwithstanding their ancient character, and their great traditions, they are able to adapt themselves to modern needs, and it is largely because we want to assist them in that great work that this Bill has been introduced. My noble friend Lord Selborne regretted that the old Universities have been obliged to apply to the State for money. I quite agree with him. I think it is a very regrettable fact, and although I was glad to hear the testimony given by Lord Ernie, of the desire of the Commissioners to prevent, this money contribution carrying with it a demand for State control, yet one cannot conceal from oneself that there is a certain risk that if old institutions accept public money there may be a demand for State interference. I am certain that the less State interference there is in the management and control of the old Universities the better.
The noble and learned Viscount rallied my noble friend in charge of the Bill upon his discretion in discussing money matters. Well, it is a discretion which we who sit in your Lordships' House have had to learn, and which most of us practice. I quite understand the feeling of the noble and learned Viscount when he is brought up against economy as applied to education. He says that education is the last thing about which we ought to economise. That is generally said by every person in respect of the matter in which he is interested. The Air Service says we must not economise about Air. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Derby would say that we ought not to economise too much about the Army, and I am sure that those who are interested in sanitary reform would say the same thing about sanitary matters. Every separate interest in the country which is threatened with economy says:
754
"Well, economy may be good for everybody else, but I and my interest ought to be the exception." I am afraid that if the Government proceeded upon that basis there would be no economy at all, and therefore it is necessary, even in the matter of education, that the Government should not be as generous as they would wish to be. And that is all that Lord Bath said in his opening statement.
That money will be made available in consequence of this Bill I think there can be no doubt, but it will be a very much smaller sum, I am afraid, at any rate in the first instance, than was suggested by the Commission. That is inevitable, but I hope that at any rate your Lordships and the country will take the will for the deed. It is not because we want to cut down the contribution but because dire necessity forces us to do so.
I have only one more word to say, and that is with respect to the vexed question of women and the University of Cambridge. I think none of us can have any doubt, whatever our previous views may have been on the subject, that there is only one end to this controversy. It is obvious that the point has been reached when women at. Cambridge University, as everywhere else, must be admitted to the privileges of the University, and it really is only a question of the method in which that shall be brought about. The point at which the matter has been arrested now is almost absurd, for I believe it to be true that women at Cambridge are entitled to receive the degree, to write themselves down as possessing the degree, to wear the gown and hood prescribed for the degree—entitled, in fact, to every-thing except the actual vote. In that respect Cambridge University is a single exception.
The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, has explained to your Lordships what was the actual attitude of the Commission upon this point, and it seems highly probable, nay, I may say it is almost certain, that, if the Bill passes in its present form, the end which the noble and learned Viscount desires will be achieved, because, as he has said, the actual residents in Cambridge University are, by a majority, almost of that way of thinking. I believe it was shown at the last trial of strength on this subject in Cambridge that the resident Masters of

755
its were resolved upon the change, and it was only those whom my noble friend called the backwoodsmen who prevented its being carried out. But under this Bill the backwoodsmen are being disestablished, and so there is very little doubt that, if nothing else is done, when this Bill passes into law the reform will be carried through.
