Lords Sitting of 9 July 1928

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

MILITARY MANŒUVRES: MES SAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to your Lordships the following Message from the King:
"I have received your Address praying that I will make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to your Lordships' House on the 20th day of March last. I will comply with your advice."

PETROLEUM (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to petroleum and to petroleum-spirit; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to this Bill I beg to move that Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3aaccordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after Clause 1, the following new clause: ",Subsection (5) of section three of the principal Act is hereby repealed."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Dawson of Penn has communicated with me saying it is not his intention to move this Amendment.
Clause 2:
Delivery of stray dogs to police.
2.—Section four of the principal Act shall be repealed, and the following section shall be substituted therefor:—
"4.—(1) Any person (in this section referred to as 'the finder') who takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith either—

"(a) return the dog to its owner; or

"(b) take the dog to the police station which is nearest to the place where the dog was found and inform the police officer in charge of that station where the dog was found.

"(2) Where a dog has been so taken to a police station then—

"(a) if the finder desires to keep the dog he shall inform the said police officer of his name and address, and the said police officer shall make out in duplicate a certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State stating the description of the dog, the place where it was found, the date on which it was brought to the police station, the name and address of the finder, and shall give one copy of the certificate to the finder and retain the other, and thereupon the finder may remove the dog, but shall be under an obligation to keep it for not less than one month;

"(b) if the finder does not desire to keep the dog the said police officer shall treat it as if it had been seized by him in pursuance of section three of this Act.

"(3) If the finder fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding forty shillings."
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move to add to subsection (1):—
"or
"(c) inform the police officer at the nearest station by post that he has taken possession of the dog."
The noble Lord said: This subsection needs some explanation. It seems to me that the principal Act provides all that is necessary. Under that Act a man who finds a dog straying on his premises can give notice to the police station in writing, but the law as this clause would alter it would mean putting such a person to a great deal of trouble. It might mean that he would have to walk fifteen miles to a police station to give notice. The section of the principal Act says:
"Any person who takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith either return the dog to its owner or give notice in writing to the chief officer of police of the district where the dog was found containing a description of the dog and stating the place where the dog was found and the place where the dog is being detained and any person failing to comply with the provisions of this section …."
and so on. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: What Amendment does the noble Lord mean?
LORD STRACHIE: The manuscript Amendment which I handed in.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord has given me a manuscript Amendment, and I understand that that Amendment and the Amendment on the Paper will hang together. The actual Amendment is Clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from the beginning of the clause to the first "and."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("and") in line 19.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: If this Amendment is carried it will destroy the object of the clause. Under the law at present any dishonest person finding a dog can keep the dog and give an entirely inaccurate report to the police as to what sort of dog it is and as to where he found it. Under this clause he will have to take the dog to the nearest police station. I
850
think it is unlikely that the nearest police station will be fifteen miles away, as the noble Lord suggested. When he gets to the police station the police will take full particulars and will see for themselves what sort of dog he is reporting. If the noble Lord's Amendment is carried it will leave open the door, which we are trying to shut, to the dishonest person who tries to keep a dog by rendering an inaccurate report.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord does not explain why that should be the effect of a man sending notice to the police by post. I do not see that it makes any difference, because the police have the opportunity of making inquiries as to what sort of a dog it is. I do not know where the noble Earl lives, but I can assure him that in my county there are not police stations every three miles. I can assure him that there a man might have to walk fifteen miles to the nearest police station. It seems to me a great hardship that some poor agricultural labourer should have to walk such a long way to report a dog. I can assure the noble Earl that when the Bill goes to another place objection will be taken by members representing agricultural constituencies who certainly will not approve of their constituents being made to walk so many miles to report a dog.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I can only say once more that under the present law it is possible for this evil to creep, in. Under this proposed clause the police will have the chance of verifying immediately what type of dog it is. This Bill has already passed through another place and no objection was raised to the clause there. I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): On behalf of the Government I should like to say that they agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and that they think it very undesirable that this Amendment should be carried. The whole object of the Bill is to get a proper description of the dog given to the police. It is known that at the present time if a man gets hold of a dog which he wishes to keep he can make a wrong report. The object of this clause is to make it clear that

