Lords Sitting of 21 June 1928

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

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have it in charge to acquaint the House that a Commission has been issued under His Majesty's Great Seal to several Lords therein named, authorising the said Lords to declare, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, His Majesty's approbation of the choice of the Commons of Captain the Right Hon. Edward Algernon FitzRoy to be their Speaker.
The Lords Commissioners (The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Kintore, Lord Strachie, Lord Muir Mackenzie and Lord Darling) being seated in front of the Throne and the Commons having been sent for:—
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT (Captain the Right Hon. EDWARD ALGERNON FITZROY),Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT (Captain the Right Hon. EDWARD ALGERNON FITZROY), addressing the Royal Commissioners, said: I have to inform your Lordships that His Majesty's faithful Commons, in obedience to the Royal Command and in the exercise of their undoubted rights and privileges, have proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and their choice has fallen on me. I therefore present myself at your Lordships' Bar and submit myself with all humility for His Majesty's gracious approbation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, it not being convenient for His Majesty to be personally present here at this time, a Commission has been issued under the Great Seal, commanding us and several other Lords therein named to notify and declare His Majesty's approbation of the choice of His faithful Commons of Captain the Right Hon. Edward Algernon FitzRoy to be their Speaker, which Commission you will now hear read.
614
The Reading Clerk (Mr. R. A. Muir Mackenzie) then read the terms of the Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Mr. FitzRoy, we have it in command from His Majesty to declare His Majesty's entire confidence in your talents, diligence, and efficiency to fulfil the important duties of the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons to which you have been chosen by that House; and in obedience to the Commission which has been read, and by virtue of the authority therein contained, we do declare His Majesty's Royal allowance and confirmation of you, Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons.
MR. SPEAKER: My Lords, I submit myself with all humility to His Majesty's Royal will and pleasure, and if in the discharge of my duties, and in the maintenance of the rights and privileges of the Commons House of Parliament, I should inadvertently fall into error, I pray that the blame may be imputed to me alone, and not to His Majesty's faithful Commons.
The Speaker then retired.

MAIDENHEAD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills read 3aaccordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

ORMSKIRK DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend

615
Viscount Peel, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th of May last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in reference to these two orders, I beg to move the Motion which stands upon the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 21st May last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HINCKLEY GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands upon the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 22nd of May last be approved with an addition.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO PROVISIONAL ORDERS CON FIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

RICHMOND PARISH CHARITY LANDS SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of this charity. It has passed through another place without opposition and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INFANTICIDE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill, I should like to explain very shortly what is the defect in the law which it is designed to remedy and how it comes about that I make this proposal. Last week, in charging the Grand Jury at Liverpool Assizes, Mr. Justice

617
Talbot called attention to this matter in these words:—
"The law upon the matter is unsatisfactory and it is right that every appropriate opportunity should be taken to call public attention to it. It is a felony to procure abortion and it is murder to take the life of a child when it is fully born, but to take the life of a child while it is being born and before it is fully born is no offence whatever."
Your Lordships will realise at once what a grave defect this is. To attempt to procure that the child shall not come into the world at all is a most serious offence, punishable with penal servitude. Indictments are quite common and I myself have tried many of them for procuring abortion or attempting to procure abortion. But so far as one can see there has always been this gap in the law of England, that to kill the child in the act of delivery of the woman before the child has acquired an existence separate from its mother was no offence at all, although—and this is very curious—it is stated by Sir Edward Coke that if any one, whilst the child was being born, inflicted upon it an injury and, after that injury, it was fully born and existed as a separate creature from its mother, then the person may be punished for the crime of having inflicted upon a creature who at the time when the injury was inflicted, was not within the law, an injury from which the child died after it come fully into existence.
That was the opinion of Sir Edward Coke, and is stated with his authority, but it was disputed by Lord Hale, who relied upon a statement in Bracton and was of opinion that the law was to a contrary effect. This cannot now be maintained because, in consequence of a case decided a few years ago in the Court of Criminal Appeal, it becomes plain that the view taken by Sir Edward Coke was a true one. But there still remains the hiatus that I explained just now, that if the injury be inflicted upon the creature in the course of birth, and it dies before it has acquired a separate existence, no crime is committed under the law of England, although the person who did it might long have meditated upon it and might have taken every possible means to secure what the common people would call child-murder. No offence at all is committed and no punishment can follow. This was ex- 618
plained in the words that I have just read from the charge to the Grand Jury of Mr. Justice Talbot. He went on to say—and I think I may as well read it, because his words could hardly be improved upon—
"The legal description of what is meant by fully complete birth is that it must be proved that the entire child has actually been born into the world in a living state. The fact that it has breathed is not conclusive proof of that. There must be an independent circulation in the child before it can be counted alive. The result of the law is that a fully born child in many cases can be destroyed with impunity, and I do not think it very creditable to our Legislature that the defect in the law should have been left unremedied."
That is my excuse for introducing this Bill to your Lordships.
But this is not the first attempt that has been made to cure this defect in the law. As long ago as 1879 a Committee sat under the presidency, I think, of Sir James Fitzjames Stephens, and upon that Committee were many great criminal lawyers. I believe I am not wrong in saying that Lord Blackburn was a member of it. They were told to codify the Criminal Law of England, and they drew up a code, and in it they included a clause which dealt with this very defect in the law which this Bill is designed to remedy. As your Lordships know, the law of England never has been codified, and I am very glad myself that it has not. We are in a much better position under the law of England than countries which rely upon a code, in my opinion, and the law is more easily and better administered by our Judges than it would be if they had to read paragraphs and subparagraphs, as they do, I believe, in countries where the law is codified. Therefore that code was never passed into law, but there was this defect noticed by those eminent lawyers, and it would have been remedied if their proposal had become the law of England. But that is not the only attempt. Exactly twenty years ago a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Lord Robert Cecil, who is now a member of your Lordships' House. It was read a second time, and then was referred to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons. It passed through the Standing Committee, and I have read it, and I am bound to say that it is,

