Lords Sitting of 7 July 1931

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether before the business of the House is taken, it would be convenient that I should ask the noble and learned Leader of the House if he has any statement to make with regard to the course of business in the future.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for asking me this question. He may have noticed, and I dare say others of your Lordships have noticed, the wish expressed by the Prime Minister in another place that Parliament should either adjourn or prorogue at the end of July. Here we are quite up to date with our work, so that we, at any rate, do not put any obstruction or difficulty in the way of that admirable desire, after a very long Session. It may, however, be necessary—I do not want to say more than that to-day—to meet either on Fridays or Mondays, whichever day in the particular case is most convenient to your Lordships. I, of course, will consult your Lordships about it. That would enable us to get through our business and keep quite up to date. I know that privilege will be accorded to me as Leader of the House if I make the request.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. I understand that the Coal Mines Bill is still under discussion in another place. Although we had hoped to discuss it to-day, it really cannot come on for discussion until to-morrow. Therefore I shall put down the same form of Resolution that stands on the Paper in my name to-day, so that it may take precedence over all other work if it is sent up from the Commons in time for us to proceed with it to-morrow. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the necessity of dealing with it as quickly as possible, and therefore I need not say anything more on the subject.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would only assure the noble and learned Lord that I realise that at this stage of the Session it is not unusual for the Government of the day, whoever they may be, to have to make a request on the lines of that which he has just made. I think it is also usual to ask that if it should be found necessary to take precedence in the business of the House, the Leader of the House would do his best to protect any Motion which has already been set down on the Paper or any business which has been advanced, so that the fact that the Government have to take precedence shall not deprive those who have already secured a place of the opportunity of getting their Motions or their Bills adequately discussed.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think it has always been the desire of the Leader of the House, certainly ever since I have been a member, that that should be done if possible. It cannot always be done. There is an instance to-morrow when the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has a Motion on the Paper dealing with slum clearance. It is absolutely essential that to-morrow Government business should take precedence, but I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount that unless there is overwhelming necessity that ought not to be done, and I shall certainly not propose that it be done.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EBENEZER CHAPEL BIRMINGHAM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name
620
in order that Standing Orders may be suspended so that Government business shall have precedence.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting, and that Government business have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LANCASTER AND DISTRICT) JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, there are several drafting Amendments on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("as amended")
Schedule, page 3, line 37, leave out ("arbitrator") and insert ("Tribunal to whom the question of disputed compensation shall be submitted")
Schedule, page 3, line 44, leave out ("he so determines he") and insert ("the Tribunal so determines it")
Schedule, page 5, line 8, after ("20") insert ("feet").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND SEATON BURN VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ST. HELENS AND YORK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (GODALMING AND SCUNTHORPE AND FRODINGHAM) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND LEICESTER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after Clause 34, to insert:
Certain rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament.
".—(1) Where any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or rules for life-saving appliances applicable to passenger
622
steamers plying on international voyages, or any of the wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages, being a regulation or rule made after the passing of this Act and in force at the commencement of this Part of this Act, contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a requirement which—

(a) is at variance with any specific requirement of the Safety Convention; and

(b) was not contained in the regulations or rules in force at the passing of this Act;

the regulation or rule, as the case may be, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act.
(2) Where any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or wireless telegraphy rules, being a regulation or rule applicable as aforesaid and made after the commencement of this Part of this Act, contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, such a requirement as aforesaid, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(3) All rules for life-saving appliances made after the commencement of this Part of this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, together with a report stating whether any, and if so which, of the rules applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, such a requirement as aforesaid, and all rules for lifesaving appliances made before the commencement of this Part of this Act, which have not come into force before the commencement of this Part of this Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act, together with such a report as aforesaid.
(4) If either House within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after—

(a) any regulation or rule is laid before it in pursuance of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section; or

(b) any rule is laid before it which is reported in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section to contain such a requirement as aforesaid;

resolves that the regulation or rule shall he annulled, the regulation or rule shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation or rule.
(5) Subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven of the principal Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any rules for life-saving appliances made after the commencement of this Part of this Act and with respect to any such rules made before the commencement of this Part of this Act which have not come into force before the commencement of this Part of this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry that the House should

