Lords Sitting of 24 February 1925

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

MONEYLENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to moneylenders, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Carson.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to town planning in Scotland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes in Scotland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HORLEY DISTRICT GAS COMPANY (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (NOTTINGHAM AND RETFORD RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LLOYD'S BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
UCKFIELD GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ANGLO-ITALIAN TREATY (EAST AFRICAN TERRITORIES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
WESTLOTHIAN (BATHGATE DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
WILLIAM PRESTON INDEMNITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON) rose to move:—
That a Select Committee be appointed to re-examine the question of the available sites for a Peers' War Memorial in the House of Lords, and that the following Lords, with the Lord President and

253
the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee—

M. Lansdowne.

M. Lincolnshire.

E. Oxford and Asquith.

V. Peel.

L. Wigan (E. Crawford).

L. Desborough.

L. Arnold.

The noble Marquees said: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to anticipate the course of business on the Paper to this extent. The matter which I am about to bring before your Lordships is really a matter of private business, about, which, however, some discussion may arise. I regret to say that I have an important engagement which I cannot escape, at a short distance of time from now, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were now, as a matter of urgent private business, to take this question before the two Bills which are down on the Paper and which will then follow. It is in pursuance of the undertaking which I gave a week ago that I have placed the Motion on the Paper which I now have the honour to move.
The object of this Resolution is to set up a representative Committee of your Lordships' House in order to consider the suggestion which was communicated to us in a letter from the Private Secretary of His Majesty the King. And may I, in mentioning the name of the Sovereign, be allowed—I will not say to transgress, but to go outside the ordinary practice of the House which your Lordships will, I am sure, condone, in expressing the deep concern with which we have all followed the record of the illness of His Majesty, the profound satisfaction which we feel at the news of steady progress, and our hopes that, in consequence of the steps that are about to be taken, absolute convalescence may at no distant date be assured?
I alluded to the letter which I read a week ago from the Private Secretary of the King. In that letter the suggestion was made that, objections having been made in some quarters to the proposal to move the statue of Queen Victoria from the Prince's Chamber in order to erect the proposed Peers' War Memorial on that site, the House of Lords should reconsider the matter with a view to securing, if possible, that
254
unanimity which we all desire. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that the proposed Committee is thoroughly representative of every section in this House. And I may add here that there was another name that I had sought to add to it which would have strengthened it still further—I mean the name of Lord Buxton, who has already taken an active part in serving on a Sub-Committee to consider the question of the names to be commemorated—but Lord Buxton is about to go away and is, in consequence, unable, greatly to his regret, to serve.
I do not think it necessary on the present occasion to say much about the history of this matter. It has already been twice debated in your Lordships' House, in July and August, 1923; it has been repeatedly stated in circulars which have been issued to, even if they have not been read by, all your Lordships; and it was recapitulated by myself in a letter which I wrote to The Times newspaper a few weeks ago. I would only like to add an observation upon one point connected with the history of the case. I am sure that when the proposal was made to remove that statue the idea that such removal could involve any shadow of disrespect to the memory of the great Queen whom it commemorates never entered into one of your Lordships' minds. Such an idea would not merely be distasteful, but would be abhorrent to all your Lordships. But I may remind you that the proposal never was to dispose of that statue. The proposal merely was to remove it from its present site to another site little more than a hundred feet away, where it would have been placed in the tower which bears Her Majesty's name, the Victoria Tower, at the head of the main staircase which is the official entrance to this House and up which His Majesty ascends whenever he comes to Westminster to open his Parliament.
Secondly, it is fair to point out that the statue in question was never regarded by your Lordships, so far as I know, as having an intimate or personal character. It was not, as some have supposed in the Press, erected as a memorial to Queen Victoria on her death by a mourning people; on the contrary, it was erected in the early part of her reign as a part of the decorative scheme for adorning

255
this Chamber, built in her time—indeed, it was not part of the original scheme. It was not, so far as I know, ever intended to be, or ever was, regarded as a personal likeness of Her Majesty. Rather was it a symbolical effigy commemorating the association of this building with Queen Victoria's reign.
When the suggestion was first made that that site should be considered for the Peers' War Memorial—and I may say, in passing, that the suggestion did not come from me; on the contrary, I had already proposed and secured general favour for another site—it was actuated by these reasons. In the first place, it was thought that the recessed alcove in the Royal Gallery which had previously been favoured was too small and too secluded for the object for which it was intended. It was felt to be absolutely impossible that the names of the 230 Peers and their relatives, which are to be recorded, should be contained, along with an effigy, in that restricted place. And, further, we were at a loss to know how we should expend there the great sums, amounting now to £9,000, which have been contributed by your Lordships towards the erection of this memorial in this Palace of Westminster. Accordingly, when the suggestion was made, and when a number of Peers came to me and strongly urged its consideration, the only duty which devolved upon me was to represent their case to the Committee of which I had been elected Chairman, to ask for a decision on their part—and they were unanimous in its favour—then to seek the consent of the Lord Great Chamberlain who is responsible for the fabric of this Palace, and, finally, to submit the suggestion to the approval of His Majesty the King. All those conditions were satisfied, and I, personally, as Leader of the House, had no responsibility and no authority in the matter except to carry out that which was the instruction of the Committee and which had been endorsed by what then appeared to be the unanimous acceptance of this House.
The same conditions prevailed, mutatis mutandis, in the autumn of 1923. Your Lordships will recollect that, the matter having been raised in this House in July of that year and doubts having been expressed in some quarter as to the propriety
256
of the choice, I proposed from this Bench that the question should be decided by the only tribunal really competent in the last resort to decide it—namely, the whole of your Lordships' House. I suggested that a referendum should be made to the whole of the Peers, the case for one site or the other being stated on both sides and the matter referred for decision to them. I pledged myself, so far as I was responsible as Chairman of the Committee, to accept and to act upon whatever decision the House of Lords might arrive at. Your Lordships will recollect that the result was a very decisive vote in favour of the site in the Prince's Chamber. The actual voting was 204 to 134 and the result of that plebiscite was published in the papers. It was known by everybody that action would be taken upon it. As Chairman of the Committee I had no alternative but to act as I imagine your Lordships would desire, in obedience to the behests of your Lordships' House, and from that date to this—and I shall have a word to add about that in a moment—I have done nothing but carry out the clear, the deliberate instructions of the great majority of your Lordships' House.
Now I come to the new situation that has arisen. In the beginning of this year there appeared a correspondence in certain newspapers, a correspondence in which I may observe, in passing, that only-four members of your Lordships' House took part; but a correspondence which indicated a certain difference of opinion on the part of the public as to the desirability of moving the statue of the Queen. Then there came the intervention of His Majesty in the shape of the letter to which I have referred and, of course, it is now our duty, our pleasant duty, to obey His Majesty's suggestion to set up this Committee, the names of which are upon the Paper, to re-examine the whole question, ab initio and, if possible, to arrive, as I hope we shall arrive, as I think we ought to arrive, at a unanimous recommendation to the House upon the subject. But may I add an expression of a respectful hope that what ever decision the House of Lords may arrive at in this later stage there will be no repetition of the oscillations, the uncertainties and the reversals which have characterised the proceedings of the last six years? I say so for this reason

