Lords Sitting of 4 December 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT SWINTON.
The Right Honourable Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, G.B.E., M.C., Secretary of State for Air, having been created Viscount Swinton of Masham in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

VISCOUNT MONSELL.
The Right Honourable Sir Bolton Meredith Eyres Monsell, G.B.E., First Lord of the Admiralty, having been created Viscount Monsell of Evesham in the County of Worcester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord Doverdale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE LATE PRINCESS VICTORIA.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX) rose to move—
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the great loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; to assure His Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns His Majesty's domestic relations; and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of His Majesty and of His Family.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a few months ago the King and his people were happily united in celebration of His Majesty's Jubilee. To-day, as the year that began so joyously draws to its close, the whole nation, together with the

45
Sovereign and the Royal Family, mourns the loss of a gracious lady who has been taken from our midst. Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria represented, both in her person and in her life, qualities that are among the most distinctive characteristics of our race. Her whole life was indeed built upon that love of home and devotion to family by which we are accustomed to set especial store. Debarred, by reasons of health, from taking part in public affairs as actively as other members of her family, she yet followed them with a close and lively interest, and appraised events with generous but discriminating judgment. The constant companion of her mother, Queen Alexandra, during her widowed years, she shared her lifelong interest in the care of the sick and afflicted, and in the welfare of the nursing sisterhood. She was the devoted sister of the King in all the manifold cares and anxieties that crowd upon the Throne.
So in her life did she symbolise the loyal fulfilment of the various duties that human relationships create. By her example she taught us to respect and to follow after the things that lie within the common reach. Service and devotion were her happiness, and of her might it most truly be said that her principal joy was in doing good. Placed among the highest and most honoured in the land, she loved above all the simple things that we all love and that make home and family our own. The circle of intimate friends who returned her love and delighted in her shrewd and kindly humour, the devotion of all who served her and were happy in her service, the village church and school, the face of familiar garden and countryside, her music and her books: these, against a background of a simple and a steadfast faith in God, were the setting of her daily life. In the Princess Victoria there is no man or woman in this country who has not lost a friend. His Majesty has lost a dearly loved sister, and the Royal Family a near and dear relation. We may humbly hope that it may be of some comfort to His Majesty, to our gracious Queen, and to those so close to them at this time of sadness, to know and to feel that their people are united in a tendering to them and theirs a deep and respectful sympathy.
My Lords, I beg to move:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the great loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; to assure His Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns His Majesty's domestic relations; and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of His Majesty and of His Family."
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the great loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; to assure His Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns His Majesty's domestic relations; and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of His Majesty and of this Family.—(Viscount Halifax.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I desire sorrowfully and sincerely to support the Motion which the Leader of the. House has placed upon the Order Paper. We note first of all the death of an illustrious lady who, through her many social interests and worthy activities, had greatly endeared herself to many sections of her fellow countrymen and women, and whose help and presence will be missed in the many generous causes which it was her special delight to help. Secondly, we express our sorrow because her death brings bereavement to their Majesties the King and Queen, and because she was a beloved member of the Royal Family of our country. The Angel of death—without reference to our hopes and plans—selects his own time for his visits, which he pays to the rich and the poor alike with a strict and grim impartiality, and we may be certain that the hour of their bereavement caused a special distress to their Majesties, who had promised, in person, to open this new Parliament. They may perhaps find comfort in the sympathy of this House, which is expressed in the Motion on the Paper. No further words of mine are necessary to commend it to your Lordships' attention. It is sufficient for me to repeat that it has the sincere and undivided support of those whom I specially represent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, speaking on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I need only add a very few sentences to what has been so feelingly said by the noble Viscount who leads the House, and by the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches. We all, of course, desire to assure His Majesty and the Royal Family of our profound sympathy in the loss which they have sustained. Her Royal Highness was personally far less known to many of this generation than some other members of the Royal Family, because for many years past her health had not allowed her to engage on a large scale in the beneficent activities in which all members of the Royal Family, without exception, are so conspicuous; but those who are older will not forget that she, gifted as she was with many graces and accomplishments which are appreciated in social life, and also gifted with the keenest sense of enjoyment, set everything aside to be the daily companion and the consolation of her widowed mother, the beloved Queen Alexandra.
Of course at this moment His Majesty the King is most in our minds, but I am sure your Lordships will also wish to express our condolence with Tier Majesty the Queen of Norway, the one survivor of a trio of sisters who were brought up together in a delightful country home and who were able to carryout together all the enjoyments and the duties appertaining to English country life in those days. I need add no more except to support most cordially the Motion made by the noble Viscount opposite.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as representing the Spiritual Lords in your Lordships' House may I associate myself most cordially with the words which have been so admirably spoken by the Leader of the House and the noble Lords who have followed; and may I add a few words of my own spoken from a knowledge of Princess Victoria extending over many years? As we have been reminded, Princess Victoria was prevented partly by delicate health, partly perhaps by her own temperament, from taking that active part in public affairs and occasions which is so characteristic of other members of the Royal Family. She spent her years quietly in the intimacies of
48
family life and amid the country scenes which she loved. But she had very real interests of her own, both intellectual and artistic, and, though seldom seen in public ceremonies, she was able to make contacts with ordinary people in her own way, sometimes unconventional, always most kindly. She had a very distinctive personality and could express her own outlook on life in a delightfully frank and humorous way.
As the noble Marquess has just reminded us, to her mother the beloved Queen Alexandra she gave unstinted and unselfish service with a very beautiful devotion. Between His Majesty and Princess Victoria, if I may respectfully say so, there was a singularly deep attachment and affection strengthened by all the hallowed memories of their early home. As we grow older these first dear memories of our lives seem to have an ever deeper place in our hearts. This experience quickens our sympathy with His Majesty in the loss of the beloved sister who shared these memories with him. This understanding sympathy we all desire most truly and loyally to honour.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