619
as you might expect, a very much better Bill than the Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time, because this is a very difficult subject to deal with, and the Amendments which were proposed in Standing Committee and were adopted made that Bill a vast improvement on the Bill which I have now introduced. I did not know that when my Bill was drawn up, or it would not have been in precisely the shape in which it comes before your Lordships.
As I have said, Lord Robert Cecil's Bill came through Standing Committee, and on December 9, 1908, Lord Robert Cecil asked the Prime Minister if he could allow it to be treated as a non-contentious Bill, and facilities given to it by the Government. It that had been done it would have become law almost twenty years ago. Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister, however, said that it was a very admirable Bill, but he could not say that it came within the description of a non-contentious measure, and so facilities could not be given to it. Therefore the Bill lapsed through causes which I dare say your Lordships will appreciate. Twenty years later a Judge of Assize has again to complain of this defect in the law. Mr. Justice Talbot has done it, and it is in order that this may no longer be a reproach to our legal system that I would ask your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill. I would like to add that, should you do so, I will then propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of this House, and it will then be possible for it to be considered, word by word, most carefully by those who have had long experience in administering the Criminal Law of this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I think this House is very much indebted to the noble and learned Lord for bringing this matter to its attention. I can well conceive that it is desirable to cover the gap between the offence of procuring abortion and the offence of killing a fully-born child with separate existence. That that gap has hitherto been uncovered is a misfortune. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that probably his particular measure will require further consideration, and that very
620
likely the measure that was in the House of Commons may afford, at any rate, useful advice to the Committee in finally shaping this Bill. I cordially support the proposal that the Bill be read a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that most of your Lordships agree with the view just expressed by my noble friend Lord Phillimore, that we are indebted to the noble and learned Lord who has brought this matter to the attention of this House. That this gap in the Criminal Law has existed has been known to lawyers for a great many years, and the only criticism which I venture to make upon the charge of Mr. Justice Talbot, which has been read to your Lordships, is this, that I doubt whether it is true to say that there are many cases in which this offence, or what ought to be an offence, has happened, and has happened without punishment. But obviously it is a gap which ought to be closed. On the other hand there are one or two considerations which come to my mind. First of all I think it is important that if we are to make an amendment in the Criminal Law we should be very careful to ensure that there is not to be overlapping in the Bill to which Lord Darling has referred and the provisions of the Act with regard to infanticide. We should be very careful to provide that a person charged with one offence should not get off because that person was only guilty of the other offence, and so it would be possible to ring the changes between various Acts.
Then further, in looking at the Bill now before your Lordships, I observe that it is made an offence wilfully to kill a child in the act of birth. I believe it to be a fact that there are cases in which a doctor has to choose between losing the life of the mother and wilfully destroying the life of the child which is being born. Obviously such a state of affairs, if it exists, must be safeguarded and protected by legislation. I am not sure that that matter is covered by the Bill as drawn. That is a question which will require consideration. It seems to me in these circumstances that while it is eminently desirable that this matter should be dealt with, and that therefore this Bill should be given a Second Reading, it is also important before the Bill

