Lords Sitting of 25 June 1931

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Stuart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to repeal subsection (3) of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a. —(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

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

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move in the terms of the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House during the ensuing week in the absence of the Earl of Onslow. Our Lord Chairman has been asked by the Prime Minister to go to Paris on important public business, which will take up his time next week, and this is a Motion which we have to make when our Chair-

383
man of Committees is taken away from us for a time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House during the ensuing week in the absence of the Earl of Onslow.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ACCRINGTON AND LEICESTER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
WALLASEY CORPORATION (TROL LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in moving that this report be now received, I think time will be saved if I say a word or two on the general position and on the point at which the matters under discussion between the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and myself have arrived. If your Lordships have the Paper of Amendments to be moved on Report before you, you will see a very long Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. Except in one particular, I am prepared to agree on behalf of the Government to all the proposals made by the noble Earl. They are partly a compromise, partly matters arranged in a conciliatory spirit, and we need not discuss them again. At least, that is my view. I accept the Amendments and I accept them in the noble Earl's language. But I would like to say at the outset that if the one outstanding point between us cannot be settled—by Division, if necessary, or by agreement—then I am bound to state quite frankly that when this matter goes to another place it must be understood
384
that the Government will consider the whole question open, in the sense that they may ask that the Bill be put back into its original form, and the arrangement between the noble Earl and myself will not have any validity. I am a believer in conciliation and I hope that may not be necessary.
Your Lordships will see that the point between us will be raised by an Amendment which I propose should be made in subsection (1) of the new clause to be moved by the noble Earl, which is on pages 2 and 3 of the Amendment Paper. The difference between us may appear to be a small one, but as I have said on various occasions it is in our opinion an important one. The new clause to be moved by the noble Earl contains in subsection (1) the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act." I propose to move as an Amendment to leave out those words and to insert "and made after the passing of this Act." I must say a few words—and I think it would be convenient to say them now—to explain why we consider this a very important matter. The noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, asked a question about this on a former occasion and I said that we must keep alive what I called our pioneer powers. That is the object of the Amendment which I shall move. For instance, various powers for the protection of passengers on passenger ships have been in operation now for many years, some of them I am told for nearly forty years. There has been no question as to the value of those powers and no question has been raised in any way seeking to repeal or alter them. Then the Convention comes along. A Convention properly considered is of course an agreement as to certain minimum regulations to which all the Powers party to that agreement have agreed to give their assent. It is not in any way a disabling Act which we are dealing with but an enabling Act, and indeed if no enabling powers were necessary we need not have any Act at all but simply ratification.
Particular countries have their special pioneer position on particular points. For instance, the Italian Government have what I call the pioneer position as regards wireless telegraphy. Your Lordships will appreciate that of all

385
safety improvements of modern times, a proper system of wireless telegraphy is the most important. When the question was being discussed, no one ever suggested that any alteration should be made as regards our existing powers or that there should be any change in regulations already in operation. It was never suggested, nor would it be really in accord with what is meant by the Convention, because if by acceding to a Convention you intended at the same time to cut down powers as regards public safety which you already possessed, people would not assent to it. It is an entire misunderstanding in our view of what the meaning of a Convention is. Therefore the purport of my Amendment is that as regards those powers which have been in force under regulations made in some, cases nearly forty years ago there should be no change of any kind. But as regards powers which come into operation after the Convention, we accept the suggestion made by the noble Earl. That was the matter to which the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, called attention on Second Reading, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, did the same.
Let me say one further word as to how this matter stands. As I have pointed out more than once, this Convention was not arranged by us but by our predecessors in office. It was arranged by Sir Austen Chamberlain, quite properly, in order that we might get from the humanitarian standpoint provision for passenger safety and also, what is of interest to us particularly, that as regards ships clearing at foreign ports—whether our own ships in foreign ports or foreign ships in our ports—a certificate under the Convention should be given which would prevent any further question being raised so that those ships could be dealt with in the ordinary way. I may mention that the general effect of the Convention is to bring ships of other countries up to a higher level because we were, as a rule, in a pioneer position. When this matter was before the Conference I am told that reference was made to this point once or twice. It was said at once that none of the Governments concerned would allow any interference with their national powers as regarded legislation or regulations already
386
passed. That was accepted and it is all that I am asking now.
Your Lordships will recollect that this matter was first brought forward in November last, but this point was not raised then. I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me on that. Two points were raised. One was the question of helm orders, which we have disposed of, and the other was the question of having the two Conventions in one Bill. On that latter point the noble Earl convinced the Government that his suggestion was right and we assented to it. That was why the matter stood over for so long. It was in order that the Bill might be drafted in that way. But this proposal came to the Board of Trade as a surprise. We thought that having settled the question of helm orders, there were certain concessions which the noble Earl wished to have. We went through them all with the greatest care, and also the drafting, which took some time, and wherever we could we tried to meet him, as I am sure he knows. We have met him on a great many points, but on that point we cannot. I will not argue it again for I have argued it very often, but if we have to go to a Division upon it and we me beaten, the matter will have to be discussed and settled in another place. We have tried for days and there is this one point left over between us. I think that will tell your Lordships how the matter stands, and I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 1:
Construction and survey regulations to secure compliance with Chapter II of Safety Convention.
1.—(1) With a view to giving effect to the provisions relating to construction, machinery, equipment and the marking of load lines which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein, the construction regulations applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant Shipping Acts) include such requirements as will, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, secure that when a passenger steamer complies with the construction regulations so

387
applicable, the steamer will also comply with the said provisions of the Safety Convention:
(3) With a view to giving effect to the provisions relating to tests and surveys which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein, the survey regulations applicable to steamers plying on international voyages shah (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant shipping Acts) include such requirements as will, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, secure that when a passenger steamer has been surveyed in accordance with the survey regulations so applicable the steamer will also have been surveyed in accordance with the said provisions of the Safety Convention.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to "Provided that" and to insert:
"( ) The construction regulations applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade to implement the provisions relating to construction, machinery, equipment and marking of load lines which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts)."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the first few Amendments on the Paper are really very much of a drafting character. I believe the Government on the whole prefer the wording of the Bill, but are willing to agree to the wording that appears in my name.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
EARL STANHOPE: We prefer those words because we think they are clearer and also shorter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 20 to 32 and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, if I may speak for one moment, only to be sure upon the matter, I would suggest if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would put the Amendments on the Paper down to the end of the Amendment to Clause 6, the Amendments that I propose to the noble Earl's Amendment would then arise and we could discuss them. Down to that point I do not want to raise any criticism.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not quite understand. Surely the first Amendment to my Amendment is on my proposal to insert a new clause after Clause 34. We have to get through the earlier Amendments first.
LORD PARMOOR: I see the mistake that I made in one respect. I thought those could be carried en bloc, but they have to be carried in the form in which they have been put down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert:—
("( ) The survey regulations applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade to implement the provisions relating to surveys which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts).")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Rules for life saving appliances to secure compliance with Chapter III of Safety Convention.
4. With a view to giving effect to the provisions of Chapter III of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein, the rules for life-saving appliances applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant Shipping Acts) include such requirements as will in the opinion of the Board of Trade, secure that when those rules have been complied with in the case of any such steamer, the said provisions of the Safety Convention will also have been complied with in the case of that steamer:—
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 27 to 37 and insert:—
("( ) The rules for life-saving appliances applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade to implement the provisions of Chapter III of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts).")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Wireless telegraphy rules to secure compliance with Chapter IV of Safety Convention.
6.—(1) With a view to giving effect to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Safety Convention, the wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages shall (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant Shipping Acts) include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Postmaster-General, to secure that when those rules have been complied with in the case of any such ship, the said provisions of the. Safety Convention will also have been complied with in the case of that ship.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) The wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Postmaster-General, to implement the provisions of Chapter IV of the Safety Convention (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts).")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Certain miles and regulations to be laid before Parliament.
".—(1) Where, any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or rules for lifesaving appliances applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages, or any of the wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages, being a regulation or rule in force at the commencement of this Part of this Act (whether made before or after the passing of this Act), contains a requirement which is at variance with any specific requirement of the Safety Convention 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 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 such a requirement as aforesaid, and all rules for
390
life-saving appliances made before the commencement of this Part of this Act, which have not come into force at the commencement of this Part of this Act by reason of the provisions of subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven of the principal 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 any regulation or rule is laid before it in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section resolves that the regulation or rule shall be annulled, the regulation or rule shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the malting of a new regulation or rule:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any rule for life-saving appliances laid before either House of Parliament after the commencement of this Part of this Act unless the rule is applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages and contains such a requirement as aforesaid.
(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 by reason of the provisions of that subsection."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships have quite grasped the point of difference between myself and the Government on this matter, but it has now resolved itself into a very small point in some respects, though it raises a matter of principle. When the Bill was introduced, those for whom I am speaking—I am not speaking from a Party point of view at all—were very anxious that anything that was outside the Convention should have to come before Parliament and pass by means of a Bill. We have receded from that because we thought it was imposing too severe difficulties on any Government. We then suggested that it should be by affirmative Resolution. We have receded from that, too, and I was prepared to agree with the noble and learned Lord and the Government on the Committee stage that we should then submit all regulations at variance with the Convention to a negative Resolution of bath Houses of Parliament.
Then arose the question raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, as to whether that applied both to regulations in force at present and to regula-

391
tions which would be made. That is the point of difference. The Government are now prepared to agree that new regulations shall be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for a negative Resolution, and that will include regulations made after the passing of this Act, which do not therefore come into force until later, and it will also include regulations made before the passing of this Act, which have not come into force because the first Part of this Act does not come into force until five nations have ratified the Convention. At present two have ratified, and we shall make three, but we know very well that a large number of other nations are simply waiting for us to ratify and then they will follow our example. Accordingly the date when ratification is to take place is likely to be very soon after the passing of this Bill. All that is now left are the rules and regulations made before the passing of this Act, which are now in operation.
This is not a very large point, because I am informed that practically the whole of the previous regulations will require to be re-modelled, but it does raise a very large point of principle as I shall explain. I and others for whom I speak are extremely anxious that this Merchant Shipping Convention shall be the bedrock on which the whole principle of safety of life at sea stands. We know perfectly well, as the noble and learned Lord has said on several occasions, that we are the leading country in this respect and that what we do other countries will do also. Accordingly, if we accept the Convention but keep the other powers in our own hands, except, of course, by saying that Parliament is always supreme, as Parliament must be supreme—if, apart from Parliament, we say that this Convention is the bed-rock by which we are going to stand and which applies to British ships, then if we sign the Convention, other nations will follow suit. Otherwise we might have cases, such as were referred to by the noble and learned Lord of a country applying its own regulations to its own ships, and you will get differences of all sorts. We think that probably, when we ratify, countries with these differences will probably come into, line with us.
This raises a difficult question in many respects. Your Lordships have several times had before this House the ques-
392
tion of the way by which Ministers, by Ministerial order, would be allowed to over-ride Parliament, and so on. This is really a very curious situation. The Government have said to masters and mariners: "It is quite true that you now use indirect helm orders, but in order to come into line with the Convention we think it necessary to change those helm orders, and this House has agreed with the Government on that point." Then the Government says, in this Bill, that Parliament must change the law. If your Lordships will turn to the last Schedules you will find that there are various laws which are to be cancelled when this Bill comes into force. Therefore, you are going to change the law in order to bring it into line with the Conventions. But when it comes to Ministerial orders, then we are told that the Minister has made an order; that is sacrosanct and they see no reason why it should be changed.
That is an extraordinary attitude. If there were anything of real importance in it, I should agree that the orders that are at present in force should continue to be in force, but I have asked and I have utterly failed to find any single rule or regulation, which would have to be changed in order to bring the rules and regulations into line with the Convention, that is going to conduce to the safety of life at sea. I am told by shipowners and others that if there is any such rule or regulation which the Ministry wishes to retain, because they can use it for safety of life at sea, they would be prepared to consider it most carefully, and probably without any difficulty it would be made an exception to the Convention; but to allow the Board of Trade to be in the happy position of requiring two things to be proved really means that the equality and uniformity of the Convention goes by the Board. Let me illustrate. It will be necessary to prove that the order proposed by the Board of Trade is contrary to the terms of the Convention, and it will be necessary to prove that the order proposed by the Board is not already in force under some ancient order, which may have been in force but not really followed for a large number of years.
Just consider. Here is an order which is at present in force. The Board of

393
Trade have the power to require a ship which is engaged in foreign trade "to carry in lieu of, or in addition to, davits, some other approved form of launching apparatus, or some arrangement for launching boats, which may be in their view effective." That may mean anything, and it is impossible, if new rules or suggestions are brought forward, to prove that the new rule is not in accord with the rule already in force. That is why we lay such stress on the fact that anything which is at variance with the Convention, whether old or new, shall come before Parliament, and Parliament shall say whether it shall be kept in force or not. Parliament, of course, remains supreme, and if Parliament thinks it is necessary for safety at sea Parliament will enforce that. Parliament will do that with its eyes open, and knowing that it will then be enforced upon British ships and British ships alone.
I have said that I think the whole of these regulations will require redrafting. I think so for this reason. Under present conditions the Board of Trade have regulations for two types of ships—(1), ships engaged in the home trade and (2), ships engaged in foreign-going trade. The home trade includes all coasting vessels and all ships going between this country and Europe between Brest and the Elbe—a very nasty piece of sea. The Convention differentiates between the home-going and coasting trade, the short international voyage and the long international voyage. It is quite possible that the short international voyage will impose obligations upon ships going from this country to Brest and the north of Europe, perhaps rather more severe than those existing at present, but which will bring these ships into line with the rest of the world. There is, however, a real fear that if the Board of Trade say that where ships are engaged in trade away from this country—that is, not leaving the shores of this country but going between ports neither of which are in this country—they may possibly allow exceptions for voyages similar to those in the home trade (obviously not a very accurate phrase to describe exactly what kind of voyage is meant), and you may get other countries saying: "Very well, we also are going to make exceptions for similar voyages." We might have the case of ships going
394
from the coast of North America down to the coast of South America. That is why it is really important you should stick to the terms of the Convention, which have been carefully framed, and not attempt to apply our rules for quite a different outlook and try and attach them to the Convention.
If you are going to get uniformity it is really, from the point of view of the Government, a small point, but from the point of view of making the Convention the centre round which these rules should pivot, it is a very big point. This clause which I am proposing is an extremely complicated-looking clause and I do not know whether you would desire me to explain it a little further. Perhaps I had better do so. In subsection (1) we deal with the regulations which are in force at the commencement of the Act. In subsection (2) we deal with the e6nstruction regulations which come into force after the passing of this Act. Subsection (3) deals with rules as to lifesaving appliances which come into force after the passing of this Act. It is pro posed now that instead of lying upon the Table for forty days they should lie on the Table for twenty days, but should become subject to a negative Resolution. I think the rest of the clause is fairly clear. Subsection (5) rescinds subsection (2) of Section 427 of the principal Act, which enacts that these lifesaving regulations should be on the Table for forty days.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No question arises with regard to that, I understand.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
EARL STANHOPE: There is this alteration, that if they are already in force they come under that. There is no point of difference with regard to their lying on the Table for twenty days. The only point of difference is that where regulations are already in force we propose that they should come before Parliament if they are at variance with the Conventions. The Government are opposed to that. I hope your Lordships will agree to support my Amendment as it stands, and then agree to oppose the Amendment to my Amendment, which is to be proposed by the Leader of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, after Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, to leave out "(whether made before or after the passing of this Act)" and to insert "and made after the passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it now becomes my duty formally to move my Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment. After the statement which I have already made I only desire to say a few words. I ask your Lordships to recollect that this is the only point between us. Earl Stanhope said it was desired to abrogate the existing rules dealing with the question of safety at sea, which is a matter of extreme importance to us. The point between us can be very well isolated in this way. We say that you ought not to abrogate these rules. They are rules which have been well tried and found to be of great value, and it is not the intention of a Convention of this kind that you should abrogate rules which the Board of Trade proposed nearly forty years ago. The purpose of the Convention is not to disable the powers which we now have nor to reconsider them, but to give new powers, and the new powers are those which the Convention will bring into force. How does the matter stand with my Amendment? It stands in this very simply way. We have assented to the proposition that powers, are given—and must be given; that is the meaning of the whole Bill—in order that the Board of Trade may enforce upon our own ships the Convention proposals. There is not the slightest question about that. You give the same power to Italy, to Germany or to France, but none of those countries would for a moment assent to the abrogation of the rules and regulations which they may now have—and such rules may be considerably in advance of the general standard up to which they have persuaded other people to go.
EARL STANHOPE: I only suggest that the rules should come before Parliament for Parliament to decide, and not to the Department.
LORD PARMOOR: You used the word "abrogate," and therefore I used it as a convenient word. Whatever the powers of the Board of Trade now are as regards these rules and regulations, they have come into force under powers which the Board of Trade now possess. What we
396
say is that these Conventions are not intended to cut down the national powers of any country.
EARL STANHOPE: I am sorry to interrupt, but I really must insist that they are not national powers which are being cut down, but Departmental powers.
LORD PARMOOR: But Departmental powers are for this purpose national powers. These Departmental powers or regulations have been exercised under legislative provisions, and when so exercised they have just the same authority as if they were in the original Act of the Legislature itself. There is no difference whatever. They are powers which we have at present in order to deal with the safety of passengers in our own ships. But we cannot of course enforce those rules against other ships which only come in under the Conventions. That is quite clear. But surely it must be obvious, I think, to any one that in a Convention of this kind, which does what is possible to raise the level, you do not at the same time intend to abrogate rules under legislative authority, which have been in operation for a long time, which are in advance of the Convention regulations, and which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, have acted admirably. But that is the principle. In Conventions of this kind if you were to allow the fact of a Government entering into a Convention to abrogate powers which that Government already had, I think you would have very great difficulty in getting any Convention settled at all. It was mentioned during the proceedings of this Convention, but I was told at once: "Of course we do not touch those matters." It is all the better for us if individual countries are in advance. What we desire is to bring the backward countries up as far as we can, in order to ensure the general safety of passengers at sea.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In subsection (1) leave out ("(whether made before or after the passing of this Act)") and insert ("and made after the passing of this Act").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I ventured to raise this point last time, arid I am rather interested to find that the Lord President on consideration does not find it a technical point. He was rather inclined to think it was on the last occasion. As a matter of fact, it does

397
appear to me to involve a very serious question. I am bound to say that I speak with very little knowledge of the details of the actual regulations, but the position at the present moment, as I understand it, is that the Board of Trade has power to make, and has made regulations, which have been in existence for generations, under the Merchant Shipping Act, which deal with questions of the construction of ships, survey regulations and life-saving appliances. Those regulations are the existing law of England, and they have statutory authority. Now, the Convention provides that there shall be now a certain standard of safety involving construction, survey regulations and life-saving appliances, but. I think it cannot be disputed that in some respects our existing law provides a higher standard of safety, both as to construction and life-saving appliances and survey regulations, than is prescribed in the Convention. The Convention is the minimum—call it the minimum or the maximum as you choose; it does not matter—to which some fourteen countries are prepared to agree; and some countries are in advance of that agreed standard, and one of those countries is this country.
The noble and learned Lord naturally disclaims any suggestion of reducing the standard of safety in this country to something which is the Convention standard, and if he did make that proposal I do not suppose that the Legislature in this country would be prepared for a moment to embark upon such an undertaking. Why should our safety standard be reduced to the safety standard to which foreign Powers have bound their own ships? So the question is this. There is a law at the present moment which provides for certain safety rules. Now, there is nothing in this Act which abrogates the existing law. I want that made quite plain. The only provision is that the Board of Trade shall have power to make regulations to implement the provisions of the Convention, and that would mean that, except in so far as such regulations, so made, are inconsistent with the existing regulations the old law stands. Now the words that are used in this Amendment are that existing regulations that are at variance with the provisions in the Con-
398
vention are to come before Parliament. I do not think that is a very happy phrase, because it may cover regulations that provide for less safety or more safety, or safety in a different way. I am not quite sure how it would be construed, but I want the House to bear this in mind. First of all, this proposal is a proposal that the existing standards of safety shall come up for review, and, secondly, it provides the means as to how they are to be reviewed.
In the first place, I do not know of any case where it has been enacted that an existing law or existing regulation shall be brought up to Parliament for confirmation; because there is no provision as to what is to happen if it is not brought up to Parliament for confirmation. It has its present statutory effect and value, and it would appear that something was necessary, such as was provided in the first proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—namely, that all the old rules should be swept away and new rules should take their place. That I understood. That would be a very logical way of doing it. But that is not the present proposal. And may I point out another objection as it appears to me? This is an existing law. It is to be brought to Parliament, but, according to the suggestion made now, it is to be annulled on the Resolution of either House. Surely, that must be an entirely new proposal.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD ATKIN: How comes it that either House of the Legislature is to have power for the first time to annul that which is in fact an existing law? One understands the proposition when it is directed to new proposals which are to have statutory power only if they are approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is constitutional and in order; but it seems to me to be an entirely new provision to suggest that you are to bring up to Parliament regulations the qualification of which for review is rather vague, and then provide that this House or the House of Commons alone can decide that any of those regulations is no longer to be in force. This seems to me to be an objection that is worth consideration. But on the general position I venture to suggest that your Lordships' House should not lend its Support to a

399
proposition that may result in reducing the existing standards of safety in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we are dealing with a matter to which your Lordships' House is capable of applying its mind very successfully. We are in no sense involved in any Party discussion. What we are seeking is the best that can be obtained from the Convention, and also that British ships shall not be placed at any unnecessary disadvantage. It may be that there are things upon which we in this country should insist which do not appeal to other countries. If that is the case, obviously it must be within our power to do them, and nothing I have heard that has fallen from the noble Earl who moved the Amendment to-day contravenes that principle in the slightest degree. Indeed, I think, we are all agreed upon the main propositions which may be stated perfectly simply and so as to get rid of all matters except one point which is in controversy. We are all agreed that there must be power in this country either to enforce what is in the old regulations or to enforce new regulations, if we think necessary, which go beyond the Convention or are in some form at variance with the Convention—whichever, may seem to be the better course. There is no dispute about that.
As has been said, we are the pioneers of the provisions for the safety of passengers and crews and ships at sea. We adhere to that, of course. The only question that arises upon the Amendments which have been passed and the one which is now before your Lordships is whether the Departmental rules, which have been in existence for a considerable time and may be at variance with or extend beyond the requirements of the Convention, should remain in force without being submitted to Parliament. That is the real question. A question which arises largely upon the constitutional point taken by my noble and learned I friend Lord Atkin, is as to whether it should be done by either House or whether any change would have to be made by the two Houses of Parliament. What I would like to say on the first point to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House in reference to the whole question we are now considering—that is, the rules and regulations that
400
are to apply—is this: Is it not worth while for the Board of Trade, which has hitherto been very successful undoubtedly in the way in which it has dealt with ships and ship owners, to reconsider all its regulations? Is it not, indeed, absolutely necessary that the Board of Trade should do so before allowing these new regulations to be brought into operation or to be laid upon the Table of Parliament in order to meet the requirements of the Convention?
What we want is to give the British shipowner and all the British ships every advantage we can from the Convention. Now that we have more uniformity by means of this Convention than we have had hitherto we do not want, if we can help it, British ships to be placed at a disadvantage if it is for no real purpose. Where, on the other hand, it is of sufficient importance that there should be a departure from the Convention or a requirement in addition to those in the Convention, then I agree that not only is it proper but that we should take the matter in hand. All that we ask (I follow the arguments with the noble Earl who moved the first Amendment) is that Parliament should have power of negativing, if it thinks fit, any new rule or regulation that may be introduced. Would my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House consider this?
There are, of course, many rules and regulations and all those who have had to make them know it is sometimes difficult to find a particular rule. Some of them have existed for a very long time. As I think my noble friend pointed out, there are means of saving life at sea now which were not known in the days when the regulations were framed, more particularly those relating to wireless telegraphy and so forth. When the Board of Trade are considering these rules and regulations, is it not desirable that they should go through all that would apply? I am not asking them to do this in reference to matters other than those dealt with in the Convention.
If I were for the moment to place myself in the position of the President of the Board of Trade or of those who are advising him in this matter and had to consider what should be done in ful-

401
filment of the obligations under this Statute, if it becomes one, the first thing I should require to know is: What is it that must be done under the Convention? What is the purpose of the Convention and what are the obligations upon us under it? What are the things we really must see enforced? In order to do that the Board of Trade must go through the various rules to see what rules are already effective and where they require to pass new ones. In considering the whole of this matter, is it not worth their while to re-consider all the rules applying to the Convention, those applying to life-saving appliances and other matters dealt with in the Convention, and in a word to codify them and bring them in that way before Parliament? It would be an immense advantage to shipowners as it would be, I think, to all those engaged in any way in shipping. That would be one way of doing it.
I do not know what the difficulties may be. I would ask my noble and learned friend, if it has not already been considered, to examine this proposal with the Board of Trade and to see whether it offers any serious obstacle. I would point out that there can be no difficulty. It preserves all the rights that are needed for adding to the requirements of the Convention and maintaining the highest standard. That can all be done. There is nothing to prevent it, and they are not at variance in any way with the Board of Trade. As a rule the Board of Trade challenges what it desires in the way of regulations because it is trusted and has done very well in the past, certainly in regard to shipping. I suggest to my noble and learned friend that this may be the better way of doing it, and that with the desire we all have of trying to reach a conclusion acceptable to all sides of your Lordships' House, it is really a proposition which I think is worthy of examination.
Suppose my noble and learned friend says that cannot be done, for some reason which, for the moment, I do not know. Then the only question outstanding is on the Amendment of my noble and learned friend whether or not it should be necessary to bring existing regulations, which may be extensions of the requirements under the Convention, or additions to them which have been
402
already in existence, before Parliament, or whether they should be left merely to the Board of Trade to deal with. That is the whole question involved in the Amendment. I understand my noble and learned friend says we ought not to interfere because they do make certain requirements of a high standard which we ought to try to maintain. I agree with regard to the maintenance in every way, and I am not seeking in the slightest degree to interfere with it. If these regulations were brought before Parliament the same question will arise upon them—that is to say, is there any reason why Parliament, or either House as it stands now, should wish to negative a rule of that kind? Many of the rules with regard to life-saving dealt with in the Convention must be obsolete. Many of them were necessary thirty or forty years ago, but cannot be required now. If they are required, I cannot imagine that either House of Parliament will raise any objection to a rule that the Board of Trade brings before it and satisfies Parliament is necessary in order to maintain a high standard such as the Board of Trade wish. I would suggest, if that is the case, that no great harm can be done.
I confess I do not take a very strong view on this matter, because I cannot help thinking it is not a very large point which is dividing the noble Earl and the Leader of the House. It simply relates to those rules which were in existence before the passing of the Convention. I am sorry there has been no agreement. I think my noble and learned friend has met the demands that were made on the last occasion very fairly, but he does not see his way to accept this. I can only say for myself that whilst I am very anxious everything should be done which would place the British shipowner on an equality with any other shipowner, still I would not insist if the Board of Trade really feel it is necessary to hold these rules. In that case I should prefer them to hold them—and they must take the responsibility—rather than have any division which might perhaps endanger the Convention. I would suggest to my noble and learned friend again that this question of the reshaping of all rules is well worthy of attention, and I hope that at any rate the Board of Trade will be able to give it attention.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, would it be convenient if I answered the question asked of me, because I have no right to speak again? As regards the redrafting of the rules, there would be no difference between the noble Marquess and myself, but that is not the question we are on at the present moment. The question is whether rules already passed under legislative powers should be abrogated. That is a matter concerning the general organisation of the Board of Trade which we consider very important, and a Convention of this kind is accepted on the ground that there is no interference with existing legislative rights or obligations. The new legislation that we are dealing with now is only of an enabling character so that the terms of the Convention may be complied with. That is what the other countries require. Before we ratify they want to know that we have taken what we consider to be sufficient powers to put the Convention rules into operation. No country asks another to abrogate existing rules. I do not think the noble Marquess asks for that.
THE MARQUESS OF BEADING: I do not think my noble and learned friend has appreciated the point I was putting. I was not suggesting there should be any interference with that right. What I was suggesting was that when they come to reconsider the rules, as they must do for the purpose of drafting new rules, they should then consider whether there are any old rules which should now be abrogated, and, after they have done that, whether it is not possible to put all the rules and regulations into one code. Then the rules should be placed in that way before Parliament, whether old or new, and dealt with, and, if there is no objection, they would receive Parliamentary assent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may I should like to add my plea in support of the suggestion of the noble and learned Marquess, and for this reason. I do not think—the noble and learned Lord will forgive me saying so—that he is quite right in thinking the effect of the Convention is not to interfere with any existing legislative rights. As I understand the position, since 1906 the rule has been that under the Merchant Shipping Acts the Board of Trade can make and must make regulations dealing with safety, and those
404
regulations of necessity apply to all ships which ply from our ports, and it is of the essence of those regulations—indeed I think it is laid down in the Merchant Shipping Acts—that they must apply equally to British and foreign ships. Under the Convention all foreign ships are exempted from any safety regulations made by the Board of Trade outside the Convention regulations. The Board of Trade, in fact, loses the right which it at present has to impose any regulations in excess of the Convention stipulations upon foreign ships. If, therefore, the Board of Trade in any given case maintain a regulation in excess of the Convention requirements they can only maintain it in respect of British ships, and, therefore, there will be created in future a difference, disadvantageous of course to our ships, a burden laid upon our own ships which cannot be paid upon foreign ships. Therefore our right to legislate has been interfered with, although it has only been interfered with in so far as it regards foreign ships which come to our ports.
I do hope the Government will not think I am putting this from any kind of partisan view. I am only trying, as my noble and learned friend has tried, to state the position as it comes to my mind. If I am right in that statement of the legal position, the result is that after the Convention, one of the factors which the Board of Trade must consider with regard to any safety regulations in excess of the Convention regulations is that it is imposing upon our ships a burden which the foreigner competing with them from our ports does not have to bear. I am quite sure no one wants to reduce our safety regulations. Nobody wants to treat the Convention as a maximum instead of a minimum requirement, but when the Board of Trade is considering some requirement which is not included in the Convention but which is included in our existing code, they have, I suggest, to take into account the new fact that in future that regulation cannot be imposed on foreign ships, and, therefore, that if it is maintained it is maintained only in respect of British ships, and to that extent operates as a handicap against British ships and in favour of foreign ships.
That is a material factor. Is it unreasonable—because that is all my noble

405
friend, the noble Earl suggests—to say, if the Board of Trade think it necessary to maintain in respect of British ships a requirement which is not in the Convention and which therefore will not in future apply to foreign ships, that the Houses of Parliament shall be consulted as to whether or not that is a right handicap to impose? That is really, I think, the suggestion of the noble Earl and while I agree with the noble and learned Lord that, of course, we do not want to treat the Convention as abrogating the standards which we have already reached, yet, when the effect of the Convention is of necessity to create a differentiation which at present does not exist between British and foreign ships, I would suggest that it is not unreasonable that Parliament should be allowed to have a voice as to whether that differentiation is necessary in the interests of safety before the handicap is finally imposed upon British ships.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I have been very much struck by the speeches made by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin and by my noble and learned friend the Marquess of Reading and by my noble and learned predecessor. I think it will be a great pity if we do anything in a hurry this afternoon which we subsequently find is wrong. I am sure that I am speaking not only for my Party, but for the whole House. Nobody here wants in any way to minimise the rules for safety at sea. I must say that I think there is considerable difficulty in the constitutional point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin. I would venture therefore to ask whether it would not be the best thing for us not to try to deal for the moment with this new clause, but to bring it up again on Third Reading. We can do that. We can go into the matter with the advantage of being able to consider all the arguments placed before us to-day. No one's position will be prejudiced, and I would venture to suggest that it is far better to hold over the matter for a little time, rather than try to deal with it in a state of unpreparedness, not quite appreciating all the points. Let me confess that I do not myself appreciate all the points. It would be far better to have a little time to think over the matter rather than act in a
406
hurry and regret it afterwards. I would suggest, therefore, to the noble Earl that for the moment he should not press his new clause, but bring it up on Third Reading after all the points raised to-day have been considered.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say, as your Lordships are dealing with my Amendment, that I fully assent to the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and that I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment. I feel strongly that in this House, with all the legal ability in it, this is really a matter which we ought to be able to settle finally. There is a good deal to be thought over, and I hope that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be adopted.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I be allowed to say that I fully agree with the course suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I should like to say a few words before that course is adopted. I think I used a wrong word in speaking about abrogating rules because what I understand is really proposed is, as the noble and learned Marquess suggested, that they should be redrafted. That is really the difficulty that arises. May I say, in addition, that I have made myself a perfect nuisance to anybody who I thought was likely to be able to tell me whether there is anything in the old rules which tend to safety but which are outside the Convention and will therefore drop. I have failed to discover one. There are differences in powers, but as far as I can see, there would be no reduction in safety. Indeed I am convinced that when the Convention is once in force ships and passengers at sea will be a great deal safer than at the present moment.
LORD PARMOOR: I said that I would withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that we should assent at this stage not to carry the matter further, but to let it wait until Third Reading. I do not want to contradict the noble Earl, but he is making statements which I cannot accept.
EARL STANHOPE: I was entitled to speak on the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, but I have not done so,

407
and therefore I thought I should be justified in making my position plain. I apologise to the House.
LORD PARMOOR: No, no, it is only a question of procedure.
EARL STANHOPE: May I say that I have taken a great deal of trouble over this Bill and I thought that perhaps your Lordships might like to know the conclusion at which I had arrived.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52:
Inspection and control of Convention ships not registered in United Kingdom.
(2) If a valid Load Line Convention certificate is produced to the surveyor on any such demand, the surveyor's powers of inspecting the ship with respect to load line shall be limited to seeing—

(a) that the ship is not loaded beyond the limits allowed by the Load Line Convention;

LORD PARMOOR: All the other Amendments on the Paper we accept. There is no other contentious matter.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in sub section (2) (a), to leave out "Load Line Convention" and to insert "certificate." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point which I raised on the Committee stage. It is not of great importance, but the position is that this country has to accept a certificate given by a foreign country to its own ships. The power under the Bill would be to see whether the certificate was in accordance with the Convention, whereas it ought to be in accordance with the certificate. I understand the Government accepts the Amendment, arid therefore I will not say anything further. The drafting is not my own but it has been submitted to me and I understand that it is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 26, leave out ("Load Line Convention") and insert ("certificate") —(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: The other Amendments which I move to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 2, leave out from ("loaded") to ("the") in line 3, and insert ("beyond the limits allowed by the certificate").
Page 41, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section a ship shall be deemed to be loaded beyond the limits allowed by the certificate if she is so loaded as to submerge in salt water when the ship has no list, the appropriate load line on each side of the ship, that is to say, the load line appearing by the certificate to indicate the maximum depth to which the ship is for the time being entitled under the Load Line Convention to be loaded.")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 56 [Submersion of load line on ships not registered in the United Kingdom]
EARL STANHOPE: There is a consequential Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 16, leave out ("indicating or purporting") and insert ("appearing by the certificate").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SENTENCE OF DEATH (EXPECTANT MOTHERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

RELATIONS WITH PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government for the latest information as to our relations with Persia; also as to what steps have been taken to protect British commercial interests in connection with exchange control and also with the recent establishment by the Persian Government of a trade monopoly, and as to the present condition, of Persian affairs; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as long ago as 1902 I raised the question of our interests in the Persian Gulf and on that occasion I obtained from the late Lord Lansdowne an historic declaration about our position in the Persian Gulf and the way in which we should regard the position if a first-class Power tried to obtain

409
a recognised position in the Gulf. Since then, unluckily, our harmonious relations with Persia were rather interrupted by the Anglo-Russian Convention and then by our operations in the War, which the Persians did not altogether realise were for their own protection. After that, we tried to obtain the Persian Government's assent to the Anglo-Persian agreement. Although on several occasions I have raised questions about Persia, I have not done so since 1925. Only the other day Lord Passfield showed his appreciation the importance of the question of Persia and the Persian Gulf by the fact that, when the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, in regard to the air position in the Central East was under discussion, he said that policy concerning the Persian Gulf was not a matter of Departmental inquiry or decision but was always put before the Cabinet as a whole. I think I have some reason, therefore, for troubling your Lordships this afternoon in regard to our relations with Persia. At the same time I admit that I have no policy to suggest, still less do I wish to criticise the conduct of the Government in their relations with Persia.
There are two countries interested in Persia at the present time: the Russian State and Great Britain. Economically, politically and geographically, we are the two Powers that really have a great stake in that country. Our methods of treating our interests there are diametrically opposed. Our interest is always to see Persia independent, prosperous and friendly. The Russian policy, whether in the days of the Tsar or at the present time, has been quite opposed to this. They are always trying to seek their own aggrandisement, whether territorial or commercial. In 1921, after the War, the Soviet Government, as first established, made very generous and liberal concessions to Persia in matters connected with Russia's stranglehold upon her prosperity up to that period, but after 1921 these liberal concessions gradually disappeared. For instance, in 1926 Russia placed an embargo on all Persian imports, except cotton, into Russia. At the same time she raised her duties on the export of oil, and inconvenienced Persia to such an extent that Northern Persia had to try to get supplies from the Muzzid-i-Suleiman oilfields in the South. These could only be obtained at
410
great expense, owing to the very heavy cost of haulage over the rough and wild country that lies between Northern Persia and the Persian Gulf.
Two years after this there was a strike at Abadan, where the Anglo-Persian oil refineries are, with great disorder. This appeared to be at the instigation of the Soviet. A plot was discovered by which they had apparently intended to burn the refineries and develop a revolutionary movement in that part of Persia. In Northern Persia Russian clubs have been established, together with Russian subsidies to the Persian Press in Teheran and elsewhere, and they have started five schools, both in Teheran and in other places. It was discovered by the Persian Government that a very large consignment of revolutionary literature had come into Persia for the distribution of propaganda in these schools, and this was seized at the Northern ports on the Caspian Sea. Russia also set up large commercial organisations all over Southern and Central Persia. They established a Russian bank with various branches. I gave private notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord President that I would ask him whether it is true that in 1928 Persia refused to enter into a Central-Asian Mahomedan League in alliance with Moscow.
When Russia established a Communistic system of trade and commerce in Persia, the managers of these transactions always kept a very large balance in Persia, and were thus able to buy sterling, which accrued to their practical use for the purposes of the five-year plan throughout the world. The result was that Persia had to take charge of all exchange operations, and Russia was left with a large sum of Persian currency which she was not able to convert into sterling. I think it was about this time—I dare say the noble and learned Lord will be able to say—that the National Bank was established in Persia as a State Bank. That position had previously been held by the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was practically a British institution. This year the trade agreement between Persia and Russia expired, and Persia told the Soviet Government that she intended to exclude all Russian trade organisations from Persia. Russia retorted to this that, by the liberal Treaty of 1921, to which I have already referred,

411
Persia was not able to do this, though on her side Russia could properly exclude Persian merchants.
All this time Russia had been dumping her goods to the greatest possible extent in Persia. I believe it is true to say that the match industry has been practically destroyed. Apparently Russia is determined to exploit Northern Persia ruthlessly, to help in developing the five-year plan, and to do this at the expense of the trade in Southern Persia. As a last resource against these measures taken against Persian commercial interests, on February 25 of this year the Mejliss, which is the Persian Parliament, passed a Bill to give the Persian Government a monopoly of all foreign trade, so that they could compel Russia at the frontier to take foreign goods on equal terms with those applying to Russian exports. This, I imagine, has had a very deleterious effect upon Persian trade, and possibly also on foreign trade, particularly our own trade in regard to Persia.
Our own policy with regard to Persia is very different. We are most conciliatory in all our efforts to bring back her friendship and develop a good understanding. We have just concluded a Treaty of Commerce, and we have also in other respects, as much as we can, made friendly concessions. There are one or two subsidiary questions in addition to those which appear on the Paper of which I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord. One is regarding the payment of £2,000,000, or even mare, in respect of the Southern Persian Rifle Force which we formed during and after the War. I do not know what the position of that £2,000,000 is. I should like to know also whether he could say anything about the position of the Bahrein Islands, which your Lordships may remember the Persian Government recently claimed as coming under their suzerainty, which we denied. Then there is the matter of the abolition of the capitulations. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to say anything about that, and what is the present position. Also, as I read in The Times, not long ago, there is a question of Turkey making a road from the Black Sea, from Trebizond, into North-West Persia, so as to avoid commerce going to Persia having to go through
412
Soviet Russia, where all these impediments are put in the way of Persian trade.
I was going to ask a question about the Imperial Airways, but only two days ago the Secretary of State for Air gave us a very clear exposition of the position of Imperial Airways in traversing Persia. It is, however, very noticeable that Jonkers, the German Company, have been for some years operating in Persia, to the great advantage of Persia. I think they have traversed about 4,000 miles of the country and have carried 10,000 passengers without any serious accident. In fact German influence in Northern Persia is becoming very considerable. The chief financial adviser of Persia is a German. Again, the French are very busy indeed in forming educational establishments in Persia, and are operating a big wireless station in that country. In fact our position and influence in Northern Persia has considerably lessened, compared with that of other countries. In saying this I am not doing so by way of complaint against His Majesty's Government. I suppose there may be various causes which have led to this rather humiliating position.
Certainly it is very remarkable that in the reign of Shah Pahlevi very great improvements have been made in Persia. There is now, I understand, no brigandage, and the roads are not only safe but about. 6,000 miles of road can be traversed with reasonable comfort. About 7,000 motor vehicles are now to be found in Persia. In 1928 1,300 cars and 1,700 lorries were imported. When it is remembered that formerly transport in Persia was almost entirely by camel it is a remarkable development in a short space of time. The condition of the people has also been improved. Medical regulations have been adopted and steps have been taken to deal with child mortality and the regulation of the hours of labour for women and children. Other matters that have been dealt with include dyes for their carpets. All these things have been accomplished very largely at the instance of His Majesty the Shah, who put a final touch to all that he is doing by the assistance which he gave to the Persian Exhibition in this country—a wonderful exhibition of Persian art.
Therefore I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to say that our present relations with Persia are satisfactory. In 1924, when I moved for Papers, I was told the matter would he considered. No Papers have been published with regard to Persia since thee, and it does seem to me important that at the present time, with this very vexed question going on with regard to the intrusion of Soviet trade in Persia, we should be able to know what is taking place. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to lay Papers with regard to affairs in Persia.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I would wish at the commencement to deal with the last matter to which the noble Lord refered. I am not aware of any Papers that could be laid, but I can assure the noble Lord that all inquiries will be made, and if there are Papers in the direction indicated they shall be laid. The speech of the noble Lord was partly general, and partly referred to four or five particular points of which he had given me notice. On those points I am able to give him the information which I have derived from the Foreign Office. I will for one moment, however, refer to the general question. It was stated in reply to a Parliamentary question in the House of Commons on July 25, 1929, that the "one desire" of His Majesty's Government "is to see Persia prosperous and peaceful under a strong and independent Government." It has, in fact, for many years been the policy of His Majesty's Government to do their best to strengthen and assist the Central Persian Government in every possible way, and to establish friendly and cordial relations between the two countries. If I understand the purport of the general observations of the noble Lord, that is what he would desire. Obviously that is so, judging from the interest which he has taken in Northern Persia.
Negotiations for a general treaty and a commercial treaty between the two countries have been proceeding for a considerable time through His Majesty's Minister at Teheran. Agreement has been reached on a number of points, but certain difficulties are still outstanding. His Majesty's Government have given every indication of their readiness to reach an equitable settlement of these questions also, and they are confident
414
that if the Persian Government so desire the negotiations could without difficulty be brought to an early and successful conclusion. Unfortunately, it has nut been possible of late to make further progress in these negotiations, although His Majesty's Government are not without hope that the Persian Government will in time come to realise that a settlement of outstanding questions is in the mutual interests of both countries. I think everyone here will realise the importance of that settlement.
The principal measures regarding exchange control and a trade monopoly, to which the noble Lord has referred, are as follows: The exchange control law of February 24, 1930, set up a Commission for fixing the rate of exchange, and placed stringent restrictions on all dealings in foreign exchange. Of course, that was not favourable to foreign trade, or to the trade between this country and Persia. The so-called foreign trade monopoly laws of February 25 and March 11, 1931, are in reality in the nature of import restriction measures. Under these laws the import of certain goods (luxuries and articles competing with local products) has been prohibited and that of others seriously curtailed. Such imports as are admitted, within the limits of fixed quantities, are only admitted against a guarantee to export foreign produce to an equivalent value.
LORD LAMINGTON: Does this apply to all Persia, South and North?
LORD PARMOOR: I understand so. Yes, certainly to Northern and to Southern Persia. These restrictions have undoubtedly placed all foreign traders in Persia in a position of great difficulty. The restrictions imposed last year on exchange transactions prevented foreign traders in Persia, in most cases, from transmitting any money out of Persia. Representations have been accordingly addressed by His Majesty's Minister at Teheran to the Persian Government on the general question of these exchange regulations, and their adverse effect on trade, and further representations have repeatedly been made on behalf of individual British firms whose interests have been affected by-the difficulty of transmitting to this country the proceeds of their sales in

415
Persia. The further legislation passed in February and March of the present year—the so-called monopoly law—has in fact brought all trade to a standstill.
EARL PEEL: Is that foreign import and export trade?
LORD PARMOOR: I think both, because there is a great restriction of import trade, and, as regards export trade, money was not to be taken out of the country. The conditions on the Persian market are so unsettled that for the present no orders for foreign goods are going forward. As soon as His Majesty's Government learnt of the intention of the Persian Government to introduce such legislation, His Majesty's representative at Teheran was instructed to inform the Persian Government of the apprehension with which His Majesty's Government viewed such a proposal, and of their desire to be reassured as to its effect upon British traders in Persia and on British trade in general. The Persian Government replied to this note that their decision to adopt this policy had been taken on account of the acute economic crisis prevailing in the country, and added an assurance that they would exert their utmost care to ensure that no unlawful preferential treatment would be accorded to the detriment of any of the countries in commercial relations with Persia. Of course, our special interest was to see that we were not subject to special disadvantages under this general restriction of Persian trade.
Upon the entry into force of the monopoly law, His Majesty's representative at, Teheran was instructed to request the Persian Government to allow the unrestricted admission into Persia of goods which had been shipped before March 1, and so to deprive the law of its retroactive effect. The Persian Government, however, have not seen their way to comply with this request The general attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this Persian legislation has not yet been defined, and its effect upon British trade is being closely watched by His Majesty's Government. It will be realised that, short of violating international obligations, countries are at liberty to introduce such economic measures as they may consider necessary for the protection of their national interests. That is to say that Persia, as
416
an independent country, can take the attitude which it is taking in these commercial matters within the rights which she possesses as an independent nation. Moreover, Persia's treaty obligations do not prevent her from imposing, as a temporary measure, restrictions for the purpose of protecting, in extraordinary and abnormal circumstances, the vital interests of the country. There is no reason why Persia should not do it.
Whether the present very elaborate restrictions, which are bound to result in a great dislocation of normal trade relations, can properly be reconciled with Persia's treaty obligations is a question which is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, who do not desire to do anything which would seriously embarrass Persia in meeting her difficulties, provided that the restrictions imposed upon British trade do not last longer than the emergency which they are designed to meet., and provided that in practice British trade is not handicapped in competition with the trade of other countries. His Majesty's Legation at Teheran is in constant touch with individual British firms whose interests are affected, and in this country the Department of Overseas Trade have endeavoured regularly to keep those British firms and banks concerned familiar with the Persian regulations, and to assist them generally, through the medium of the Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Legation at Teheran, in the difficult economic conditions which have arisen.
That is all the information of a general kind which I can give. But there were some incidental, but very important, matters on which the noble Lord asked me for special information. I beg to thank him for giving me notice. I could not have given him the information had I not known what the nature of his inquiries would be. The first matter on which he asked for information was with reference to Soviet activities. He desired to know whether Persia in 1928 refused to enter into a Central-Asian Mahomedan League in alliance with Moscow. Reports have reached His Majesty's Government to the effect that the Soviet Government some years ago were exploring the possibility of arranging for some kind of combination with Moslem States. While there is no reason to suppose that such

417
a project was welcome to the Persian Government, His Majesty's Government are clearly not in a position to state what precisely was the attitude adopted towards it by the various Governments concerned. So far as we know, therefore, it was not very favourably entertained by the Persian Government.
The second question is whether a statement could be made as to the effect of the abolition of the capitulations. Since the abolition of the capitulations on May 10, 1928, all foreign nationals in Persia have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Persian Courts, and the fact that few, if any, serious complaints from British subjects of injustice have been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government tends to show that the Persian authorities are fully alive to their responsibilities in this respect, and are endeavouring to the best of their ability to establish an efficient and adequate judicial system. In matters of taxation British subjects receive the same treatment as Persian nationals. I hope that that, at any rate, will be a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord.
His third inquiry was for information as to the agreement with Imperial Airways. It is assumed for the purpose of my answer that Lord Lamington intended to refer to the arrangement under which Imperial Airways have been permitted by the Persian Government to run a service along the Persian coast of the Persian Gulf. This arrangement was concluded for a period of three years, which expires on March 31, 1932. The Persian Government have recently indicated a new route across Central Persia to be used for international aviation between Iraq and India. Imperial Airways have been permitted to survey this proposed route.
The next question that the noble Lord asked me was about payment in connection with the South Persia Rifles. I think this is a point upon which there has been some misapprehension and I will try to make it clear. The South Persia Rifles were a local force raised by the British authorities during the War. They were disbanded in 1921. It is not understood to what payment the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, refers. No payment is due to His Majesty's Government from the Persian Government in connection with the South Persia Rifles.
418
The noble Lord's next question was about the Bahrein Islands. I think I am right in saying that those islands are off the Arabian coast but quite close to it. It is public knowledge that the Persian Government have revived an ancient claim to the Bahrein Islands From which they were expelled in 1783 by the ancestors of the present Arab rulers. The Persian Government have in the past few years addressed several communications to His Majesty's Government on this subject and have sent copies of those communications to the League of Nations. His Majesty's Government gave a full and detailed statement of their reasons for refusing to admit this claim, which they regard as quite untenable, in a Note addressed to the Persian Minister in London on February 18, 1929, of which a copy was also communicated to the League. In that sense, it has been published. There have been no subsequent developments of importance in connection with this matter.
I am glad to say that I have now come to the last of these questions. The noble Lord asked whether information could be given about the suggested road in Turkey, and enclosed a cutting from The Times to save trouble. This is the information I can give him about that road. His Majesty's Government's information is to the effect that the Turkish Government have decided to repair the old route between Trebizond and the Persian frontier. Repairs were to have been begun at the end of May or early in the present month, and it is proposed that the work, which has been entrusted to a Turkish company, mild be completed in two years.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Could the noble and learned Lord give us further information about that road? It is the road, I suppose, from Trebizond to Rowanduz?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: It was never a metalled road at all.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the further information I am about to give will meet what the noble Viscount is asking me about. The Rowanduz route between Iraq and Northern Persia is at present under construction. That is an alternative way between Northern Persia and

419
Iraq. When the work on these roads is complete and they are open to motor traffic, North-Western Persia will have new and important means of communication with the West, which should much facilitate trade with that district. That is the information which I have obtained on this special point about which lord Leamington asked for information. I do not say that he will approve of the information, but I hope he will consider the information given satisfactory to him. It is the best I have been able to obtain and, I think, is all that can be obtained at the present time. I will not go back to the general question but I might emphasise, in conclusion, that it is the great desire of His Majesty's Government to be on a friendly footing with the Persian Government in order that together and for their mutual advantage they may do what is necessary for all forms of prosperity so far as Persia is concerned.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I think the House is very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Lamington for introducing this subject again. As he says, we have not had an opportunity of being informed upon or of discussing the affairs of Persia for the last six years. I remember very well that before that period my noble friend, who has long taken a great deal of interest in Persian matters, raised,, I think, an annual discussion upon this subject, partly because, as an old Governor of Bombay, he fully realised the great importance of a prosperous and independent Persia not only to us but to the Indian portion of His Majesty's Empire. But I am bound to say, though we are much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the detailed information he has given us, one cannot regard it as very satisfactory information. The whole story that he has told us, with some parts of which we were familiar, as to the monopoly of trade, the difficulty of exporting money and the great difficulties that are laid before traders, both British and others, may be rather depressing in the present situation when, of course, we are met with so many difficulties in other parts of the world. But I understand from what the noble and learned Lord says that His Majesty's Government are doing their very best by representations and otherwise—
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
EARL PEEL EARL PEEL—to see that, first of all, no discrimination is exercised against British trade and, secondly, that everything is being done to try to bring about a situation in which trade will commence again. I think he realises himself that the picture he has drawn is, on the whole, rather a melancholy one. He told us something about the exchange in Persia at the present time, but I do not think he told us what changes have been made in the exchange. The last figures that I have show that the rate was fixed recently at 89½ krama to the £ sterling, the rate last year being 59½. From those two facts alone your Lordships will see what difficulties have been introduced into trade by that de-valuation of the krama.
I do not think I have much comment to make on many of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, but I do not think he told us very much about the operations of the Soviet Government in Persia and the points that were put by my noble friend as to the extent of the propaganda that was being carried on there both in Teheran and elsewhere. He did, however, say something about the arrangements that had been come to, and was able to give some degree of information in regard to them. I was also very interested to hear the definite line that has been taken about the claims of Persia to the Bahrein Islands. That has been looked into at different times, and His Majesty's Government and others always come to exactly the same conclusion that the claims for the Bahrein Islands were shadowy and dated back to a period of nearly two hundred years ago.
On the general question on which the noble Lord dealt, our attitude towards Persia is an extremely simple and plain one. It is highly to our interests, and to the interests of India, that we should have an independent Persia, a Persia which is enabled to negotiate on free and equal terms with all her neighbours, and a country which, by maintaining her stability, adds very much to the stability of the East. That is our attitude. We should be very glad if there was some reciprocity shown as regards our trade by the Persian Government itself. We can only wish that the friendly attitude we maintain towards Persia, and our

421
desire that she should retain her independence and her position, was followed by the other neighbours of Persia.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, if I may add a word to what has been already said it is this. I think that possibly the noble Lord the Lord President might reconsider what he has said about laying no Papers. I do not say that he should lay Papers at this moment, but we are extraordinarily ignorant nowadays about what is going on in Persia, and I think that the four suggestions at any rate which have been mentioned this evening would bear a great deal more detail than has been given, and particularly the possibility of getting trade routes by avoiding Soviet Russia. That, I think, could certainly be examined into. Would it not be possible for a Despatch to be called for from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran at some future date, and be laid on the Table of this House?—a Despatch that would give information both to this House and to the trading community, and would be more valuable, I think, than the speech, informing as it was, which the noble Lord has just delivered. I do not mean to press for it at this moment, but perhaps later on, in two or three months time, we might have fuller information in detail. It would be appreciated by those persons who are interested in Persia and who know something of their own knowledge about it, and would be useful also to the trading community at large.
LORD PARMOOR: I will certainly represent those views to the Foreign Office, and will then communicate with the noble Viscount.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I have to thank the Lord President for the considerable amount of information which he has given us. After a silence of six years it will elucidate many problems for those who are interested in Persia. The noble and learned Lord was very tactful in the remarks he made. He never referred to the commercial oppression to which, I understand, Persia is being subjected at the present time. She has had to impose this monopoly to save herself from commercial tyranny. All other countries, as the noble Lord said, suffer accordingly. I understood him to say in regard to the Trebizond road that it is being made in conjunction with or on the same footing
422
as the one from Persia. The two roads will meet, and form one trunk road between Turkey and Persia. If there is an understanding between the two countries that is an important matter. It is very satisfactory indeed to hear that the abolition of the capitulations have not given a cause of grievance to any British subject. It shows what an enlightened policy Persia is now taking, placing herself among the great nations of the world and recovering her old prestige. It was very satisfactory indeed to get the assurance from His Majesty's Government that what we desire in our own interests is a strong, independent and prosperous Persia. I would ask whether the noble Lord would, if possible, see whether Papers could be laid about the commerce of Persia at the present time. I think we are entitled to that information.
LORD PARMOOR: I cannot do more than say I will make inquiries at the Foreign Office to see if there are such Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CATHEDRALS MEASURE, 1931.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals Measure, 1931, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I have to move that you give your consent to this Measure being submitted to His Majesty for his assent. It is an important Measure. I am rather sorry I am obliged to put it before your Lordships at a time when it is inconvenient for many members of the House to be present. It is important because it deals with the cathedrals of this country, beyond all question one of our greatest glories and perhaps the chiefest heritage that has been bequeathed to us from the past. Nothing, I think, is more remarkable in recent history than the revival of the life of our cathedrals in every part of the country.
The authorities of our cathedrals are eager not only to maintain, as I hope they always will, the regular sequence of divine services, but to adapt the

423
cathedrals to the needs and desires of a different age, to do everything possible to interest the people in their cathedrals, to encourage their visits, to teach them about the treasures that are contained within them, and to make them real centres of religious life. But they are always hampered, at least the older cathedrals, by their Statutes. Many of these Statutes are still of value, still more of them are obsolete and archaic, yet it is extremely difficult to know how they are to be changed. In many cases even the authority to change them is doubtful, and long experience shows that unless some means are taken by which the cathedral authorities can be assisted in the revising of their old Statutes, or the framing of new Statutes, very little advance can be made, and they are still bound to labour under Statutes which very largely have become useless. Then again there is a new problem created by the number of new sees which of recent years have been created. There are no less than seventeen entirely new cathedral churches, a list of which you will find in the First Schedule of the Measure, and for the most part these are parish churches, and they have either only extremely provisional Statutes or no Statutes at all.
Accordingly, in 1924, the Church Assembly acting on the recommendation of the very weighty Revenues and Properties Committee over which the late Lord Cave presided with great ability, appointed a Commission of Inquiry to visit all the cathedrals in England, and to consider their constitution, their needs and their requirements. The Commission sat for two years, from 1925 to 1927, and I had the honour of being its Chairman. Through seven sub-committees we visited every cathedral church in the country. In 1927 we made our Report, and this Measure is the result of the Report which we presented.
It has been before the Church Assembly since that year, 1927. It has been subjected to a great deal of careful criticism. When your Lordships realise that there are forty-three cathedral churches, all of them with their own customs, traditions, wishes, all of which were amply represented in the Assembly, you may well suppose that this was a Measure which did not escape a great deal of very anxious criticism.
424
Gradually, however, suspicions were allayed, and fears were removed by judicious amendments. The result was that last February the Assembly, after three previous revisions, gave its final approval to this Measure, which I now put before your Lordships, by a unanimous vote. Therefore it may be regarded as coming before your Lordships as an uncontroversial Measure.
If your Lordships have been able to look at it, you will no doubt have been impressed by its somewhat complicated and elaborate appearance, but in reality its main features are clear and simple. Let me emphasise two. The primary purpose of the Measure is the appointment of a body of Cathedral Commissioners. Their manner of appointment is dealt with in the First Schedule of the Measure. They are to be not less than seven in number. By desire of the Church Assembly, they may be increased to a limit of ten. The names of the first six, together with one appointed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, are in the Schedule. They are to be appointed for seven years, or if the Assembly so desires, for other periods up to and not exceeding twelve years. Thereafter, if any particular cathedral desires the assistance of the Commissioners in revising Statutes or framing new Statutes or amending Statutes which have been obtained, then the Assembly has the power to appoint ad hoc Commissions with all the powers that are given to the Cathedral Commissioners in this Measure but only appointing those special Commissions—called "appointed Commissions"—at the request of the authorities of the particular cathedral.
The principal function of these Cathedral Commissioners and their powers and duties are set forth in Clauses 2 and 4 of the Measure. Put shortly, they are to be appointed in order to assist the cathedral authorities to revise their Statutes, to frame new Statutes, to prepare schemes which may embody many desirable reforms, and to enable the cathedrals more perfectly to adapt themselves to the needs and opportunities both of the present and of the future. It is to be noted that they are specially charged to have in regard the traditions and customs of each of these venerable cathedrals. The length and apparent

425
elaboration of the Measure is really due to the fact that it includes within it various recommendations of the Cathedral Commission of which I have spoken and various suggestions made by the Church Assembly. Many of these would not require legislation, but it was thought convenient that all the matters with which the Commissioners would have to deal in their various schemes should be included within the Measure which gives them statutory powers.
The second main feature of the Measure to which I call special attention is in Clause 8 and it governs the character of he whole Measure. It is not proposed to set up a body of inquisitors who are to go round all the cathedrals of the country and impose their own opinions upon reluctant Chapters. On the contrary, it is provided in this clause that no proceedings can be taken on any scheme framed by the Commissioners unless it has received the consent of the authorities of the cathedral and of the Bishop of the diocese. The consenting bodies are defined in Clause 3. They are, in the case of the older cathedrals, the Dean and Chapter as at present constituted, and in the case of what I may call the new cathedrals—for the most part parish churches now converted into cathedrals—a special body consisting of the Bishop, the incumbent, the canons and two representatives of the parochial church council of the church. I want to impress upon your Lordships that, elaborate as the provisions of the Measure may seem to be, wide and indeed at first sight drastic as the powers of the Commissioners may seem to be—so much so that at first they rather alarmed the Church Assembly—they are all governed by this one consideration, that they must have received the consent of the authorities of the cathedral and of the Bishop of the diocese, so that nothing can be forced on any of the cathedrals against its will.
There are indeed two exceptions to what I have said, and exceptions of some importance. The first is that the Measure proposes the compulsory transfer of landed property in the hands of the Deans and Chapters to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, except, of course, the site and fabric of the cathedral church, residence houses and houses or property within or adjacent to the precincts of
426
the cathedral. This recommendation is made after an exhaustive inquiry by that Revenues and Properties Commission of Lord Cave of which I spoke and it seems to me in these days entirely right.
Just in proportion as the spiritual activities of the cathedral church are increased as we should all wish them to be, so the time of the Dean and Chapter must be and ought to be taken up more and more by those activities. They have less time to devote to the management of landed estates. However highly qualified they may be for the spiritual work for which they ought to be appointed, it does not follow that they are equally qualified to act as landlords in the management of landed property. Lastly, it is of immense importance to the cathedrals that instead of a variable income depending upon the risks and chances of management of landed property, they should have a fixed income upon which they can rely. In return for the land thus transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the cathedrals will have a fixed annual income for the maintenance of their services and the payment of their officers. I need scarcely remind your Lordships that this is at present the position in fact of the majority of our cathedrals. The Measure now proposes to make it the arrangement which will govern all the cathedrals throughout the country.
The second exception to the governing clause that the consent of the cathedral authorities must be obtained refers in Clause 13 to what are called the minor corporations, consisting of ecclesiastical or lay members of the cathedral staff apart from the Dean and Chapter. I need not remind your Lordships how in the Middle Ages persons were accustomed to protect themselves by forming themselves into corporations which gradually acquired properties and various rights behind which they entrenched themselves. In some of our cathedrals these minor corporations survive. They are interesting, their constitution is sometimes pictureque, the members of them are much attached to them, but I think it will be plain that it is inconsistent with the efficient administration of the cathedrals in these present times that there should be within the one building two bodies with their own special characteristics and powers and owning pro-

427
perty which may be within the very precincts of the cathedral itself. It is therefore proposed that the property of these minor corporations, whether clerical or lay, should in some cases be transferred to the Cathedral Chapter for the good of the whole cathedral, or, in the case of landed property, as in the case of the cathedrals themselves, to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
I dare say your Lordships may have observed that this provision caused some disquiet among the junior clergy of the cathedrals, who felt that their rights were being unduly interfered with and gave expression to their grievances in the Press. I can only say that ample opportunity was given to the members of these corporations to bring their case before the Church Assembly. On many points, it was fully considered and, after all, it is to be noted that there is no proposal for the compulsory dissolution of these corporations. On the contrary, it is provided that, even though any landed property is transferred, they themselves may be reconstituted for other functions which they have to fulfil within the cathedral. I should like to say here that I appreciate the desire of these ministrants of the cathedral that they should have some security of tenure. I have no doubt that this will be secured, where it is necessary, by the schemes which the Commissioners will draw up.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to Clauses 5 and 6, which describe the procedure which the making of these schemes is to follow. Clause 5 makes it plain that the Commissioners, before they seal any scheme, have to submit it to all the persons concerned. They have to obtain the necessary consents, and they have also to obtain the approval of the Church Assembly. Then it is provided, in Clause 6, that when all these steps have been taken, and the scheme is approved and sealed, it is to be submitted to His Majesty in Council. There will then be a period of three months within which appeals from any aggrieved person may be heard. These appeals will be considered by a Committee of the Privy Council, and either dismissed, or allowed or referred back to the Commissioners. In the case of the appeal being dismissed, there comes into play another, and I think a rather interesting provision, which is meant to recognise
428
the fact that the whole nation has its own interest in these cathedral churches. It is provided that, if the scheme has been allowed, it is still to lie for twenty days on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, so that either House, if it sees fit, may move an Address that it be not approved. If such an Address is not presented, then the scheme goes before His Majesty and is confirmed by an Order in Council.
At this hour it would be quite impossible for me to enter into all the details of the matters with which these schemes are to deal. Some of them are of very general interest and, at another time, it would perhaps be interesting to your Lordships to consider them. I will merely illustrate for a few moments the character of some of them. There is, for instance, in Clause 9, the requirement of the Commissioners to frame schemes regulating the position of the Bishop in his own cathedral church. It may seem strange that such a matter should require regulation, but those of your Lordships who are familiar with ecclesiastical history will be aware that there are few things that have been more creative of friction and less edifying, though they have given ample material for the gossip of the close, than the relations between the Bishop and his Dean and Chapter. It is now proposed to state these things once for all, and to secure to the Bishop his position as a Visitor to the cathedral and his own personal rights of celebrating the Holy Communion and having services for confirmation and ordination, and other additional services; and all that will be laid down by the schemes.
Then again there is a very interesting question, which takes us right away back to the very origin of these cathedral churches, about the proper constitution of the Cathedral Chapter. I dare say your Lordships are aware that among the ancient cathedrals there are two classes—those of what are called the old foundation, which were always cathedral churches, and those of the new foundation, which were once the churches of monastic establishments. In the cathedrals of the old foundation a very large place was given to the whole Chapter, consisting not only of the residentiary canons but also of the honorary canons and the prebendaries. In the cathedrals of the new foundation practically all was

429
done by the Dean and Chapter. It is now proposed that schemes should lay down, again subject to the necessary consents, that there should be a general Chapter consisting of all the canons, and an administrative Chapter which would be responsible for the character of the services and for the fabric and monuments of the cathedral.
Here again I might have called your attention to the very interesting proposal about the age of retirement of residentiary canons. Sometimes it must have appeared to many, even perhaps to some of your Lordships, that Cathedral Chapters have a way of becoming companies of very elderly gentlemen, not conspicuous for their energy or activities. It is now proposed, in view of the increasing importance of our cathedrals, that schemes should provide for the retirement of residentiary canons at the age of 75, unless the Bishop, as Visitor, after consulting the Chapter, requests that they should continue. Again there is the very interesting creation of new Chapters in the parish church cathedrals; a general Cathedral Chapter including the incumbent—who is henceforth to be designated by a new title in the ecclesiastical world, the title of Provost, which has its own associations—not Dean (because we have no wish to interfere with His Majesty's patronage), the canons and archdeacons and, in some cases, the Bishop; and also a Cathedral Council specially appointed to look after the relationship of the cathedral church to the diocese, consisting of the Bishop, the Provost, representatives of the Cathedral Chapter, of the parochial church council of the church, and also of the laity of the diocese.
Finally, I might call your attention to the fact that henceforth, under Clause 24, there are to be no freehold offices outside the Chapter in any of our cathedrals. It is the existence of these freehold offices that has sometimes led to great abuses by which lay clerks who have
430
long since ceased to be able to do anything but make a discordant noise in the cathedral retain their right to sing, if it can be called singing, because they hold these freehold offices. Henceforth, while retaining existing interests, they are to be abolished. These are only examples of the contents of schemes which the Commissioners will be called upon to prepare, and this very long Measure consists simply of various matters which directly and indirectly affect the internal life of our cathedrals. I only call your Lordships attention once again to the consents which must in every case be obtained. Your Lordships will remember, as I have said before, that all these complicated matters have been the subject of the meticulous criticism of the Church Assembly during three revisions. They have been before the Ecclesiastical Committee, and no objection, I think, upon any point has been raised.
I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will allow this important Measure to be submitted to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. If you do I think you will take your part in enabling our cathedrals ever more adequately to fulfil their great functions, to be the mother churches in deed as well as in name of their dioceses, to be the homes of religious learning and art, and above all by their own beauty and the religious services held within them to bear witness, in our increasingly hasty and heedless times, to things unseen and eternal and to offer continuous and reverent worship to Almighty God. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals Measure, 1931, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before seven o'clock.