257
in particular. Such movements are profoundly unfair upon two classes of persons—firstly, upon those whom you charge to carry out your wishes in the matter, and secondly, upon those artists, whether they be sculptors or architects, whom you employ to submit designs to you with a view of ultimately carrying out your desires.
I wonder whether your Lordships have any general idea of what has passed in this respect in the last six years. Between the year 1919, when the site was first chosen and communicated to all your Lordships, and the year 1923 not a single voice was raised in protest against the acceptance of the site. Accordingly, those who were engaged in carrying out your wishes, of whom I happened to be the spokesman, entered into prolonged and laborious negotiations with artists of every description, who came down here, who saw the place, who drew designs, who submitted models, altogether involving an amount of work which your Lordships can hardly measure. Then, in 1923, when the matter was raised here and when your Lordships, by the vote to which I have referred, again expressed your strong feeling in favour of that site and when we all agreed here that that decision should be acepted as final, negotiations were again entered upon. The President of the Academy interested himself in the matter. The most eminent sculptors and the most eminent architects of the day came here. I have been personally charged with the negotiations with them and the amount of trouble that has been taken has been enormous.
Then, not immediately after this decision had been, arrived at, when anybody who desired to protest against it might have done so, but after a year and a quarter in which not a voice had been raised, in which not a finger had been lifted, the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, writes to The Times and reopens the matter by an appeal to public opinion. The noble Earl will justify his own conduct in the matter. I am only speaking of it in relation to the future, and I am expressing a conviction, in the first place, that this kind of procedure which has characterised the events of the last five or six years is not quite the right way to conduct the matter and that we should do our best in the future to
258
guarantee ourselves against a repetition of it. I should be very loath, if I may refer to my personal attitude, to be associated in the future with any policy in this respect that was likely at a later date once again to be challenged and to be upset by a vote of your Lordships' House.
Therefore, the plan which I venture to submit to you is this—that we should, in pursuance of the suggestion that has been made from an exalted quarter, set up this Committee, that the Committee should meet and consider every possible or available site, that they should then make a Report to your Lordships' House, that that Report should be discussed here and either accepted or rejected by your Lordships. Of course, if questions are involved requiring the consent of the Lord Great Chamberlain, or of His Majesty, reference will be made to those quarters. But if we follow that procedure and come with a Report to this House, and your Lordships accept it, then I trust there may be no attempt to reopen the question, but that we may, in the last resort, attain some finality in the matter. I need only say in conclusion, that if this Committee is appointed, I trust that they may proceed with the consciousness that the good will of your Lordships is behind them, that you all wish that the House should be extricated from a rather delicate and invidious position. I indicated a little earlier that I am sanguine myself that we shall be able to arrive at a solution which will be acceptable to all, but it can only be so if both now and later we are assured of the aid and confidence of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to re-examine the question of the available sites for a Peers' War Memorial in the House of Lords, and that the following Lords, with the Lord President and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee—

M. Lansdowne.

M. Lincolnshire.

E. Oxford and Asquith.

V. Peel.

L. Wigan (E. Crawford).

L. Desborough.

L. Arnold.

—(The Marquess curzon of kedleston.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is with a very real disqualification on my part that I rise to reply to the remarks which have been made by the noble Marquess the Lord President. Feeling as a criminal whose conduct has been arraigned at the Bar of your Lordships' House, I confess that I should be better prepared to respond to the accusations laid against me if I had had any notice of the attack which the noble Marquess proposed to make.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: My Lords, may I rise to say that I made no attack at all? I merely stated the facts of the case.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I might agree that the noble Marquess made no personal attack, but I do take exception to the method of the attack which was one upon the way that I conducted the campaign at the time. The noble Marquess made a very serious attack, especially commenting that action was delayed so many months, and I think that it is not unfair to repeat that it is an attack. Had the noble Marquess been kind enough to give me notice of his intention I should, I think, have been prepared with dates and figures which would have gone far to justify the action that I took. As it is, I confess that I came down to your Lordships' House hoping and expecting that the matter would be passed sub silentio by agreement, as so often happens when a difficult question is referred to a Committee of your Lordships' House. I think it would have been a very great advantage if, on this occasion, a similar procedure had been followed by the noble Marquess. I should like to express, on behalf of my noble friend the last recruit to your Lordships' House (the Earl of Oxford and Asquith) his regret that he is not able to be present. Had he known that the noble Marquess was going to initiate a discussion of this kind I think he would have thrown over the engagement which prevents him from being here this evening.
There are one or two comments which I am sure your Lordships will allow me to make upon the statement of the noble Marquess. The first comment which I wish to make is this. There was a remarkable unanimity in the correspondence
260
which appeared in the Press and, for my own part, I should like to take this opportunity to express my very real sense of gratitude to The Times for the publication which they gave to the various letters upon the subject. Without the help which they gave I suppose the matter would not have been re-opened as, fortunately, it is going to be. With the one exception of that of the noble Marquess himself every letter condemned the proposal, and I think that is a remarkable thing. Apart from that the correspondence which I received privately went far to make me feel at that time, and makes me feel even now, that I was justified in raising the question again.
The fact really is, I think, that this is a matter which interests a far larger and wider circle than that of your Lordships' House. There are a great many people to whom the statue of Queen Victoria and its position are matters of very great interest and they felt, I think rightly, that they also had a right to be heard upon a question of this kind. It is not merely a matter for the members of this House, but it is one for the country generally. It is not uninteresting to notice that in the figures which the noble Marquess gave it appears from the voting that the total number of votes is less than half the members of your Lordships' House. All those people, whether they be Peers or not, who did not vote represent a large circle outside. In spite of what was in the minds of the Committee which made this recommendation and of what was in the minds of a great many members of your Lordships' House, of doing nothing which would in any way slight the memory of the late Queen—in spite of all that there are a great many people to whom it did seem a slight to the memory of the late Queen that her statue should be removed from where it is now and placed in a position which is certainly far less dignified, far darker and not nearly so suitable as the present one
Your Lordships will perhaps allow me to make two further personal observations. It so happened that I spent part of my winter holiday in Rome, and in one of the main galleries of the Corsini Gallery to my surprise and delight as I entered I found in the centre of the first room a statue by this very same Gibson. So highly was it thought of by a people