LORD DE CLIFFORD.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have to move, That the Indictment for felony signed in the Central Criminal Court under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933, against Edward Southwell, Lord de Clifford, and also the Inquisition found against the said Edward Southwell, Lord de Clifford, upon the oaths of a Coroner's jury, be removed before this House, and that a Writ of Certiorari be issued for that purpose.
Your Lordships will remember that a Committee was appointed during the last Parliament to consider the proper methods of procedure, and their Report, which was adopted, left it for the present Parliament to fix the date for the trial; but obviously I think your Lordships will all wish that a trial which has already unfortunately been delayed should not be kept hanging over Lord de Clifford's head longer than is absolutely necessary. The earliest date at which the Royal Gallery

49
can be made ready for the trial is December 12, and I would suggest to your Lordships that that date be fixed. This Motion is the necessary preliminary in order to start proceedings which will culminate on Thursday of next week. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Indictment for felony signed in the Central Criminal Court under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933, against Edward Southwell, Lord de Clifford, and also the Inquisition found against the said Edward Southwell, Lord de Clifford, upon the oaths of a Coroner's jury, be removed before this House, and that a Writ of Certiorari be issued for that purpose.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I have to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to acquaint His Majesty that this House path appointed that the trial of Edward South-well, Lord de Clifford, indicted for felony, do take place on Thursday the 12th day of this instant December; and humbly to desire that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to give orders for the necessary fitting up of the Royal Gallery for the said trial; and also to appoint a Lord High Steward to continue during the said trial. I believe that this Motion is in accordance with precedent on former occasions.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am going to move now the regular Motions to set up the Standing Committees of your Lordships' House and the first Motion on the Paper is that setting up the Committee of Selection. I want, with your Lordships' permission, at the request of my noble friend opposite, to make one alteration in the Motion as it appears on the Paper, and that is to add Lord Strabolgi's name to the other names on the list which is on the Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the
50
House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Reading,

E. Lucan,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Plymouth,

V. Mersey,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Strathcona and Mount Royal,

L. Redesdale,

L. Marley,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that a Standing Orders Committee be appointed and that the noble Lords whose names appear on the Paper be agreed to.
Moved, That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee;

M. Bath,

M. Bristol,

M. Reading,

E. Leven and Melville,

E. Stanhope,

E. Malmesbury,

E. Lucan,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Eldon,

E. Strafford,

V. Mersey,

V. Ullswater,

L. Clinton,

L. Fairfax of Cameron,

L. Ellenborough,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam),

L. Templemore,

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

51

L. Stanmore,

L. Loch,

L. Redesdale,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Askwith,

L. Carnock,

L. Clwyd,

L. Swinfen,

L. Meston,

L. Marks,

L. Marley,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Dickinson,

L. Snell,

L. Rhayader,

L. Rankeillour,

L. Milne.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
All Petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper setting up the Special Orders Committee but, again at the request of my noble friend opposite, I wish to add to the names on the Paper that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

D. Norfolk,

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

E. Lucan,

E. Strafford,

E. Plymouth,

E. Iveagh,

E. Peel,

V. Hereford,

V. Mersey,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Templemore,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. Lamington,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Askwith,

L. Meston,

52

L. Marks,

L. Marley,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Snell.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that the House of Lords Offices Committee be appointed as it appears on the Paper, but with the addition, and for the same reason, of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marley.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Norfolk,