623
be troubled again with this matter. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, agrees with me in that. I have letters from shipowners, particularly from one well known in this House, taking the view that the attitude which the Parliamentary body—not the shipowners themselves—is adopting in this House is raising, in their opinion, a very small point. They desire that the Bill should pass and hope it may pass in such a way that this House agrees with the view put forward by the Board of Trade.
I wish to say only a word or two on this Amendment because this matter has been "talked out," if I may use that expression. We are dealing with an International Convention—that is, a Convention that does not come up to the view of all parties but is in the nature of a compromise. The compromise which is before your Lordships in the two Conventions was agreed to by all the parties present, including the representatives of the British shipowners. I should have thought that this in itself would be sufficient unless some great matter were involved. The only point that I could follow at all in the criticism of the Bill was that raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Halisham, who said that if we retained our existing national powers and at the same time the Convention was the general rule, a stronger obligation might be placed upon British shipowners than upon the shipowners foreign countries which had signed the Convention. On that point I have made inquiry and have found that under the Act of 1925 arrangements can be made, and have been made in all important cases, by which, if a foreign country allows our shipping to go into its ports—for instance, into German ports—on a certificate that it has complied with the British requirements, then under the principle of reciprocity we allow German ships to enter our ports on a certificate that they have complied with the German regulations. It is that arrangement, which, in fact, is largely used by every large passenger-trading shipowner in the country, that becomes the model in the form of a Convention.
The fact that a matter of this kind has been confirmed in the Convention might well persuade us to end the discussion. The view put forward by Great Britain
624
originally, and by her representatives in the Convention, shows that all shipowners are most desirous that the Convention should come into law. I am obliged to say that, if the view that I have put forward is disputed, and the present attitude of noble Lords opposite is insisted upon in another place, as I am sure it will not be, the Convention would have to fail. All parties to the Convention object entirely to their national regulations being reduced and made less efficient so long as they come under the obligation to see that the conditions of the Convention are observed. That is the only possible way, and no greater uniformity and equality is possible. I have stated my view of the position and I hope this House will not stand in the way of this Bill being passed, so that the Convention may be ratified.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice that he would move the omission from subsection (1) of the words "made after the passing of this Act" and the insertion of the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that we do not want to re-argue the whole of this case, and I hope your Lordships will not expect me to do so. I must say that the speech made by the noble and learned Lord is one that I should have liked to make myself, because he has put forward the whole argument that I have been trying to frame to the House through all the stages of this Bill. He has said that the Convention should come into force as it stands, which is exactly what I am asking for. What I am really asking is, that we should make this Convention the standard and bring our regulations into accord with it. The noble and learned Lord referred to the reciprocity arrangement with other Powers. I think, if he will refer to the Act of 1906,—
LORD PARMOOR: Of 1925.
EARL STANHOPE: I know all about the Act of 1925, but the Act of 1906 is really the main Act in regard to this question. There it is laid down definitely that the Government of this country has power to impose similar regulations to ships coming into our ports, whether

625
under our flag or others, to those imposed on our own ships. Of course there is also a clause by which, where a country has similar regulations to our own, coming up to our standard, we accept their standard as being equivalent to our own, and though the regulations are not identical the standard is regarded as the same. I think the noble and learned Lord will find on inquiry that where nations do not come up to our standard there is no reciprocity agreement and we impose our regulations on those ships.
LORD PARMOOR: I should not like to allow that to pass. My information is that, as regards twelve large countries, we do accept, and there are not likely to be any practical differences. Their regulations are accepted and the reciprocity principle prevails, although the regulations are not quite identical.
EARL STANHOPE: That is exactly what I said. The regulations may not be identical, but they come up to the same general standard. Therefore, they are quite readily acceptable, and obviously it is a. reasonable agreement. The only point I want to suggest to the noble and learned Lord is that there are countries with a fair amount of shipping that do not come up to our standard and there, I think, he will find that the reciprocity agreement is not in force.
LORD PARMOOR: The Convention would make similar reciprocity universal.
EARL STANHOPE: I think the only point between us is that I am anxious that our regulations should come into line with the Convention, not only those to be made but those that are already in force. Let me just add this. I am anxious about this point because it imposes extra obligations on British shipowners as compared with foreign shipowners. It does not make a real charter unless you accept my Amendment.
The point is really this. Under the Shipping Convention there are three classifications of ships: the home trade, the short international voyage and the long international voyage. The home trade ships are left out of account altogether so far as the regulations of the Conventions are concerned. Under the present Board of Trade regulations, there are only two classifications instead of three. They have the home trade, which includes not
626
only coastal ships but ships going from this country to the nearer ports on the Continent; and they have foreign trade. Foreign trade ships are merely those which go from this country to some other country. Our Board of Trade have no regulations whatever for ships that travel between two foreign ports. Under the Convention they will have to make those regulations. They will first have to alter their regulations in regard to the home trade, in order to take out ships going from this country to the Continent—and incidentally to the South of Ireland, which is a separate country no longer excluded from the Conventions. Secondly they will have to superimpose upon the present classification ships which go between two foreign ports and do not call at ports in this country at all. Under that you will get a real hotch-potch of regulations, and I am anxious, as was suggested by the noble and learned Marquess who leads the Liberal Party, that there should be a new code. If there was a new code it is obvious that it would be impossible to put a few regulations before the Houses of Parliament and to have a few not come before the Houses of Parliament. I suggest that the whole lot should come together.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Marquess is not here, but he informed me that he is in favour of our proposal.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not think that that alters what I have said. All I have said is that he is in favour of a new code, and that it should come before both Houses of Parliament. As your Lordships know, I am only speaking for the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, and in no sense from a Party point of view. Therefore, if the Government decide that they will not accept my Amendment I regret it, because I think my Amendment will improve the Bill. I think it will bring the Bill into line with the Convention. I should like them to do what the Canadian Government is doing. I have here the Bill which has just been brought forward in the Canadian House of Commons. Incidentally, it has only fourteen clauses, instead of well over seventy, as this one has. Clause 4 says:
"The Governor in Council may make such regulations as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the said Conventions. Such regulations shall conform