261
who are connoisseurs of statuary that they put it in a conspicuous place in the middle of the collection of statuary most of which was by Italian artists. That shows that there is a great merit, at any rate, in Gibson's work and that it is not altogether that mediocre work of art which some people think.
The other personal thing that I would mention is this. Many of your Lordships who have visited Rome will have noticed in the Chapel of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter's the magnificent recumbent statue of Sixtus IV by Pollajuolo. That has lately been removed from St. Peter's, and put in a new museum just outside St. Peter's. There it is exhibited in a building which is admirable as a museum. The light is hard and crude, and there is plenty of it, but the sentiment of a great many people has been outraged by the fact that the statue has been moved from the Chapel in which, although it may have been seen less well, it at any rate had a great deal of romance, and looked a great deal better than it does at the present time. If I had had more notice I might have been able to find out exactly how long it was that the recumbent statue had lain in that particular Chapel. There is a considerable outcry already in Rome against the removal of this statue, and it is not unlikely that before very long public opinion will be so strong that the authorities will be compelled to remove it from this new museum, and place it either in its original position or in one somewhat akin to it.
May I venture, having been concerned in the matter of the decoration of your Lordships' House, to commend to the noble Marquess and his Committee the very interesting Blue-book and Report made by the Committee that sat a good many years ago—long before the noble Marquess himself entered this House—and which was presided over by the father of my noble friend Lord Stanmore? That Committee went into the whole question of the decoration of your Lordships' House, and those portions of the Palace of Westminster in particular which are devoted to the service of your Lordships' House. I feel sure that the perusal of that Report will prove of very real interest to the members of the Committee.
262
I have no doubt that they will be able to find some other place suitable for the erection of this Memorial. I have a great deal of confidence in the sculptor so happily chosen by the noble Marquess and his Committee, and I am sure the genius of Mr. Tweed will provide your Lordships' House with something which will be a great artistic addition to the House as well as an adequate Memorial of those who were killed in the war. In these circumstances only one thing, I think, remains for me to say. I heartily concur in the appointment of this Committee. I regret the absence from it of my noble friend Lord Buxton, who, being abroad, felt himself unable to place his services at the disposal of the noble Marquess. I have very little doubt indeed that the Committee will be able to find a site which will meet with the unanimous approval of your Lordships' House, and in which we shall be able to place an adequate Memorial to those killed in the war.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot divest myself of a certain share of responsibility for what has already happened with regard to this Memorial, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has been good enough to include my name amongst those who are to serve on the Committee which we are about to appoint. I am therefore tempted to say a few words as to the manner in which I regard the present situation. There is evidently wide divergence of opinion with regard to the proper place in which this War Memorial might be placed, but this is not the moment for comparing the merits of the different schemes which have been put before us. There is room for a great variety of opinion; but I am inclined to believe that with regard to two points at all events there is a general, if not complete, unanimity amongst your Lordships.
There is, in the first place, a widespread feeling of impatience that although nearly six years have passed virtually no progress has been made toward the construction of this Memorial. Those of us who travel about the country see in every village, no matter how remote or humble, the War Memorials that have sprung up, bearing witness to the affection of the dwellers around for those whom they lost in the Great War. It seems almost intolerable

263
that this House, with all its enthusiasm and all its wealth, should not yet have been able to advance further towards the completion of a well-considered scheme for a Memorial of those whom we have lost. That is one feeling which, I think, prevails in your Lordship's House. The other feeling, unless I am mistaken, is that we desire above all things that this subject should not provoke a controversy, a heated and perhaps acrimonious controversy. Nothing could be more horrible and more indecent than that that should happen with regard to the two Memorials we are discussing this afternoon.
One is the memorial of the Sovereign whom we always speak of as the "Great Queen," a Sovereign whom we all think of with reverence and who was regarded by those who had the honour of serving her and knowing her personally with feelings of the pro-foundest devotion. What is the other Memorial? It is a Memorial to commemorate our own kinsmen, those members of our families who in the terrible struggle gloriously lost their lives. Could anything be more repugnant to all of us than that there should be something in the nature of a wrangle over the manner in which we are to record the services they rendered to the country. Therefore, what we desire above all things is a prompt, settlement of this question and one which will provoke no heated argument.
May I add a few words with regard to the manner in which this subject has been handled up to the present? I notice that in what is said and written about it one occasionally detects a note of complaint as to what has been decided by the Committee over which the noble Marquess presided. Let me say quite frankly that if there is to be any complaint it could be more legitimately made, not of those who were entrusted with the investigation of this matter but of those who, having had ample opportunities of expressing their opinions with regard to it, from indifference or remissness have failed to express those opinions at the proper time and have come forward with rather belated protests as to what it is intended to do. I can bear emphatic testimony to the patience and tact with which this matter was dealt with by the noble Marquess who presides over the
264
Committee of your Lordships' House. He did not neglect any opportunity of ascertaining either the sentiments of your Lordships or the views of those who have a right to be consulted on such a question.
Your Lordships have before you the two circulars—the one of November, 1919, and the referendum of October, 1923. Those two documents, and the reception they met with, established beyond question that the noble Marquess and those who were associated with him took every step they possibly could in order to make sure of their ground before proceeding. If there was any failure it was not due to want of interest or energy on their part. But I do not think the possibilities of the case have yet been quite thoroughly explored. I am not sure that we may not have been misled when we were told that there were only two possible sites in this building for our War Memorial. Further investigation may discover, perhaps not an equally good, but at any rate a wholly unobjectionable site for the Memorial. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee will proceed with its task with that feeling and with an earnest determination, in the first place, to arrive at a speedy and well-considered conclusion and, in the next place, to discover a settlement which will leave behind it no trace of bitterness or disappointment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will feel, as I feel, very grateful to the noble Marquess who has just sat down for having lifted this discussion into a serener atmosphere. There is no doubt that the question was raised in a somewhat belated form and gave rise to some asperity, and that makes the Motion which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has proposed not only a prudent but a right Motion. We want to get not only as near to the sense of the members of this House as we can, but to consider those people outside to whom my noble friend Lord Beauchamp made reference. A debate in this House is a very uncertain means of securing that end. It may take place when very few are present, or it may take place when those representing one view are in a preponderance, notwithstanding that there

265
are those representing another view who have not taken the trouble to come. For my part, I prefer the method suggested, that of a Select Committee, and, looking at the names of that Committee, I think that we are more likely to get at the real sense of the House by their Report than we should have been if we had discussed this matter for two days at sittings in the full House. Speaking for myself, I am well satisfied not only with the appointment of the Committee but also with the names, and I think this is our best way out of a situation attended with some difficulty.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 21 agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following clause:—
Arbitration.
"—(1) A submission to arbitration unless a contrary intention is expressed therein shall not be revoked by the death of one or more of the parties thereto.
(2) The High Court shall, on application made in the manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court, have the same power to issue a commission, request or order to examine witnesses abroad for the purposes of an arbitration as it has for the purposes of an action or matter in the High Court.
(3) Where a submission provides that the reference shall be to two arbitrators, then unless the submission expresses a contrary intention if either of the appointed arbitrators fails or neglects to enter upon the reference within three months of his appointment, the court or a judge may, on application by any party to the arbitration, remove such arbitrator and appoint some other person to act as arbitrator in his place.
(4) This section shall be construed as if it were included in the Arbitration Act, 1889, and that Act shall have effect accordingly."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name was not, I need hardly say, drafted by me personally. It has been put down at the request of the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce. I need not point out to your Lordships that this is a very important organisation. I have here some particulars regarding it. It has a direct membership of 7,000 firms, companies and individuals engaged in commerce and industry, and 53 trade organisations having a membership of approximately 50,000 are affiliated to the Chamber and represented on its Council. The members of the Chamber resort to arbitration as a ready means of settling commercial difficulties and the Chamber therefore has much experience regarding the deficiencies in the law relating to arbitrations which it is desired to remedy. Furthermore, the London Court of Arbitration, which is under the joint control of the Corporation of London and the London Chamber of Commerce, is also in favour of the additional legislative provisions now suggested.
I had some hesitation in putting down this Amendment, because this is purely a legal Bill and I thought that as such it might have been left to be looked after by noble and learned Lords, of whom there are so many in this House. But on examining the Amendment it seemed to me to be in itself a very good Amendment and one that could easily be dealt with by a layman, as it contains nothing of a very complex nature. I was further led indirectly to believe—the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that, although be might not be able to give an official benediction to this Amendment, he yet thought that it was not an unsuitable one to be brought forward on this occasion and to be considered and discussed in your Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that I gave any intimation, but of course I am very glad that it should be brought forward.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I apologise if I was misinformed. It appears to me that the objection is not so much to the Amendment itself as to the fact that it is desired to introduce it into a Bill which is already overloaded,