M. Salisbury,

M. Bath,

M. Crewe,

M. Reading,

E. Shaftesbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Lucan,

E. Bradford,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Granville,

E. Strafford,

E. Cromer,

E. Plymouth,

E. Iveagh,

E. Midleton,

E. Peel,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Allendale,

V. Mersey,

V. FitzAlan of Derwent,

V. Ullswater,

V. Snowden,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Templemore,

L. Hylton,

L. Lamington,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Islington,

L. Parmoor,

L. Ernle,

L. Meston,

L. Atkin,

L. Amulree,

53

L. Marks,

L. Marley,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Macmillan,

L. Snell.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

THE STANDING ORDER RELATING TO SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my next duty is to move certain Amendments to the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. In moving these Amendments, which are in regard to Special Orders laid before your Lordships' House, I think some words of explanation are necessary from me. Your Lordships have seen that the first proposal is to amend Standing Order No. 212. To this Standing Order is added a further exemption of certain Orders and instruments to those which exist at the present time. The Amendment deals with draft Orders and other instruments laid before the House under the Government of India Act, 1935, and I imagine there will have to be a further amendment to the Standing Order when the Bill which the noble Marquess is going to bring up tomorrow is passed. The only instruments requiring affirmative Resolutions under that Act—that is, the present Act—are, firstly, Orders under Sections 399 and 475, and, secondly, Instruments of Instructions. These latter are sometimes referred to simply as "Instructions," and I have gone thoroughly into that matter. I think it is only a drafting difference, and I am advised that both these expressions mean the same thing.
If your Lordships will turn to the next Amendment, you will see that a committee is to be set up to consider the drafts of Orders, but only of Orders, not of Instruments. The Instruments of Instructions will not go before any Committee at all before being submitted to your Lordships' House for approval. I must say that when this was first proposed I had some misgiving in supporting the proposal, but I am persuaded now that there are good reasons why these particular Instruments of Instructions should not be referred to Committee before they are laid before your
54
Lordships. Your Lordships will see, if you study the Order, that at present the exemptions from the Standing Order relative to Special Orders are, firstly, Church Measures; secondly, Rules under the Government of India Act, the old Act; Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act; and Orders under the Sunday Entertainments Act. Church Measures go to the Ecclesiastical Committee before they are submitted to your Lordships. There is no object in submitting them to any other Committee. Rules made under the Government of India Act have now passed away. The Act is repealed by the Government of India Act, 1935, and the repeal takes effect in due course. Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act have to be put into action speedily, and therefore there is no time or reason for their being submitted to any Committee. Orders under the Sunday Entertainments Act are probably slightly different. They are Orders which permit cinemas to open on Sundays, and, as your Lordships know, it is left to each locality to determine whether or not these shows should be permitted by a simple vote, "Yea" or "Nay"; so it is merely to confirm a plebiscite, and there would be nothing for a Committee to do if these Orders were submitted to it.
These Instruments of Instructions, or Instructions, whichever they are called, are of very great importance. There would really be no object in asking a Committee to report whether they raise important questions of policy because, of course, they do raise such questions; nor would there be any object in saying how far they were founded on precedent, or represented a matter to which the special attention of your Lordships' House should be called, because all these matters will naturally be considered by the House when the Instructions are discussed by your Lordships, and that has to be done in the case of every one of these Instructions under a special clause of the Act. Therefore I do not think your Lordships' House, if I may humbly say so, need see any objection to accepting the proposals; but I must emphasise one thing, and that is that this exemption is entirely an exception to the usual procedure of your Lordships' House, and I very much hope I shall not be thought to be creating any precedent for any future measure of the sort by asking your Lordships' House to accept this Amendment to the Standing

55
Order. I think that if the principle is accepted by your Lordships that no precedent is created, there would be no difficulty in your Lordships accepting the Amendment.
Now I come to the next Amendment to the Standing Order, which creates a new Committee to take the place of the Special Orders Committee for this particular purpose. Your Lordships will see that the terms of reference to the two Committees are exactly the same—there is not even a verbal difference between them—and the functions of the new Committee will be exactly the same as the functions of the Special Orders Committee are in regard to Special Orders at the present time. The Special Orders Committee sits, as has been described, as a sort of grand jury to answer the various questions put to it in its terms of reference. Your Lordships might ask, What is the use then of having a new Committee? Why will not the Special Orders Committee do? The answer is that there are a large number of members of your Lordships' House who are good enough to serve on the Special Orders Committee. It often happens that a batch of Special Orders comes up on one day and are heard by a number of members, who do not come to the next meeting of the Committee when the business is heard by a different membership altogether, by different noble Lords. Obviously to have differences in considering Orders under this particular Act would be very inconvenient, and therefore it is suggested that the best way would be to set up a Special Committee of noble Lords, a small number—seven has been mentioned—who will give their time and sit upon these Orders which, I gather, will be pretty frequent, at any rate during the next year. It is only to get a smaller and more regular number that it is proposed to set up this Committee. Your Lordships will see that the constitution of the Committee in this form is purely a matter of convenience, and as the terms of reference are the same, the two Committees will differ only in regard to personnel I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Order relative to Special Orders be amended as follows:—
Standing Order 212, page 78, in line 12 of paragraph (1) leave out ("and") and at the end of paragraph (1) insert:—
56
("and (e) Draft Orders and other instruments laid before the House under the Government of India Act, 1935.")
After Standing Order 212 insert the following new Standing Order:—
("(1) At the Commencement of every Session a Committee of seven Lords shall be appointed to which the drafts of Orders laid before Parliament under Sections 309 and 475 of the Government of India Act, 1935, shall stand referred. The Committee shall be called the Indian Orders Committee and every such Order shall stand referred to the Committee as soon as it has been laid upon the Table of the House. The Lord in charge of any such Order referred to the Committee shall be a member of the Committee during the consideration of such Order.
(2) The Indian Orders Committee shall take into consideration every Order so referred and, in considering it, shall have regard to—