621
becomes crystalised into an Act of Parliament that it should be very carefully considered and if necessary amended, by members of your Lordships' House who are familiar with the administration of the Criminal Law. I am very glad, therefore, that my noble and learned friend Lord Darling has intimated that in the event of a Second Reading being accorded to the Bill, he will in due course move that it be referred to a Select Committee, which I understand from him is likely to consist of members of this House who have practical experience of the Criminal Law, and will so be in a position to ensure, first of all, that the gap is adequately closed and, secondly, that when closing it we do not do injustice in any other directions. With these observations I beg to support the Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Darling.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I only desire to say upon the second point to which the Lord Chancellor called attention, that I realise that there is some anxiety on the part of those who may have to assist women in the course of their accouchement lest they should be in the dilemma which the Lord Chancellor has mentioned and be obliged, in order that two lives may not be sacrificed, intentionally to sacrifice that of the child. I would add that in Lord Robert Cecil's Bill as it emerged from the Standing Committee that case was provided for by a clause in the Bill. If that Bill had become law there need have been no kind of anxiety on the part of the medical profession or midwives and, of course, I shall myself do all that I can to see that the Select Committee, if your Lordships will let this Bill go to a Select Committee, include that protection in this Bill before it is passed.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee of this House.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of this House.—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BANKERS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

IRISH FREE STATE CIVIL SERVANTS.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he is yet in a position to make any communication to this House in respect of the case of the Irish Civil Servants?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the answer to the Question addressed to me by the noble Earl is in the affirmative. I have a, communication to make with regard to the present position. Your Lordships will remember that some few weeks ago there was a debate in your Lordships' House with regard to this problem on a Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, and in the course of that debate a statement was made by the Secretary of State for India to the effect that there seemed to be grave reason for believing that the decision given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Wigg and Cochrane had contained a mistake as to fact which rendered the judgment exactly the opposite to what they had intended upon the principles therein laid down, and that it was proposed to introduce legislation to put right that mistake. Your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debate which ensued the point was taken that if we were to proceed by legislation the result must be that persons who would be affected by the legislation would never have an opportunity of putting their case and that that was not a right or desirable thing to do, however clear the mistake might appear to be.
The suggestion was thrown out by my noble and learned friend Lord Reading, that it might be found possible to arrange

623
for a re-hearing of the case in the Judicial Committee. In response to that suggestion, which I think will appeal to a great many of your Lordships, I undertook that I would look into the position and discuss it with my colleagues in the Government. In pursuance of that undertaking I have been in consultation with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It appeared to me on consideration that the actual course suggested by Lord Reading of rehearing this particular case was not one which was practicable, but I have thought of a scheme which I think carries out his intention, and that is to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, not this particular case of Wigg and Cochrane but the point involved in the case as a matter for consideration and report under a section of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. It is the same section of which use has been made several times in recent years, and notably in the case of the dispute as to the Ulster boundary in the year 1924. The effect of such a reference will be, as your Lordships will appreciate, that the point at issue will be fully argued just as in any ordinary case, and that the Judicial Committee, having heard arguments on both sides, will then make their Report to His Majesty in exactly the same way as if the case came in the form of an ordinary suit between two individuals.
Having reached that conclusion, which I hope and believe carries out the desire which has been expressed by several of your Lordships, my right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, addressed a Despatch to the Irish Free State, dated June 8, 1928. With your Lordships' permission, I shall read this Despatch and the answer, and the Order which it is proposed to make in accordance with the arrangement therein set out. The Despatch is in these terms:—
"With reference to previous Despatches on the subject of the payment of compensaton to civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement of December 6, 1921, I have the honour to state that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have been giving further consideration to the steps to be taken with a view to carrying out the general police which has been agreed upon between the two Governments.
"2. It will be recalled that the matter was the subject of a debate in the House of Lords on April 25, 1928. In the course of that debate statements were made both
624
by members of the Judicial Committee who heard the case of Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane versus the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State and also on behalf of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, indicating that the advice tendered by the Committee had proceeded on certain incorrect assumptions of fact, thereby tending to deprive that advice of its authoritative character. 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.
"3. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain hope that His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State will be prepared to assist in securing that all the relevant considerations are placed fully before the Judicial Committee. A draft reference, a copy of which is enclosed, has accordingly been prepared with a view to the matter being submitted to the Judicial Committee at the earliest date possible."
To that Despatch a reply was received, dated June 10, in the following terms:—
"I have the honour to refer to your Despatch No. 178A of June 8 on the subject of the payment of compensation to civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty signed on the 6th December, 1921.
"2. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State note the proposal of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to refer the matter mentioned in the second paragraph of your Despatch to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in the special circumstances His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State will be prepared to assist in securing that all relevant considerations are placed fully before the Judicial Committee.
"3. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State have no observations to make on the draft proposed reference to the Judicial Committee, which was transmitted with your Despatch under reply."
Then the reference, which was approved by His Majesty in Council on the 15th of this month, is in these terms:—
"Whereas it is provided by Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing or consideration any such matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit:
"And whereas there was this day read at the Board a letter from the Right Honourable Leopold Amery, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, referring to Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on the 6th December, 1921, whereby the Government of the Irish Free State agreed to pay fair compensation on terms not favourable than