267
and that consequently there might be additional difficulty in passing the Bill into law. Certainly, if one examines this measure it is seen to contain an immense variety of different subjects. I have gone through it only superficially, but I find that it deals, in the first place, with Assizes; it then proceeds to deal with the Supreme Court, and under that heading it proposes to authorise the appointment of another Judge; it goes on to deal with County Courts, concerning which there are many provisions; and after that there are provisions relating to the registration of deeds, to fees, to grants of administration, to the enrolment and filing of deeds, to the custody of deeds and to the repeal of enactments. When I saw all these things I must confess that it rather reminded me of those pots pourris sometimes played by bands on board ship during a long voyage which introduce the beginnings of at least a hundred popular songs, a prize being given to the passenger who can name the greatest number of those indicated. I submit to the noble and learned Viscount that, as he is able to adopt the position of foster-parent to so many different measures which are included in this Bill, it may be possible for him, if the Amendment is good in itself, to include my little bantling, which I am sure would be safe under his ample raiment.
May I explain to your Lordships the effect of the Amendment which I propose to introduce? It has three subsections, and, if it be inserted, I think it ought to have a heading "Arbitration," in the same way as there are headings "Supreme Court," "County Court," and so on. I see that it has not been put in on the Paper which I have before me. The first subsection suggests that:
"A submission to arbitration unless a contrary intention is expressed therein shall not be revoked by the death of one or more of the parties thereto."
At present if an arbitration takes place I believe I am right in stating that, though the whole case may have been considered, witnesses heard and the award absolutely ready to be given, yet if one of the parties to the arbitration dies the whole arbitration is void and proceedings have to be begun again ab initio. It seems to me that this proposal is a very useful one, and I cannot think that any objection can be taken to inserting it.
268
The second subsection proposes to give the High Court the same power—
"on application made in the manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court, … to issue a commission, request or order to examine witnesses abroad for the purposes or an arbitration as it has for the purposes of an action or matter in the High Court."
At present the arbitrator has no power to give this order, and it is considered very desirable that he should be able to do so.
The third subsection deals with a point of which I really had no knowledge before. It states that:
"Where a submission provides that the reference shall be to two arbitrators, then unless the submission expresses a contrary intention if either of the appointed arbitrators fails or neglects to enter upon the reference within three months of his appointment, the court or a judge may, on application by any party to the arbitration, remove such arbitrator and appoint some other person to act as arbitrator in his place."
I was quite unaware of the fact, but I am told that there are instances where one party, not desirous of having an arbitration, has agreed nevertheless that an arbitration shall take place and has appointed an arbitrator who is instructed not to take any action of any kind. It is impossible for the other side to do anything in the matter, and therefore the arbitration hangs fire without any possibility of a decision being reached. I think that if it had been known that this provision had been in force it is possible that one of the parties in a very famous arbitration case concerning a boundary, which has been well known to all of your Lordships, might have thought fit to take advantage of it. However, if my Amendment is carried, it will be impossible in the future to do anything of this kind, as the Court will be empowered to remove an arbitrator who declines to act, and appoint somebody else in his place.
This is the Amendment, in three portions, which I ask your Lordships to accept. I understand that the objections to it are two in number. The first is that the Amendment only deals with a small part of the whole matter, and that it is desirable to deal with cases of arbitration as a whole. I am told that His Majesty's Government intend, after this Bill has been passed, to set up a Committee to inquire into the matter. Let us consider what that means. This Bill will take some time to pass, and after it is passed,

269
say next year, a Committee is to be set up. In 1927 that Committee will probably have reported, and its Report will be considered by the Cabinet, and in 1928 we may hope to see a Bill introduced into this House. To judge by the Bill which is now before us—which is now before your Lordships for the third time—it will be 1930 before the Arbitration Bill will become law. By that time this Parliament will have ceased to exist, and we do not know who will then be the Ministers of the Crown, or if they will be willing to adopt the recommendations of a Committee which has reported several years before. There is a French proverb: Le meilleur est pennemi du bien, and I think it will be advantageous now to make these small alterations as to arbitration, which avowedly would be very useful and not prevent the Government from dealing with the matter on a larger scale if they see fit to do so.
The second objection is that this Bill is already overladen. I would again like to refer your Lordships to what has happened in regard to this Bill. It has been three times before your Lordships' House and each time it has come before you in a new and improved form. Each time Amendments have been introduced, and at the present time it comes before you with great changes from last year. We find that not only is there a clause which enables a new Judge to be appointed, but, as the Memorandum tells us, Clauses 12 and 17 and Schedule 3 are all new this year. Therefore, I suggest that we should not weary in well doing, but, as this may be the last opportunity on which we shall have the Bill before us, we should again pass Amendments to make it even better than it is already. I think if the noble and learned Viscount sees his way to accept my Amendment I can promise that there will not be much difficulty in getting the Bill through this House. I do not know what may happen in another place but, if the Measure is found to be overladen. I hope that it is not this portion which I am introducing, but some other portion, which will be jettisoned.
I do not like to suggest that the Lord Chancellor is wanting in courage—he has introduced a Bill which deals with so many subjects, but if I may say so with all respect, if he were to take his courage in both hands and adopt the clause which I suggest I feel confident it would be a
270
great improvement to the Bill as it now stands, and satisfy many people who now complain bitterly of the faults which exist with regard to arbitration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, after Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I certainly make no complaint whatever of the action of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, nor do I deny that the topic which it raises is one which deserves to be carefully considered, out, for all that, I hope that I shall foe able to convince the noble Lord that this is not the time for pressing this particular Amendment. It is true, of course, that I am anxious not to overload the Bill. It is not, I hope, for want of courage, but because, having a good deal of experience in another place, I know how an important Bill may be imperilled, and even lost, by trying to put too much into it. There is, however, a better reason than that. This Bill ideals with the Courts. It is an Administration of Justice Bill relating to the administration of justice by our Courts. This Amendment deals with quite a different matter. It refers to arbitrations outside the Courts and, indeed, the form of the. Amendment, particularly of the last, subsection, shows that this is not a proposed amendment of the Judicature Acts, or of any Statute referring to the administration of justice by the Courts, but an amendment of the Arbitration Act, 1889. That is a wholly different matter.
I may illustrate that by adding one observation. We hope when this Bill becomes law to transfer the whole of its provisions to the new Judicature Acts (Consolidation) Bill. That we can do, but if the Amendment were adopted we should not be able to transfer that Amendment into the Consolidation Bill, because it has nothing to do with the subject. We should have to leave it standing as the sole remains of this Statute. It is, of course, not a very serious thing bit it illustrates the difference between the subject matter of this Bill and the subject matter of the Amendment.
Of course I am not going to stop there. I think this proposal is well worth consideration,