851
anybody who wishes to keep a dog which he has found must go to the police, who will take an accurate description of it and where it was found. Then he can keep the dog for a month and if the original owner does not come forward he can keep the dog permanently
LORD STRACHIE: I still do not see why a man should have to walk miles to give notice. Apparently what the noble Earl thinks is that if this Amendment is carried it will enable thieves to carry on their work. But there are not dog stealers on farms. The police will have an opportunity of going to see the dog and judging of the case. What I object to is putting additional hardship on men living in country districts by making them walk several miles to report the finding of a dog. However, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have a drafting Amendment to move in paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—to leave out "this" and insert "the principal." I move it in order to get an explanation of what seems to me to be very muddled words. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) says:
"if the finder does not desire to keep the dog the said police officer shall treat it as if it had been seized by him in pursuance of section three of this Act."
That seems to be a perfectly clear statement, but when I look at Clause 3 I find it says this:—
"Section six of the principal Act (which provides that an owner of cattle shall not leave their carcases unburied in a place to which dogs can gain access) shall apply to a person having the control of cattle as it applies to an owner of cattle; and accordingly the words 'or under his control' shall be inserted in that section after the words 'belonging to him.'"
I could not understand how Clause 3 could have anything to do with a man finding a dog and the police dealing with it if he did not desire to keep it, but after much thought and with the assistance of a noble and learned Lord, a friend of mine, I understand that what it really means is this.
Clause 2 begins by saying:—
"Section four of the principal Act shall be repealed, and the following section shall be substituted therefor:—"
852
Accordingly, when the Bill refers to "this Act," it does not mean this Bill, but it means the principal Act, which was passed in 1906 and of which Section 4 is withdrawn to make way for another clause. I should like to move to leave out "this" and to insert "the principal," because I think that the ordinary magistrate who will have to administer this Act will not, when he reads it, know in the least what he is reading. It requires somebody well versed in drafting and with an exceptionally brilliant brain to understand it. As it is the desire of your Lordships—I am afraid it is hopeless to expect it in another place—to pass legislation in such a form that it will be "understanded of the people," I trust that this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("this") and insert ("the principal").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The noble Lord has explained the point very well. The words "this Act" refer to the original Act, and a new clause is substituted for the old one. I can only hope that the noble Lord's opinion of magistrates is very much too low. I am quite certain that they will be able to understand this measure when they read it, and I think that this Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not want to press this Amendment, though I thought it advisable to draw your Lordship's attention to the very slovenly and careless drafting of this Bill in the hope that, when other Bills are brought in, they will be prepared in such a manner that the ordinary person who is not gifted with the ability of the noble Earl or his friends can understand them. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment of s. 6 of principal Act.
3. Section six of the principal Act (which provides that an owner of cattle shall not leave their carcases unburied in a place to which dogs can gain access) shall apply to a person having the control of cattle as it applies to an owner of cattle; and accordingly the words "or under his control" shall be inserted in that section after the words "belonging to him."
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP moved to add to the clause the following new subsection:—
"(2) The following new subsection shall be added to section six of the principal Act:
'(2) Any butcher or slaughterer of cattle who shall knowingly and without reasonable excuse permit the offal or any portion of a carcase of cattle to remain unburied in a place to which dogs can gain access, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.'"
The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. The object is to prevent a slaughterer or butcher disposing of his offals or portions of carcases that he does not want in the middle of a field—as in a case that I have known of—or in proximity to the slaughter-house. Disposing of offals in fields is the worst practice, because they attract dogs from all over the place, sometimes fox-hound puppies, and the next thing that happens is that you have a serious case of sheep-worrying. The Act of 1906 says:—
"Any person who shall knowingly and without reasonable excuse permit the carcase of any head of cattle belonging to him to remain unburied in a field or other place to which dogs can gain access shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding forty shillings."
I do not know whether that covers the point, but I should think that it rather refers to the farmer who has an animal die on his hands and leaves it out in a field or outside his yard. It does not seem to cover the point that I have in mind.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hindlip.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I think this Amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. As the noble Lord pointed out, this provision was originally introduced to prevent carcases of cattle lying unburied in fields and, if it were to be extended to butchers' shops, it would entail very minute and frequent inspection by a whole army of expensive inspectors. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to object to that. As I have said, this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