But, of course, so far as the Government and Parliament are concerned, they will listen to the arguments on this subject with the greatest attention and will weigh what is said with a view to coming to a final conclusion. I have no doubt that, whichever way we go to work, the same end will be achieved, but, as to the precise methods, I do not think we take a very strong view. I earnestly hope that the great favour with which this Bill has been received this afternoon may be an augury of its smooth and swift passage into law. At any rate, no delay which can be avoided will take place in your Lordships' House, and we hope to send the Bill at an early date to another place.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: There is a debate down for this day week, but I propose to put down the Committee stage for that day, and, if necessary, it can be postponed.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that this Bill will not have the same general interest for the House as the Bill with which your Lordships have just dealt, but it has a very real interest for a section of the commercial community; I mean those who are concerned with ships. It is by that section of the community that the Government have been urged to legislate on this subject. I think I can explain the purpose and origin of the Bill in a few sentences. It deals with those documents called bills of lading, which, as your Lordships know, are given by shipowners and charterers to those who ship goods to be carried by sea. These carriers of goods by sea are, under the common
756
law subject to certain well-known liabilities—the liability to provide a seaworthy ship, properly equipped, to stow and handle the goods properly, and matters of that kind. But for a good many years past a practice has grown up under which charterers seek by special conditions in the bills of lading to limit their liabilities to the shipper. These documents are long and complicated, and the shippers and those who act with them have complained that when their goods are lost or damaged they find that, by some condition which they had not properly read, or had not properly understood, they have no remedy for the loss or damage. A good deal of complaint has been made on that score.
Of course, nothing could be done without legislation, as this was a matter of contract. But during recent years there has been legislation on this subject in other countries and in the Dominions. It was in the year 1893 that the United States of America passed what is known as the Harter Act, which prevented shipowners contracting out of some of their liabilities. That Act was followed by legislation in Australia and in New Zealand, and afterwards, in 1910, by similar legislation in Canada. Then a proposal was made for legislation of a similar kind throughout His Majesty's Dominions, and a body called the Dominions Royal Commission reported in favour of legislation throughout the Empire respecting the power of charterers to limit their liabilities in this way. That question was then referred to the Imperial Shipping Committee, on which this country, the Dominions, and shipowners are represented, and that Committee reported in February, 1921, unanimously recommending uniform legislation throughout the Empire on the lines of the Canadian Act. That Report came before the Imperial Conference, which met in the summer of 1921, and was adopted by that Conference. That Resolution, of course, committed His Majesty's Government, as well as the Governments of the Dominions, to propose legislation on the matter.
But since then the proposal has taken a somewhat wider shape, because this question was brought before the meeting at The Hague of the International Law Association. At that meeting there was brought up a code of rules which is known

757
as The Hague Rules of 1921. Those Rules did not entirely agree with the recommendations of the Imperial Conference, and there was a good deal of discussion upon them. Ultimately they were amended, and in 1922 they assumed the form known as The Hague Rules of 1922, which do agree with the proposals made by the Imperial Conference, to be passed by all the Legislatures of the Empire. There has been great deliberation and caution in this matter, and those Rules were again further discussed by the International Maritime Committee, which met in London in October, 1922. The draft, as approved by that Committee, was submitted to the International Conference on Maritime Law, which was held at Brussels, and at which this country was represented by very distinguished representatives. That Conference at Brussels finally approved a set of Rules as a basis for international legislation. Therefore we have now this set of Rules recommended in substance by the Imperial Conference and finally approved, after prolonged discussion, by all the countries represented at the Maritime Conference at Brussels. It is that set of Rules which is contained in the Schedule to this Bill and which the Government recommend now to Parliament.
I do not propose to go through the Rules in detail. They relate to a number of questions which are familiar to those who are concerned in these matters. They deal, principally, with such matters as the liability of the carrier in respect of sea-going ships, with his responsibility for loss and damage in certain particulars such as the manning and equipment of the ship and the fitness of the holds for stowing the goods, with his responsibility for the proper and careful handling, loading, and stowage of the goods which are carried, and with his responsibility for the issue of a bill of lading to the shipper. They provide also that any clause or covenant for cawing down those duties shall be null and void.
With regard to the Bill itself, it is of a simple character. Clause 1 provides that the Rules in the Schedule shall have effect in relation to the carriage of goods by sea from any port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland to any other port,
758
so that it applies only to outgoing goods. Clause 2 provides that there shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea any absolute undertaking by the carrier to provide a seaworthy ship. That is because there is a limited liability imposed by the Rules themselves. Clause 3 provides that every bill of lading which relates to goods carried under the Rules shall contain an express statement that it is to have effect subject to those Rules. The object of that provision is to make it not only part of our law but part of the contract, so that if the contract is sued upon in a foreign country notice must be taken of the effect of the Rules.