271
although I could not accept it in this particular form even in an appropriate Bill, because I think it wants overhauling. I think the proposal itself is worth consideration, but the points which have been picked out are not the only matters in the Arbitration Act which require consideration, and for some time I have been of the opinion—and I believe I am not alone in that opinion—that there are parts of the Arbitration Act which should be looked into and, possibly, amended. I am hoping quite soon to appoint a Committee to look into that matter, to go through the Arbitration Act, and to see in what respects it needs consideration and possibly amendment. These three matters raised by the noble Lord would, of course, be among those which that Committee would consider, and if an expert Committee of that kind should report in favour of amendment of the Act of 1889, I think Parliament would have no hesitation in giving effect to their recommendations. The noble Lord is hardly doing justice to us and particularly to my Department in suggesting that we should take five years to go through a process of that kind. We have been, I think, fairly prompt in our proceedings during the last few years, and although it is the fact that this Bill comes before Parliament for the third time that is no fault of my Department, or of any Government, but is due to the fact that we have had two Dissolutions during that period. On each occasion the Bill has got very far forward and would have passed through Parliament but for those sad events to which I have referred. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the assurances which I have given that the matter will be considered in the way I have mentioned and will not seek to put in his Amendment which has no real connection with the Bill.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: After what the noble and learned Viscount has said, of course I will not press the matter. I am very grateful to him for assuring me that the matter will have attention, especially the points which I have raised, when an amendment of the Arbitration Act is brought forward, which is anticipated to be within a very short time if no Dissolution again interposes. I would add that, of course, if it had only been a question of the framing of the Amendment to which the Lord
272
Chancellor objected, I should have been delighted to make any alterations that he thought fit. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following new clause:—
Operation in England of certain Scottish confirmations of executors and operation in Scotland of certain English grants of probate or administration.
"—(1) Where a confirmation of the executor of a person granted in Scotland, being either—

(a) a confirmation which includes personal estate situated in England as well as personal estate situated in Scotland; or

(b) an additional confirmation of estate situated in England, whether the additional inventory confirmed includes any estate situated in Scotland or not; or

(c) a confirmation or additional confirmation of personal estate situated in Scotland which contains or has appended thereto a note or a statement signed by the sheriff clerk of funds in England held by the deceased in trust;

contains or has noted thereon a statement signed by the sheriff clerk that the deceased died domiciled in Scotland, the confirmation shall, without being sealed with the seal of the High Court in England, have the like effect in England as a grant of probate or letters of administration made by the said High Court.
(2) Where a grant of probate or letters of administration by the High Court in England contains a statement that the deceased died domiciled in England or has appended a note or memorandum to that effect signed by the proper officer, the grant shall have the like effect in Scotland as a grant of confirmation.
(3) In the case of probate or letters of administration granted by the High Court in Scotland, a statement in the affidavit to required to be made on the application for the grant that, according to the deponent's belief, the deceased was domiciled in England, shall be sufficient authority for the insertion of a statement to that effect in the probate or letters of administration, and, in the case of a confirmation granted in Scotland, a statement in the affidavit to the inventory that the deceased died domiciled in Scotland shall be sufficient authority to the sheriff clerk to insert in or to note on the confirmation and sign a statement to that effect:
Provided that any such statement as to the domicile of the deceased shall be evidence for the purposes of this section only.
(4) The sheriff clerk may insert in or append to a confirmation a note or a statement of funds in England held by the deceased in trust in any case where such a note or statement is set forth in any inventory recorded in the books of the court of which in is the clerk."
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to simplify the procedure necessary in order to render operative the title of an executor in cases where the personal estate of the deceased person is situated partly in England and partly in Scotland. Under the existing law the title of an executor granted by an English Court—that is, probate or letters of administration—only becomes operative in Scotland after it has been presented to the Commissary Court in Edinburgh and endorsed there, a copy being lodged in that Court. Similarly a title granted in Scotland, to become operative in England, has to be sealed with the seal of the High Court, a copy being also lodged in the High Court. These two operations servo no useful purpose whatever, and, indeed, are only a cause of some expense and delay in the administration of estates. The object of the Amendment, therefore, is to introduce a clause which will abolish those rather superfluous formalities. The method which is followed is to re-enact the existing law on the subject, but with the omission of the provisions for the scaling in one case and the endorsation in the other.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 24, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is, of course, proposed by the Government. I will only add that the form may need some further consideration, but, in case any changes are needed, we can introduce them in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:—
Short title, interpretation, extent, repeal and commencement.
29.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Administration of Justice Act, 1925.
(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (3), after "not," to
274
insert "except as therein otherwise expressly provided." The noble Lord said: The Amendment is purely consequential, as Scotland is not otherwise brought into the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 29, page 19, line 34, after ("not") insert ("except as therein otherwise expressly provided").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause, 29, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, this Bill had the honour of mention in the King's speech. Its object is to make the necessary amendments in the law of the country to give effect to three international Labour Conventions relating to seamen, which were made in 1920 and 1921. These were the results of Conferences of the International Labour organisation of the League of Nations, held at Genoa in 1920, and at Geneva in 1921. The three Conventions that I have alluded to are scheduled to the Bill. The first provides that the seaman's wages shall continue during unemployment due to shipwreck for a maximum period of two months from the date of the loss of his ship. The second provides that no boy under the age of 18 may be employed as a fireman or trimmer on board ship; and the third provides for the medical examination of young persons under 18 before they serve on board ship.
The adoption of these Conventions involves the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and the present Bill seeks to make the necessary alteration. The three Conventions were signed, among others, by the British representatives at the respective Conferences, that is to say, representatives of the Government, employers, and seamen; but they have not been ratified by His Majesty's Government pending the necessary legislation to give effect to them. Under the late Government this Bill passed through all

275
its stages in your Lordships' House, and was only prevented by the Dissolution from passing in the other House. I think it was awaiting Report at the time of the Dissolution. I do not think it is necessary for me, therefore, to go into the details of the clauses. On the Committee stage I shall be ready to answer any questions that may be asked. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have gone through this Bill, as I try to do with all the Bills that come before the House, and, naturally, it is a Bill which I look upon with very considerable regard. It was a Bill with which we were more or less familiar during the last Parliament. But one has to watch these things closely, and there is one piece of information that I would like the noble Viscount to give us, if not now, on the next stage of the Bill. The Bill does three things. It deals, first, with the wages of seamen when the contract has been interrupted by the loss of the ship. That, I think, is all right. That has been discussed a great deal before the Courts, and it is reasonable that the seamen should not suffer altogether in a case of that kind. Then there is another provision which I think is quite right, and that is that a young person, defined as one under 18 years of age, should not work in a stokehold or other insalubrious part of the ship.
But there is a third provision on which I should like to hear from the noble Viscount that the business world is satisfied, and that is the medical examination of young persons in distant parts of the globe. I think it is very right that you should see to the health of these young persons. What I am more concerned about is whether it is always practicable or possible. It may be that a ship, particularly if she is a tramp steamer, is on a voyage to some place where it is not possible to make these examinations. Has the Bill been drawn in such a way that those who are interested in the ship are satisfied that, in those circumstances, they can work the voyage? Very likely there is no reason for misgiving about that, but, although the noble Viscount says that employers were represented at the International Conferences, I should like to know upon
276
that point that the matter has been looked into, and that they are satisfied that the scheme is workable. That is all I wish to say, and I desire to raise no more objection to the Second Reading.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I wish to make some observations not with regard to the provisions of the Bill, but affecting the policy which underlies it. The matter has been brought to my notice by shipping interests, and ought, I think, to be under the consideration of my noble friend Lord Peel, who is in charge of the Bill, and of the Government. This Bill is the outcome of international consultation, and no doubt with the various other measures which have been presented to Parliament, is intended to introduce into the maritime world as a whole by international consent proposals which are highly beneficent in the interests of seamen. I think nobody who reads the Conventions in the Bill will doubt that they mark an advance on existing conditions, and they have been received very cheerfully and readily by the shipping interests of this country. But I am not sure whether His Majesty's Government, in the mode in which it proceeds with this and other Bills, is taking count of the possible outcome of this method of legislation, which may rather damp the ardour of men of philanthropic minds interested in British shipping.
I do not know, but I think this Bill is intended to come into operation promptly after receiving His Majesty's Assent. A number of projects have come forward after the like process of international consultation. His Majesty's Government—and I speak of His Majesty's Government generically—has ratified the proposals from time to time and has taken legislative steps in regard to them: but among other nations who have been parties to the international consultations there has not been that prompt action. The matter was brought to my notice recently in a report made by, I suppose, the most important individual body of shipowners in this country, the Steamship Owners' Association of Liverpool, in which they say:—
"Up to now our experience of international Conventions has not been fortunate. Great Britain was the only nation to ratify the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea. At Conferences held under the auspices of the League, sixteen Conventions have been adopted of which Great Britain has already