LORD HINDLIP: No rational person would suppose that this was ever intended to provide for inspection of butchers' shops or anything like that. It was
854
meant to cover cases which are a very great nuisance and, I think, constitute a danger. However, it is quite obvious that the promoters of the Bill do not intend to accept any Amendments, however harmless, and I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRAD ING AND MARKING) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered, and I shall propose to agree with all of them. Most of them are drafting or consequential Amendments, and there is only one—namely, the omission of paragraph (b) of Clause 4—which I think requires any comment. I propose, if it suits your Lordships, to deal with the Amendments scriatim.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 20.]
Clause 3, page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight") and insert ("twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine").
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is a simple one. Since the Bill was introduced it has been pointed out that a great many contracts have been entered into by egg merchants for the delivery of preserved eggs for the period from October to the end of February, and therefore it is obviously desirable that this clause should not come into operation until after February 28 next. I beg to move to agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 3, line 37, leave out from ("are") to the end of line 38 and insert ("registered premises").
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 3, lines 1 to 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:—
("(b) it shall not be lawful to cause British eggs, which have been kept in cold storage or chemical storage in any premises used for such storage of eggs by way of trade or for purposes of gain, to be removed from such premises unless the eggs have been marked in the prescribed manner, and for the purpose of securing the enforcement of this provision the Minister may, by notice in writing served on the occupier of any registered premises, give directions that British eggs which have been kept in cold storage or chemical storage in any part of the premises are not to be removed from such parts of the premises as may be specified in the notice until they have been marked in the prescribed manner, and a copy of any notice so served shall be kept by the occupier conspicuously posted in such parts of the premises as the Minister may direct; if any person contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph or of any directions given thereunder he shall be guilty of an offence under this section:")
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships to remember, in considering this Amendment, that Clause 4 does not come into effect until an Order under the Merchandise Marks Acts has been passed. The original clause provided that all eggs, on being put into cold storage, should be marked, but it was found that that was not workable, and therefore it is now proposed that all eggs should be marked, having been in cold storage, before they are removed from cold storage. It was pointed out by the trade that in the busy season, in the spring, when there are an enormous number of eggs, it is very difficult for them to deal with the matter of marking eggs for cold storage, and that in the summer, when they keep the eggs as long as possible in order to sell them as fresh eggs, and then put them into cold storage, it is very
856
difficult to deal with such large quantities in a short time. Naturally, we want to cause as little inconvenience as possible to the trade, and therefore it is suggested in the amended paragraph that eggs should be marked on being taken out of cold storage, instead of when being put in.
The clause also goes on to deal with premises where the eggs can be dealt with when they are being marked. The custom now is, when eggs are put into cold storage, that they are tested and sorted on the premises, but the object of this provision is that the Minister may be able to specify the premises where these eggs are being tested and sorted. They will be on the registered premises but not actually in the cold storage. It was originally intended that all eggs put into cold storage should be marked, whether British or foreign, but when the matter was gone into it was found that nine-tenths of the cold storage eggs from abroad were cold-stored before they came here, and that those eggs could not be touched by us. They come into this country and can be sold as fresh eggs, and as I told your Lordships on a previous occasion, it cannot be proved by chemical analysis whether an egg has been in cold storage or not. Therefore, as the clause stood originally, the only effect would have been that those imported eggs now cold-stored in this country would be cold-stored abroad, and we might lose a certain amount of trade to the cold-storage business in this country.
As no part of this clause comes into effect until an Order has been passed under the Merchandise Marks Acts, we feel that the object we have in view will be gained, because our object is that the British new-laid egg should be sold as such, and that people who buy the British new-laid egg should know that they get that and nothing else. As your Lordships know, the poultry industry has gone ahead very much of late years. A great deal of money has been expended in producing breeds that will lay eggs during the winter months, when eggs are especially dear, and it is only fair to the poultry owners that they should get full value for their eggs—the value which people are ready to give for fresh-laid eggs at that time of year. We want to obviate any fraud