That is the short effect of the Bill. Having regard to its form and nature, I am afraid it will be difficult for Parliament to make Amendments in the Rules themselves, because they form an agreed code which cannot be altered by one country without being altered in all the other countries concerned. Therefore, we are pledged to lay the Rules before Parliament as an agreed code to be adopted or not as Parliament may think fit. This, in the main, is a matter which concerns shipowners and shippers, and they have in substance agreed among themselves. The representatives of all our Dominions are of one mind: that legislation on these lines is desirable, and, therefore, I hope that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships for a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, it is a little difficult to address your Lordships upon this subject, partly because it is a dry one and the hour is growing late, and partly because the Lord Chancellor has, with his wonted skill, presented it to you as a simple and beatific measure which really would appear after years and years of war and strife to make a commencement of universal agreement and universal harmony. I feel bound to make a few observations to your Lordships because a large part of my life has been spent in trying to argue about bills of lading whether I understood them or not. I do not pretend to suggest that this is a Bill which in the circumstances anyone could propose to ask your Lordships to

759
reject. But it would appear to he necessary before the Bill passes that your Lordships should thoroughly appreciate what it is that is being done.
The school in which I was brought up taught one that the sheet anchor of trade was freedom of contract, and I should have thought that of all trades the great shipping and carrying trade of our Empire was the one in which one would most suppose—and for many years we have supposed—that the parties were quite able to make contracts for themselves, and that, if they did make contracts, all that the law had to say to them was that those contracts should be interpreted and enforced. This Bill, however, provides that if any person being a carrier of goods within the meaning of the Rules—that is to say, for the present on outward voyages and with under-deck cargo—fails or refuses to issue a bill of lading in accordance with the requirements of the Rules, or makes, signs, or issues a bill of lading which contravenes or does not comply with the Provisions of the Act and the Rules, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
Now, a large ship may have separate consignments which require hundreds of bills of lading to be signed and issued for a voyage, and these contracts which, under this Bill, have to be embodied in the form required by these Rules, which must not contravene the Rules and which are made void as to any portion of the bill of lading that does contravene the Rules—these contracts are not to be made between the carrier of the goods and the owner of the goods so as to satisfy them both. They must be made in a statutory form; they must be issued—you must not try to shirk that—and they must be issued in a form which conforms to the Rules. There is a liability, on summary conviction in a police court, to a fine of £100 in respect of any bill of lading which fails to be forthcoming, or which, when it is forthcoming, fails to comply with this cast-iron statutory contract..
I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether it is really necessary to treat it as a crime for merchants and shipowners to make their own bargains with regard to their own business. This kind of thing, of course, is not new. Beginning about 1860 and terminating
760
some years later, there was a great, international effort made to regulate what is called "general average." Let the name suffice for your Lordships without any endeavour on my part to explain what it is. It is a very important feature in shipping and insurance work. After a series of conferences very like those which were detailed to us by the Lord Chancellor—though I am bound to say that the bodies of those days did not enjoy quite such august names as the committees which were recited to us—and as the result of a long series of discussions, they succeeded in embodying a set of Rules which have long been honoured as the York-Antwerp Rules and have become, with voluntary modifications, the foundations of modern general average in practice. Those Rules have become the code of that business, because shipowners and merchants have voluntarily seen the advisability of adopting them and have adopted them in their contracts.
That was the old way in which these reforms were carried out. But those days are gone by, and now the proposal is that compulsion—which, I think, has been called a blessed word before now—in this stringent form shall be applied. I would venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that it would have been quite enough to have provided that no bill of lading should be admissible in evidence which did not comply with the requirements of those Rules, or that any bill of lading which failed to comply with them should be null and void. To make shipowners and carriers liable to penalties of this kind for doing something to which, as between themselves and their customers, both parties are perfectly agreed, to my mind marks another mile-stone on a road which I never thought I should live to travel.