277
ratified seven, and it is understood that the present Government proposes to ratify another three, making ten in all. Neither France nor Germany has yet ratified a single Convention, while the United States has not been a party to any of them."
What is brought to my notice is that the working costs of British shipping are increased by Conventions of this kind, as they must necessarily be and as the shipowners recognise they will be. But if a process of that kind is continued piecemeal without taking any security that those who are parties to international consultations will place their shipping upon the same fooling as that on which British shipping is placed, there is a prospect ultimately of detriment to British shipping.
I desire to ask my noble friend Lord Peel if His Majesty's Government have considered whether it would not be more in the interests of the general scheme of international amelioration and world wide benefit to shipping and to seamen that a clause should be introduced in each Bill of this kind providing that it should come into operation at the time when concurrent measures of the other parties to Conventions come into operation, or that its coming into operation should he directed by His Majesty in Council. I do not desire to take up the time of your Lordships' House in discussing this matter, but my noble friend will see that this matter is of cumulative importance to shipowners. British shipowners regard these matters with a degree of generosity which contrasts very strongly with much that one has seen in times past, and I am sure His Majesty's Government would not desire to imperil that feeling by taking action which might not invoke a proper and intended response among the other shipping nations of the world. The shipping community is, after all, one great community and legislation in regard to it should be concurrent legislation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I have been asked two questions, the first by the noble and learned Viscount opposite as to Clause 3. The information I have is that there is no objection among the shipowners to Clause 3 which deals with the medical examination of young persons. The noble Viscount said that he has already made himself acquainted with some of the details of that clause. It
278
provides certain exceptions to the necessity of securing the certificate of a medical practitioner, which may be dispensed with in some cases on the authority of consuls and in other cases the superintendent of a Board of Trade mercantile marine office. If the noble and learned Viscount desires it I can get further information on that particular point.
The second point was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale and was as to whether in the case of these international arrangements Great Britain was not forward very often in ratifying them where other countries were not so forward, with the result that there might be some disadvantage to British shipping. I suppose it happens in the case of a great many of these Conventions that they are not ratified by all parties to them at the same time My noble friend is aware, of course, that after the Bill becomes an Act ratification does not necessarily follow; but, it may take place, at any time, I understand, after the passing of the Act. It is interesting to note that in this case Great Britain is not, in that sense, leading the way. I have before me a list of other countries which have already ratified these three Conventions. Some of them have ratified one, others have ratified two, and some have ratified three. I must confess that some of the countries who have ratified them have not a very large mercantile marine, as, for instance, Bulgaria, Esthonia and Poland. But among the names of the other countries are Spain, Italy and Japan. Japan has specially ratified Convention No. 3 which deals with the compulsory medical examination of children and young persons. As to the general question of the date of ratification and its connection with ratification by other countries, I should be very glad to ask the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, to consider that, and probably he will make a suggestion to my noble friend.
LORD MERRIVALE: It might be useful if I placed an Amendment on the Paper for the Committee Stage of the Bill. This is a matter which needs serious consideration by the Board of Trade.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE ATTACK ON BRITISH TROOPS AT QUEENSTOWN.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any probability of the men who fired on British troops at Queenstown last March, killing one and wounding several, being brought to justice; and what steps they have taken to induce the Free State Government to take action in the matter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships' House that in March of last year a party of His Majesty's soldiers on leave landed at Queenstown and were met by a motor car containing four or five men armed with a machine gun. The men opened fire on the soldiers with the machine gun, and killed one and wounded several others In April last, as no arrests had been made, I asked the Government of the day what the position was and what steps they had taken to induce the Free State Government to take action. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, who replied, said—
"… I am able to say that the Government of the Irish Free State are by no means without hope that, sooner or later, they will be able to bring the criminals, or some of them, to justice. …"
Nothing whatever has happened since then, except that four or five men were arrested in Dublin, I think, during the summer, and were almost immediately discharged. It is evident that four or five people in a motor car with a machine gun must have afforded some clues of which the Free State Government could have taken advantage if they had really desired to do so. Only a few days ago a motor car in London ran into four or five people, killing one. That was at night-time. I may remind your Lordships that the Queenstown episode took place in the middle of the day. The motor car that ran into a certain number of people about half-past nine the other night went away without anybody being able to tell whose motor car it was; yet the police in England were able, within two or three days, to arrest a person, who has now been brought to trial.
I was fortunate enough, last April, to secure the support of my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston. My noble friend said that I was quite correct in bringing
280
this matter before your Lordships' House, and pointed out that Lord Arnold had stated that compensation was being offered. The noble Marquess then went on to say:—
"Of course, that is quite right so far as it goes, but what my noble friend really desires is not so much, or not only, compensation to the families of the victims as the arrest of the culpable parties. That is the gist of the whole matter, and neither the offer of £10,000, unprecedented as we are told it is, nor the grant of compensation on a most liberal scale will in the least satisfy those who want the criminals to be arrested and brought to the bar of justice."
Then the noble Marquess, towards the conclusion of his remarks, said:
"My noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam seemed to suggest that it was possible for His Majesty's Government to make efforts to arrest the criminals. Of course, that is beyond their power."
That was a mistake of my noble friend. I did not suggest that, but what I did suggest, was that they might put pressure upon the Irish Government.
The Marquess Curzon added:—
"… everything that is in their power to do by pressure—of course, friendly pressure, but pressure of the strongest character—upon the Irish Free State, and everything that the Irish Free State can do, and I venture to say ought to do, in this matter, ought to be encouraged."
My noble friend the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston has now an opportunity of carrying out those very excellent sentiments. I may add that on July 7, nothing having been done in the meantime, I raised the Question again. It was rather late in the evening, and your Lordships' House was somewhat empty. Lord Arnold then stated that since April 10 the Free State had issued a Proclamation giving the names and descriptions of five persons whom they believed to have been guilty of this outrage, and the Free State Government hoped that they would be able to arrest the criminals. That was last July, and with the exception of the arrest and short trial at Dublin, nothing whatever has been done.
I observe that on the 15th of this month, in County Mayo, the Minister of Finance in the Irish Free State Government (Mr. Ernest Blythe) made a speech. The Times of the 17th of this month, in a report of that speech, states that Mr. Blythe made a reference to the national Loan and to the murder of Private