625
those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to Judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who should be discharged by them or who should retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance thereof (which Articles of Agreement were confirmed by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by Act No. 1 of 1922 of Dail Eireann, respectively) and stating that the Government of the Irish Free State in determining the amount of compensation to be paid by them under the provisions of the said Article had followed the principles laid down in certain Minutes of the British Treasury regarding the assessment of superannuation allowances or gratuities and in particular a Minute of the 20th March, 1922, and that it had been contended that in respect of civil servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the date of the last mentioned Minute the amounts so determined were not fair compensation or alternatively were not fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, within the meaning and true intent of Article 10 of the said Articles of Agreement:
"Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, that the question whether the payment of compensation determined in manner aforesaid in respect of civil servants or other officials or public servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the 20th day of March, 1922, is a payment of compensation within the meaning and true intent of Article 10 of the said Articles of Agreement be and the same is hereby referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration."
The result of that will, I hope, be to meet the objection that has been taken to the proposed procedure by legislation. The matter to be determined is, I feel confident, accurately and fully stated in the terms of reference which I have just read to your Lordships. I cannot tell your Lordships' House the exact date of the hearing because that must depend to some extent, of course, on the time which the parties will take to prepare for the argument. But I have myself every hope that if there be good will on both sides, as I hope there will be, there is no reason why the matter should not be heard and determined within the next five or six weeks; that is to say, before this Session comes to an end. I hope to be able, in fact I shall make it my business to see that I am able, to arrange for a Board to be constituted to take the case, and, as I say, with reasonable good will there is no adequate
626
reason why the matter should not be discussed and decided within the next six weeks. I hope that will be a solution which will commend itself to your Lordships. In view of the fact that this matter is to be referred to the Judicial Committee your Lordships, I am sure, will not wish me to say anything about the merits of the dispute.
I would only add that of course any decision of the Judcial Committee given under this reference will not affect the actual judgment obtained by the two individual claimants Mr. Wigg and Mr. Cochran, who have got their judgment, which judgment will stand unreversed whatever decision may be reached upon this reference. But the decision on the reference will determine all other cases and will enable the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to know exactly what the legal position is with regard to all these persons who claim that they have not had sufficient in the way of compensation.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the House has heard with great interest the extremely important announcement made by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Unfortunately the question of the noble Earl was not put upon the Paper, if I am right, until yesterday. Consequently, a great many noble Lords who are very deeply interested in this question; which has now been prolonged over a great period of time, are not present to-day and, like my noble friend Lord Carson, who is not able to be here, would doubtless like to consider the terms of the reference and to see whether they will meet the necessities of the case. That being so, I certainly have no intention or desire to make any comments at the moment. I have only heard the terms of reference read and I am not in a position to judge of them. But it is not improbable, I think, that those who have watched this question for some time may, when they see the terms of reference on paper, desire to make some comment upon, or some suggestions in regard to them. That, of course, will be the subject of a Motion which, if it became necessary, would be put down at once, I hope, because the matter does not brook delay.
Meanwhile, perhaps my noble friend on the Woolsack would be able to give me an answer on one or two points. I