857
which will prevent the poultry owners from getting the full reward of their labours. As the Bill now stands, after Feburary 28 next all preserved eggs, whether British or imported, will be marked as such. Then, after the passing of an Order under the Merchandise Marks Acts, all British eggs cold-stored will be marked as such, and all imported eggs, whether fresh or cold-stored, will be marked as "imported." That is the effect of the clause as amended in the Commons which I hope I have now made clear. I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture has dealt with the great difficulty experienced by the trade in dealing with the cold storage of eggs coming from abroad. He further went on to say that it would not be to the disadvantage of the producer that such eggs should not be cold-stored, or at least. I so understood him. It is interesting to note that the Bill, as it passed from this House, applied to eggs generally. I have no doubt the reason was that the Poultry Advisory Committee which advises the Ministry, advised that it should be "eggs" and not "British eggs" that is to say, that all eggs put into cold storage should have equal treatment, whether British or imported. Under the Amendment inserted in another place the position will be that foreign eggs brought in and cold-stored in England will come out of the same door as British eggs which have been cold stored, but, unlike British eggs, will not be marked as cold-stored.
When this very objection was taken in Standing Committee, Mr. Guinness replied to this effect—
"I accepted their scheme as a whole, and it was only at the eleventh hour that the cold store interest gave me the figures and showed me how absolutely useless, from the producers' point of view, would be this imposition as to the marking of the foreign egg, cold-stored in this country, and how very unjust it would be to the cold storage interest to divert this trade to foreign countries. I am quite convinced, from what they told me, that if we do not limit this obligation to British cold-stored eggs, within a very few weeks of this provision coming into operation there will be
858
no foreign eggs cold-stored in this country, and we shall simply divert the trade abroad."
That means that the unfair competition of foreign eggs with English would be put an end to. This is a most extraordinary position taken up by Mr. Guinness. It is always said by the Government that their object is to protect the British producer. Undoubtedly they have protected the British manufacturer against the foreign manufacturer, but when it is a question of the agriculturist then they are quite ready to say that they can do nothing—that it is impossible to mark as "cold stored" eggs imported into this country. I do not want to prevent importation of any kind, but I strongly object to the importation of foreign eggs under false pretences. It is clear that that was in the minds of the Poultry Advisory Committee when they put in "eggs" and not "British eggs."
Then the noble Earl stated that it could not be proved that eggs were cold-stored. Everybody knows that that is only a matter of mere eye-wash. The Government always say that it is impossible when they do not want to do a thing. I notice, and it is rather remarkable, that in Standing Committee this particular Amendment was only carried by a majority of fourteen to nine. A large number of members did not want to vote against Mr. Guinness, and simply walked out. I cannot see that the Government have given any good reason why this alteration should be made except for the benefit of the people interested in cold storage. I notice another remark made by the Minister of Agriculture, who said it would be a great handicap on the cold storage in this country so far as it deals with foreign produced eggs if this Amendment were not made. So the Amendment is entirely made in the interests of foreign imported eggs.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I do not think it is quite right to say that, because nothing is done until an Order in Council is passed. When that is passed all imported eggs will be marked as imported eggs, and therefore anybody purchasing such an egg will know that it is imported. It is quite true that it may have been in cold storage in this country or overseas, but it will be