I should also like to ask the Lord Chancellor what is the origin of this penal clause. I do not find any reference to it in the Report of the British delegates at the International Maritime Conference at Brussels last October—which, I think, is the last of these Conferences—at which they appear only to have got 60 far as to agree upon a basis for a diplomatic instrument of some kind. I should have supposed that whatever respect might be due to the issue of a diplomatic instrument by an international conference they would hardly have

761
ventured to purport to bind the Government of this country to introduce penal legislation and to create a new crime. I suppose, therefore, it is the view of the Lord Chancellor that this provision is necessary as a matter of legislation in order to give effect and binding force to the Rules. I suggest that it is an unusual, an untoward, and an unnecessary feature in our legislation, because it is not only very contrary to the economic principles upon which we were brought up, but it appears to me to be harassing in the last degree, and to expose shipowners and their servants to a risk of proceedings that may of course come to nothing, but in any case would be troublesome and quite unnecessary.
I shall not trouble your Lordships with any observations about the contents of these Rules. I recognise that if they have the character of an international agreement it is necessary that they should be enacted, if at all, in identic terms, and so minutely faithful is this Bill to the agreement which was arrived at by the gentlemen who attended at Brussels that I see they punctiliously reproduce a split infinitive: they confuse shall will: and traces of American phraseology have not been removed. I have sufficient experience of that kind of thing to say that on the whole this is quite a favourable specimen of international English, and that it should be characterised by these features in so small a measure is a matter of which the draftsmen have some reason to be proud. But T do not think any lawyer familiar with shipping law and shipping litigation will differ from me when I say that in certainly every article, and in almost every Rule, one finds staring one in the face questions of uncertainty, of obscurity, and, I think, of contradiction between different parts of the Rules which must lead to disputes that can only be settled by litigation.
Do not imagine that I am making any complaint of this. It is our business as Judges to dispose of these questions when they arise. That is our job, and we are prepared to do it. I do not think that the members of the Bar ought to be accused of any manner of insincerity when they say, as to my knowledge they are disposed to say, that these Rules leave much to be desired in the way of clearness. The members of the Bar desire that our law should be as clear and har-
762
monious as may be, and when these difficulties arise they are prepared to deal with them. If the shipowners and the merchants are content to have their Rules in a form which will require a very extensive amount of litigation before they can be cleared up that is their look out.
What I want to emphasise is this. There is little or no use in these Rules unless they become uniform and identic Rules among all the maritime countries of the world. We shall only be getting back into the same kind of difficulties we were in before if we have different interpretations put upon the instrument by the different countries concerned. When you have fixed your contract in the castiron form of a Schedule to an Act it can only be altered by an amending Act, and if you have to have identic legislation in twenty or thirty different countries it can only be altered by twenty or thirty different pieces of legislation in the respective countries. If once you have these Rules enacted in their present form in all the maritime countries, it will be a herculean task to get them altered. If it had been provided that alterations could be made by way of conference then another conference could have cleared up our doubt that had arisen, but if it has to be done by legislation, and by simultancous legislation over a very wide area, it will be very difficult indeed, when once it has passed, to bring about any alteration.
I am anxious to make any suggestion that I can to prevent the inconvenience that must arise in these circumstances, and I will ask the Lord Chancellor, if he will be good enough, to consider this suggestion. There is a passage worthy of observation which I will quote from the report of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, and in which, I think, I recognise the hand of a very eminent public servant, Sir Norman Hill. This observation is:
"The rules are a new departure. They constitute an international code, framed to secure, on certain points, uniformity in the interests of those engaged in international commerce. If the lawyers of all nations will interpret them as they are understood by the traders and shipowners of all nations, the rules will serve a useful purpose"—
That assumes that the traders and shipowners of all nations do understand them, and understand them in the same sense,

763
which is not by any means so certain. The observation proceeds:
"but, if the lawyers of each nation seek to read into the rules the laws and practices of their own country, the rules will serve no useful purpose as uniformity will not be established."