281
Aspinall at Queenstown last March. The Times report of the Minister of Finance's remarks proceeds as follows:—
"The national Loan stood at 99 last year, ho said, when the Queenstown outrage was committed, Immediately afterwards it was in danger of falling to 85 or less.
"The outrage that occurred recently in Egypt was certainly nothing like the abominable outrage in Queenstown done by the Irregulars to try to bring the British back. The Egyptians had to pay a big fine and do other unpleasant things to placate the British Government for the officer who was murdered. The British Government recognised that so far as the Irish Government was concerned the outrage at Queenstown was a misfortune and a disgrace to it, but was not something for which it was responsible"—
I do not know whether it was the Government of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Haldane) which said that the outrage was something for which the Government was not responsible. I can hardly conceive that it was the Government which is now in power. Mr. Blythe added:
"and it had nothing to pay, except for the relatives of the soldiers who were shot by the ruffians who committed the outrage."
Now I come to the point in the remarks of Mr. Blythe to which I particularly desire to call your Lordships' attention. He concluded his speech as follows:
"If Ireland had been a recognised Republic, what would have been the result? There would have been a bombardment within twenty-four hours."
That statement, as reported in The Times, shows one or two rather curious things. First of all, it states, on the authority of a Minister of the Free State, that this outrage was committed in order to bring the British back. Next, it points out that if the outrage had occurred in Egypt, or in any other foreign country, such as the Free State is at the present moment, the British Government would have taken steps to see, not only that the criminals should be brought to justice, but that the Free State should pay a large sum—in the case of Egypt it was £500,000—in order to warn them that they must not allow their subjects to murder British soldiers or British subjects with impunity. I do not know what the noble Lord is going to say in answer to me this evening, but I would suggest to him that it might be possible for His Majesty's Government to take up the hint given them by Mr. Blythe, the Finance Minister of the Free
282
State, and suggest to the Free State that, if they cannot bring the criminals to justice, they should at any rate pay a considerable sum to our finances as a warning to them that there is a danger in allowing these murders to take place. I beg to ask the Question and to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before any one on the Government Bench answers my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, there are a few words that I wish to say. He raised this Question before, and he raised it in much the same way as he has done now. Look, he says, what happens when a motor car rune over people here The motor car is identified at once, and the police track the wrongdoer, and he is put on his trial. I wish there were the analogy between the case of Ireland and the case of this country that Lord Banbury suggests. But there is not In Ireland a very considerable section of the population is in sympathy with the Irregulars, and consists of Irregulars, and the Government in the South of Ireland has very little power indeed of getting at people who commit these acts. In the circumstances in which the particular act was committed at Queenstown you have a very large section of the population wishing to screen the wrongdoer. That is a deplorable state of things, and it is one of the reasons why, like a good many others, I have been strongly in favour for years of putting responsibility where power actually is. It has now been done by a Unionist Government, and we are watching the results so far as they have been given—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What does the noble and learned Viscount mean by "Unionist Gvernment"?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Marquess was not included in the Government of that time, but it did contain leaders of the Conservative Party—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Presided over by a Liberal Prime Minister.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, it was a Coalition Government. But the bulk of its strength came from the Conservative

283
Party, and an eminent member of that Party was on the Woolsack, not my noble and learned friend who is on the Woolsack at the moment. That policy, far from giving me dissatisfaction, is the one policy which has given me a certain amount of hope. I see things better in the South of Ireland than they were. I have heard from my noble friend the Earl of Mayo to the effect that we make the greatest mistake when we do not recognise that things are becoming better and sympathise with them, but at the same time we are well aware that it will take a long time before Ireland gets into anything like the condition in which the noble Lord assumes it is and becomes like this country. So long as there is a large body of Irregulars and rebels so long will you find a large number of sympathisers with those who commit crime.
As for drawing any conclusion that the Irish Free State Government have not done the best they can to track down and capture the assassins in this ease, I see no ground for that assumption at all. The information I had when I was a member of the Government was that the Irish Free State were believed to be doing their very best to track down the assassins. There is no doubt they have made great exertions, and if they have failed it is not because they have not tried to catch these people but because the people of Ireland, partly because they are what you have made them and partly because of an inherent disposition, which is different to the law-abiding disposition which obtains here, do not back up the agents of their Government in tracking down crime. I do not believe there is any evidence that the Irish Free State Government have done anything but the best they could to track down these criminals. But even if they had not I should regard as deplorable any proposition to threaten them with bombardments or fines, or any other threat of violence, with any hope of bringing about a better state of things in Ireland. It would only provoke still more crime; it would provoke actual rebellion, and I have no doubt it would turn out the present Government there. Therefore, I do not at all wish to see it take place.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I doubt if the Irish Free State Government
284
will feel very grateful to their advocate, the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, because a more deplorable picture of the present state of Southern Ireland than he gave it is difficult to imagine. He tells us that the majority of the people in the South of Ireland are in favour of crime—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not say majority.
LORD DANESFORT: At all events a large number of them are in favour of crime and the Government are unable to arrest the criminals. That is a strange comment on the policy advocated for years by the noble and learned Viscount, and supported by great promises and expectations. We were told to place responsibility on the right shoulders, to give these gentlemen in the South of Ireland power and responsibility, and that we should then have something approaching a millennium. Now the noble and learned Viscount tells us that so far from the millennium having arrived an atrocious crime of this sort, which in any civilised country in the world would have been traced, cannot be traced because the Government are paralysed and the criminals themselves are predominant. This was a crime committed not in the remoteness of the mountains, not in the darkness of the night, but in open daylight in a public place resorted to by a large number of people, and committed by men who came in a motor car for the purpose with a machine gun; and yet the Irish Free State are wholly unable to trace the perpetrators. If that is so I can only say that it is a most deplorable state of things and the sooner a better state of things prevails the better.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, he raised this Question almost immediately after the outrage was committed, and he interrogated the late Government on the subject last July. On that occasion the answer was given by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, replying on behalf of the Colonial Office. I regret that there is very little I can add to that reply, but I shall be glad to give my noble friend such further information as we possess in regard to this matter. The Irish Free State, as your Lordships have been told,