859
marked as an imported egg. Our object is to protect the British egg, which alone will remain unmarked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 25, after ("premises") insert ("and may require any person whom he finds in or about the premises to give such information as may reasonably be demanded of him as to any name and address required by the officer for the purposes of enabling him to carry out his duties under this Act").
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. The whole object of it is to give power to the officer of any authority to make an inquiry if he thinks that the eggs are being removed from the storage premises in an improper manner. The Amendment is limited to ascertaining the name and address of the person supposed to be so offending.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, after ("section") insert ("or wilfully withholds any information which any such officer is empowered by this Act to require of him").
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment, which is only consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 5, line 8, at the beginning insert ("Subject as hereinafter provided")
line 17, leave out ("City of London") and insert ("administrative county of London")
Clause 5,line 18, after "council") insert ("of the City of London and the council of every metropolitan borough")
Clause 5,line 19, after ("exercise") insert ("in their respective areas")
Clause 5,line 21, after ("boroughs") insert ("and this Act shall, in its application to the administrative county of London, have effect as if for references therein to an officer of the council of any county or county borough there were substituted references to an officer of the common council or of the council of any metropolitan borough, as the case may be")
Clause 5,line 22, after ("council") insert ("or by the council of a metropolitan borough")
Clause 5,line 23, leave out ("of the City of London")
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments. This clause provides that the enforcement of the Act shall be in the hands of the council of every county or county borough, subject to an exception that in the City of London the duty shall be on the Common Council. The London County Council take the view that the Metropolitan Borough Councils are the appropriate authorities in their respective areas for carrying out the provisions of the Act, and these Amendments are intended to give effect to this proposal.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 6, page 5, line 35, after ("made") insert ("or notice served")
Clause 6, page 5,line 36, after ("made") insert ("or notice served")
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, these are consequential Amendments to the Amendment to insert a new paragraph (b) in Clause 4. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 5, line 37, at end insert:—
("(3) A copy of any notice served under this Act on the occupier of any registered premises shall be sent to the council whose duty it is to enforce the provisions of this Act as respects those premises.")
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, this is also a consequential Amendment, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 42, at end insert:—
("'British eggs' means eggs produced in the United Kingdom.")
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment, which is purely consequential.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 18, at end insert:—
("'Registered premises' means premises for the time being registered in manner provided by this Act.")
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This also is consequential on the new paragraph (b) of Clause 4 (2).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (UNIVERSITY OF READING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Short title.
2. This Act may be cited at the Representation of the People (Reading University) Act, 1928, and the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1926, and this Act may be cited together as the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1928.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT, on behalf of Lord Wraxall, moved to leave out all words after the first "and" and to insert "shall be included among the Acts which may be cited together as the Representation of the People Acts." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend, is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("and") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