I think that is perfectly obvious, and it is very important.
"If the lawyers of each nation seek to read into the Rules the law of their own country" says Sir Norman Hill. I ask what else can the Judges of each country do? This will be a Statute which must be construed, like other Statutes, according to its meaning in the English language, according to the established rules of construction, and in accordance with the general law of contracts and the general law relating to mercantile affairs. We have no power to depart from that, and yet it will be of great importance that when the Courts of this country and other countries come to interpret the statutory contracts, as they will be called upon to do, they should no longer be obliged absolutely to follow the decisions of their predecessors in similar matters, no longer be bound strictly by the rules of interpretation as they have been laid down, but should be at liberty to inform their minds of and to have regard to the interpretations placed upon these Rules in other countries. It is only in that way that it will be possible for Courts of law to arrive at something like a uniform interpretation and a uniform resolution of the disputes that arise.
I do not propose as I am speaking to attempt to draft such a clause, which, after all, ought not to emanate from me. But I venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that it would be advisable to frame some clause that will empower the Judges, before whom any litigation on questions concerning this international set of Rules may come, to take What I may call the international view and inform themselves of the current of decisions in other countries, so that they may, so far as they can, keep in step with the development of the Rules under judicial decisions all over the world.
I should like to draw attention to one other point. It is provided by the Bill that
"The Rules shall not by virtue of this Act apply to any contract for the carriage of goods by sea made before such day, not being earlier than the thirtieth day of
764
September, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct."
That is to say, that it is not to come into force until there is an Order in Council, and that Order in Council, which is not to fix a day earlier than September 30 next, may be indefinitely postponed. I assume that is for the purpose of giving time to all the other countries concerned to make some progress towards passing the same legislation that is contemplated by this Bill. That being so, it is plain that time does not press very much and the Government might hold its hand with regard to the Order in Council for a considerable time. This may be very important. Before the Bill proceeds any further I think we should have a Paper circulated giving a full statement of what exactly is the present condition with regard to international agreements for the provision of this identic legislation.
The countries that met at Brussels were curiously selected. The meeting enjoyed the advice of representatives of Hungary, which is without a seaboard; Serbia, which has a disputed claim to a seaport at the head of the Adriatic; and Poland, which enjoys by the intervention of the "corridor" some kind of rights at Dantzig. Latvia and Esthonia were also there, but Brazil was not represented, Greece was not represented, and, unless the representatives of His Majesty's Government undertook the duty, Egypt was not represented, nor were the Dominions represented except by the delegates appointed by His Majesty's Government. What steps have been taken to ensure that those who were not represented at all, as well as those who were, are prepared to pass these Rules in this particular form and give them the force of law step by step with our legislation and at the same time? Unless something like that is carried out we may find our shipowners running the risk of a £100 fine while a corresponding danger does not affect their rivals who sand ships inward bound from foreign ports.
Further, as the Lord Chancellor told us, there are a number of Statutes already passed prescribing forms for bills of lading or imposing by law certain terms and liabilities on carriers. There is the Harter Act in the United States; there are also Acts in Australia, in New Zealand, and, I believe, in Canada. Will the

765
arrangement that is made include a repeal of the legislation that exists already as part of the common arrangement so that there may be one and only one code applicable. Is the United States to maintain its Harter Act while at the same time legislating in such a way as to embody these Rules? Unless that is dealt with in advance, there will only be further confusion, and although the United States was represented at this Conference, a Conference which results in anything like an international engagement is subject to the ratification of the Senate under the United States Constitution, and does not always receive it. Therefore, it is not to be too confidently expected that harmony, identity, and uniformity will be arrived at by September 30 of this year.
I wish we could have a full statement on this point and an assurance from the Lord Chancellor that before these Rules are brought into force matters will have been carried so far in concert with foreign Powers and the Dominions that we shall have good reason for thinking that the full object of this legislation will be attained. I apologise for having been so long, but I have taken this opportunity of making some observations on the question of freedom of contract. I recognise that British commerce is now regulated by large associations which meet, together and arrange things to whom smaller men must bow. That is the way of the world now, and nothing more can be said about it.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening in this debate, but I hope your Lordships will not pass this Bill. The provisions in the measure will be very harassing to British commerce. They are much more likely to hit British interests than those of foreign ships inward bound to this country. Many ships carry very diverse cargoes in very small parcels. You may have a ship carrying 3,000 parcels, requiring 3,000 bills of lading, and it seems to me most unfair to the carrying companies to ask them to incur a liability of perhaps £30,000 on a single voyage, particularly as up to now we have never found any inconvenience from existing Rules. I do not think the Rules have been properly considered from a broad stud British point of view. I do not think all interests concerned were represented
766
at the Conference, and if you read through the Bill you will find that it is somewhat contradictory. I read it through from beginning to end, and I see a great many opportunities of endless litigation for which somebody will have to pay, either the shipper or the shipowner. I hope that your Lordships will reject the Bill.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, in common with the noble and learned Lord who addressed you a short time ago and in common, I think, with all commercial lawyers or Judges, I regret that it should be necessary to have any interference with that freedom of contract under which our carrying trade has been carried on so successfully for the last sixty or seventy years. I should very much have preferred that sonic system, such as Lord Sumner has alluded to, under which the York-Antwerp Rules were passed, or the Baltic conference bill of lading, or the Black Sea bill of lading, should have taken the place of legislation.
It has to be admitted that, at any rate in the Latin countries, our system of contractual legislation on this matter has never been entirely grasped or understood, and that our bills of lading have not, for instance, fared well in the hands of French Courts. Ever since the Harter Act was passed it has become obvious that there must be some form of legislation; at any rate since that Act has been supplemented by the legislation of so many British Dominions, and I think I could add to the list which has been mentioned. I feel therefore that His Majesty's Government were right in giving effect to this agreement and in proposing this legislation, which, after all, is on the same lines as the international Rules for preventing collisions at sea, which were agreed to in very much the same way and enforced by Statute here in the hope that they would also be enforced by law elsewhere, as, in fact, they have been.
I was very glad to hear the Lord Chancellor pay a tribute to the various societies and Conferences which have laboured so earnestly in this work. As a former President and permanent Vice-President of the International Law Association, I was very glad to hear him begin by referring to the work which was carried on at The Hague, in my presence, but with very little intervention on my

767
part, under the very careful and admirable chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Henry Duke, President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, who also gave his services the next year in London and under whose auspices, with the help of the leading shipowners, underwriters and persons interested in the shipping trade, both shippers and shipowners, these Rules have been, to my knowledge, most carefully adapted, minutely discussed and thought over.
They may, of course, like any other form of legislation, ultimately give rise to some nice questions of law, but I agree with what I understand Sir Norman Hill to have said to one noble Lord now present in this House, that for one case that comes before the Courts there will be a hundred cases that will not be brought up but will be determined by the general view of shipowners and shippers of the meaning of these clauses. I hope your Lordships will see no difficulty in passing this Bill into law, although I sincerely regret that it should be necessary to interfere with the freedom of commerce.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I have not risen with the intention of entering into any detailed discussion of this measure, but merely, at the request of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, to convey to your Lordships a Resolution passed unanimously this morning at the annual meeting of that body. It is to this effect:—
"That this Association welcomes the introduction in the House of Lords, by the Lord High Chancellor, of a Bill for an Act to 'amend the Laws of carriage of goods by sea,' and requests the Executive Council to consider the provisions of the Bill and to watch its progress through Parliament, having regard to the provisions of The Hague Rules, 1921, and the draft Convention of the Brussels Diplomatic Conference, 1922, and urges that bulk cargoes should be excluded."