(i) whether the provisions raise important questions of policy or principle;

(ii) how far the Order is founded on precedent;

(iii) whether, having regard to the answers to the two preceding questions and to any other relevant circumstances, the Order can be passed by the House without special attention, or whether there ought to be any further inquiry before the House proceeds to a decision upon the resolution, and if so what form the inquiry should take,

and shall report to the House accordingly.
(3) In the case of every Order, where the Committee have any doubt whether an Order is intra vires they shall report to the House accordingly.
(4) No Motion in pursuance of the provisions of Sections 309 or 475 of the Government of India Act, 1935, shall be placed upon the Notice Paper of the House in connection with any Order until after the Indian Orders Committee has reported thereon; and, in the event of Parliament being prorogued or dissolved before such report has been made, such Order shall not again stand referred to the Indian Orders Committee until it has been laid again on the Table of the House.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had hoped that the Secretary of State would have intervened at this point in order to explain to your Lordships the great importance of the Motion which has been submitted by the Lord Chairman. Of course I do not rise in any way to question the propriety of the Motion. It appears to me to be a very well-advised Motion in the circumstances, and the exception which the Lord Chairman has explained very lucidly, under which the Instruments of Instructions are removed from the cognisance of the Committee, seems to me to be quite justified. These Instruments of Instructions are so important—not perhaps more important than some of the Orders in Council as I shall show in a moment, but so important that they must come under the notice of your Lordships' House anyhow. No Committee would be so unwise as to suggest that an Instrument of Instructions was a matter of routine which might be slipped through without notice in the House itself, and therefore to exempt them is justified, I think, in the circumstances.
But although I do not in any way rise to oppose this Motion, I do think it right to place on record its great importance. I have taken advice on this matter, and also given myself a little trouble in respect of it, and I find that there are over one hundred categories of Orders under the Government of India. Act. "Categories" means the usual divisions in any of which there may be many Orders in Council, all of which will have to come before your Lordships' House for an affirmative Resolution, because the policy of the Government of India Act was, very naturally in the circumstances, to lighten as far as possible the actual provisions of the Act by hanging over enormous sections of policy to be afterwards dealt with by Orders in Council, a very unusual proceeding and, as your Lordships know, a very surprising procedure in the minds of many. But I do not want to go into the old polemic controversy again. I merely wish to point out to your Lordships what the scope of the matter is.
Some of the Orders in Council will deal with relatively small matters—matters of importance but still comparatively small—such things as the actual delimitation of Berar and Coorg, and the date when Aden is to be handed over to the new
58
state of things. Those are relatively small things perhaps. The future purposes of Crown property is also a relatively small matter, and so are the adjustments when the power of the Secretary of State supersedes the power of the Secretary of State in Council. Those matters may be looked upon as more or less simple, though they would form the subject in most cases of very detailed Bills before your Lordships. When you look at the bigger ones the matter assumes a different aspect. May I give a few instances just to remind your Lordships? The whole adjustment of relations between mercantile companies in Great Britain and in India, the distribution of Income Tax as between the Centre and the Provinces, the whole monetary system of India and Burma, the status of the Courts of Justice, the conditions of the service of the Commander-in-Chief upon which the whole control of order and of the safety of the Indian Empire depend, the vesting of the pension funds, which are looked to as being of great importance by Indian civil servants, the alteration of the boundaries of Provinces, a large part of the franchise provisions, including all the details which govern the establishment of the Council of State. Your Lordships will remember that in the last stages of the India Bill the whole of that was handed over to Orders in Council, because the Government were obliged to change the fundamental method under which the Council of State should be appointed. Lastly, there is the adaptation of Imperial Acts—that is to say, the modifications of the Act which you yourselves have passed as they apply to India will be the subject of Orders in Council.
I have not given anything like an exhaustive list. These are only some of the more notable categories of the Orders in Council which will be called for under the provisions of the Government of India Act. Those are matters of very great importance. I am very glad that the Secretary of State and the Lord Chairman think it right that there should be a Committee intervening between these matters and the consideration of your Lordships, because it would be quite impossible for the House itself to go through these Orders in Council unless they had been to some extent sifted by a competent body beforehand. I think the Committee will have a little difficulty at first in applying the terms of reference,

59
because there is hardly any of the matters I have read out which could be stated to be unimportant as matters of policy or of principle, and of course none of them is founded upon precedent. Those two divisions of the reference would seem to be at first sight as if they were of universal application, and there will be no means of saving when you come to apply them to these vast subjects. I apprehend that the Committee will be guided in this matter by a sense of the necessities of the case, and that they will apply a much bigger standard as to what is important or unimportant in the case of the India Act than they would in the case of any other Act of Parliament, because things will be agreed to by your Lordships necessarily without that consideration which, in any other question, would be the subject of very careful and prolonged deliberation and discussion.
Afterwards, when the India Act has become established and the Orders in Council are passed, the modification of those Orders in Council must take place continually for many years to come as the Act is gradually adapted in its working. No doubt many of these Orders in Council will fall into these various divisions, and some will be placed in the division which does not require careful consideration, as being merely following precedent or only dealing with relatively unimportant detail. The whole matter will, of course, require careful attention, because the adjustment of these vast subjects may always transgress the limits of precedent and become in themselves very important. But that will be the responsibility of the Standing Committee. I hope your Lordships will pardon me for having just marked in a very few words what the importance of the subject is which your Lordships are asked to deal with now. I have no desire to delay the House in any way, but I hope it will be realised how difficult is the course which we have entered upon, and how much it is to be hoped that at any rate the instinct of government which characterises our people will be able to find its way through all this without disaster.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Marquess for the words which he has uttered with regard to the pro
60
posed amendment of the Standing Orders. I am certainly fully conscious of the immense importance of the matters which will come before the Committee which it is proposed to set up. It is quite true, as the noble Marquess said, that a great many questions of the utmost importance have been left by the Government of India Act to be decided by Orders in Council, and it was, indeed, in response to the representations which were made very strongly to me in your Lordships' House by the noble Marquess himself and by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, that the Government agreed that every Order in Council which it was proposed to issue under the provisions of the Government of India Act should come before your Lordships' House and should require the agreement of your Lordships.
With regard to the particular proposal, it is designed, of course, entirely for the convenience of your Lordships. As has been pointed out already, the Special Orders Committee—a body consisting, I think, of some twenty-five members—would not be the most convenient body for dealing with Orders of this special character, and for that reason therefore it is proposed to set up a small Committee of members of your Lordships' House conversant for the most part with the provisions of the Government of India Act, to undertake the first consideration of any Orders which it is proposed to issue before your Lordships as a whole are asked to give your consideration to them. That is the sole object of the amendment to the Standing Orders which is now proposed, and I hope, therefore, that it will meet with the general agreement of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before the question is put I should like to be permitted to draw attention to a misprint in the Orders of the Day. As printed the Amendment reads "Page 60, line 11, after Standing Order 213 insert the following new Standing Order." The number "213" ought to be "212."
On Question, Motion agreed to. The Standing Order amended accordingly: the said Amendments to be printed.

MALTA: PROPOSED SEAPLANE STATION.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government will

61
facilitate the revision at private expense of the plans for a base for seaplanes in Malta on the precedent permitted in the case of the Valetta breakwater; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question of bringing to fruition the great opportunities afforded by Providence for constructing a first, class base for seaplanes in Malta has been several times before your Lordships' House and on this occasion I only want to refer to new facts. It is a circumstance of happy augury that to-day the Ministers who are entrusted with the destinies of the Empire in the air and on the water have taken their seats in your Lordships' House, and I feel a special pleasure in remembering that I had the honour to sit with both of them in another place. A circumstance of special importance in connection with this scheme is to be observed in the developments that have taken place since last, July, developments which press for the co-ordination of defence considerations with commercial possibilities in order to make an outstanding centre for airborne traffic in what has been strategically the most important part of the whole of Europe through the centuries.
When this matter was on a former occasion before your Lordships' House the attitude taken by the representative of the Colonial Office was that the Government were more concerned with encouraging the development of opportunities for alighting on the land than with opportunities for alighting on the water. Immediately after that reason for non-consideration had been put before your Lordships' House a flight of large and powerful flying boats experimentally tested the possibility of proceeding from Plymouth to Gibraltar and thence to Malta. It can be noted with satisfaction that, although there was objection to the suggestion, nevertheless the suggestion was adopted. There is a further reason for the discussion of this question inasmuch as the harbour of Malta is already overcrowded. It may soon be so overcrowded as to impede the movement of His Majesty's ships. The overcrowding now makes it necessary and inevitable that His Majesty's shins should encroach on civil anchorages and ignore solemn covenants and pacts as to the apportionment of the waters of two harbours. That is a palpable and outstanding
62
grievance that should be compromised and settled by providing more space and having a new division of respective rights.
It is to be regretted that the best berths for flying boats in the south east bay of Malta have been already apportioned for the advantage of foreign aircraft. That is a matter of great regret. It developed with the Ministers who were dismissed and some correction of that apportionment should be possible to the advantage of British-owned aircraft. Certainly it is evidence that facilities for adjusting Imperial and local interests were not taken into account on that occasion. Plans prepared by a Maltese Ministry that had Imperial interests at heart were accompanied by detailed estimates coming to a, total of £2,500,000 plus contingencies, not the £25,000,000 that was stated to be the cost some years ago through a typist putting in an additional nought when the matter was first opened up. Probably differences in the cost of labour, the fact that cement is being manufactured more cheaply and largely in this country and the fact that the workers of England would get a large part of this £2,500,000 when expended, may be regarded as new circumstances deserving consideration.
Apart from the rectification of estimates there is also the question of legislation to secure that increments arising through the creation of new and valuable building sites should be used as a set-off against the cost instead of being permitted to benefit only private persons. Refusal to have these plans brought up-to-date at public expense has been based upon some recondite principle as to the existence of which my administrative experience and legal knowledge have so far failed to enlighten me. It is quite on a par with the attitude of the Colonial Office at the beginning of this century when plans had to be prepared for the two breakwaters that now make Malta of great value in connection with defence, breakwaters without which Malta would have been useless in the Great War. That non possumus attitude was identical with that taken up in your Lordships' House when this question was last before you. In the case of the breakwaters the objection taken on the score of expense was met by permission being obtained to have the plans brought up-to-date at private expense, and I see no

63
reason why the Maltese should not be allowed to raise a subscription to follow that precedent and bring these plans up to date at private expense by paying overtime to the draftsmen in the Works Department. The suggestion now is that a similar permission should be given.
It is deeply felt on the highest naval opinion that this is a work of great urgency and importance, becoming more urgent and important every day, especially as Malta has in the last three months become an impregnable armed camp on the frontier—except for the absence for facilities for the landing of flying-boats. These works cannot be carried out in a few weeks, but the urgent need for such accommodation may be greater three or four years hence that it is to-day. Therefore these works should be taken in hand and this permission given. No new precedent is asked for. The spade-work requires time and patience, and all that we ask is encouragement for it. The time will come when some naval genius like the late Lord Fisher will not only grasp the necessity, as was done in the case of the Valetta breakwaters, but will also declare that the moment has come to cut short evasions and to ensure that the work in Malta may be begun. There may be some genius in charge of our naval defences who will co-ordinate the jealousies and demands for money in the various Departments and so finally bring everybody to co-operate in adjusting the various water rights and in building this breakwater by an apportionment of costs between the parties interested. I beg to move for Papers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, your Lordships will only expect, I think, a very brief reply to the Motion which the noble Lord has moved, for I observe from the OFFICIAL REPORT that a Motion in almost identical terms—or at any rate with the same object—was moved in your Lordships' House as recently as the middle of last July and was very comprehensively dealt with by my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Lord again asks that either the Government of Malta or the Imperial Government should undertake some expense: first of all, the expense of a preliminary inquiry, but with the avowed object of spending an
64
enormous sum thereafter upon the establishment of a seaplane base in Malta. The noble Lord has mentioned the sum of £2,500,000. That is the most conservative estimate which has been put forward; it might well be a larger sum. Such an expenditure could not be contemplated except on grounds of stern necessity, least of all at a time when large expenditure is called for in other quarters on our defence forces. Obviously it would be very wrong to raise false hopes in Malta or anywhere else by engaging in long preliminary inquiries if they were never to lead to any result of importance.
Such expenditure could only be justified under the compelling necessity of defence, or because there was a great opening for civil aviation. As regards defence, I can say categorically to your Lordships that it is the considered opinion of both the Naval and the Air Staffs that this expenditure is not only unnecessary but would also be wholly unjustifiable. There is only one squadron of seaplanes now in Malta; they are berthed on the south side of the Island. There are two possible anchorages for seaplanes in Scirocco Bay, and there is an alternative possibility in the north in St. Paul's Bay. In the future, however—and the noble Lord has traced the possibility of future development—as far as it can be seen, so far from a large seaplane base being established in Malta, the probability is that even that single squadron of seaplanes which is now stationed there will at some time be replaced by land planes. There is therefore certainly no need in naval air strategy which would justify his proposal. So far as civil aviation is concerned, there is equally little justification. I hope that before very long Malta will become one of the ports of call on the great Imperial air routes which we are busily developing, but when that takes place the probability—indeed I think I can say almost the certainty—is that the Imperial aeroplanes which will be engaged on that route will not be seaplanes but will be land planes. No more, therefore, on the civil side than on the naval or military side would there be any justification for this expenditure.
The noble Lord introduced a suggestion which was not, I thought, wholly germane to the argument: that some undue preference had been given to foreign seaplanes in the harbours of Malta. As that

65
point has been raised I should like to say quite definitely that there is no kind of justification for the suggestion. No such preference has been given or will be given. We are parties, in common with most civilised countries in the world, to an International Air Convention, which governs traffic in the air over all the countries of the world. We are also parties to a special Air Agreement with Italy which is greatly to the advantage of both countries. Under both the general Convention and the particular Agreement we are bound to accord to the aircraft of other countries, as we are entitled to receive and do receive in most countries, facilities of the best possible kind. It is the mere carrying out of that Convention and of that Agreement which has taken place in Malta. It so happens that an Italian company alone has benefited by the facilities, because no company other than an Italian company has thought it to be to its advantage to land a commercial seaplane in Malta. But if the time should come when any British commercial seaplane landed in Malta, then, of course, that plane would receive exactly the same treatment as is now accorded to Italian planes in the harbour.
I hope I have dealt fully with the proposal which the noble Lord has made, and I think I have satisfied your Lordships that it would be not only unjustifiable but very wrong of either the Maltese Government or the Imperial Government to engage in any expenditure upon so doubtful an enterprise.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, but it is my duty to observe that I have had no answer to the main point of my Question, as to whether permission would or would not be given on the quoted precedent for the revision of the plans at the cost of private subscription, which would in no way commit the Government.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had given Notice that he would call attention to some possible improvement in the functions of the House of Lords and in particular with reference to the overseas Empire; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I approach the weighty
66
Motion which stands next in my name not so much from the point of view of its connection with the history of this House for many generations as from that of experience with the great democracies of Australia and other parts of the overseas Empire, and the most deeply felt conviction that no opportunity, no means, no change in constitution should be left out of consideration which may be conducive to the better consolidation of the Empire. I ask your Lordships' House to adopt the view that the recent General Election has resulted in a verdict of the electors against the abolition of your Lordships' House. Only two issues were distinctly before the electors; first, that the sanctions adopted by the League of Nations should be effective; second, the abolition of the Upper Chamber. As to other issues at the Election there was agreement. The Government have been more conspicuous for successful achievement in diminishing unemployment than any of their rivals could be, and therefore we may say that a verdict has been given which gives to this House an exceptional opportunity of reforming itself.
It is a question of either reform or suicide. The opinion of the electors may be interpreted as an acknowledgment that this country and the Empire recognise the high efficiency of the work of this House, and desire it to be increased on the points where its work is of great service to the nation and to the Empire. This House is a stronghold of liberty, of the administration of justice, with the greatest security for impartiality, and here is to be expected the protection of the Constitution of this country and all the component parts of the Empire. This House is conspicuous for being unique in so far as here untrammelled freedom of speech can be enjoyed, without any fear of subservience to Party exigencies, and without any terror of the vote of fickle constituencies or of Party organisations. Freedom of speech can be used here, notwithstanding that a powerful bureaucracy, with a large majority on one side of the House, can give replies that are not satisfactory and have to be repeated.
In these circumstances I appeal to your Lordships' House to be up and doing. Providence helps those who help themselves. A period arrives in all human history when there must either be progress, retrogression or extinction. Many in your Lordships' House are of opinion