IRISH FREE STATE CIVIL SERVANTS.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state what is the meaning of the phrase "in the first instance" in the Despatch dated 8th June, 1928, addressed to the Irish Free State by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, in which he stated that it is desirable in the first instance for the matter to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; whether the Irish Free State have given any assurance that the decisions of the Judicial Committee under this reference will be accepted by them as final and carried into effect; whether any further legislation is contemplated either in this country or in the Irish Free State as to the compensation to be paid to Irish civil servants transferred to the Provisional Government or to the Irish Free State who have been or may be discharged or who have retired or may retire; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on June 21 last the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Government, made an important statement as regards the recent case of Wigg and Cochrane versus the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State, and the noble and learned Lord announced in effect that the decision of the Privy Council in that case, which was given in May of last year, would stand unreversed so far as regards the actual successful appellants in that case, Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane, but, as regards the other Irish civil servants, who were in precisely the same position as Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane, the question of the compensation payable to them by the Free State on their retirement should be decided by a reference to the Judicial Committee under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether it has been arranged between the British Government and the Free State Government that Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane shall immediately receive from the Free

863
State Government the compensation to which they were declared to be entitled under the decision of the Privy Council. It may be—I do not know—that they have now been paid, but they certainly had not been paid a very short time ago. As the decision was given in their favour so long ago as May of last year, it would seem reasonable that they should be paid without further delay if they have not already been paid.
Then there are other Questions which are specifically referred to in my Notice. These Questions arise out of the terms of the Despatch dated June 8, 1928, which was sent by the Secretary of State for the Dominions to the Government of the Irish Free State, and which was read to the House by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on June 21 last. That Despatch begins by referring to previous Despatches on the subject of the payment of compensation to civil servants under Article 10 of the Treaty. I may say in passing that those previous Despatches have not yet been published and I shall ask in a moment that they shall be laid on the Table. The Despatch then goes on to refer to the decision of the Privy Council of May last year, which, it is alleged, had proceeded on certain incorrect assumptions of fact. Then this passage follows:—
"In these circumstances His Majesty's Government in Great Britain think that it is desirable, in the first instance, for the matter to be referred to the Judicial Committee by a special reference under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833."
I desire to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he will kindly tell your Lordships' House what is exactly meant by those words "in the first instance" contained in the passage that I have just read out.
I should also like to ask whether the Free State Government have given an assurance in the course of the correspondence with the British Government that they would treat this decision of the Privy Council under the new terms of reference, when it has been given, as final and binding upon the Free State and that they will act upon it and give effect to it. I presume that this is so, because this new reference to the Judicial Committee would be perfectly meaningless and futile unless it is to be acted upon but I shall be glad of an assurance from the noble and learned
864
Lord, the Lord Chancellor, upon this point. A further Question that I desire to ask is whether it is contemplated either by the British Government or by the Free State Government that any new legislation by the Parliament of either of these two countries shall be introduced to deal with this question of compensation to civil servants, and if any such legislation is contemplated, have the British Government received any assurance from the Free State Government that this legislation will not be retrospective and shall not interfere retrospectively with the rights already approved of civil servants who were originally in the service of the British Government, who were transferred to the Free State Government and have retired or are going to retire?
It is eminently desirable, I think, that such an assurance should be obtained. I do not wish to refer to old controversies, which, perhaps, it would be better to let fall into oblivion as far as possible; but some of us cannot but remember the character of the legislation introduced by the Free State into their Parliament and passed in the year 1923—legislation of a character calculated to deprive a number of men in Southern Ireland of rights which had already accrued to them. I hope that the questions as to the retrospective legislation and the other points I have raised have already been referred to, and that a satisfactory settlement has been come to, in those previous Despatches which are mentioned in the Despatch of the Secretary of State to which I have already referred. I trust that those points were not lost sight of, as I venture to think they ought not to be in the course of the correspondence and in the settlement of this long outstanding question with regard to which litigation has been going on, I think, for four or five years or more. In view of what I have said, that there is no reference to the points I have raised in the Despatches which have been published, I venture to think it is important to see those previous Despatches which have been referred to and I therefore beg that they be laid upon the table. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord in moving this Motion began by asking me a question as to what had happened with