627
in all respects to the requirements of the said Conventions, and shall have the same force and effect as if enacted herein."
LORD PARMOOR: It is the same as in our Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: No, it is not the same as here, because the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to bring regulations which are at present in force before Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: Does the noble Lord suggest that the Canadian Government are going to give up regulations which at present apply? As regards new regulations the position is the same as here.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not know how you are going to conform with the Convention unless the regulations conform with the Act. I think my Amendment will improve the Bill, but unless I get support I shall not delay the House by pressing the matter to a Division. It must be the Government's responsibility if the Conventions do not have as much effect as most of us would like them to have. We all desire that the Conventions should come into force and have no wish to delay their coming into operation.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In subsection (1), line 6, leave ant ("made after the passing of this Act") and insert ("whether made before or after the passing of this Act").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
On Question, proposed new clause agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: My other Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Fourth Schedule, page 223, line 30, third column, after ("eighty-five") insert ("subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Privilege Amendment made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BETHLEM HOSPITAL AMEND MENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the title of which is so cumbersome that one of my correspondents, who is wholeheartedly in favour of it, is misled into calling it the Marriage (Improper Relationship) Bill, and the provisions of which are so complicated that I shall have to go into them at some length later on, I feel I must first detain your Lordships for a few minutes in order to give you the sequence of events which led up to it. You will doubtless remember that after a great deal of controversy an Act was passed, in 1907, authorising a marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife. Then, after a good deal more controversy, in 1921 another Act was passed allowing a woman to marry the brother of her deceased husband. These Acts have left a somewhat anomalous position, inasmuch as although a man may marry his dead wife's sister he cannot marry the sister's daughter. In the same way, although a woman can marry her deceased husband's brother, nevertheless she is debarred from marrying the brother's son. It is in order to remove these amongst other anomalies that this Bill is now before this House.
With regard to the history of similar measures, Bills having the same object have been before the House of Commons every Session for the last six years. In 1926 a Bill received a Second Reading in another place without a Division, and again in 1927, but owing to its always having been in charge of private members it only once passed its Third Reading in time to reach this House. That was in 1928. On that occasion the Bill had a most chequered and peculiar career in this House. It received its Second Reading without a Division, and it was not until the Committee stage was reached that the guns of its opponents were unmasked. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, had a series of Amendments on the Paper, of which he had given Notice, but he had not given notice of another Amendment, which he moved—namely, that the House, instead of resolving itself forthwith into Committee,

629
should postpone the Committee stage for six months. That amounted really to a rejection of the Bill.
A series of Second Reading speeches ensued. By the time that a Division was taken it was late in the evening, and when the figures were announced it was found that fourteen Peers had voted Content and fourteen Not-Content. That being so the Lord Chancellor declared under Standing Order XXXIII that the question was undecided, and the debate had to be adjourned to the next day. On the following day the debate was continued, but instead of going to a Division again Lord Ullswater ran away and. his Motion was negatived without a Division. The Bill was not amended in Committee, and so when the Third Reading stage was reached the Bill was in exactly the same form, word for word, as it was when it passed its Second Reading without a Division. The late Archbishop Davidson, however, had down a Motion for its rejection. Again there was a series of Second Reading speeches, but on the plea that another six months consideration should be given to the matter—which in point of fact turned out to be six times as long, because it is three years ago—the Bill was killed on Third Reading by twenty-six votes to twenty-five, a majority of one.
Since then there has been ample time for opposition to have been organised in the constituencies, had there been any vital objection to the proposals in the Bill; but the very fact that it has had an easy passage in another place shows that no real ground of opposition exists. It was recently suggested in debate in this House that when all Parties in another place are in accord upon certain proposals, that amounts to a representation of the will of the people, and therefore your Lordships would be amply justified in assenting to any such agreed measure. I submit that this is a good case in point. For this is by no means a Party matter, similar Bills having been introduced into another place in 1926 and 1927 by Sir Arthur Shirley-Benn, in 1928, and in the case of the present Bill by the Rev. James Barr, and I believe in 1922, by Mr. Rendall, a Liberal M.P.
The Bill has of necessity been drawn in somewhat complicated phraseology, but for the benefit of those of your Lordships
630
who have not yet had time to work out the various relationships in every-day English, I beg to inform you that cases 1, 2, 7 and 8 allow a man to marry his various classes of niece by marriage, and cases 3, 4, 5 and 6 allow him to marry his various classes of aunt by marriage. It therefore follows that if you turn cases 1, 2, 7 and 8 round you will find that a woman may marry her uncle by marriage, and in cases 3, 4, 5 and 6 a woman is enabled to marry her nephew by marriage. There is, therefore, no question of blood relationship, but merely that of affinity. As in the 1907 and 1921 Acts, so also in this Bill the provisions are retrospective. The clergy who have scruples about marrying persons in affinity are amply protected. The discipline of the Church is maintained; in fact, the clergy will not be required to do anything which they think they ought not to do.
Before I resume my seat, there is one point to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention. The wording of the proviso in Clause 2 is not in the same form as it was in the Bill of 1928, nor is it as it was introduced in another place. For this reason, that when it was in Committee in another place, the spokesman of the Home Office moved an Amendment to alter the wording. In the opinion of the Home Office it was a purely drafting Amendment, but, owing to the complexity of the matter dealt with, it is not very easy to explain. The point arose in this way. Subsection (1) of Section 184 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, is as follows:
"As soon as any decree for divorce is made absolute, either of the parties to the marriage may if there is no right of appeal against the decree absolute, marry again as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death or, if there is such a right of appeal, may so marry again, if no appeal is presented against the decree, as soon as the time for appealing has expired, or, if an appeal is so presented, as soon as the appeal has been dismissed:
Provided that it shall not be lawful for a man to marry the sister or half-sister of his divorced wife or of his wife by whom he has been divorced during the lifetime of the wife, or the divorced wife of his brother or half-brother or the wife of his brother or half-brother who has divorced his brother during the lifetime of the brother or half-brother."
The necessity for the proviso arose by reason of the fact that the subsection to

