Lords Sitting of 2 May 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
CHURCH HOUSE (WESTMINSTER) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MILFORD HAVEN) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban district of Milford Haven, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Morley, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: LORD LINLITHGOW AS A WITNESS.
Message received from the Commons requesting that their Lordships would be pleased to give leave to the Right Honourable the Marquess of Linlithgow to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by them.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Message be now considered and that leave be given to the noble Marquess, if his Lordship consents.
Moved, That leave be given to the Marquess of Linlithgow to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by the House of Commons, if he thinks fit.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships' House I shall be glad to appear before the Committee of Privileges in another place to give what assistance I can.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given accordingly, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

"DISCOVERY" EXPEDITION COMMITTEE.
LORD OLIVIERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for information respecting the proposed application of the funds provided for the "Discovery" Expedition Committee, and as to the future programme of that Committee. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for some information respecting the proposed utilisation of the funds provided for the "Discovery" Expedition Committee and as to the future of that Committee. I have given the noble Earl private notice of some matters connected with the history of this Committee. The "Discovery" Expedition Committee is a body of very highly expert scientific men, including members of the Royal Society, and the Committee was set up in 1918 or 1919, immediately after the War, with a view to finding out what could be done to

979
prevent the extinction of whales. During the War there was an immense run on whales for the purpose of providing animal fats, and right whales and other oil-producing whales came near extermination. Very little was known with regard to the habits of whales or as to what could be done as an economic measure to preserve and maintain them. This Committee was accordingly set up for the purpose of organising a research expedition on the lines of the famous Challenger expedition in those areas frequented by whales.
In order to defray the expenses of the Committee licence duties were placed upon whaling ships doing business in British and British Colonial waters, charges were made for licences for concessions for whaling stations, and duties were levied upon oil exported from the places where it was manufactured. These imposts of course could only be levied upon persons doing business in British waters or on British territory and those persons were not all British subjects. Many of them were Norwegians. Some of the principal people engaged in this industry are, and always have been, Norwegians. No objection was made to the levying of these imposts, and in correspondence the purpose for which they were levied was made clear, as is shown by an assurance given in a letter which I have here, addressed to Messrs. Chr. Salvesen & Co., the Southern Whaling Co., Messrs. Brandt's Sons & Co., and the Association of Norwegian Whaling Companies.
That letter, which was sent from the Colonial Office, called attention to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Research and Development in the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands and
"to the recommendation in paragraph 154 of the Report that increased revenue should be obtained from the whaling and sealing industries in the Dependencies to meet the cost of the proposed investigations, which are primarily concerned with the preservation of the whaling industry."
The letter went on to say that the additional revenue derived from the increase in the export duty on whale and seal oil in October, 1919,
"is being placed to the credit of a special Fund for research and development in the Dependencies."
A further increase in the duties was proposed as from October, 1920, and the letter concluded by saying:
980
"The extra revenue derived from this further increase in the duty will also be credited to the special Fund for research oral development."
It was promised, therefore, that the proceeds of these duties should be preserved for the purpose of research and for the development of this industry.
It was in these circumstances that the ship "Discovery" was equipped and very valuable investigations were made, reports of which have been published. I need not trouble your Lordships with details of the reports, but I may say that they have increased scientific knowledge of the habits of whales and the manner in which they can best be preserved. The reports have been a valuable contribution to the industrial knowledge of the world. I may say that the enterprise was set on foot largely as the result of the energy of Mr. Darnley, of the Colonial Office, who was the first Chairman of the Committee and who was in charge during the War of the organisation of efforts to obtain whale blubber. In 1933 this Fund, notwithstanding the expenditure which had been incurred, had increased to a sum of no less than£350,000. That sum, I am told, was in hand. Earlier in that year the Secretary of State had informed the Committee that it was the intention to suspend the operations of the Committee. The Committee, composed, as I have said, of very distinguished scientific men, were rather startled. They wanted to know why, when this Fund had been accumulated for special scientific purposes which they considered had not been thoroughly explored, the work should be suddenly interrupted. They organised a strong deputation to the Secretary of State to the Colonies.
That deputation so far prevailed upon the Secretary of State—the noble Earl opposite will correct me if I make any misstatement—that he consented to the equipment of another "Discovery" expedition and that was organised towards the close of 1933. The Committee, however, were left in entire ignorance as to what might be the intentions of the Secretary of State with regard to the further application of the Fund, except in so far as they were informed that it might be thought desirable to apply it to other scientific purposes for the benefit of the Colonial Empire. If it were a Fund produced entirely by taxation of our own

981
subjects, that might be a very reasonable conversion, but I cannot help thinking that it is rather a difficult thing to take a Fund raised largely, one may say, internationally and for an international purpose, raised partly from representatives and traders of foreign nations, and to apply it to a solely Imperial purpose. Therefore I want to have a very definite statement from the noble Earl as to what are now the intentions of the Secretary of State with regard to the further use of that very large accumulated balance of the Fund which, even after it has been reduced by the expenses of the present "Discovery" expedition, will amount, I am informed, to about £300,000.
One slight result which may possibly be said to arise out of the labours of this Committee is the International Convention for the regulation of whaling which was passed in Geneva in September, 1931, but which was presented to Parliament only two or three weeks ago, two and a half years after it had been framed. That Whaling Convention is a very mild document, aiming at the protection, and to some extent the regulation, of the whaling industry. In the first place it protects our old friend the right whale—what I may call the Greenland whale—and says that he may not be destroyed at all, neither he nor his young. It also regulates the killing of other sorts of whales, which are specified, if they are undersized or under-aged, and the killing of females in certain circumstances. That is to say, it goes a very little way towards an attempt at preserving the whale whenever that whale may be within waters over which a signatory Government has jurisdiction, which, of course, are a very small fraction indeed of the whole area over which whales disport themselves. Within those territorial limits whalers can operate only by licence, and the Governments concerned can, if they ratify the Convention and if they intend to follow out the terms of it, take disciplinary action against any one of their own nationals who kills a right whale or an undersized whale protected by the Convention.
But I think it must be admitted that the document is not a very comforting document for whales who may have apprehensions while in the enormous area of the high seas where no one has any control; nor have whales any protection
982
when outside the jurisdiction of any Government, for no one has any duty whatever to interfere with the operations of whalers on the high seas. We were able to interfere with those operations when the whalers had to come to land to try out their blubber, but now they try out their blubber on the high seas. There are two consequences of that: one is that we do riot get any more revenue from them, and the other is that we have no control whatever over their operations. So that, although I am glad to see in an International Convention any sign of recognition of the expediency of internationally protecting our vanishing wild animals, I am afraid that that does not go very far. Still, it is a beginning and a stepping stone.
Further, I have to say that the original Chairman of this Committee, the man who did most to promote its coming into being and who has conducted its operations, I think I may say, with great ability and credit, received last autumn a sudden notice of dismissal. I do not know why and I want to know why. The letter reads as follows:
"I am directed by Secretary Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister to inform you that in the light of his decision that the 'Discovery II' should be recommissioned for a further cruise, he has taken into consideration the question of the future arrangements in connection with the Chairmanship of the 'Discovery' Committee."
The previous cruises had been very successfully conducted under the direction of the Committee, with Mr. Darnley as Chairman.
"While he is sensible of the services which you have rendered as Chairman of the Committee both before and since your retirement from the Colonial Office, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister has decided that in all the circumstances it will be desirable to make other arrangements for the Chairmanship of the Committee with effect from the 1st of January, 1934. In consideration, however, of your services as Chairman between your retirement and that date, he is prepared to authorise the grant to you from the Falkland Islands Dependencies Research and Development Fund of an honorarium …; and arrangements will be made in due course for the payment of this sum to you."
The honorarium named in this matter is neither here nor there, but here is a gentleman who has done very efficient work in the public service, as I think is admitted, and who is quite capable of carrying it on, and who, nevertheless, is suddenly dismissed, with no reason either

983
given or even suggested. Here is a man perfectly well capable of carrying on his work, who has an immense interest in his work, and who, as I think will be admitted by his colleagues, has done a great deal to help them to perform their work; and I really want to know what are the reasons for Mr. Darnley's supersession. I admit that he was treated with liberality in regard to the granting of an honorarium, but for a man who has retired from the Colonial Office on account of the abolition of his office and who is still capable of doing work, it seems to be a rather hard measure, and one requiring some justification, that he should be suddenly deprived of that useful activity without any reason given. I should like to know what were the considerations which appeared to the Secretary of State to justify that step.
He was further informed that:
"The Secretary of State proposes also to make other arrangements as from the 1st of January, 1934, for the representation of the Colonial Office on the Polar Committee. In the meantime he thinks it desirable, in view of the questions now under consideration, that some serving member of the Pacific and Mediterranean Department of the Colonial Office should be in close touch with the work of the Polar Committee."
That is the official reason, and that may be a good reason with regard to the Polar Committee. I am not particularly interested in the Polar Committee. I am interested in this large Fund which was raised under the Chairmanship of Mr. Darnley for discovery and scientific purposes, and I am interested in asking the noble Earl to give us a clear idea as to how His Majesty's Government propose to dispose of this very large nest-egg for the purposes on behalf of which it has been levied on the taxpayers of this and other nations. I also wish to know if he can give any explanation or justification of what seems to me to be very hard measure meted out to a man perfectly capable of doing more work at a time when there seems to have been no particular reason for interrupting it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a certain number of questions in connection with the "Discovery" Committee, and he has made specific inquiries concerning the position relating to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling concluded at Geneva in
984
1931, and perhaps it might be convenient if I said a word upon that subject now. The position so far as that is concerned is this: Great Britain could not give effect to the Convention without Parliamentary legislation, and it was accordingly impossible for us to ratify until the necessary legislation had been passed. An inter-Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the precise form of the legislation that would be required. This Committee had now reported, and a draft Bill has been prepared which is engaging the active consideration of the Government.
LORD OLIVIER: For three years!
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It was a complicated subject. But that is the position at the moment. I think the noble Lord is aware of what that Convention contains, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to go into it in detail. Turning to the "Discovery" Committee, that Committee has been in existence in its present form for some ten years, and it is recognised, as the noble Lord has said, to have done during that period much very valuable work. The investigations upon which that Committee are primarily engaged are in connection with whaling and sealing, and they were initiated with the object of obtaining information upon which to base a scientific regulation of whaling and sealing operations. Perhaps I might briefly inform your Lordships what are the chief branches of research pursued by that Committee. In the first place there is the study of the age, rate of reproduction, growth and movements of whales. Then the study of the biological conditions determining the distribution and movements of whales; the study of the physical factors affecting whales, either directly or by affecting the distribution of whale food; hydrographic observations of uncharted or imperfectly charted coasts and waters in the Falkland Islands sector which are frequented by whalers; the study of the natural history of the seal species of chief economic importance; inquiry into the possibilities of developing fishing in the waters of the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands; and the distribution for study by specialists of meteorological observations, including ice records, and of biological material of no immediate economic importance.

985
The noble Lord has referred to the position of Mr. Darnley, and I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging the services rendered by Mr. Darnley while at the Colonial Office, as Chairman of the "Discovery" Committee. As the noble Lord knows, he held this position for a long period, in addition to performing his departmental duties. The noble Lord has asked me what were the reasons for Mr. Darnley's dismissal from the position of Chairman of the "Discovery" Committee. If I may be allowed to say so, I think the term "dismissal" is not a correct one in this respect. The explanation is really a very simple one. As he knows, Mr. Darnley retired from the Government service about a year ago. He remained as Chairman of the "Discovery" Committee for some months, but it was considered of the highest importance that the Chairman of that Committee should be directly connected with the Colonial Office, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies consequently appointed Me to that position in the place of Mr. Darnley. I think I ought to make it clear that the Committee is appointed by the Secretary of State, and is directly responsible to him, and it was because of the need for close connection between the Committee, in the person of its Chairman, and the Colonial Office, that these steps were taken.
With regard to the financial side of this question, as your Lordships know, and as the noble Lord has told the House, the "Discovery" investigations are financed from the Falkland Islands Dependencies Research and Development Fund, which has been built up from revenue obtained from the Falkland Islands Dependencies, mainly from an export duty on whale oil. The Fund was created in 1924, by the transfer of sums standing to the credit of an earlier Dependencies Research Fund and the Dependencies General Account, that is, the then Reserve Fund of the Dependencies. Up till 1932 the cost of administering the Dependencies was more than balanced by the current revenue, and the surplus in each year was carried to the Fund. The position has since changed materially. Local revenue has fallen seriously short, owing in the main to the diminution of receipts from the export duty on whale products, consequent upon the adoption by many of the whaling companies of what is known as the pelagic method of whaling, which
986
virtually eliminates the use of shore stations.
There is recurrent administrative expenditure amounting to about £18,000 per annum, which is additional to the expenditure incurred by the "Discovery" Committee and cannot, in present circumstances, be wholly met from current revenue. I should explain that the sum of £18,000 which I have mentioned as representing the amount of recurrent expenditure in the Dependencies includes a contribution of £9,000 made by the Dependencies towards the cost of the central administration in the Falkland islands, as well as expenditure on local staff and communications. I hope I have made it clear that the charges on the Fund are now appreciably exceeding its income. On January 1, 1932, and reckoning the investments at cost, the Fund had a balance of £418,420. During that year the excess of expenditure over receipts was approximately £27,000, and during 1933 there was another excess of some 131,000. It is not easy to give exact figures of the total reduction in the Fund, since fluctuations in the values of investments have to be taken into account, but in any case it is clear that the diminution of the Fund is such as to make it prudent to review the situation generally, and especially the question of retaining a part of the Fund as a reserve for the general purposes of the Dependencies. It is obviously necessary that some provision be made to safeguard the Dependencies against future deficiencies.
LORD OLIVIER: Do I understand that they will be deficiencies in the general revenue?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Of the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands. My Lords, I want, if I may, to be allowed to make it quite clear that the programme of the "Discovery" Committee has not been materially interrupted, although owing to the financial outlook some small economies have necessarily had to be put into operation. In August last authority was given for the recommissioning of the Royal research ship "Discovery II" for another cruise of approximately twenty months, and this cruise will occupy the period until June, 1935, after which the Committee will necessarily require a further period to work up the results of the material then collected. In this connection I would

987
like to say that it has already been decided that the engagements of the scientific officers employed by the Committee shall be extended for three years as from July 1 next.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask are those the scientific officers stationed in South Georgia?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: No. they are scientific officers most of whom are here at home, and some who are actually now with the "Discovery II" on her voyage. I ought further to explain that the Falkland Islands Dependencies Research and Development Fund is not regarded as exclusively reserved for the "Discovery" investigations. Your Lordships will have seen that recently a grant of £10,000 has been made from the Fund towards the expenses of the British Expedition to Graham's Land', which is being organised under the leadership of Mr. Rymill, and I think your Lordships will agree that that project is well worthy of support. Important exploration work is to be undertaken by this expedition, from which valuable results may be expected, and it may well be that there will be other expeditions of a similar character, which will be equally worthy of any support that we can give them. I do not think there is anything that I can usefully add to what I have said. I would only conclude by saying that it is considered too early now to come to a final decision as to the detailed disposal of any balance of the Fund which may be left over after provision has been made for the objects to which I have referred.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, will probably be glad to have heard the statement just made, because it does show that the Secretary of State has definitely decided that the investigations are to go on, and to go on along the lines originally laid down. I think there was one point in the noble Earl's speech which requires rather careful consideration, and that was the point as to the extent to which any amount from the Fund should be devoted to the general revenue account of the Falkland Islands. I understand from what he said that a certain amount has already been taken out of general revenue to make up certain deficits on the annual expenditure on behalf
988
of the investigations, and to that extent it seems to me quite fair that the general revenue should he refunded; but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will take that into very careful consideration.
With regard to the question of Mr. Darnley, which was raised by Lord Olivier and which has been referred to by the noble Earl, I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say that Mr. Darnley was not dismissed from the Chairmanship. I am sure we all welcome the noble Earl in the position as Chairman of that Committee, because we know the way in which he attends to matters which come under his administration. At the same time I would ask the noble Earl whether he would represent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reference to Mr. Darnley—who was, after all, the originator of the whole idea of the "Discovery" Committee and of the "Discovery" expedition itself, who has a very special knowledge of all matters concerned with the investigations, and who has been in close touch with all the principal authorities in Norway and other countries which are concerned in the whaling industry—that perhaps it might be possible to re-attach Mr. Darnley to that Committee in some capacity which might fit the case, subject, of course, to Mr. Darnley being willing to serve in an inferior position to that which he has been holding. I do feel that we ought not at this period, when we still have in front of us several years of investigation, to lose the expert services which Mr. Darnley might be able to render to the Committee during that period.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There are embodied in our law a number of maxims, many of them expressed in Latin, which have served the country well for long periods, but which from time to time need reconsideration and revision because they have become no longer suitable to modern conditions and present Acts of Parliament. It seems

989
wrong that it should be left to private individuals to secure such revision by bringing cases in the Courts at their own expense; indeed, it is not always possible to achieve this result in this way, for some of the maxims have been enshrined in judgments of your Lordships' House, although in many of such judgments the Law Lords have expressed their regret that they were compelled to give effect to them. Consequently, on January 10 of this year a Committee of distinguished lawyers was set up, to whom four maxims were referred for consideration and report. Two members of your Lordships' House sat on that Committee, the noble and learned Master of the Rolls, Lord Hanworth, and Lord Wright. The Committee have now unanimously reported in favour of revision of two of these maxims, and the object of this Bill is to ask your Lordships to join in giving effect to their suggestions.
The first of these maxims is the one that lays down that a personal action does not survive or ceases upon the death of the party who has caused or suffered the injury complained of—the familiar and well-known principle actio personalis moritur cum persona. May I be permitted to explain this in the shortest possible way but without pledging myself to rigid accuracy? The rule of the Common Law is that if an injury has been clone, either to the person or the property of another, for which unliquidated damages only could be recovered, the action dies with the person to whom, or by whom, the wrong was done. The very great number of motor car accidents now unfortunately happening has made the revision of this maxim an urgent public necessity. For instance, if a negligent driver of a vehicle is killed in any collision due to his negligence, the rights which those seriously injured would have had against the negligent driver, if he had not been killed, are extinguished by his death. It follows that the liability of the insurance company under the third-party risks policy comes to an end. Neither the sufferers, if alive, nor their dependents, if the victims are dead, have any redress.
The maxim is peculiar to English law and to the law of those countries which have adopted our English Common Law. It has no place in Scots law. Public opinion has compelled the Legislature from time to time to pass Acts of Parliament
990
creating exceptions to the maxim, and a great authority has described the rule as one which has been made at all tolerable for a civilised country only by a series of exceptions. While, however, it remains a part of the established law of the land, it must be recognised and receive effect in the Law Courts, but the Committee in their Report rightly say that there is no logical explanation or vindication of it. It may have originated in the peculiarities of English law, mainly because of rules of procedure long since obsolete. "Where there is no remedy there is no wrong" became almost a maxim of English law, and it may not be uninteresting to your Lordships to know what the real reason for this doctrine was.
That great lawyer, Sir William Holds-worth, in his monumental work on the History of English Law, volume 3, page 582, says with regard to it:
"We may well wonder that the law of this period tolerated so restricted a view of the executor's liability for the acts of the deceased. That it produced inconvenience we can see from the applications made to the Chancellor at the end of this period. We may remember, however—"
this is the explanation—
"that it was in practice mitigated by very frequently recurring directions in wills that executors were to pay debts and to make restitution for wrongs done by the deceased, while if a person dies intestate, the administrator was bound to employ part of his estate in pious uses for the good of his soul, and the payment for debts and restitution for injuries were recognised by some as pious uses. The Legislature intervened to give the executor right of action at a much earlier date than it intervened to place him under legal liability, and the direction of testators in their wills to redress injuries the powers of administrators to do their best for the soul of the deceased rendered the absence of legal liability less onerous in practice than the absence of legal right to sue would have been."
As far back as 1846 an Act known for many years as Lord Campbell's Act, and now styled the Fatal Accidents Act, enabled an action to be brought on behalf of certain classes of dependants of a deceased man whose death had been caused by the negligence of the defendant, although before that Act no action could have been maintained at all. The Act, however, limits the kind of damages which can be claimed—for instance, medical or funeral expenses, even if actually incurred, cannot be claimed and recovered.

991
The position of the law as it now exists may be thus summarised. In contract, claims for debt or for breach of contract, or in respect of bonds, deeds, or other obligations, are unaffected by the death of a party except in the peculiar case of actions for breach of promise to marry. In cases of tort in general, this is the special sphere of the maxim which applies on the death of either party to claims for wrong sounding in unliquidated damages, such generally as personal injuries, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, trespass to goods or land. I will not weary your Lordships with a number of other exceptions, but the Committee say they can sec no valid reason why a man's estate should not be liable to pay compensation for wrongs committed by him during his life, just as a wrong-doer would be liable to do if still alive. They add that the law should be that the estate is liable just as the deceased would have been if he had not died. It is obvious, however, that the remedy of the injured person must be pursued promptly, otherwise the winding-up of the deceased's estate might be indefinitely prolonged. The Committee, therefore, add the recommendation that it is desirable, in the interests of the due administration of the deceased man's estate, that there should be a limitation of six months after representation is taken out for the bringing of the action.
The Bill as drafted carries out these recommendations, but does not extend to every case. In actions such as libel, slander or seduction, where the presence of the plaintiff or of the defendant may be of the greatest importance, the Committee are not able to suggest any change. For example, no action will be able to be brought for a libel on a dead man. The day may come when this particular matter may have to receive further consideration, but it is not necessary to complicate the present Bill with it, as it would introduce considerations of a controversial character. With regard to the damages, it is not thought that it should be in the power of the Court to award what are known as vindictive damages. The term "vindictive damages" is of a somewhat technical character. In cases of contract, damages are supposed to be compensation, though frequently not a very adequate one. In cases of tort to property, where there are no circumstances of aggravation, they are generally
992
the same. Where, however, the injury is to the person or character or feelings, and the facts disclose violence or cruelty, damages are supposed to operate as a punishment for the benefit of the community and as a restraint to the transgressor. There are numberless cases in which damages have been given which can only be accounted for on this principle. In the case of Bell versus the Midland Railway Company in 1861 a distinguished Judge laid down the rule that:
"where a wrongful act is accompanied by words of contumely and abuse the jury are warranted in taking that into consideration and giving retributory damages."
This is the meaning of the term "vindictive damages." The Committee recommend that where death has supervened the damages should be proportioned either to the loss to the estate or to the dependants, or possibly in some cases, both heads of loss.
I turn now to the clauses. Clause 1, subsection (1), amends the law as to the effect of death in relation to causes of action. Section (2) deals with the measure of damages. Subsections (3) and (4) deal with the limitation of time. Subsection (5) deals with certain subsections of the Administration of Estates Act of 1925, which will not now be necessary. That Statute deals only with injury to property. Clause 2 extends the benefit of the Legislature to any illegitimate child or any adopted child of a deceased person. The remaining part of the Bill deals in Clause 3 with the state of the law relating to the right to recover interest in civil proceedings. This is the second of the maxims upon which the Committee have unanimously reported. Originally in our law no claim could be made for interest on a sum due, but just as in the case of the first maxim so in the case of the second one, exceptions grew up. For example, if the claim was on a contract and the contract had art express or implied term under which interest was payable, interest could be recovered. Again, from time to time Statutes were passed giving a right to interest—for example, the Civil Procedure Act of 1833, the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882, the Partnership Act of 1890; I need not trouble your Lordships with a full list of these Statutes. Interest might also be claimed by the general custom of merchants or

993
the custom of a particular trade or business.
The exceptions which have been made both by the Statutes and various decisions have made a serious inroad upon the maxim, but there still remains a very large number of cases where interest cannot be claimed. Attention has repeatedly been drawn to the anomalous state of the law in your Lordships' House. Lord Herschell, who was then Lord Chancellor, in the case of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company versus the South-Eastern Railway Company, said:
"I confess that I have considered this part of the case with every inclination to come to a conclusion in favour of the appellants, to the extent at all events, if it were possible, of giving them interest from the date of the action; and for this reason, that I think that when money is owing from one party to another and that other is driven to have recourse to legal proceedings in order to recover the amount due to him, the party who is wrongfully withholding the money from the other ought not in justice to benefit by having that money in his possession and enjoying the use of it, when the money ought to be in the possession of the other party who is entitled to its use. Therefore, if I could see my way to do so, I should certainly be disposed to give the appellants, or anybody in a similar position, interest upon the amount withheld from the time of action brought at all events. But I have come to the conclusion, upon a consideration of the authorities agreeing with the Court below, that it is not possible to do so."
The law of England on this point is not the same as the law of Scotland as one of the Scottish Law Lords pointed out.
There are some people who take advantage of this omission of the law by defending actions to which they have no real answer. May I give you a concrete example? Suppose a person incurs a debt, and after a lapse of a year his creditor issues a writ against him; suppose further that owing to a great pressure of work at the Law Courts, as often happens, the action does not come on for nine months, by the hypothesis the debtor gets twenty-one months for payment and he has had the use of the money, or the equivalent of the money, for the whole of that period. It is true that he may have to pay some legal costs, but if he likes to settle a couple of months before the action is tried these costs may not amount to much, certainly in some cases to less than the interest he ought to pay. The Committee recommend
994
that the old and rigid rule should be altered and that the Courts, including all appellate tribunals, should have the power to award interest in every case in their discretion where it is not already provided for by Statute or by the contract. They further add that the power to award this interest should be, in the discretion of the Judge trying the case, and it should be left to him to state whether interest should in a particular case be payable and, if so, at what rate. It is not a discretion which Judges would feel any difficulty about exercising. Clause 3 of the Bill carries out this recommendation. In conclusion, permit me again to emphasise the fact that the Committee's Reports are in both cases unanimous, and the reforms appear to have been long overdue and are not likely to raise any controversy. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think the House at large and the community outside will be most grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having brought in this Bill to remedy certain grave defects in the existing law. I understand that two Committees of lawyers are considering other grave defects, especially the provisions of the law with regard to married women, many of which are entirely out of date according to modern views. I do not go into them now because they are not relevant. I sincerely trust the Lord Chancellor will bring in a Bill in due course dealing with those points.
I propose to refer very briefly to two points only upon Clause 1. The first is this. This Bill does not deal with cases of defamation—that is, libel and slander—and after it is passed it will be open, as it is to-day, to any malignant person to publish a most atrocious libel upon, possibly, some distinguished man who has recently died, and there is no remedy whatever either in damages or by way of injunction to stop that publication. I dare say there are some reasons for excluding these actions for defamation from the scope of this Bill, but for the moment I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider very carefully whether it would be possible to extend the right to have

995
damages in cases of these defamations. I think that the practice of libelling by atrocious libel dead men who have no opportunity of answering—it is done very often by irresponsible people who want to make a little money—should, if possible, be dealt with by the law and the right to damages given to the dependants or the surviving relatives of the person so defamed.
The only other point on this Clause 1 to which I wish to refer is the question of breach of promise of marriage. If I remember rightly—I have not looked it up lately—there was a case in the Courts a good many years ago in which it was sought by a lady to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage against the representatives of a dead man in a very bad case, and the Court came to the conclusion that this doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona applies to breach of promise of marriage. It is a little singular because, after all, breach of promise of marriage is a breach of contract. I forget why the Court so decided, but that is the law to-day. Now that is to be altered, but altered only to a very limited extent. The Bill says an action for damages
"in the case of a breach of promise to marry shall be limited to such damage, if any, to the estate of that person as flows from the breach of promise to marry."
In many cases it was very difficult to show that there hail been any loss at all to the estate. Without giving vindictive damages for breach of promise to marry, I should have thought that it would be possible to extend the right to damages somewhat further than this Bill does. With those two comments, may I say how entirely I agree with the Bill, and that I trust your Lordships will pass it into law with the least possible delay?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his remarks with regard to the Bill, and I will take them into very careful consideration. The only difficulty is that the question of allowing an action for a libel on a dead man is a controversial one. I hope to bring before your Lordships other Bills which, like this one, are of a noncontroversial character.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Commitee of the Whole House.

SHIPPING.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE asked His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take in order to call the Dominions into consultation with a view to formulating a common maritime policy for the British Empire. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not apologise to your Lordships for raising this matter, which has been debated more than once recently in your Lordships' House, because it is really urgent, for reasons which I will presently give. It is the fact that our mercantile marine is rapidly losing way as compared with the mercantile marines of other countries, and, for various reasons, that is extremely dangerous to this country. I propose that His Majesty's Government should take steps, not presently but immediately, to formulate a common maritime policy for the whole Empire. No doubt it is desirable—and I will try to show how desirable it is in a minute—and I believe also it is attainable, because it is on these lines that the greatest unanimity can be found in the efforts at Imperial unity.
Your Lordships may remember that when the late Mr. Chamberlain started his tariff reform campaign the one part of it which received universal assent from the whole of the Liberal Party and from what was then the small band of the Labour Party, as well as from the great body of Conservatives, was his proposal that there should be an Imperial maritime policy. I dare say your Lordships will remember that Mr. Asquith, who led the campaign in opposition to Mr. Chamberlain's tariff reform movement, was always at pains to say that, though he did not agree with Mr. Chamberlain on the tariff issue, he agreed with him entirely upon the maritime policy issue; and that he reiterated again and again. As that was so then, so I believe it is equally true to-day, for I have ascertained that without doubt all organised Parties in this country are in sympathy with that view, as they were then.
This objective being attainable, therefore, let us enquire for a moment whether any effective steps have been taken to carry out a policy which obviously has the approval of the great majority of the citizens of this country and, I believe, of most of the citizens of the Dominions and Colonies. Apart from that, two very strange things have happened quite.

997
recently. One exemplifies the dangers of not being in close touch with the Dominion Governments, for it shows that they may take action which probably could have been avoided if we had been in closer touch—action which is undoubtedly inimical to our mercantile marine. The other shows the extraordinary lengths to which the policy of subsidies can be carried by another Power in efforts, whether conscious or unconscious, to drive the British flag off the sea.
The first is the case of South Africa. Not long ago, just before the present Government carne into power, an agreement was come to between South Africa and the Kingdom of Italy by which the Italian Government were to pay a subsidy of £300,000 a year and the Union Government of South Africa a subsidy of £150,000 a year, making a total of 450,000, in order that Italian ships might carry South African produce. Of course it is not for us to quarrel for a moment with the policy of Italy in giving this huge subsidy in order to carry South African produce to the Mediterranean or elsewhere. But when there is not the least doubt that the Empire depends upon maritime power — as I shall presently try to show, in greater and greater degree—I am sure it will be conceded that it is very extraordinary that one of our own Dominions should enter into this arrangement deliberately to reduce the volume of our mercantile tonnage when, in the event, of trouble, it is our fleet, as they have always willingly admitted, that is the only one that can protect those ships. It is very extraordinary. The venture in this particular case, I gather, has not been at all successful. Very few passengers have been carried, and very small quantities of produce. But it is going on for a little time yet. The contract was for five years, although I dare say it may be possible to shorten it. It is very undesirable that such a thing should occur, and I believe it would not occur if there were some body to keep us in touch, and in constant touch, with the Dominions.
The other case affects New Zealand. A New Zealand shipping line, for I do not know how many years, certainly fifty years, has been carrying passengers and goods and mails between that wonderful little Dominion and the west coast of the North American Continent. Quite recently
998
the United States Government came along with a subsidised line and the subsidy is so large that it looks as though this old and valued British line flying the British flag may be driven off the seas. Your Lordships may ask what sort of subsidy is given. The High Commissioner has given me permission to snake the statement that the subsidy is not a direct subsidy but is in the form of a mail subsidy amounting to the fantastic figure of £10 a letter. When I asked the High Commissioner whether I might quote that if ever I had the chance he said: "Certainly." It is indeed the fact. £10 a letter!
It is quite dear that we cannot allow that sort of thing to go on and do nothing, because the effect would be, not perhaps that our flag would disappear from the seas, but that it would appear in very greatly reduced numbers. That would be extremely bad for this country. I forget which of our statesmen it was who, when he had given some foreign concession which was unpopular at the time and was asked why he had done so, said: "Well, you must have some friends." In the present state of the world it is more than ever essential that we should have some friends and I will go so far as to say that we do not seem to have any at all except among our own Dominions and Colonies. We ought, therefore, to foster that friendship in every way we can. I have tried to show that these other methods, tariffs and quotas, admirably designed as they may be, have inherent difficulties which make it very difficult for us to proceed as far as one would wish on the lines of Imperial co-operation.
In the case of shipping we can cooperate more easily, or with less difficulty. Moreover, not only is it more easy to get Imperial co-operation in that way, but it is really more vitally important. Some people talk rather loosely of the air having made Britain cease to be an island. I do not know what they mean by that. I see the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, is in his place. At one time I filled that office and I am sure he will not quarrel with me when I say that, viewed in the larger aspect of Imperial, defence, all that has been done in the way of modern invention, especially in regard to air power, renders sea power for Britain not less, but more essential than it was

999
before. I will not go into the reasons why, but I think the more one reflects upon this matter the more one feels that our fleet should be maintained, that that is of just as great importance as it was before air power came along, not less. If that is so, is it not abundantly clear that our mercantile marine also must be maintained at full strength?
It seems to me—and I submit to your Lordships that it is a self-evident proposition—that whether you are going to avoid the making of special contracts between the Dominions and other Powers, or whether you are going to argue with and if need be defy foreign Powers who try to drive our flag off the seas, we shall be in a very much better position if the whole Empire acts as one unit. I believe that there is not a single Dominion that would not welcome the action I am venturing to urge upon the Government. I understand that the noble Lord who will reply will not be unsympathetic, but if I had any word of criticism to make of His Majesty's present advisers it would be that they do not sufficiently realise that we put them there to take action, and swift action, that it will not do for them to be Victorian and to belong to the Manchester school. That is not why we put them there. They were not put there in order to say that a matter has the earnest consideration of the Government and then, when they are asked what they are going to do, to say that in six months there will be another conference. I hope I am not being unduly combative, but I want the noble Lord who will deal with this matter to tell the Government that here is a thing that wants doing and that must be done. If it is objected that the Dominions will not agree, I say that most of them will. In any case action must be taken, and taken at once, to see how far we can go. I say: "Set up some body to co-ordinate this matter and do it now."
Loan JOICEY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has certainly justified his intervention with regard to this Question. There cannot be two opinions with regard to the importance of maintaining our tramp shipping. When we consider the services which it has rendered for a very long time, and particularly during the War I think it cannot be questioned that it is absolutely necessary that the
1000
Government should take some action on this matter. It is most important that we should carry out the suggestion of the noble Lord who has just spoken and get into communication with our Dominions, and, if possible, get the Empire to act as one concern. Subsidies ought to be stopped and I think that our great Empire working together could stop them. I do not mean that that could be done by giving larger subsidies, although that is one way of dealing with the matter. When it is remembered that this country is the greatest country so far as sales of goods and so far as exports and imports are concerned, surely we ought to have great power in dealing with other countries. Surely, too, we ought to see whether it is not possible for this matter to be dealt with by the Empire as a whole instead of by different sections of the Empire.
Consider what other countries do. Italy, Germany, France and the United States prohibit any British ship carrying on their coastal trade, and there are others who do the same thing in a similar way; and we do nothing whatever about that matter. But supposing we were to put our heads together arid say that we would ignore the question of distance and would prohibit anyone carrying on trade between different parts of our Empire: I think it would be rather a staggering blow to the people who are paying these subsidies. I mean, if we said to them: "Unless you stop these subsidies we shall be obliged to take that action." We could do it either by stopping the ships coining to these ports from the countries who pay subsidies, or by putting an increased tax upon them. It is a question which I think ought to have due consideration. So far as I am concerned I am certain that unless something is done we shall lose a great deal of our tramp trade.
It is not only competition in shipping from which we are suffering; we are suffering from competition in other industries. There is a great set against the British Empire from all parts of the world. We have never had such competition as we are meeting now. We see a great change. Other countries are developing their industries. They have got the best machinery, they have got the cheapest labour, and many of them have great skill. I think we are now in such a position that we shall have to fight if we

1001
are to maintain the position which we have occupied for so long, and which this great Empire is entitled to occupy, in commerce. I hope that His Majesty's Government will deal with this question and consider all these matters and do so as soon as possible, so that it shall be clearly known that we mean not to allow things of this sort to go on, and that we will fight for our position. Depend upon it, we have got to the stage now that we shall never regain our position unless we fight for it. So far as I know the British character, I am sure that we shall fight with all our might if we do fight, and the sooner other countries get to understand that, the better it will be for our statesmanship.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I think it is hard to exaggerate the importance of the question which my noble friend Lord Mottistone has raised this afternoon. It is becoming clearer to all those who have to study this question that it is impossible for British shipping to continue to face the competition of subsidised foreign ships, and it has now come to a pitch where British shipowners are beginning to sell their ships to foreign lines, which can run them at a profit whereas the British shipowner cannot. A case of that kind was brought to my notice the other day, where a British shipowner, a patriotic man, who had been carrying on his line in the Mediterranean at a loss of some £5,000 a year for a good many years, had now come to the conclusion that he could no longer afford to carry this heavy loss, and he sold his line to an Italian firm who, with their subsidy, were in the position of being able to run coal-free and therefore to make a very handsome profit out of the trade. And that is what is happening in many parts of the world and what is likely to continue to happen.
It has been said that the foreigner is trying to drive the British flag off the seas. Possibly that is a harsh way of putting it, although that may be the net effect. I think the foreigner is trying to do exactly what we have done—to establish his flag on the seas; and it can only be established at our expense. Therefore the question is whether or not we are strong enough to prevent this. If it comes to a question of subsidy, really it is rather childish. Are we going to allow British shipping to be driven off the high seas by a series of semi-bankrupt
1002
countries, when we have got a large surplus on our Budget, and we are about the only country in the world that has We are really allowing our shipping to be defeated by sums of money which our Treasury would not admit even exist, but they seem to arrive at the vital point to enable foreign ships to compete with ours.
This is not a question of getting some agreement with the shipping industry as to whether or not they want subsidies. As has often been said, the shipping industry say that they do not want subsidies. I do not see that that comes into it. The question is a question for the Empire and for this country. It is vital and essential for us to maintain our shipping industry. We must do so. If the foreigner wants to compete with us by subsidies, very well, we can very easily beat him at that, and it will not take us very long to do it, either. It is not only a question of intercommunication or of the shipping industry alone. I feel sure that many of your Lordships have reflected that the shipping industry means a good deal more to Great Britain that merely running the shipping lines in question. The whole of the great shipbuilding industry, the engineering industry, the iron and steel industry, the coal industry, all depend upon our maintaining our shipping power. This goes right to the very root of our island economy, and we cannot possibly allow it to be attacked in the way in which it is to-day being attacked, as everybody admits. That is so far as the general question of shipping is concerned.
We then come to the point of Empire shipping. One might say that it is a curious thing that foreign countries are prepared to spend so much money to run shipping lines at a loss. What can possibly be their object? It is plain to any one who has made a few voyages that when a ship arrives at a foreign port there is a connection set up between that country and its nationals, and the shipping line in question. Take for example an Italian ship going into Egypt. Ask the people on board and make some inquiries when you arrive, and you will find that at the port of call there grows up a little Italian colony, of the brothers, the uncles, and the business friends of the people concerned in going backwards

1003
and forwards on the line. In that way, of course, influence and trade spread, and that is precisely the reason why foreign buyers desire to have shipping lines in existence. It is for the general spread, not only of prestige but of trade, by foreign shipping; and it is that indeed which, above all things, should bind the Empire together. It is exactly for that reason, that it is an Empire and not merely an English policy which is necessary.
I think the methods of discouraging foreign shipping in our ports and in Imperial ports are well known to His Majesty's Government. They have been used many times over in earlier phases of our history, when in a very virile manner we were building up our shipping industry. There are a great many devices which may be uncomfortable to other people, and there are a great many ways of encouraging your own ships. It is necessary that we should do it, not in this country alone, but in consonance with the Imperial Governments. It is important to realise, and I believe that your Lordships will agree, that in this matter there are other considerations, and perhaps wider considerations, than the mere question of economy or of economics. The British Empire is not only a question of pounds, shillings and pence. It has very much greater reason, and we have a very much greater duty towards it, than merely to make provision for the immediate and most profitable methods of its administration. It is essential to bind it together by every means in our power. It is essential to protect it and to protect its communications. If the argument is raised against it that this is not an economical way of doing it, and that it is an expensive thing, I do not believe that that is the true answer which might be given to the point. We have a graver duty than that, and we have other considerations to take into account.
It is also sometimes argued that the Dominions and the Colonies are unreasonable and that it is not possible to deal with them. Frankly, my Lords, that does not appeal to me as a very valuable argument. There have recently been disputes with Southern Rhodesia and with New Zealand. Southern Rhodesia is a place I know well. I lived in it for some years and I know most of the people there who are concerned with
1004
its affairs. If I were charged with a mission on a matter of business to go out and deal with them, I should not myself feel that I had been given a particularly difficult task because the people with whom I had to negotiate were particularly unreasonable. They are not. They are perfectly rational, and in the case of Southern Rhodesia intensely loyal, very anxious indeed to arrive at a practical and reasonable agreement with the people of this country, and very anxious indeed not to do anything which is going to injure us, though at the same time naturally anxious to foster their own trade and to improve their own position as far as they can in consonance with the general interests of the Empire.
I believe that to be equally true of New Zealand. All I know about the people and Government of New Zealand is that in them we have not got difficult and unreasonable people to deal with, but perfectly rational and loyal people, and that we ought to be able to make an agreement with them. If it is said that we cannot, then there must be something wrong with our methods, and possibly we ask too much and expect too much. I do hope that the Government will act in this matter and act promptly and effectively. It is of no use bringing back the excuse that this is a thing which the shipping industry does not want, and which cannot be arranged with the Dominions. It is a thing which the population of the Empire desire, and which His Majesty's Government, the greatest Government in the Empire, as the noble Lord opposite has said, were sent to their position to carry through, and I sincerely hope that they will carry it through.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I think, of course, it is very necessary that there should be some sort of maritime agreement within the Empire, and I think that Lord Mottistone is absolutely justified in bringing forward this matter. I hope also that the Government will take action as suggested, but I venture to suggest two aspects in any action which is taken which I hope will not be lost sight of by the Government. In the first place, we have had one or two rather militarist and aggressive speeches. I think, in particular, the term which we must avoid at all cost was that we must

1005
sweep other flags off the seas and prevent in all circumstances any modification of British preponderance in the mercantile marine of the world. I hope that any Empire policy which is adopted will not be so aggressive in tone as that, but that it will all the time be remembered that, while it is true that for many years Great Britain and the Empire had a preponderance of the maritime carrying trade of the world, yet in justice other nations must be entitled to their share of that carrying trade. I hope, therefore, that any policy adopted will not be one which will still further increase the feeling of enmity against the British Empire which is caused to grow up by the adoption of an aggressive policy.
The other point which I hope will be considered in any agreement with the Dominions is as to the pay and conditions of the officers and crews of our mercantile marine. I happen during the last few months to have travelled on the finest and best of British ships, and I have been appalled at the conditions under which some of the crews were living. In one of the biggest of British liners I found it to be the case that none of the stewards had a mess room where they could ever sit down to a meal. They had to stand up to every meal in that ship, which was a luxury ship of the most expensive type. That wants looking into, and although it is true that our great mercantile marine is going through financial difficulties at the present time, they ought not to be difficulties to be remedied at the expense of the salaries and comfort of the crews.
With regard to the officers of British ships the position is extremely difficult. The recent merger has caused numbers of officers to be put on the retired list without any pension. There is no adequate pension scheme at all for mercantile marine officers, except one or two voluntary pension schemes, which are so small that nobody could live on those pensions —£20 or £30 a year on retirement. The salaries of officers of the British mercantile marine are much lower than those of most other nations, and I hope that in any agreement reached with the Dominions some step will be taken to secure that the wages and conditions of service of officers shall be at least as good in Great Britain as in any other country in the world. I have here the
1006
scale of officers' salaries prepared by the International Mercantile Marine Officers' Association. For example, take navigating officers. The pay of a first mate is, in Holland, £27 a month; in Denmark, £25; in France, £23; in Germany, £21; in Norway, £21; in Sweden, £20; and in Great Britain, £16 a month. Below come Belgium, £14; Esthonia, £12 19s.; Spain, £12 19s.; and Portugal, £10. Do we want to be classed with Esthonia, Spain, and Portugal as the lowest-paying country in the world for mercantile officers? For second mates the conditions are even worse. The highest pay—in Holland—is £20, and in Great Britain, £13 1s. For a third mate, holding an officer's certificate—and often with twenty years' certificated service—the highest is Holland with £14 11s.; France, £15 6s.; Germany, £13 8s.; Sweden, £11; and Great Britain £10 7s., a month. That ought not to be the state of things, and I hope that in consultation with the Dominions we shall press for an improvement in the conditions of the officers and men of our mercantile marine.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this exceedingly important subject, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. We have had speeches in addition from Lord Joicey, from my noble friend behind me and from the noble Lord opposite, all of whom brought forward very important points. Lord Marley will, I am sure, forgive me if in reference to his speech I say that of course I did riot know that he was going to bring forward these particular points. The particular Question I was asked was what steps the Government were going to take in order to call the Dominions into consultation with a view to formulating a common maritime policy for the British Empire. Therefore I really am not prepared with any answer or defence to the figures which he has brought forward, but I can assure him that I will send the debate to my right honourable friend, as I always do, so that he shall know what has been said in this House and know what feeling there is on the point.
As regards Lord Mottistone's speech, I am sure that nobody in this House is more fitted to bring forward this subject from every point of view, because I happen to know that the noble Lord

1007
has during his Ministerial career served in three Departments of the State. I think he started in the Colonies, continued in the War Office, and then went to the Air Department. The Admiralty is the only one of the big Service Departments in which he has not served his time. I must; however, join issue with him on two things that he said. I rather gathered that at the end of his speech he accused His Majesty's Government of not taking decided action in anything. Coming from him I was rather surprised, and I say without fear of contradiction that in a great many subjects action, and speedy action, has been taken by His Majesty's Government, and far speedier action than by the Government of any Party that has ever gone before. He also accused us of still sticking to the tenets of the Manchester school. From a member of the Liberal Party that is rather extraordinary. He had better consult his colleagues, I think, or at any rate his colleagues in another place.
LORD MOTTTSTONE: I did not accuse His Majesty's Government of belonging to the Manchester school, but I implored them not to behave as if they did, and I beg to repeat that.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It sounded as if the noble Lord did accuse, and I am sorry if I misunderstood him. He has brought forward various suggestions indicating the way in which he thinks the Government should go. For those suggestions I thank him, and I shall convey his suggestions and those of my noble friend behind me to the proper quarter. He asks me a specific Question—namely, what steps the Government propose to take in order to call the Dominions into consultation with a view to formulating a common maritime policy. To that Question I am afraid I cannot give a specific answer, because, as I stated here a fortnight ago, the Government have not yet formulated their policy. Speaking on April 18, I said that my right honourable friend hoped to make a statement in another place on this subject at a relatively early date, and that pledge still holds, but he has not yet been able to do so.
May I repeat what I said in my speech a fortnight ago in answer to Lord Strabolgi? The present position is that the matter is divided, as it were, into three parts. First of all, the shipowners
1008
have submitted certain proposals to the Government, which include consultation with the Dominions. Secondly, the Governments of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have sent a Note as to their willingness to co-operate in various matters to find remedies against the evils from which the shipping industry is suffering. Thirdly, there is the question which we are considering here, of action to assist our mercantile marine to meet foreign subsidised competition, including a request for a subsidy by the tramp shipowners, which is still under discussion. Of those three items the first two, at all events, will obviously require consultation with the Dominions. I regret that further than that I cannot go to-day.
I can assure the noble Lord that in this matter, although he may think the Government dilatory—and I may not agree with him in that—he really is pushing an open door. The Government are most exercised and most anxious about this serious question of shipping, as was emphasised by the President of the Board of Trade in a debate in the House of Commons last December, and as was stated in similar terms by my noble friend Lord Stanhope in February last, and by myself a fortnight ago. As regards the specific question of consulting the Dominions, the noble Lord may rest assured that as soon as the President of the Board and His Majesty's Government have formulated the main lines on which they propose to proceed, the Dominions will be consulted in every respect. I thank the noble Lord for raising this subject in the way he has done. I think that speeches such as his and those that we have heard to-day can do nothing but good in helping the Government to deal with this very important matter.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I spoke on this subject in February, and I want to repeat the points I made then. In the event of our ships being driven off the seas we shall be in a very vulnerable position if any trouble ever occurs between us and other countries; we should then very quickly have to cave in to a foreign Power. It is to me much more important that we should have a strong maritime fleet than that we should increase enormously our military and air forces, because in this respect we are the most vulnerable nation in the world

1009
unless we have a strong mercantile marine to carry our food and raw materials to this country to feed and maintain the population.
Another point is that we are suffering from lack of shipbuilding orders, and the practical step which the Government ought to have taken before now was to see that our shipbuilding yards were again occupied and that ships were being built. I suggest that the Government should lend the money to shipbuilders to build new and up-to-date ships, which would be far more effective than the foreign ships with which we compete on various lines throughout the world. It will also be much more economical to run new ships than old ones. Most of the ships on our mercantile marine list now are over twenty years old. We should scrap many of them, and new ships should be built. The old ships should not be sold to foreigners, but the scrap iron should be used in our blast furnaces in order to produce plates for new ships. In that way I believe we could establish a new scheme for shipbuilding which would do away with nearly the whole of the unemployment that exists at the present time. We should give employment in blast furnaces, in the coalfields, and in the shipbuilding yards. Money would circulate all round, and instead of our maintaining men on the "dole," they would be hard at work, and such a scheme would be of value not only to this country but to the whole Empire.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COAL MINES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As it is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships, I hope you will forgive any shortcomings on my part. When I was asked by Mr. Godfrey Nicholson, the Member for Morpeth, to take charge of this Bill in this House, I told him, after examining the matter, that it seemed a very technical Bill in many respects, and that when I was in the House of Commons I sat for an industrial, and not for a mining constituency, but that I would undertake to do my best. Though this Bill in many of its clauses is replete with
1010
rather formidable legal phraseology, I hope your Lordships will agree that the general principle of the Bill is simple. The general principle is to ensure that workmen who are in receipt of compensation payments for accidents should not suffer losses through the bankruptcy or closing down of collieries. Very hard cases have occurred, and it seems deplorable that in such cases the victims should be left to depend for relief on the Poor Law. Mr. Godfrey Nicholson had very wide support for his Bill in another place. It was received with approval by all Parties and by spokesmen from all Parties. It was approved by the Home Office and by the Lord Chancellor's Office, and I think it was largely owing to Mr. Nicholson's own ability and perseverance, as well no doubt as to his good fortune in the ballot, that the Bill has reached your Lordships' House at this early stage. The fact that it had such widespread support makes me the more confident that your Lordships will give it very careful consideration.
It may be asked, why should this be done for coal mines and not for other industries? It is a reasonable question, and I think the answer is to be found in some statistics that were quoted in the other place both by the promoter of the Bill and by the representative of the Home Office. Thus it was pointed out that in the mining industry about seven times more accidents occur than in other industries, and statistics that have been officially collected show that the mining industry is in a much more precarious position in this respect that any other industry you can mention. These statistics I refer to deal with mines, shipping, factories, docks, quarries, constructional work, and railways, and all these together employ about 6,500,000 men. In the six industries other than mines the proportion which the number of compensation cases bears to the total number of men employed is 3.38 per cent. In the mining industries it is 21.2 per cent. As your Lordships will observe that is an increase of about seven times. Take again the total expenditure of these industries annually on compensation proportionate to the total number of men employed. In the six industries it is 9s. 10d.; in the mining industry it is 08s. 11d., which represents a startling difference. Some other figures given in

1011
the other place by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department are these. Out of about 960 colliery undertakings employing about 790,000 men there are 707 colliery undertakings employing about 589,000 men which are insured in this matter of compensation. That leaves 253 colliery undertakings employing 201,000 men which are not insured at all. Those at any rate were the figures last February.
The conclusions which I draw from these figures are these. The figures show, firstly, that the coal-mining industry involves far heavier risk than does any other industry; that seems indisputable. Secondly, that in no other industry are the workers liable to such grave and extensive loss. Thus, if a colliery goes bankrupt there is a permanent loss of compensation which is very hard indeed upon the workers. In the case of bankruptcy, there are often no realisable assets, and all that remains after a colliery has gone bankrupt is a valueless gap in the earth, unlike the case of factories, inasmuch as in the latter case there are probably buildings, plant, and possibly leases which may form assets. The possible argument that perhaps may be brought against what I am saying is that where a colliery is financially rickety this proposed compulsion to insure as provided in this Bill adds to the cost of carrying that colliery on. That may perhaps be true, but surely the answer is that such a business should not be run or undertaken if it is too shaky to he able to insure against compensation costs in the event of bankruptcy.
Many owners already do this insurance. The Bill does not impose upon owners of collieries any expense or hardship which the best of them are not willing to incur now, and I am informed that in fact about 75 per cent. of them do so, and they consider that they do so in the interests of their workmen. It is the natural provision against the exceptional risks in the mining industry. I should like to express my appreciation of the attitude of the Mining Association in this matter, because they candidly recognise that employers should be ready to make sure of a firm foundation for compensation liabilities exactly as they have to provide for paying wages to their men. That is a right attitude to take, and it is I think on the ground that they do take that attitude,
1012
that they are giving their hearty support to this Bill.
Your Lordships will see that in the Bill there are three methods of insurance referred to. There is, first, the mutual indemnity association, which is a very common form, I believe, in the coal-mining districts. This method of insurance has been adopted by 364 collieries employing 511,600 men. The attempt is made in Clause 4 of the Bill to prevent the formation of unsound mutual indemnity associations by compelling all mutual indemnity associations to deposit £20,000 with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court. The second method of insurance referred to is by the ordinary means of an insurance company or an underwriter. That method will be familiar to your Lordships. The third method proposed is by means of compensation trust deed. Under this method, I believe, the coalowner will have to pay annually the capital sum estimated by a qualified actuary to cover those accidents which are likely to occur during the coming year. Trusts of this kind have so far been adopted by sixteen undertakings employing 48,000 men.
I think what I have said fairly sketches out the general principle and outlines of this Bill, and it only remains for me therefore to mention the specific clauses and very briefly to summarise what they propose. Clause 1 does not need much explanation. The proviso to subsection (1) refers to the fact that in making mutual indemnity arrangements the owner carries the first twenty-six weeks compensation himself. The object of that is that the coalowner shall have some inducement to get the workmen back to work. The proviso lays it down that no condition in a contract of that sort shall invalidate the contract, but apart from that it is provided that in the event of liquidation the insurer shall assume liability even for the first twenty-six weeks. The rest of the clause lays down the penalties. Clause 2 enables workmen to know that their employer is insured or has otherwise covered his liability.
Clause 3 is complicated. The gist of it is that bankruptcy or failure to pay premiums to mutual indemnity associations or insurance companies shall not affect the liability of the insurer for claims which originally arose while the coalowner was insured. Contracting out

1013
is forbidden. That means collusion between owner and insurer to the detriment of the worker. Clause 4, which I have already mentioned, deals with the deposit of the £20,000 to be made by a new mutual indemnity association. Clauses 5 and 6 are formal, consisting of definitions and the title. A rather formidable Schedule outlines the necessary requirements with which compensation trusts must comply. In commending this Bill to your Lordships I should like to acknowledge the sympathetic assistance which has been given to it by the Mining Association, by the Labour representatives in another place, and by His Majesty's Government through the Department of the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I have every confidence in moving here, therefore, the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rockley.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I rise only to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech, and to thank him that he has chosen that occasion for introducing so useful a measure as the one he has put before the House, the need of which he has explained very clearly to your Lordships. I feel confident that it will receive the support of this House. I am sure we all hope that the noble Lord will on future occasions intervene in our debates and bring forward more measures of this description, which are so useful to the community. He may be certain in this House that when he has the approval of the Opposition he is on the right lines.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, it is true the Mining Association take no exception to this Bill, but there are a great number of colliery owners who have expressed the view to me that the Bill is not really necessary because, by the end of this year, all the arrangements which are going to be enacted in this Bill will have been effected voluntarily, and as satisfactorily as even the terms of the Bill provide for, in the interest of the miners. The position really is this. In 1925 the collieries of this country had had a pretty good time and there was no prospect, when that Bill was before Parliament, that any liquidation of firms was likely to take place. But in the
1014
period which has elapsed since 1925 there have been a large number of collieries, as the House is aware, which have lost money and in some cases they have gone into liquidation. When a colliery concern goes into liquidation, after Government taxes are paid out of any assets, the compensation money and the wages of the men come next, before even the interest of the debenture holders. Nevertheless there have been cases where men who have been entitled under the Act of 1925 to permanent compensation have not been able to secure it owing to the fact that concerns have gone into liquidation and have not had enough assets to enable the compensation to be paid.
That has caused a real grievance to a limited number of men who have thereby been placed in a very unfair position, because they have not been able to obtain the compensation which was intended to be given to them under the Statute of 1925. This Bill, at any rate, will make certain that after the end of this year every man, whether a firm goes into liquidation or not, will secure the full compensation which is due to him. Therefore it is with pleasure that I support this Bill. It is only carrying out what really all coalowners have felt should be carried out, and I think would have been carried out successfully, voluntarily, by the end of this year if this Bill were not passed into law. The Bill, however, does cover the ground, and will ensure that every workman will get his compensation in future no matter whether the firm he has worked for goes into liquidation or not.
There are three or four small Amendments to which I would like to draw the noble Lord's attention so that he may consider them before the Committee stage. Of course I will place them on the Table of the House. I might mention them now, however, so that they can receive consideration. In Clause 1 there are the words: "workmen for the purposes of that mine." The words "for the purposes of that mine" are very loose phraseology. It is only intended that the workmen employed in or about the mine should be included for the purposes of compensation, and to leave in the words "for the purposes of that mine" might involve the shipping stage and bring in even men on board a line of ships belonging

1015
to a colliery company and extraneous men apart from the miners working in or about the mine. Therefore I will suggest that the words "in or about" that mine should be inserted instead of the words "for the purposes of" that mine.
The next Amendment I would suggest for the consideration of the noble Lord and his friends is that the paragraph at the bottom of page 2 to the end of section (b) at the top of page 3 should be omitted, and a clause inserted which I shall place upon the Paper to come in after the first paragraph of Clause 1 on page 1. The object of that Amendment is that if a compensation trust is going to secure the proper carrying out of proposals similar to those of an insurance scheme, the two should be put in an analogous position and be included in that part of Clause 1. Otherwise it would mean that those in a compensation trust, when all the provisions of the Bill have been complied with, might be put in a very awkward position, and might have to defend themselves in the Courts of Law in order to prove the existence of their compensation trust scheme. As the Bill stands at present they are put in rather an invidious position. So long as they comply with the necessary covering of the insurance of the men, it would be better, I suggest, that they should be put in the place I have indicated.
Another Amendment I propose to move is to Clause 1 on page 3, subsection (4), line 27. I propose to leave out the word "three" and insert "four." This Bill does not come into operation till January. 1, 1933, and it seems to us that it ought not to be retrospective, but should come into force practically in 1934 and not in 1935 as suggested. The other point is only a small one. It occurs in the Schedule on page 12. In line 45 I want to insert after "deaths," "in excess." As the Bill stands at present the insurance company will have to charge an absolutely prohibitive premium in the event of all accidents being included, but if my words are inserted the insurance schemes themselves would cover the first five accidents, and after that premiums would be secured at a lower rate which would enable all to be covered in the event of a very substantial accident occurring. Where there are accidents only involving five deaths ordinary schemes will suffice, but it is necessary
1016
to meet the horrible danger of a large explosion which may mean a great number of deaths. The rates which would be asked for by the insurance companies for all accidents are very much greater than the rates which would be required for deaths in excess of five. These are four little technical points which really do not interfere at all with the principle of the Bill and I hope that they may find general acceptance on the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, there are reasons why I should very briefly address your Lordships' House. The first is that I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill. Those congratulations relate not only to the principle underlying the Bill, which has received full support from all sides in another place and will I feel confident receive the support of your Lordships' House, but apply also to the very concise and clear way in which the noble Lord explained intricate clauses in a rather complicated Bill. When this Bill was debated in another place the principle, as we have already heard, received strong support from all Parties and, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary expressed the support of His Majesty's Government. I think it would he improper if the Government representative in your Lordships' House did not give it the same measure of support.
The noble Lord, Lord Rockley, has clearly stated that the plan of the Bill is to make compulsory the adoption of one of three arrangements which the Mining Association has been urging coal owners to adopt — either insurance through an employers' mutual indemnity association, or insurance with an ordinary company, or the setting aside of reserves in the hands of trustees to meet liabilities. The question has been asked on what ground should a compulsory measure of this kind be applied to the mining industry and to the mining industry alone. The Government agree with the promoters of the Bill that it can be justified by two reasons. In the first place, coal mining gives rise to the heaviest risk of all industries, and, secondly, in no industry have the workers been exposed to such wholesale losses as in the mining industry. For those two reasons, and also for the reason which the noble Lord

1017
mentioned, that compensation paid in the mining industry is far larger than in any other—I believe it amounts to something in the region of £3,000,000 on the average per annum—I think it is right to make an exception, and that it would not be right to contemplate increasing the scope of the Bill at the present time. I assure the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, and your Lordships, that it will have the full support of the Government.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I am much obliged for the kind remarks which have been made with regard to the Bill and the presentation of it. There is really nothing more for me to say at the moment except that I am sure that all those concerned will readily give careful consideration to any Amendments moved in Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and in doing so may I express appreciation of the sympathetic consideration given to what I think is a necessary measure?
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Eltisley.)
On Question, Bill passed.

WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a temporary measure which the Government has been compelled to put before Parliament to cope with an altogether exceptional situation. I emphasise that aspect of the Bill because it contains provisions which appear to over-ride the safeguards which Parliament has seen fit to enact to limit the power and authority of water undertakings. Those safeguards have been provided for the most part with the idea of protecting the rights of private owners, of local authorities and of other statutory undertakers. Those rules have been established by Parliament for a long
1018
period and we do not suggest that they should be superseded by Departmental Order except as a temporary measure to meet the special circumstances with which we are confronted. I think everybody will agree that at such times it is essential that some over-riding central authority should be armed with powers to deal with situations as they may arise in a more expeditious way than is possible under ordinary Parliamentary procedure.
A real water famine in the big centres of population would be a very serious matter, and with the elaborate system of supply which these big centres demand a shortage cannot be remedied merely by a few days rain. The water is drawn from the subsoil, sometimes at considerable depths, and it may be that a period of not only weeks but months must elapse before the benefits of rain falling on the surface are really noticeable. Now not only was last summer an exceptionally dry summer but it was followed by an exceptionally dry winter. In fact, it is necessary to go back forty-seven years before finding a parallel. Whereas the normal average of rain all over England and Wales is 35.23 inches, the total rain that fell for the year ending March, 1934, was only 25.9 inches. The water undertakers, who rely largely on the winter rains to see them through the summer, usually find that their reservoirs are full by this time of the year, if not long before, but this year, in many of them, they have less than half their normal reserves. These reserves have indeed now fallen to a level which cannot be considered safe for future eventualities even if the economies which the undertakers are able to enforce are put into full effect. Added to this, many of the wells (which should, of course, at this time of the year be rising) are even falling, and additional supplies must be somehow obtained.
Now it is perfectly true that water undertakers, as a whole, should be prepared for drought, but I think we can have few complaints against the water undertakers because, although the drought has been in progress for some time, their reserves have so far stood up to the strain extremely well. If water undertakers had reserves sufficient to cope with really exceptional droughts, they would have to spend so much money on providing those reserves that it would

1019
affect appreciably the cost of water not only in dry years but in wet years. I am speaking of the more highly organised water undertakers. I am not saying that the permanent reserves in rural areas are sufficient, because in many cases they do not exist at all. We quite admitted that situation and it was dealt with by the Rural Water Supplies Act, which recently passed your Lordships' House.
Of course it is also true that water undertakers have power to insist on economies in consumption, and they can do a great deal with the co-operation of the public. I understand that economies of as much as 20 to 30 per cent. have been affected by intelligent co-operation between undertakers and the public in such matters as waste, unnecessary consumption and so forth. The Government desire to encourage this co-operation, and it is not the intention of the Ministry that any undertakers should have the benefit of these special measures unless they have shown that they have done what they can under the existing law, not only by effecting economies but by securing additional supplies by voluntary arrangements. But of course there are various matters an interruption in which would be very unfortunate, such, for instance, as the general industrial and commercial activities of the country. Waste may occur in industry as in domestic consumption, but of course it would be very regrettable if at the present stage of industrial revival there were any check through water shortage.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 gives the Minister power to proceed by Order. The object of that procedure is to ensure that situations as they arise should be met at once. So far as is compatible with expedition, property owners' interests and other interests will be safeguarded. Publicity must be given, and local inquiries will be held where necessary. The Minister will in all cases do what he can to try to encourage local authorities to proceed by agreement, and it is hoped that Orders will be implemented only if the normal processes have been tried and have not proved sufficient. But the Government have come to the conclusion that if an Order is once made, it must stand. They cannot agree that it would be desirable to make these Orders subject to alteration and repeal by Parliament, because if
1020
there were a risk that an Order would be repealed by Parliament the undertakers could hardly be expected to initiate works until the Order had gone through Parliament, and thus of course the advantages of despatch would be lost.
These Orders may enable local authorities and undertakers to take water from a specified source which in normal circumstances they would only be allowed to do by Private Act or Provisional Order. The Order may suspend or modify any restriction or obligation to which the undertakers are subject. Examples of such obligations are the obligation to discharge a specified amount of water back into a stream from which it was taken further up, or the obligation to maintain a specified flow in a stream; restrictions on the particular reservoirs from which certain specified areas are supplied, and restrictions regarding the pressure at which water must be supplied. Then also as regards filtration, certain Acts of Parliament require water undertakers to supply water filtered in specified ways, whereas under modern chlorination methods the same effect can be produced much more expeditiously and equally effectually. An Order under this Bill may also make compulsory the supply in bulk of water by one authority to another. Recently we passed a Bill permitting this procedure, but although that is fully sufficient for ordinary purposes, it may he necessary during this emergency to go some way beyond the principle of the Supply of Water in Bulk Bill. Orders may add to the powers of compulsory rationing now exercised by undertakers both as regards the consumers and the supply from which the water is derived.
Of course this Bill recognises that if exceptional powers are given there must be some exceptional protection for the consumers and other interested persons, and in Clause 1, subsection (3), there are provisions to enforce repayment of sums which consumers have paid in advance for services of which they are or may be deprived by an Order. There is also protection for navigation authorities, so that if water is taken from the streams which feed the canals for the purpose of domestic supplies, then the navigation authorities shall be relieved of their statutory obligations which they are unable to discharge. In subsection (5)

1021
of Clause 1 your Lordships will notice that an Order can only have effect for six months, but other Orders may follow the first, although the whole Bill automatically comes to an end in December, 1935. There is an exception to that general provision in Clause 3 to which I will refer in a moment. Clause 2 enables undertakers to exercise the powers conferred upon them more expeditiously than it is permissible for them to do under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. Again, we agree that this would only be justifiable in exceptional circumstance, but it is necessary, if you are going to have emergency legislation, that you should provide machinery to enable it to be carried out rapidly.
In regard to Clause 3, the Government feel that there may be cases where relief can best be provided by works of a somewhat more permanent character where it would be really wasteful to make an Order which would only last for a little over a year. Examples of such cases would be where the best way of supplying the water would be by the digging of a new well. It would really be hardly reasonable to expect undertakers to sink capital in a new well if this well could be used only for a short time, so in Clause 3 we provide for this. But it will be noticed that the conditions under which these permanent. works will be executed are so rigorous that there is little danger of their being abused. I would particularly point out that permanent works under this clause can only be constructed in connection with subsection (1) (a) of Clause 1, which refers to these sources of supply.
Lastly I will refer to the question of notices. In the Schedule your Lordships will have seen that owners and other undertakers must be notified in writing. These notices must be inserted in the local Press, and in certain cases in the London Gazette. With the complex systems of water supplies now in operation, the Minister recognises that the list in the Schedule is by no means complete and does not cover all persons interested. But we cannot overload the machinery of the Bill by making it compulsory to serve notices on a long list of people. What the Minister has undertaken to do is to consult in regard to all applications with the Ministry of Agriculture, who
1022
will represent the interests of the catchment boards, and with the Ministry of Transport do regard to navigation authorities. I think I have nothing more to add. Since the Bill was first introduced the rain which has fallen has eased the situation to some extent, but unfortunately not to the extent of making it unnecessary to lay this Bill before Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Gage.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Gage has stated, this Bill is of a purely temporary character, and he emphasised the temporary nature of its provisions. He also stated that it is to meet a sudden, unexpected and, I think, unprecedented emergency; for although there may have been an equal shortage of water some seventy or eighty years ago, there were not so many people in the country to use the water, and I think the people of those days did not use quite so much water per head as we do now, so flat the emergency which has arisen is indeed quite unprecedented. Lord Gage has told us that the recent falls of rain have been satisfactory to a certain degree, and therefore perhaps it will not be necessary to make use of these provisions in their entirety, and at any rate the Bill comes to an end on December 31, 1935.
Had it not been for this I should have felt it my duty to call your Lordships' serious attention to the proposals to extend the powers of the Executive, which I do not think have ever been made of such an extensive character before in the whole history of Parliament. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by considering the clauses of the Bill which have a purely temporary effect, but I do venture to call your attention to Clause 3, which gives power to authorise the taking of water for an indefinite period, and the purchase of land. Under subsection (7) the purchase of land for this purpose may be compulsory. I think Lord Gage has explained to your Lordships the necessity for this clause. Of course it would be impossible in certain circumstances to provide against water famine without boring and other works, and if so you must acquire land in which to sink your wells. Therefore you must have a provision

1023
of this kind to enable you to take the steps which Clause 3 contemplates. I would point out, however, that every attempt has been made to safeguard the public, and if your Lordships will study subsection (1) of Clause 3 you will, I hope, be satisfied that the safeguards are effective.
There is only one other point to which I would like to direct attention, and that is that this Bill, as Lord Gage has pointed out, makes the Minister of Health entirely independent of Parliament. The Orders that he makes will not be laid before Parliament, or even laid on the Table, not that that would give your Lordships any safeguard if done. We have had many discussions in this House about the Henry VIII clause, but I think this goes a bit further. It seems to me, however, quite impossible to avoid a provision of this character. Perhaps if Parliament were to sit from January 1 to December 31 it would be possible to bring the Orders before Parliament and secure the ordinary Special Order procedure, but in view of the Recess, when Parliament is not sitting, I think this would be out of the question, because, of course, the essence of satisfactory action in emergencies is speed, and you could not acquire the necessary speed if you have to wait, possibly until November, before you got your powers. Therefore I do not think there is any possible alternative to the proposals in the Bill. We have been told by my noble friend that the Bill is of a temporary character, and to meet emergencies. On those grounds I strongly recommend your Lordships to agree to it, although I would emphasise the fact very strongly that I hope your Lordships will recognise that this is a purely temporary measure to meet an unprecedented emergency.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am very grateful to the Lord Chairman for his support of the Bill, and I can assure him that he will have no reason to complain of the bureaucracy of which he has again so rightly warned us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TITHE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee to-morrow discharged.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the noble Marquess could give us some idea of the business between now and when we rise for the Whitsuntide Recess.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I am not in a position to reply fully to that question. At the present moment all I can inform the noble Lord is that the Tithe Bill will not be taken to-morrow, but, as he is himself aware, on Monday the Motion that he has put down will be taken. Beyond that I am not in a position to give him any information as to the business until the House adjourns, but I will put the matter before the Leader of the House, and no doubt in a very short time he will be in a position to give the information which the noble Lord desires.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.