865
regard to Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane. As that was a question of which he had not given me any notice and which does not appear on the Paper, I am afraid that all I can say is that I have not the faintest idea. I have no doubt the Dominion Office have this information and that it can be ascertained, and I will endeavour to find it out for my noble friend. But as he has asked me without any notice at all he will not be surprised if I cannot answer him at the moment.
Then I come to the Questions which are on the Paper. The first Question my noble friend asks me is what is meant by the expression "in the first instance." My only difficulty in answering that is that the words "in the first instance" mean exactly what they say—in the first place, before doing anything else, or before considering whether any, and if so what, further action may or may not be necessary. If your Lordships will recall the history of this matter, I think you will see that really the phrase is incapable of any ambiguity or doubt as to its proper meaning. Your Lordships will remember that in April last there was a debate in your Lordships' House upon the decision in the Wigg and Cochrane case. What had happened was that a decision was given last year in the case of Wigg and Cochrane in the Privy Council, and that thereafter it appeared that the principle of the decision as explained by the Privy Council had not apparently been given effect to in the actual decision itself because of a mistake of fact into which the Privy Council apparently had been misled. Statements to that effect were made in your Lordships' House by three noble Lords, I think, who had taken part in the decision.
It was at that time contemplated that legislation would be necessary in order to put right what was apparently a mistake of fact, and in the course of the discussion your Lordships will remember that a view was expressed, I think by my noble friend Lord Danesfort himself, to the effect that this would involve a hardship upon the persons affected since they would not have an opportunity afforded them of arguing their case. My noble friend Lord Reading then threw out a suggestion that it might be possible to overcome that difficulty by referring the question back to the Privy Council for re-judgment. Your Lordships will
866
remember that I undertook to consider that question and to see whether it could be carried into effect. On June 21 last, as the result of the consideration which was given to the question, I was able to inform your Lordships that the precise plan which the noble Marquess had suggested was not practicable at any rate without express legislation, but that I had come to the conclusion that the purpose which he desired to reach and attain could be reached by another method—namely, by a reference under Section 4 of the Act of 1833 to the Privy Council of the questions involved for inquiry and report, and I was able to tell your Lordships that the Irish Free State Government had assented to that proposal.
Accordingly, that reference has been made, and I am glad of this opportunity of informing your Lordships that the hearing is expected to take place on July 23, that the Board which, as I hope, will be able to hear that case is to be presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, himself, and that the other members of the Board will be Lord Phillimore, Lord Hanworth (Master of the Rolls), Lord Alness (Lord Justice Clerk), and the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, Chief Justice of Canada. I should like, if I might be allowed to do so, to say that I think your Lordships' House and the country are very much indebted to those noble Lords whose names I have mentioned, for many of them have other duties and obligations which render it very difficult for them to find the time necessary to undertake this task. On none of them have we any claim, yet they have all cheerfully, at considerable inconvenience, agreed to undertake this important task. I think we are very fortunate to be able to constitute a Board of such strength as that which I have indicated.
My noble friend goes on to ask whether the Irish Free State Government have given an assurance that the decision will be accepted at once and carried into effect. If by that my noble friend means whether they have given an assurance that the Irish Free State will accept, the decision of the Privy Council as final upon the law, no such assurance is needed, because they are already bound by Treaty to accept that view and the fact that they are willing to appear before the Board and to argue their case before the Board shows that they appreciate

867
their position. There is no doubt in the minds of any one that the decision of the Privy Council once given will be a decision which declares the law, and finally declares it. If my noble friend means whether we have asked for an assurance from the Irish Free State that whatever the law may be as laid down by the Privy Council they will not seek to make any change in that law, then I answer that most certainly we have not asked for such an assurance, we do not desire them to give such an assurance, and, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we are ourselves quite unable to state whether or not we should desire any amendment of the law till we know what the law is. We have neither considered nor contemplated whether any amendments will be desired to the law, because we do not at present know what the law may ultimately be declared to be. I venture to submit to your Lordships that, since there are a number of possible decisions or possible conclusions at which the Privy Council may arrive when they come to consider the case, and since they are to sit in a fortnight to hear the arguments, it would be, to say the least of it, inconvenient that we should have a debate in your Lordships' House as to what the possible result may be of all the various decisions at which they may conceivably arrive.
LORD DANESFORT: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, if he will pardon me for interrupting him, whether we have got or asked for any assurance from the Free State that they will not bring in retrospective legislation which would interfere with the practice already approved?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have not asked the Free State, and we do not propose to ask the Free State at this stage, for any assurance of what they will or will not do when the decision has been given by the Privy Council as to what the law is. His Majesty's Government will consider the result and the effect of that decision. I have no doubt the Irish Free State will equally consider the effect of that decision, and I have no doubt that, if either Government considers an amendment of the law necessary, there will be the necessary discussions between us as to the desirability of any amendment and as to the scope, effect and extent of any such amendment.
868
I will remind my noble friend and your Lordships that it is Parliament which determines whether amendments of the law shall take place and whether, if they are to take place, they shall be, as my noble friend puts it, of a retrospective character.
We all agree that as a general rule retrospective legislation is undesirable. We all agree also that there may be exceptional cases in which retrospective legislation may be needed. We all agree, because we have in our minds instances in which such legislation has taken place. Whether, in any particular case, an amendment of the law is necessary, whether, if so, it is right there should be retrospective legislation, must necessarily depend upon what the law is and what the circumstances are and whether Parliament on mature consideration considers that a case has been made out for such an exceptional course as retrospective legislation undoubtedly is. I hope your Lordships will not understand me as suggesting that we are proposing to introduce any retrospective legislation. I say quite frankly, so far as I know no part of His Majesty's Government—certainly His Majesty's Government as a whole have not considered at all what legislation will be required, and we think it eminently undesirable and unprofitable to do so till we know what the law is. The object of this reference has been to ascertain what the law is, and, until the law has been ascertained, we have no desire to do anything.
The only other question which my noble friend put to me was a question as to what Despatches there were before the 8th of June. So far as I know there are no documents which have not already been published, but I will certainly cause further inquiry to be made, and, if there are any documents in addition to those which are given in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT I am prepared to lay those Despatches on the Table of the House, but I think all the previous Despatches have been already published. However, I will cause inquiries to be made whether there are any others which can be published, and if there are any others certainly there is no objection to putting them on the Table. I cannot give any further assurance than that. I think I have answered as fully as I can