631
which it is appended (consolidating the old law) enables divorced persons to marry again, "as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death."
Without the proviso it might have been argued that, inasmuch as persons are entitled to marry as if the marriage had been dissolved by death, a man might under the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act be entitled to marry his divorced wife's sister, and, similarly, that under the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act, 1921, a man might be entitled to marry his divorced brother's divorcee. It was in order to prevent this that the proviso was inserted in the Act of 1925, but that proviso naturally dealt only with the two Prohibited Degrees of Relationship Acts which were then in force. It has been recognised that this proviso must be extended to fit the extended class of marriages which will be permitted under Clause 1 of the Bill, and it is with this intention that Clause 2 was inserted in the Bill. While the proviso suggested by Clause 2 as it originally stood intended to do no more than adapt the existing law without substantive alteration, it did, as drawn, go a great deal further than the existing law, and a good deal further than was intended.
The effect of the proviso as it was originally drawn is most easily shown by illustration. For instance, assume that A's wife's sister has been divorced. A's wife dies. Under the existing law, A is permitted to marry his deceased wife's sister, notwithstanding that her divorced husband is still alive, but, under the proviso as it stood, he would not have been entitled to do so. Again, assume that A has been divorced. Upon the decease of his brother, he would be entitled under the existing law to marry his deceased brother's widow, but, under the proviso as originally drawn, he would not have been entitled to do that. The proviso at present enacted in Section 184 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, is drafted in a form which enumerates the cases dealt with by the two existing Acts, which, complicated as the matter is, was probably the most intelligible way of putting the matter at that time, but if the Bill passes eight further "prohibited degrees" will cease to be prohibited, and
632
to attempt to continue this method would involve a perfectly unintelligible tangle. All that the proviso, as amended, does is to put into general terms the effect of the existing proviso to Section 184 of the Act of 1925 in such a way that it will operate in respect of the "prohibited degrees" in exactly the same way as it operates in respect of the existing ones.
I may mention that, although the Government of the day has never officially supported similar Bills, yet the spokesman of the Home Office has frequently taken a kindly interest in them, as is evidenced by remarks made by Mr. Hacking in 1927 in another place, by my noble friend Lord Desborough in 1928, and by Mr. Adamson on the present Bill. It has been suggested that there are not many people likely to be affected by the provisions of this Bill, and that, therefore, it need not be passed. Is that any reason—because there are only a few people who ask for a little happiness and justice? I venture to think not. For my part, if your Lordships are good enough to place this Bill on the Statute Book, then, if only a few people are made happy, instead of remaining with a sense of injustice in their hearts, I shall, indeed, consider it to have been a privilege to have been in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I dislike this Bill. I think it makes a further departure from a sound and wholesome principle, and I see no signs of any real demand for it. The noble Viscount seemed to imply that, because there was little opposition to it in another place, it could be regarded as representing the will of the people. I do not think the people care anything about it. I do not think they have given it any attention, and I see no kind of trace of any general demand for it. For long centuries the principle was established that the relations of one of the partners of a marriage, whether by affinity or consanguinity, should be regarded as the relations of the other. It was a clear principle, a consistent principle, and it relieved the whole family life, which the

633
husband and the wife share, from the embarrassment which would arise if it were possible that a relation of the husband or the wife might conceivably, if circumstances occurred, become a possible husband or wife of the other.
But into this clear principle Parliament drove a wedge in 1907 when it passed the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act. Assurances were then given in abundance that there was no contemplation, or indeed probability, of any further extension being made. Such assurances, of course, were vain. The breach, once made, was bound to be widened. Consequently, there came the Deceased Husband's Brother's Marriage Bill and now this Bill which proposes to legalise marriages within the remaining degrees of collateral affinity. It has not even the excuse of the two former Bills, and it cannot be alleged that there is any plea for the consideration of the special cases of men or women who may be left with children in their homes and who would naturally look to their deceased wife's sister or deceased husband's brother for help and guardianship. Therefore, as I say, it is a Bill which I intensely dislike. Yet, since Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, departed from the long governing principle in these matters it seems to me futile to go on contesting the extension of what Parliament then did to its logical and legitimate consequences.
Moreover, there are some proposals in the present Bill that are less objectionable than those of the Acts which have already been passed. For example, if a man may marry his deceased wife's sister it seems rather absurd that he may not marry his deceased wife's sister's niece who is further in relationship from himself. I do not forget that the last time a similar Bill was before your Lordships' House my revered predecessor, Archbishop Davidson, moved its rejection and did so in what was his last speech in your Lordships' House as Archbishop of Canterbury. He carried its rejection, as you have been reminded, by only one vote and the main plea which he urged against its introduction was that it had been thrust into the hurry and confusion of the very end of the Session. These objections do not apply in like measure to the present case. Therefore, I confess with very great reluctance and a good deal of hesitation, I have refrained from
634
putting down any Motion that this Bill should be rejected.
It has one satisfactory feature; that is, as I understand it, that the liberty of the clergy guaranteed by the former principal Act has been retained and that the clergy are under no requirement whatsoever either to perform marriages between persons named in this Bill or to lend their Churches to anyone else to perform them—a liberty much greater and, in my judgment, much more just than is accorded to them in regard to the marriage of divorced persons. At the same time your Lordships will recognise that this Bill constitutes a still wider divergence between the principles of the Church and the law of the State—a problem which sooner or later must be faced and which is one of extreme gravity and difficulty. I can only trust that when it is fully and with full responsibility brought before Parliament, Parliament will treat it in a wise and considerate manner.
It is, perhaps, needless to add, yet I think it necessary to say it clearly and to put it on record, that nothing that is contained in these Acts from the one of 1907 to this present Bill of 1931 can be deemed in any respect to change the teaching and discipline of the Church of England as that teaching and discipline were before the principal Act was passed. It is competent for Parliament to give protection and enforcement or its own sanction to that teaching and discipline, but they themselves remain and always will remain outside the sphere of Parliamentary enactment. I have not concealed my dislike or this Bill, as I think it moves still further away from sound and consistent principle governing the home life of the country, but Parliament has broken that principle and I think it must abide the consequences.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, when this measure was before your Lordships' House three years ago did what I could and said what I could with a view to preventing its becoming an Act of Parliament. I have not changed my own personal views on that subject in the least. If I may respectfully say so, I agree with all that the most reverend Primate said in respect of the unhappy effects of a measure of this kind upon family life in this country. It diminishes

635
the area of the family circle, which is an unfortunate thing. It provides the logical sequel to two, as I thought, misguided measures of past times which have at any rate this to be said in their favour, that as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, there was a strong body of public opinion founded upon intelligible and, perhaps, one might call them very generally recognisable reasons. To my mind there is no such body of opinion behind this proposal although it is the logical sequel to the two Acts to which the most reverend Primate referred.
This measure after three years of consideration is again presented here. There are people, as one knows from one's own correspondence, who press, in the name of logic and reason, to be admitted to liberties to which others have been admitted by previous legislation and, although I dislike this Bill as much as I disliked the earlier Bills, I do not propose to take the responsibility of moving against the Motion for Second Reading.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, there is no need for me to delay the Second Reading of this Bill by making a speech. I only rise on behalf of the Government to say that they desire to raise no opposition whatever to the Second Reading. The noble Viscount has explained very fully the history of this measure and the ups and downs during the last years through which various Bills have passed. He is more fortunate to-day. The weighty pronouncement we have heard from the most rev. Primate fortunately is not in opposition to the noble Viscount's Motion. As the most rev. Primate said, a breach had been made in what were regarded as the prohibited degrees by the Act of 1907, and I cannot help thinking that what has happened since then is but a logical sequence, and that the measure we are considering to-day is complementary to previous legislation. I therefore rise only to say that His Majesty's Government will support the Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, there is only one word I should like to say. I am sure that the most rev. Primate will have earned the undying gratitude of the people affected by the really broad position, if I might use that term, which he has taken to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF IMPORTS OF PRODUCTS OF CONVICT OR FORCED LABOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Phillimore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Definitions.
5. For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
The expression "forced labour" means all work or service exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily;
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to add to the definition of forced labour, "but shall not include any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character." The noble Lord said: I need not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I intimated on Second Reading that owing to a failure to understand the construction, if I may put it so, of my own Bill, I did not include this exception, which was included by the drafting convention of the International Labour Conference. The result of not including this exception would be to put on a presumptive black list such countries as France, where a certain amount of work of a military character is carried out by military forces. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to explain the matter further and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) AMEND MENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Removal of doubts as to conditions which may be attached under s. 2 (1) of the principal Act.
3. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the power of the Minister under subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act to make provision for conditions beting attached to any authorisation granted under that subsection (which relates to the marking with the grade designation mark of any article in respect of which such a mark has been prescribed or of any covering containing or label attached to any such article) shall include and shall be deemed always to have included power to make provision for conditions being attached as to the payment of any expenses incurred by the Minister, or by any person or body of persons authorised under that subsection, in connection with the manufacture or use of any die, block, machine, or other instrument requisite for the purpose of the reproduction of the mark, or with the manufacture or use of any covering or label marked therewith.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Lord said: This clause is one for the removal of doubts, and it is said that
"it is hereby declared that the power of the Minister under subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act to make provision for conditions being attached"—
to certain things—
"shall include and shall be deemed always to have included"—
that is retrospective to begin with—
"power to make provision for conditions being attached as to the payment of any expenses"—
that imposes a charge upon the subject which I understood your Lordships could not do—
"incurred by the Minister, or by any person or body of persons authorised under that subsection, in connection with"
certain things. Then follow the things for which he can authorise expenses.
Some years ago, for the first time, there was introduced into the House of Commons a clause of a somewhat similar character. It was, indeed, of a more far-reaching character, because it gave power to the Minister to do practically what he liked, and if a Court of Law interfered he said: "Well, here is Parliament which allows me to do what I like." It would have allowed him to do what he liked without going to Parliament. This clause does not go quite so far as that, but it goes some way in the same direction, because it gives power to the Minister to spend money which has not been authorised by any Resolution in Committee of Supply. There would have to be a Resolution, I presume, in Committee of Supply. I see my noble friend Lord Ullswater present; he will put me right if I am wrong. But this is a House of Lords Bill and not a House of Commons Bill, and the expense would have to be authorised by a Resolution in Committee of Supply.
As I understand it, it is entirely against the opinions of the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite that anything should be introduced into this House which in any kind of way interferes with the Privileges of the Commons. I think I remember only a few weeks ago, on another Bill, that being emphasised very strongly by noble Lords who, I think, said it was a dreadful thing when my noble friend Lord Hailsham said something about Privileges. "Oh, you must not interfere with the Privileges of the House of Commons," they said, "that would be a very wrong thing to do." Yet when it suits them it is, of course, a different thing, and what is sauce for the goose over there is not sauce for the gander here. That is a thing which I have never subscribed to, as I believe all members of either House have equal rights. Therefore I beg to move that the clause be omitted. The omission of this clause will not in any way interfere with the principle of the Bill. Everything will go on all right, but if the Minister spends money he must not be allowed to put his hand into the taxpayers' pocket without the authorisation of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): The noble Lard, Lord Banbury, is apparently anxious to protect the taxpayer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I always have been.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sure we all sympathise with him very much in his efforts. I could only wish he was going to be a little more effective in doing so. This clause merely permits the Minister, by voluntary arrangements with those who wish to enrol themselves under the National Mark scheme, to collect from them any expense that he is put to in the manufacture of labels and in the promotion of the scheme. That is all this clause proposes to do. If it is removed the charge will have to be imposed on the taxpayer in order to enable the Minister to pay the charge as a subsidy to the industry. This is a charge that has been made from the beginning of the scheme. No objection whatsoever has ever been made to it by any of those who have come into the scheme. I would further point out to your Lordships that the scheme is entirely voluntary, and if the Minister was unreasonable in his charges, he would merely be defeating the object of his scheme, because nobody would come into it. It is only making certain of removing a small legal doubt that has arisen, making legal something that has always been done. Therefore I hope your Lordships will leave the clause in the Bill and not do, as the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is so anxious to do—impose this large charge on the taxpayer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If 1 understood the noble Lord correctly, this is to make legal something that has been done. What could be worse? The Minister does something which is illegal and then he is afraid that the Courts may interfere and perhaps make it rather awkward for him, so the noble Earl brings forward a Bill which makes legal something which is illegal and which he ought not to have done. I must say that, after the explanation of the noble Earl, the clause seems to be much worse than I thought it was and I certainly shall have to divide if, as I hope, I get some support.
EARL DE LA WARR: Just to reassure the noble Lord on this important constitutional point, may I say that it is not
640
a question of making legal something that has been done that should not have been done. It is simply that people might possibly be entitled to refuse to pay, and in the future at any moment it is possible for people who have been using our labels which cost us money to turn round and say they are not going to pay.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As the noble Earl says this is a matter about which some legal doubt has been suggested, I should like to ask him one question because the answer would affect my decision in this matter. I should like to know whether anybody has challenged the legality of what has been done, because I do not think myself that it is right that an Act of Parliament should be passed to legalise something which is possibly illegal after someone has detected the illegality and has objected to make the payment. I know it has been done by the Government, of which he is a distinguished representative in this House, under circumstances which preclude our discussing it, but I should be very glad to know that nothing of that kind is contemplated here because I should find it very difficult to reconcile it with my conscience to support such a proposal.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can certainly give the noble and learned Viscount that assurance. It has not been brought up because of anyone being unwilling to pay. It is purely a doubt that has occurred to us.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then what is the use of it?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of s. 61 (3) of 20 & 21 Geo. 5 c. 43]:
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to insert a new clause at line 5. I think it had better come at line 10, after Clause 1. Therefore I will put the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause. 1 agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Correction of clerical error in s. 100 of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43.
".In paragraph (e) of Section one hundred of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which provides for the application of Part IV of the said Act to Scotland) for the reference to Section ninety of the said Act there shall be substituted a reference to Section ninety-one thereof."
The noble Lord said: I agree with what the Lord Chairman has just said, that this Amendment had better be made after line 10. It will come in as the second clause. Advantage has been taken of the passage of this small Bill, which I explained on Second Reading, to insert here a small correction of a clerical error in the Act. The Act is used a great deal up and down the country and has been constantly referred to, and this opportunity is being taken of correcting a small clerical error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said now clause.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Title:
An Act to repeal subsection (3) of Section sixty-one of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendment which your Lordships have just made will necessitate a consequential Amendment in the Title. It will now have to read "and to correct an error in Section one hundred" of the Act.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, after ("to") insert ("correct an error in Section one hundred of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and to").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Title, as amended, agreed to.

DESTRUCTIVE FOREIGN ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions as to musk rats found at large.
5.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to musk rats found at large at any time while an order under Section one of this Act is in force.
(3) The appropriate department so soon as they become aware that musk rats, not being musk rats kept under a licence, are to be found on any land, may, unless they are satisfied that either the owner or the occupier of that land is taking all necessary steps for their destruction, themselves take such steps as they consider necessary for that purpose, and it shall be the duty of the occupier of the land to afford all such facilities as it is in his power to afford to any persons employed by, or on behalf of, the department for that purpose.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "unless they are satisfied that either the owner or the occupier of that land is taking all necessary steps for their destruction, themselves take such steps as they consider necessary for that purpose," and to insert "take such steps as they consider necessary for their destruction." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was put down at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who pointed out on Second Reading that it would he unwise to rely upon the endeavours of the owner or the occupier of the land to take the necessary steps to destroy musk rats on the land, since the trouble would be on too large a scale for any one owner to deal with and would probably spread. I have put this Amendment down in order to give the Department power to carry out any destruction. I think that meets the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out from ("may") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("take

643
such steps as they consider necessary for their destruction").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Does this mean that an official may come all over my laud and destroy foreign animals? I do not think there are any foreign animals there, because I do not like foreign animals; but does it mean that an official may come all over my land and see if he can find a foreign animal?
EARL DE LA WARR: He ought to do so if you let loose musk rats.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Offences, &c.
6. Any person who—

(a) at a time when the importation of musk rats is prohibited absolutely, imports, or attempts to import, any musk rat into Great Britain, or at a time when such importation is prohibited except under a licence, imports or attempts to import, any musk rat into Great Britain without having in force a licence authorising him so to do; or

(b) at a time when the keeping of musk rats is prohibited absolutely, keeps any musk rat in Great Britain, or at a time when the keeping of musk rats is prohibited except under a licence, keeps any musk rat in Great Britain without having in force a licence authorising him so to do; or

(d) turns loose any musk rat, or wilfully allows any musk rat to escape; or
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall on summary conviction be liable—
in the case of an offence under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection, to a penalty of twenty pounds, or if the offence was committed in respect of more than four animals, to a penalty of five pounds in respect of each animal;
in the case of an offence under paragraph (d) or paragraph (e), to a penalty of twenty pounds; and
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in the first paragraph defining penalties, after "paragraph (a)", to leave out "or" The noble Earl said: During the Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, raised the point that the penalty for turning loose musk rats was really too slight, and that it. would he desirable to have the same penalty for
644
this offence as for the offences under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. The Amendments are put down to meet his point, which we consider a valid one.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("or").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("paragraph (b)") insert ("or paragraph (d)")
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("paragraph (d) or").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Compensation.
7.—(1) If an order is made under Section one of this Act prohibiting absolutely the keeping of musk rats, any person who on the date of the order and on the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, was keeping musk rats for profit in Great Britain shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding subsection, be entitled to receive from the appropriate department compensation in respect of any pecuniary loss which be may suffer by reason of his being required in consequence of the making of the order to destroy those musk rats and in respect of the value of any structure or equipment erected or provided by him which is rendered useless, or of less utility, by reason of the prohibition contained in the order.
EARL DE LA WARR: My first two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("the next succeeding subsection") and insert ("this section")
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("those") and insert ("his").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that the compensation payable to a person under this section shall not in any case exceed the amount which would be payable to him if he had, at the date when the order came into operation, possessed only the same number of musk rats and the like structures and equipment as he possessed on the said twenty-fourth clay of June."
The noble Earl said: The clause as at present drafted does not make it quite clear that the owner of musk rats in the

645
event of an order being made prohibiting the keeping of musk rats altogether should be entitled to compensation only in respect of his losses as from the date of the introduction of this Bill. After the passing of the Bill it is intended that musk rats shall be kept entirely at the owner's risk,, subject in the event of total prohibition to the owner being compensated for such loss as he would have sustained if he had not been allowed to keep and breed musk rats from the date of the passing of this Bill. The object of this Amendment is to make that purpose somewhat clearer.
Amendment moved
Page 5, line 20, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to extend provisions of Act to other destructive foreign animals.
(2) In this section, the expression "foreign mammalian species" means a mammalian species which at the date of the commencement of this Act was not established in a wild state in Great Britain, or which at that date was not commonly kept in Great Britain in a domesticated state.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or which at that date was not" and to insert:
"had only become so established during the preceding fifty years:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any species which was at the said date"
The noble Earl said: As the clause is drafted, it might permit the Minister to issue an order prohibiting the keeping of domestic cats and various other animals. Accordingly it is proposed to insert this Amendment limiting the power of the Minister to deal with animals that have been imported within the last fifty years.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, leave out from ("or") to ("commonly") in line 32, and insert ("had only become so established during the preceding fifty years:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any species which was at the said date").—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should like to ask the noble Earl on this point why
646
this is limited to foreign mammalian species. Is there already power to deal with everything except mammals, or is it assumed that everything but mammalian species is necessarily harmless? I have a recollection of certain ticks which were supposed to come from a remote part of the globe and to be very damaging and venomous. I dare say that there is a. very good reason for limiting the Bill in that way, but I should be reassured if I knew what the reason was.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I can reassure the noble and learned Viscount. We have made careful inquiries about all other animals and insects, and we find that they can be dealt with under existing legislation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Marley I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, on a point of order, if this is not a Certified Bill? In the case of a Certified Bill, I thought the practice of this House was not to resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TEE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Passfield.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but I should like to say one or two words before it passes. The Government naturally have not been able to take any other measure than is proposed under this Bill for the relief of the difficulties that have arisen as the result of the hurricane in Mauritius, but my feeling is that His Majesty's Government, in relation to our Colonies, always fly to the remedy of loans for assisting in any of the difficulties that may arise. I only wish to say that I think the contents of this Bill emphasise the necessity for His Majesty's Government to consider measures for more permanent relief for our Colonies, especially our sugar Colonies. We have debated this subject in this House on many occasions during the past year, and nothing which has been said by the noble Lord, or by any member of the Benches opposite, has in any way indicated that they have a real, definite and practical policy for dealing with these questions. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will after the Recess, or in the next Session, be able to present some measures of a practical nature to deal with these sugar Colonies.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount, I may say it is perfectly true that in a measure for dealing with a hurricane His Majesty's Government do not propose any permanent measure. We do not know, I admit, how to prevent hurricanes, and when they occur, as they unfortunately do periodically occur in the Island of Mauritius, it seems to me that they must be dealt with ad hoc, I do not think any other measure than a measure of financial relief, which must either be by grant or by loan, would be relevant to the particular case now under consideration. It is perfectly true that the sugar producers of Mauritius, in common with producers all over the world, are not doing well, but I am glad to say that so far as we can learn the producers in Mauritius have been able to reduce their cost of production by several pounds per ton, as compared with what the cost was returned at eighteen months ago by Sir Francis Watts in his Report, and they have been able to carry on, no doubt without much profit and in some cases
648
even at a loss, without any reduction of the area of cultivation.
However desirable it may be to come to the aid of sugar production all over the world, or at any rate all over the British Empire, that is not a matter which in the opinion of the present Government can be successfully done by any measure of fiscal Preference. The unprofitableness of producing sugar remains unprofitableness even if you give a subsidy to the producers, and at the present time the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to increase the heavy subsidy already given in the form of a Preference to sugar coming from parts of the Empire. I do not think that that arises on the present occasion, because not even the efficacy of Preference can be invoked as a means of dealing with hurricane havoc, and I do not think the noble Viscount will suggest that His Majesty's Government can deal with damage caused by hurricanes in any other way than that of which the Treasury have been glad to approve—namely, the guaranteeing of a loan.
I may mention that we have sent out to Mauritius a Commission to see that they take care to put their revenue and expenditure on a proper basis, so that they will be able to meet the interest on the loan without hardship to the producers or population. We have every confidence that that can be done, and the noble Viscount may rest assured that whatever else can be done for the sugar industry in Mauritius, and the producers elsewhere, the Government are doing, except attempting to put things right by fiscal means, which we cannot convince ourselves is the best and only way. I am able to tell your Lordships that all sorts of things are being done in the way of improvements in these sugar Colonies.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.