My only object is to convey to your Lordships this request of my colleagues of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and I have no intention of doing more than to present that Resolution to your Lordships' notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the consent of the House I may be allowed to say a few words in reply. I think the somewhat general criticisms of the noble Lord on my left are answered, first, by the fact that the Rules have been approved by one association after another,
768
bodies on which the chief business men of this country concerned with shipping have been present or have been represented; and, in the second place, by the resolution which has just been read by the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, which shows that the Chambers of Commerce unanimously approve of this Bill.
With regard to what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner, no one has a better title than he to criticise or consider a Bill of this kind. Notwithstanding some expressions which seemed to indicate a qualified confidence in certain parts of the Bill, I do not gather that he is hostile to the measure as a whole. He has, however, made a number of comments which, I think, deserve an answer. In the first place he refers to Clause 3 which, as he says, requires that everybody who issues a bill of lading which is subject to these provisions must insert a reference to the provisions of the Bill, and he points out, not unnaturally, that the penalty for failing to do so, as proposed by the Bill, is somewhat severe. I believe that the Canadian measure contains a somewhat similar provision, except that the maximum penalty there, is not £100 but $1000. I have paid great attention to what he said, and I will with pleasure consult my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is mainly responsible for the introduction of this Bill into Parliament, and will see whether it may be possible to adopt one or other of the alternative suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord.
The second point which he made was to suggest that our Courts, in determining questions which arise under the Rules, should be at liberty to consider the decisions of the Courts of other countries as to their interpretation. I am sure that, like myself, the noble and learned Lord sees some difficulty about that suggestion. I should find it very difficult off-hand to frame a clause giving effect to it, but I quite realise that the matter needs to be considered, and I will see what can be done, although at the present moment I foresee grave difficulties.
The third point which the noble and learned Lord raised was this. He referred to the clause of the Bill under which it would not come into operation until an Order in Council was made, and he inferred, quite rightly, that

769
the object is, if possible, to get legislation of a corresponding character passed in the Dominions and in other countries whose representatives have agreed to these Rules. He asks that before the Bill passes out of your Lordships' control there should be issued a statement showing how that matter stands; that is to say, what similar legislation already exists in those countries, what they have agreed to do and how far they have progressed in carrying out that agreement. I think that is quite reasonable, and I will do my best to get such a statement prepared and issued, so that before the Bill passes from the hands of the House your Lordships will be in possession of the information desired. I think those are the main practical requests which the noble and learned Lord made, and with that explanation I hope your Lordships wilt give a Second Beading to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FEES (INCREASE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships more than a very few minutes in attempting to explain the provisions of this Bill. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill received a good deal of amendment in another place, and I am given to understand that the form in which it reaches your Lordships' House is more or less an agreed one. The clauses of the Bill are mainly taken from the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was introduced by the late Government last year, to give effect to those recommendations of the Geddes Committee which required legislation, together with certain other provisions in the interests of economy suggested by the Department concerned. The Bill enables the Government Department to recover all or part of the cost of the different services which they perform. On reviewing the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it was thought best to make those of its clauses which dealt with fees charged by Government Departments the subject of a single Bill by themselves, and to leave the remaining provisions of
770
the Economy Bill to be dealt with otherwise.
The matters embraced in the Bill may be divided into three heads:—(1) Clauses 1, 2 and 3 relate to fees for services performed by the Board of Trade in connection with merchant shipping; (2) Clauses 4, 5 and 6 relate to fees for inquiries by Government Departments; (3) Clause 7, 8 and 9 relate to fees chargeable by Government Departments for miscellaneous matters. As to (1) (merchant shipping), the duties laid upon the Board of Trade by the Merchant Shipping Acts have two main objects, namely (a) the safety of the public and (b) the well-being of the crews. The Board's duty in relation to the safety of the public is to see that vessels are in such condition that passengers and goods can be transported by them in safety; its duty in relation to crews is to ensure that the latter are carried under reasonably healthy conditions. The fees chargeable for these services were fixed a long time ago, and for various reasons, such as the increase in the size of vessels and the shrinkage in the value of money, are now totally inadequate.
It may interest your Lordships to know that at the present time, as far as can be estimated, the cost of these services amounts to something like £420,000. The fees payable to-day by the shipping industry amount to £92,000. Under this Bill it is proposed—and this is being done with the concurrence of the shipowners—that the fees payable shall be increased from £92,000 to £210,000. In other words, you will see that the shipping industry will pay half of the cost of these services, and the Board of Trade the rest. This basis, as I have already said, was agreed with the shipowners, and takes into account the fact that the Board's duties are in the interest of the general public as well as in the interests of the shipping industry.
As regards fees for inquiries by Government Departments, the provisions of the Bill are designed to enable the cost of the inquiries (which are held under various Acts administered by the Departments concerned) to be met without being a charge upon the general body of taxpayers. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 provide for increasing the fees charged by the Board of Trade for certain tests of petroleum apparatus for local authorities, for registering particulars of firms and traders

771
under the Registration of Business Names Act, and for testing local authorities' standards of weight and measure, so as to place these services on a self-supporting basis.
With regard to the remaining clauses of the Bill, provision is made for new fees to be charged by the Home Office for licences to remove bodies after burial, and by the Foreign Office for certain duties, analogous to those of consuls, for which there is at present no power to charge when they are carried out in the United Kingdom, although if performed abroad they would be subject to consular fees.
That, my Lords, is a brief but general survey of the provisions contained in the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it gives effect in a practical manner to certain specific recommendations and proposals as set forth in the Geddes Reports. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, the annual Bill that I now present to your Lordships is to all intents and purposes exactly the same Bill as was presented last year. There are one or two minor amendments, which were made in response to requests made in another place. There is, however, one other change which is not in the Bill, but which, nevertheless, is a change of somewhat great importance. Field punishment No. 1 has been abolished. That can be done simply by regulations, but it was urged in the House of Commons that the subject should be included in this Bill, to show that this punishment had been abolished and should remain abolished. It was left for decision in this House by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, after consultation with me. I am entirely in accord with the wishes of those who desire it to be placed in the Act, and before the Bill leaves this House I propose to ask your Lordships to insert an Amendment to that effect.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl to say that he is going to propose an Amendment to make the abolition of field punishment No. 1 a statutory provision. What does this punishment consist of at present? It has varied from time to time, under the King's Regulations, I suppose. Can the noble Earl tell us what it consists of at this moment? My recollection of it is that it has become very light indeed, but I should like to know what it is now, if he can tell us?
THE EARL OF DERBY: The part of field punishment No. 1 which was particularly appealed against was the tying up of men to a fixed object.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: A wheel.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes, to a wheel or to any other fixed object. In the war it was called a form of crucifixion. The actual form of tying up was modified, and that accusation could not be made against it. But we are going to insert words which will show that field punishment can no longer include the tying up of an individual to a fixed object.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That is rather what I thought. It had already become something very light.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It might be very light, but there was a general feeling among military people, as well as among civilians, that it should be abolished, and therefore words carrying out what I have said is our intention—namely, that there should be no more tying of the soldier to a fixed object—will be inserted in the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: In the light of what the noble Earl has said, I shall not offer any opposition. I think a good deal of the debate in the other House on the subject was rather sentimental. I do not believe there has been any real hardship in any of the field punishments for a long time past, but there is a good deal of sentiment on this subject. However, we abolished flogging, which was quite right, and now the noble Earl is going to abolish tying up. That is also quite right, and certainly there will be no opposition from this side of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committee to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.