869
the Questions which have been put to me and I suggest that a discussion on this topic at this time is neither a desirable nor a proper course to pursue.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his statement. I must apologise to him for not having given notice of the question which I put to him as to payment to Wigg and Cochrane of the compensation to which they were declared entitled by the Privy Council. It was an oversight of mine in drafting the Question. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would kindly suggest to the Secretary of State for the Dominions that he should find out whether they have been paid, and, if not, would he represent to the Irish Free State Government that they ought to be paid as soon as possible? As regards the other points which I raised, to which the noble and learned Lord has replied, I should never have asked the question as to whether the Free State would treat this new decision of the Privy Council as final if it had not been that in the case of a previous decision of the Privy Council the Free State refused to treat it as final, and in fact proposed to override it by legislation in their own Parliament. However, from what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said to-day, it seems exceedingly probable, to say the least of it, that the Free State will treat it, as it is intended to be, as final.
The only other point which I raised was as to retrospective legislation. Of course I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to tell us what legislation might be found necessary in future. What I did feel anxiety about was that on former occasions the Irish Free State have passed retrospective legislation of the most injurious character to the persons whose rights had already accrued. I do not wish to go into that at any length. In 1923 they passed retrospective legislation depriving persons of the right which they already possessed under Statute to compensation for malicious injury. It would have had a reassuring effect with those civil servants if they had been assured that the Free State had promised His Majesty's Government in this case, that whatever legislation became necessary it would not be of such
870
a character as to deprive civil servants of the rights which they already possess. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has been unable to give us that assurance, but he has made some remarks about the general character of retrospective legislation, from which I gather that he does not approve in general of retrospective legislation which deprives people of rights to which they already have become entitled. I do not think I am misrepresenting him there. Indeed, it would be astonishing if one of his great knowledge and experience should have expressed any other view.
As regards the Papers for which I moved, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for what he has promised. The Papers I had in mind were the Papers referred to in the Despatch which was read by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on June 21, the Despatch from the Secretary of State to the Irish Free State Government, in which reference was made to previous Despatches on the subject of compensation. If those previous Despatches have been published already I need hardly say that I do not want them published again, but if they have not been published I would respectfully venture to ask the noble and learned Lord, as indeed I think he has agreed, to have them published. In those circumstances and after what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHILD DESTRUCTION BILL [H.L.]
  FORMERLY INFANTICIDE BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.

SOLICITORS BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.