285
issued a Proclamation in which it described the five people suspected of being guilty of this crime and offered a reward of £10,000 for their apprehension. On October 28 last seven young men were arrested in Dublin, brought before the magistrates and remanded in custody, but were afterwards released for want of sufficient evidence against them.
Let me say that the present Colonial Secretary, like his predecessors, has kept in touch with the Irish Free State Government and he is satisfied that every possible effort has been made by the Free State Government to bring the offenders to justice. Extensive searches have been made by combined military and police forces and special efforts have been made to discover the whereabouts of criminals. Ports have been kept under observation, but, unfortunately, up to the present these efforts have not been attended with success. As my noble friend will realise it is not a difficult matter to dispose of a motor car, and that clue is perhaps not so satisfactory as the noble Lord believes. He asks me whether there is any possibility of any arrest taking place. I can only say this, that I hope, and the hope is shared by the Free State Government, that it may be possible to arrest the guilty persons at some time or other.
The noble and learned Viscount, who has a much greater knowledge of Ireland than I have, has called the attention of your Lordships to the difficulties—that in Ireland, and specially in the remoter districts to which probably these criminals have escaped, the inhabitants have always shown a great disinclination to give any assistance to the police in tracking criminals of any kind. I think the fact that this is so is almost historical because, if we read the literature of a hundred years ago, Irish books of that day will, I think, show us that the sympathies of a great part of the population have been on the side of the criminals rather than of the police. I am only telling your Lordships that which has been told to me by those who have considerable knowledge of Ireland. They tell me that even had the same machinery for the enforcement of justice been then available in Ireland as was available before the war it would have been extremely difficult to bring the criminals to justice. I think I
286
may say quite confidently that the Government of the Irish Free State share the abhorrence with which this atrocious and abominable crime is viewed by His Majesty's Government, by your Lordships' House, by Parliament, and by the public throughout this country. My noble friend quoted a speech which was made by the Irish Minister of Finance. I need not quote it again, but I think that the words of that speech show that he, at any rate, and his colleagues in the Government share our detestation of this crime, and he gave very good reasons indeed why he and his colleagues should be animated by that feeling. I think the passage which my noble friend read bears out that which I have said.
I now come to the question of compensation, and I have, I think, some new facts which I can bring to your Lordships' notice. The question of compensation for these outrages was placed before the Wood-Renton Commission. The award was made by the representative of the Imperial Government and the representative of the Free State Government sitting together, and it was mutually agreed upon. The total amount of the award is £18,492 and a further sum of £57 6s. 7d. was paid in costs to those who were injured and killed or to their representatives, and consequently the total sum paid in compensation amounted to £18,549 6s. 7d. This sum was divided among twenty-one persons injured or killed or their representatives, and the amounts paid vary between £40 and £2,000. The first payment was effected on May 2 last and the last was made on December 13 last. Full particulars were forwarded to my right honourable friend by the Government of the Irish Free State in a Despatch dated January 9 last, and in this Despatch it is pointed out that all the awards have now been made and all the compensation paid by the Free State Government. I should be very happy to give my noble friend a copy of the schedule of the awards if he cares to see it. I do not know if he desires to press the Motion for Papers, but, apart from this and the correspondence which took place between Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Cosgrave at the time and which was published on March 26 last, there are no Papers in existence to-day.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for offering to show me the only Papers which do exist. I would say one word in answer to that which my noble friend has said. He stated just now that there has existed in Ireland for a great number of years a desire on the part of the inhabitants to shield people who commit crimes. That was quite true some years ago, but I understood that, as my noble friend Lord Danesfort said, the desire to shield evil doers arose from the wickedness of the English Government, and that now that there is a Free State—and I commend this to the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane—after the beneficent gift of Home Rule, all that should have vanished and we should have as well-regulated and as orderly a State as we happen to have in England at the present moment. I understand the difficulty, but I do hope that, now that we have a Unionist Government—which I have always regarded as almost perfection—now that we have obtained that very fortunate result, they will endeavour to do something to bring these people to justice. That compensation should be given to the people who have suffered is as it should be, but there is something beyond it, and that is to bring to the notice of the Southern Irish people and the Irish Government that an Englishman is not to be murdered with impunity. Civis Romanus sum was a very good doctrine, and I commend it to my leaders in the Unionist Government of the present day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press the Motion for Papers?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understood that the noble Earl was ready to supply them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord wish Papers to be laid on the Table?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I would much sooner that they were laid on the Table than that I only should see them. Does the noble Earl agree to that?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BRITISH FAMILIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the case of children of British parents born in foreign countries during the period of the war, 1914–1918, and to ask whether facilities can be given for the acquisition by such children of British nationality; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on two occasions I have brought before the attention of the House the grievance of British subjects whose wives were prevented during the war from returning to this country before the expected birth of an infant, with the result that those children were born as aliens, unlike their brothers and sisters, who were British subjects. On the two previous occasions I was able to bring before your Lordships specific cases of hardship and to point out how these children suffered, not only now but even if they subsequently became naturalised British subjects, and I do not propose to weary the House by repeating those details on the present occasion. On both occasions I was fortunate enough to secure the sympathy, I think, of all noble Lords who listened to that which I had to say, and on the last occasion the then Leader of the House, Lord Parmoor, asked me to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject, which he promised would have the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I prepared the Bill and had intended to introduce it last autumn when the change of Government took place. I have not done so since because I do not know whether that course, which is a somewhat unusual one, will recommend itself to His Majesty's present advisers.
I am aware that the whole question of naturalisation is a difficult one and one in which the Dominions have to be consulted before any change in the law is made, but I have been very strongly pressed in regard to it from all parts of the world by people who write to me saying that they hope that I have not dropped the subject. I am anxious to know what are the views of His Majesty's Government and whether they would like me to introduce the Bill suggested by the late Government, or if they are taking other steps. I am quite aware that in matters of this kind, unless a Government

289
is reminded of them, replies to Questions which may be asked are sometimes pigeon-holed, but I feel confident that this will not be the case in the present instance. I should like to ask the Question that stands in my name, and to move for a copy of any correspondence which has passed between His Majesty's Government and the self-governing Dominions within the last year on the subject of naturalisation.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it falls to my duty to reply on this matter to the Question which has been asked by my noble friend. I do not know that I shall be in a position to give him a very much more satisfactory reply than he has already received on the two occasions when he went into this matter with some fulness—namely, on March 15 and on July 16 of last year—but I will at all events follow him in the brevity which he has displayed. My noble friend Lord Parmoor, who answered on the last occasion, did go somewhat fully into the subject of jus loci and jus sanguinis and various other legal difficulties which arise in the case, and did go on to suggest that my noble friend should introduce a Bill in which he should exactly state the points on which ho required a remedy. I see also that my noble friend Lord Salisbury said that his Party, at all events, would offer no difficulty to this Bill being proceeded with in both Houses of Parliament with the greatest possible despatch.
I think everybody admits that there is a grievance, which has found such eloquent expression in the speeches made in this House by ray noble friend, but, as he has said, it is a matter of some considerable difficulty. I think, however, that on one point I am able to offer him a little hope. The two Departments concerned in the matter are the Home Office with regard to the passport question, and the Board of Trade with regard to children of British parents born abroad who should adopt a mercantile pursuit and become directors of companies. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, I think I can hold out the hope that where a director of a company is the child of British parents, although born abroad in a foreign country, very favourable consideration would be given by the Board of Trade to an application for an order for exemption to that company from complying with the provisions of the Act of
290
1917, so as to obviate the necessity of the company disclosing on its letter paper and business documents the former nationality of that director. I think that will satisfy my noble friend up to a certain point. The crux of the whole matter is this, that the Nationalisation Laws of this country are now an Empire affair, and we cannot change them without consulting our various Dominions; and I am sure it will be a satisfaction to the noble Lord to know that steps have already been taken and the Dominions communicated with during last autumn—South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Their answers have not yet been received.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: What about Ireland?
LORD DESBOROUGH: I have not inquired into that. I will inquire, but Ireland is very seldom left out of anything. Before, however, any promises can be made it is absolutely necessary that we should know what views the Dominions take on a matter which, as the noble Lord admits, is a very complicated one. When the replies are received I cannot say at the present moment how far they will be of such a character that they can with propriety be made public, but I am perfectly certain that if my noble friend makes a further application in the future such information as it is possible for me to give will be given to him. At present they must be considered as confidential documents.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I thank my noble friend very much for his reply. Although it does not indicate a great step forward I think that the special announcement which he has made, and of which I had some private information before—that probably the Board of Trade, in the case of a foreign-born child of English parents becoming a director of a company, would give that case very favourable consideration—is most valuable and will be very much appreciated by the parents of children in this position. In the circumstances, as communications are proceeding with the various self-governing Dominions, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers, which, the noble Lord tells us, for the present must be considered as confidential.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
[From Minutes of February 18.]

DUKEDOM OF SOMERSET.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the ease on behalf of the claimant the Marquess of Hertford: Counsel appearing for the claimant Sir Edward Hamilton Seymour and for the petitioner Henry Sydney Seymour: The Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the Crown: Committee adjourned to Wednesday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table from the Examiners a certificate with a special report under Standing Order No. 78 in respect of the following Bill:—
Ancient Monuments Preservation Order Confirmation.
The said certificate and report referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.