627
gathered from him, and with great satisfaction, that whatever the decision of the Privy Council upon this new reference may be it will not affect the rights of the successful appellants in the case of Wigg and Cochrane, and that they will be entitled to receive the compensation to which the Privy Council in May last held them to be entitled. I also gathered that the persons for whom Mr. Wigg and Mr. Cochrane acted, who were in exactly the same position as themselves—namely, civil servants who had been transferrd or were alleged to have been transferred to the Irish Free State and had retired under Article 10 of the Treaty—would be affected. In other words, whereas it was thought that the decision of the Privy Council of May, 1927, would decide the rights not only of Mr. Wigg and Mr. Cochrane but of all other persons in the same position as they were (because Wigg and Cochrane was a representative action), I rather gather that the rights and interests of those persons will be subject to this new hearing before the Privy Council. If that be so, I would venture to suggest to my noble friend on the Woolsack that if that decision be adhered to, provision should in any case be made for the costs of those persons who might have to appear at the new hearing before the Privy Council and who were under the full impression—and, I think, rightly—that their rights had already been decided by the decision of the Privy Council of May, 1927. That is the first question—whether those persons will have to argue their case again before the Privy Council.
Another question I should like to ask is whether Messrs. Wigg & Cochrane, or those whom they represent, have been consulted either by the Government here or by the Irish Government before this new proposal was arrived at. There is one further question, if I am not unduly trespassing upon the patience of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like to ask: Will this new hearing before the Privy Council affect the rights and interests of those Irish civil servants who were transferred to the Irish Government, but who have not yet actually retired? It is a vitally important question for them because there is considerable dispute going on as to what their position is. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will be
628
able to tell us whether the new proposed reference to the Privy Council will be wide enough to enable a decision upon the rights of those transferred men who have not already retired from the Service to be given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Danesfort. First of all he desires to know whether or not the costs of the hearing will be provided for. Certainly; I have the authority of the Treasury for saying that the costs will be provided for. Secondly, he wishes to know whether the representatives of Messrs. Wigg & Cochrane or other civil servants were consulted by His Majesty's Government or by the Irish Free State. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned we were dealing with the Irish Free State Government and with no one else, and no consultation with anybody except the Irish Free State Government took place so far as the Dominion Office is concerned. Whether or not the Irish Free State Government consulted the representatives of the various civil servants is a matter which I cannot answer, because I should have to find out from them.
The third question is whether the decision in the Privy Council will affect Irish civil servants who have not yet retired. I cannot answer that question categorically for the reason that I do not quite know what claim it is exactly to which the noble Lord is referring. The terms of reference are to decide the question whether the payment of compensation determined in manner aforesaid—that is to say, determined in accordance with the Treasury Minute of March, 1922, in respect of civil servants or other officials or public servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the 20th March, 1922—is a payment of compensation within the meaning and true intent of Article 10. If therefore the claims to which my noble friend refers are claims by civil servants or other public servants so transferred for the payment of compensation to them under Article 10, that is covered by the terms of reference, but if there is some other claim which they are to put forward outside Article 10 obviously it is not covered by the terms of reference. Quite frankly I had not known till this

629
moment they had any claims outside Article 10 with which His Majesty's Government of Great Britain had any concern. I have answered as far as I can the noble Lord's questions. I am anxious not to mislead my noble friend, and I cannot answer in regard to any claim of the nature and scope of which I know nothing at the present moment.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, might I, with permission, add one word? First I wish to thank the learned Lord Chancellor for his clear statement on most of the questions. As to the last question, with regard to transferred servants who have not actually retired, I know from many letters that very serious questions have arisen between them and His Majesty's Government as to, first of all, whether they are entitled to retire, and, secondly, as to what compensation they should have if they did retire. Might I suggest to the noble and learned Lord,
630
if I am right in that supposition—and I think I am—that it might be wise, possibly, to use this reference to the Privy Council to settle such outstanding questions as that. It is most undesirable, I think, that these transferred civil servants who have not yet retired should have to go through the whole course of litigation in the Irish Free State first, and finally, possibly, have to appeal to the Privy Council in order to determine their rights when here is a Tribunal which might settle all questions at issue between them and the Free State Government once and for all. Perhaps I might be allowed to communicate with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in regard to that matter. I think the House will agree that it is desirable to avoid as much as possible future litigation between the Irish Free State Government and civil servants.
House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock.