Lords Sitting of 28 November 1928

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

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Perth Corporation; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BRISTOL GAS ORDER, 1928.

  SHEFFIELD GAS ORDER, 1928.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in reference to these Orders I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 6th instant be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

ASHFORD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
  BURNLEY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.

    COLCHESTER ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
    CRANLEIGH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER. 1928.
    DAWLISH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    FELIXSTOWE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
    LOUTH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
    MAGHULL AND LYDIATE ELECTRICITY (AUGHTON EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    MID-WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
    MIDDLESBROUGH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
    PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    TAIN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
    WEST HANTS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given.
    Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 6th instant be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the development of aviation in this country they have considered what steps should be taken, by which residents, who have suffered damage, may obtain compensation or redress, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper requires from me any very long speech. It is not that I find fault at all with our flying services, whether the most admirable public air services, civil aviation or His Majesty's military and naval Air Services. There is no complaint about them. My Motion rather concerns the future when, as we are told, flying will have become extremely common and will be an ordinary means of locomotion from place to place. As flying machines will then be in ordinary use accidents will naturally happen, and those accidents may cause a great deal of damage to houses and in other ways. It might be that a machine might descend upon a crowded omnibus, or a char-a-banc or even upon a passenger train. That sort of catastrophe is quite possible in connection with aviation. If damage is done by
342
privately-owned aircraft how will compensation be forthcoming to the sufferer, the resident of a house, the passenger in an omnibus or whoever it might be?
According to the Common Law, which was quoted the other day by a Judge in New Zealand, I believe that the ownership of land carries with it the ownership of a column of air above the land right up to the skies. Whether that is true or not I am not able to say. It has already been affected by the Air Navigation Act of 1920. Section 9, subsection (1), of that Act distinctly states that no nuisance or grievance can be entertained by reason of a flying machine flying over anybody's land. It is clearly laid down by that Act that there is no trespass. The same subsection also states that for any material damage done by aircraft in flight, taking off, or landing or by any object falling out of the machine the owners of the machine shall be liable to pay compensation.
The second point I wish to deal with is that of low flying. Since my Motion appeared on the Paper the Secretary of State for Air gave a very satisfactory assurance in another place as to every precaution being taken to provide against people, householders and others, suffering damage by low flying. The question then arises whether you are always able to identify the flyer. In the answer to which I have just referred the Secretary of State said that suitable action was taken where there had been complaint of low flying, wherever the circumstances appeared to demand it and the machine could be identified. As I say, the question is how to identify the low-flying machine. There have been two recent cases, I think, in which accidents have resulted from low flying. There was a case last year at Bournemouth in which a herd of cattle was frightened by a low-flying aeroplane and ran in all directions. The farmer who owned the cattle took his gun and fired at the machine, but was acquitted, I believe, of any crime. There was, I know, another case at Edinburgh the other day in which a one-armed gardener was leading a pony. A low-flying machine came over and frightened the pony, which nearly pulled the one-armed man's remaining arm out of its socket. The machine, of course, went on and no redress was obtainable.
The first of the two chief points that I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that after flying has been very much developed there will be, no doubt, civil owners of aircraft as regardless of other people as are the motor cyclists who now tear about the country, and there may be people with no money at their backs using flying machines and doing personal injury to people and great damage to property. As far as we can see, there would be no means of recompensing the sufferers in such cases. The other point is that there should be means of identifying machines as far as possible—it is very difficult—in cases where there has been low flying. I understand that a law was recently passed in France to provide against these evils. It provides that every private owner of a flying machine shall belong to some recognised society, club or company; that there shall be well-defined means of marking the machines so that they can be identified and recognised, and also that the company or club shall be liable for any damage done by the owner of a machine. I can see no other way of remedying what I think may prove to be a very great source of evil.
I move in this matter because I think your Lordships will agree that when the motor was first established nobody realised what its full development would be. The result was that at the start roadside houses were rendered almost uninhabitable by dust. Then came fast-moving lorries and chars-a-bancs which shook the foundations of houses and so on, and the mortality amongst children playing on the roads was extensive and continues to be so to this day. Many of our roads are practically impossible for children or infirm and old people. We do not want to see the reproduction of such evils in connection with houses and so on to which very severe damage may be done by civil aviation when it becomes general. Therefore I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that this Question has been raised by my noble friend, as I welcome the opportunity of stating on behalf of His Majesty's Government that they are most desirous that the development of aviation in this country as required by the national
344
interest shall be attended by a minimum of inconvenience to the general public. It is a matter of history that all similar developments of new means of transport have brought with them their own peculiar problems and have in general been attended, in the days of their early growth, by some measure of unavoidable inconvenience. It will be remembered that in the middle of the last century the best means of reconciling the urgent need for the development of railways with the rights of property owners and the convenience of those living in the immediate vicinity of the main arteries of traffic presented an acute problem, and gave rise at the time to sharp differences of opinion. More recently the rapidly increasing use of the motor car, alike for purposes of business and pleasure, has brought in its train other problems, some of which await solution at the present time. Yet if the railway and motor car have brought with them their difficulties and dangers, I do not think any one will to-day be found to deny that they have also conferred almost incalculable benefits on the community at large and have with the passage of time become absolutely indispensable.
It would, I think, be too much to expect that the development of aviation in this country will not be beset by somewhat similar problems and the matter is one to which the Air Ministry have for some years past given a great deal of thought and attention. As a result, in so far as civil aviation is concerned, the question was dealt with by legislation eight years ago. I refer to Section 9 of the Air Navigation Act of 1920. Under this Act aircraft may fly over land without trespassing if they do so at a reasonable height. At the same time those responsible for Air administration have throughout felt that some protection for property owners and others on the ground is essential. Accordingly, it is further provided in this section of the Act that where material damage, injury, or loss is caused to persons or property on the ground by an aircraft taking off, landing, or crashing, or by articles falling from it, damages shall be recoverable from the owner of the aircraft without consideration of negligence or intention or other cause of action, except where there is contributory negligence by the injured party. Under that section of the Air

345
Navigation Act which I have quoted there is, therefore, given a statutory remedy against the owner or hirer of the aircraft as distinct from the pilot, without, of course, in any way abolishing or interfering with the rights already possessed by the injured party under the Common Law of the land. The section is, in short, a compromise between the requirements of civil aviation and the rights and interests of property owners and others on the ground. Its object is, in fact, to ensure that, whilst the legitimate development of flying shall not be cramped, it shall proceed under conditions such as to protect so far as possible the rights and reasonable amenities of the property owner and facilitate his obtaining redress.
I may add that with a view to minimising the likelihood of damage the regulations governing aviation, whether civil or service, are most stringent in their prohibition of all flying which may endanger persons or property on the ground. For example, they prohibit flying over cities or towns except at such an altitude as will enable the aircraft to land outside the city or town in case of engine failure. They place severe restrictions on the performance of trick flying and aerial acrobatics, and in general they prohibit any kind of flying which, by reason of low altitude or proximity to persons or dwellings, is likely to cause unnecessary danger to persons or property on land or water.
As to the identification of aeroplanes, in order to enable the individual machine to be distinguished, all service aircraft bear an identifying letter followed by not more than four figures, which are painted in colours chosen to give the greatest degree of legibility against their background. For instance, if the surface is aluminium they are painted in black, whilst if it is dark green they are painted in white. These identifying letters and figures are painted both on the underside of the lower planes so that they may be clearly visible to persons on the ground, and also on both sides of the hull or fuselage. It is prescribed that, to facilitate recognition, they shall be as large as the available surface permits. In the cases of the standard training machine in use in this country the height of the letters and figures painted on the lower planes is 2 ft. 6 ins., their width 1 ft. 6 ins. and
346
their thickness 4 ins. The identification of any individual machine flying low should therefore present no difficulty. A civil pilot who infringes the regulations is liable to have his licence suspended, and also to prosecution, with penalties of fine or imprisonment on conviction. A service pilot in similar circumstances would be dealt with by disciplinary means and could be court-martialled. Under the King's Regulations especial care is to be taken to avoid flying low over stock during the breeding season.
In conclusion, I should like to say again that it is the Air Ministry's most earnest desire to take every precaution possible to ensure that the growth of flying shall cause the minimum possible interference with the convenience and amenities of the public. They will welcome any suggestions which may be of assistance to this end and are anxious to enlist the support and sympathy of all classes of the community (and not least of your Lordships' House), in this new and far-reaching development of flying, which I believe will be immensely valuable to mankind. The noble Lord mentioned a point in regard to the people who are not able to afford to pay for the damage which their machines have done. There is at present in this country no system, such as they have in France, by which clubs are liable for damage, but there is a system of third-party risk insurance. I do not think the Government would consider it necessary to make this compulsory at present, because one is averse from grandmotherly legislation. Still, the Government have an open mind on the subject and will be very glad to consider any further suggestions the noble Lord may make on this or other points.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Duke for his reply. To a great extent we are in agreement, but the difficulty is how you are to get money out of a man who has committed damage if that man has no money. Anyone with £200 can buy a light flying machine and traverse the country, and possibly such a person might do great damage to private residences. How are we to get the money out of him if he has none with which to pay? He might, for instance, drop into a char-a-banc and seriously injure quite a lot of people, and yet those people might be unable to get any compensation from

347
him because of his lack of means. I do not think it is compulsory that a flying owner should be a member of a club or association. As to identification, how can any one swear as to the colours or numbers of a machine flying low at a rate of 100 miles per hour? It is absurd. I admit that it is an extraordinarily difficult problem to deal with, but I think the Government ought to consider whether they should not adopt the French system by which an owner must belong to a recognised association. There might then be some means of tracing to which association the pilot of the machine belonged, and thereby of identifying him and enabling the people injured to secure reparation for the damage done. I think the Government ought also earnestly to consider whether they should not make third-party risk insurance compulsory. I would ask the noble Duke to request the Government to consider those two points—an obligation to be a member of a recognised club which would have funds with which to compensate sufferers and compulsory third-party risk insurance.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I will.
LORD LAMINGTON: I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADEN PROTECTORATE.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government, whether the report that the Imam of the Yemen has withdrawn his forces from the Aden Protectorate is correct, and what are our present relations with him, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again. This is a matter which I have raised two or three times in your Lordships' House. We have been for many years at Aden in a very undignified position. There are a number of tribes who have been, if not subject to the rule, at all events more or less under the control of the Imam of the Yemen, and we have not been able to do anything to secure the departure of his forces from the Protectorate. I saw, however, in the newspapers lately a statement that by bombing some of his towns and forts he has been induced to withdraw his forces. I should like to know what is
348
the exact position. I can only hope that what has been stated may be the case.
I should also like to know particularly what are our relations with the Imam. It is most important that we should be on excellent terms with him. He had a distinct grievance against us owing to our treatment of him and our conduct soon after the Armistice, and I think we should do something to mitigate the ill feeling or come to some terms. If necessary—though I do not suggest it is necessary—the boundaries of the Aden Protectorate might in some way be altered so as to meet his views and wishes. The position, I think, really is that he does not ask to have any rule over the country, but that he considers he has certain hereditary rights in Southern Arabia. If we could find some means of meeting his views and wishes on this point I understand that he would be only too pleased to come into friendly relations with us. I beg to move.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as my noble friend has said he has raised this Question once or twice before in your Lordships' House. I think the last time he raised it was in February or March of this year. Since that time, when my noble friend Lord Lovat replied on behalf of the Government, considerable progress has been made towards a settlement with the Imam. Last spring the Zeidis, who are the inhabitants of the Yemen, had their headquarters at a place called Kataba, which is just over the line delimited in 1904 as the frontier between the Aden Protectorate and what was then Turkish territory. They kidnapped the Alawi sheikh and a relative of the Koteidi sheikh. Both these sheikhs are sheikhs of tribes which are situated in the Aden Protectorate. The result of this was that the Zeidis were bombed at Kataba and the two men who were kidnapped were released and returned home. After that a thirty days' truce was granted to the Imam who sent information that he wanted to negotiate with a representative of His Majesty's Government. The Resident heard also that the Imam was willing to withdraw his forces from the whole of the Protectorate, though in fact he had not got a letter from the Imam to that effect and the information was not substantiated.

349
In April a representative of His Majesty's Government, Major T. C. Fowler, who was acting Political Representative at Aden, went to a place called Taiz and met a representative of the Imam. Taiz is in Yemen territory about twenty miles north-north-east of the delimited frontier. At that place conversations took place, but an agreement was not reached, and so, in order to allow the negotiations to go on, the truce was extended. Unfortunately, the Imam's representatives continued to procrastinate and no agreement looked like being reached. It appeared to be clear that the Imam was merely playing for time and was not seriously endeavouring to come to an agreement. Notwithstanding that, it was proposed that the truce should be further extended on the understanding that the town of Dhala should be evacuated by the Imam by June 20.
Dhala is the principal town in the protected area which was occupied by the Imam's forces; it is situated on the trade route and it is a weekly market. The Imam, however, did not comply with this request. He did not evacuate Dhala and so the truce was suspended and air action was taken against the Zeidis forces both in the Protectorate and in the Yemen itself. The result of the action was that the Imam withdrew all his forces from the Dhala area and now he has evacuated all the country within the Aden Protectorate, the frontier of which was definitely delimited in 1904. However, he still remained in part of Yafa and about half the Audauli country, which is situated within the Protectorate, though the actual frontier line has never been actually delimited by a Commission such as the Fitzmaurice Commission in 1904.
In September the Resident at Aden received a letter from the Imam indicating his willingness to re-open negotiations, and an invitation was sent to him to send a representative to Aden to confer with the Resident there as to the terms of a preliminary agreement. We proposed that His Majesty's Government should recognise the complete independence of the Yemen, and that in the preliminary agreement there should be a clause relating to the boundary and a definition of the actual situation of the boundary at the date of the Treaty. A full power has been prepared to
350
enable the Resident to negotiate with the Imam and we have been in frequent communication with the Resident as to the terms to be discussed. I mentioned just now that the Imam has withdrawn his forces over the actual delimited frontier so that now the de jure frontier, the old Anglo-Turkish frontier, is in fact the frontier. If recognition of this frontier can be obtained and further frontier incidents can be avoided, it will be possible to take up the various points of detail which may be at issue between the Government and the Imam, and it is hoped that we may be able to come to an understanding with him.
I may say that harvesting operations are going on quietly, and that the weekly market at Dhala is in full swing and attracting people from over the border. The last time this Question was raised the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, was here, and he mentioned the question of the Makalla trade route. I have reason to believe that that is functioning all right. The noble Lord's Motion is to lay Papers. I cannot help thinking that after what I have been able to say he will agree that it would be inadvisable to lay any Papers at the present juncture. We are hoping to bring negotiations with the Imam to a successful conclusion within a reasonable time and I think it would be obviously undesirable to publish Papers while negotiations are going on in case they might prejudice the success of the negotiations.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the very satisfactory answer which he has given me. It only now remains for our negotiations to be carried on with the Imam in a friendly fashion. We must recognise that he had a distinct grievance against us after the Armistice. We behaved foolishly and most unfairly to him, and I think that if his feelings can be soothed in that direction a great deal will have been done. As I indicated in my first remarks, I think also that if there is some recognition that he has hereditary rights over Southern Arabia that also will be gratifying to his self-respect. I need not detain your Lordships any longer. I am very pleased indeed with what has been done in this important matter. Other countries are trying to enter into close relationship with the Imam of the

351
Yemen and therefore we do not desire to neglect our opportunities in this matter if we can possibly avoid it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, which are not Private Bills, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships have on many occasions been pleased to accept a Motion in the same terms as that which I have put upon the Paper for to-night, and I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with any arguments in its favour. I believe that there is no actual Consolidation Bill before either House at present, but it is just as well that the Committee should be set up at once in order to be ready to take any business that may be brought before it. As communications between the two Houses for the setting up of the Committee usually occupy some time, I suggest that we should get the Committee fully constituted as soon as we can.
I say that there are no Consolidation Bills on the Table at present, but there certainly is one Bill with regard to which this House and Parliament were last Session given to understand that it would be followed immediately by a consolidation, and that, in fact, the form that the Bill took, which laid it open to a great deal of criticism, was chiefly designed to facilitate consolidation. I venture to say that the much abused form of legislation by reference is very often convenient when a Bill is passed with a view to consolidation. It renders the actual process of consolidation very simple. I ventured to speak to the late Lord Chancellor about the form of the Companies Bill, and he was good enough to inform me that it was decidedly his intention that the Bill should never actually come into operation, that a clause had been introduced into it so as to enable a Consolidation Bill to be passed, and that the objectionable Bill would never actually take its place upon the Statute Book. So much for the Consolidation Bill that I accordingly hope we
352
may see upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I hope that it may be referred in the usual way to the Consolidation Committee.
Another Bill that I have in mind is the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I do not think that I am in a position to say that there was ever an actual promise given that the Acts relating to this matter would be consolidated, but very severe remarks were made both in this House and in another place about the form of the Unemployment Insurance Bill this time last year. In fact there was almost a first-class debate on the subject in the other House regarding the effects of the Bill, and the hope that it would never actually appear on the Statute Book found voice, I think, in all parts of that House. I do not think that anything was said amounting to a promise of legislation, but certainly, in answer to a very powerful speech on the subject by Lord Carson, who I had hoped would be here this evening, things were said which I think almost amounted to an undertaking that the objectionable Bill would never appear on the Statute Book and that a Consolidation Bill was very desirable. Venturing to say that I know something about legislation, I should like to add my opinion to the opinions that were expressed last Session, that the form of that Bill was very objectionable except on the understanding that it was definitely drawn for the purpose of consolidation.
There is one other point connected with this matter with which I should like to trouble the House. The House may remember that last year the Statute Law Revision Bill was passed and is now an Act of Parliament. It was passed with a view to the issue of volumes of the Revised Statutes, bringing them down to more modern times. The present edition of the Revised Statutes does not go beyond the end of last century, and it would certainly be desirable—and the House on that occasion virtually sanctioned the project—to carry on the Revised Statutes to a later date. The Statute Law Committee, of which I happen to be Chairman and which look to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as their supremum caput, have got the volumes almost ready to come out in the spring, and it certainly would be a, great misfortune if the various Acts that might be got rid of

353
should nevertheless have to appear, instead of Consolidation Acts which would put the Revised Statutes in the most useful form. I refer particularly to the Act of 1920, which will come within the limits of the new volumes of Statutes. I think that everybody who was acquainted with that legislation will agree that it would be a very great pity to give, as it were, a new lease of life to the Act of 1920. Accordingly I should like to press upon the Government that it would be desirable to bring forward a consolidation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, if it be possible to do so.
I anticipate one answer, based on the question of time. But the question of time does not affect this matter. Time does affect in a more than usual degree in the coming year the state of business in the other House, but I should like to point out that Consolidation Bills occupy no time on account of the system under which they proceed by means of the Joint Committee, and the ratio exsistendi of the Joint Committee is that those Bills which are not very happy on the floor of the House should be remitted to it. They practically take up no time in either House, and it has been the practice, and, I believe, on the whole a salutory one, for several years now for both Houses to accept the Report of the Joint Committee on any Bill, and not to attempt to amend it or even discuss it. Therefore I hope the Government will not feel that if they brought in a Bill upon that subject it would interfere with the course of more absolutely necessary legislation. I beg to move the Motion that I have placed on the Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, which are not Private Bills, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I hope that the House will accept this Resolution. I think that those members of this House who have not actually served upon a Consolidation Committee, and who are not lawyers, perhaps hardly appreciate the value of the work which is done by the Consolidation Committee, both in clarifying the law and in rendering it more convenient of access to the profession as well as to laymen. I believe
354
that consolidation, wisely carried out, is of real assistance to the community at large, and I think that both Houses of Parliament and the public have reason to be grateful to those Committees which have for so long very carefully gone through a very tedious task, which has no spectacular advantage and yet which is doing really valuable service.
With regard to the observations which fell from the noble and learned Lord as to the Bills which he hoped to see consolidated, your Lordships will remember that when the Companies Bill was passing through this House last Session I indicated that it was the intention of the Government to effect consolidation before the Statute became operative. That intention, naturally, still exists. I have every reason to believe that the Consolidation Bill is in an advanced stage of preparation, and I hope, therefore, it may be possible to introduce it at no very distant date. With regard to the question of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, I can only say that I am quite sure that the Ministry of Labour, which is the Department directly affected, will pay due consideration to the arguments that the noble and learned Lord has brought forward, but I am not in a position to give any undertaking as to whether or not consolidation will be proposed with regard to that legislation. I think it is somewhat altruistic of the noble and learned Lord to suggest it, when I remember the very arduous nature of the task which he will necessarily undertake when he embarks upon consideration of the Companies Acts, which will come first. I think his Committee will be quite sufficiently occupied with the consideration of that Bill for some little time. However that may be, I am quite sure that the Consolidation Committee is a very valuable one, and I hope your Lordships will unanimously agree to the Motion.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, to whom I think this House is very grateful for his very interesting speech, whether there is any practice as to when Consolidation Bills on particular subjects are introduced—for instance, as to the period of time which would elapse between the first Bill to be consolidated and the last Bill. One can see that there are

355
certain subjects which require almost immediate consolidation—the Companies Acts, for instance—and to my mind there is an increasing number of cases where early consolidation is really absolutely necessary. That is due largely to the practice, which I think is inevitable now, of legislation by reference. It is a horrible thing to do, but it is a thing which has to be done, and, disagreeable as it is for the Legislature, I can assure the House that it is far more disagreeable for the people who have to interpret the law. You have to get down a whole library of books before you are in a position to ascertain the law applicable to a particular case. That being so, I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is possible in those innumerable cases of legislation by reference to have a Consolidation Act as soon as possible, so as to enable those practising at the law to interpret the law, and those who are sitting as Judges to administer it. I do not suppose that the cost is very great, because it is only the cost of printing, and the advantages, as the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, are very great indeed. Perhaps the noble Lord will from his experience tell me what is the practice which prevails in regard to bringing in Consolidation Bills.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I think the bringing in of Consolidation Bills depends almost entirely upon the amount of time that can be given to that work in the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. I think Consolidation Bills, desirable as they are, can only come behind the positive legislation that the Government finds necessary in a particular Session. I have already referred to the present Session, when it continues after Christmas, and to the general view that there will be an Election before very long. Time seems to press, and I can well understand that the Parliamentary Counsel must find themselves in very considerable difficulty as to the work coming directly before them. On the other hand, it is a matter in which I think it is quite
356
possible for them to get assistance. It is not like dealing with some technical matter with regard to unemployment insurance or agriculture, or whatever it is, where it is desirable that the Government should have the work done entirely by the Parliamentary Counsel themselves. I think they can very well, for the purpose of the technical work of consolidation, get someone—perhaps I may be allowed to use an unparliamentary expression and say "get a devil"—for the purpose of that work. The time of Consolidation Bills coming in depends entirely upon the time of the draftsmen. As to the Committee, if your Lordships are good enough to approve of my Resolution, as you have done in previous years, the Consolidation Committee, at any rate, is always ready to take up any work of the kind which is brought forward.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Unemployment Insurance,

Coatbridge Drainage Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.