67
that the emblem of death, with its scythe to cut us down, is already on our horizon. Frequently we see very few Peers attending our debates, and those who do attend are for the most part such as have held high office or have been elected to serve the electorate in another place; so much so that the element of having in this House the foundation of some form of selection, if not of categorical election, is not a practical prospect. The opposition in this House at the critical stage of the Third Reading of a Bill is usually perfunctory. In these circumstances I do not appeal to this House or through this House to those who study this most important question throughout the country, to attempt any far-reaching measure of legislation that would aim, as past efforts have done, at solving this problem fundamentally. I appeal to the young men of this House, and to students outside, to attempt, by several Bills dealing individually with points which can be remedied, as it were to save the position by rearguard action against those who are clamouring for our extinction.
Step by step much may be achieved, but the foundation of all achievement must be to alter the constitution and the practice with reference to the creation of Life Peerages. Life Peerages have been the subject of discussions of the widest range since the days of the Wensleydale Peerage Case, when it was decided that under the Constitution the King could not create Life Peerages. To-day there is much progress in the contrary direction, but practical suggestions for dealing with the difficulties have seldom been boldly brought forward. Everyone desires the possibility of the Crown creating Life Peerages to be dissociated from Party and political pressure. That might be done by statutory powers being created, to the effect that the Crown might create Life Peerages, either on no advice or on advice that was not political, to bring into this House representatives for life of the highest standing in the various compartments of our national and Imperial life. In order to preserve the constitutional nexus between the Crown and Parliament it might be provided that annually an Address should be presented to the Crown, voted by Parliament, that so many Peerages should be created, and fixing a sum of expenditure. Such an Address would be a tribute to and an
68
acknowledgment of the financial responsibilities that Ministers have to respect.
The difficulty in creating life Peerages has to be grasped boldly, as a nettle is grasped. It is a matter of money. The noble Viscount who leads this House reminded us yesterday that the Government represents the democracy of England. Now one of the principles of democracy is that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Therefore if we are to reform this House by bringing here the highest and best representatives of various groups of thought, we cannot ask them to come here not only at the sacrifice of their time and health and opportunities, but also at the price of the destruction of their financial position. It is in the grasping of this point that the hope rests of finding a solution of difficulties that so far have been insoluble. It cannot be denied that Peers have to pay more than those who are not Peers for everything in every walk of life—living as it were in an atmosphere of noblesse oblige.
Then there is the question of travelling expenses if we are to have representatives from the overseas Empire. In this connection I beg leave to bring before this House what I personally observed in Australia. There a bright idea was adopted by His Majesty's Government by Statute to forge a new link of Empire by having on the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council representatives of the Judicial Benches of the great Dominions of the Antipodes and appointments were made and most gladly accepted. But when the moment came to bring that honour to fruition very few could face the expense. It became worse than an empty honour. One of those so honoured who did come over to England at his private expense was left to wait for months before he was invited to sit at Whitehall, and then he was invited to sit on some very unimportant question, and not on an important constitutional issue. That link has to be again worked out, and those who have held the office of Chief Justice or of Premier overseas should furnish a body from which some might be annually selected for the honour of being life members of this House—an honour which they should be able to accept without any fear of the ruin of their private finances.
The next point I wish to urge upon your Lordships is to meet the sugges

69
tion that the objections raised against the hereditary principle in your Lordships' House should be overcome by asking hereditary Peers to elect some of their number. I ask your Lordships to oppose that suggestion in the strongest manner, because, it would be destructive of the most eminent and useful of our prerogatives and privileges, the opportunity of addressing your Lordships' House and those who lead the debates here fearlessly, in full enjoyment of a freedom pf. speech which does not exist in any other place, because elsewhere the crack of the Party whip is much more often heard, and when it is heard it is not merely a crack, but is often followed by "sanctions." If, as has been suggested, it were enacted that hereditary Peers should be elected to the number of 200 or 200, it would be quite easy for the Party whip to take care that those who are most energetic or loquacious or most independent should not be elected. And what would be the fate of leaders of the Opposition if Mere were such a system of election? Many of them have uttered speeches in this House which certainly would deeply shock those whose loyalty to the Crown and affection to the Empire cannot be doubted, and which those of my age would certainly not tolerate without anger. The majority that came here to vote for the Government of India Bill could just as easily be brought here to exclude many, if not all, of those who have made such speeches.
Therefore any attempt to introduce the element of election in this House would be utterly destructive of inducements to those who want to give their experience, their resources and their time to the service of their country in their maturer years. It would diminish the inducement which such former statesmen have to belong to this Chamber. And so long as this Chamber is constituted as at present, whatever may be said against the hereditary principle, it does provide a certain large field of selection from which the Crown can constitutionally select Ministers, who are Ministers in every constitutional sense when the House of Commons is dissolved; or who may be Ministers during a period of public emotion and still be constitutional Ministers without having a seat in the House of Commons. To have a large panel of selection for such an important purpose
70
and for the protection and support of the authority of the Crown is an invaluable asset, not only to England but to the Empire. If it be objected that in the production of that panel of selection the hereditary principle has blots, I would ask your Lordships, what human institution is perfect? And is it not a duty to put up with imperfection rather than confess that no solution is possible? On the Front Bench in this House we have official representatives of the Government. They always come here, while the Benches opposite are usually filled by those who hope to be on the Government Benches some time in the future, and who qualify in Opposition by showing the attributes which might justify their selection.
This House also performs the very eminent service of correcting the faulty draftsmanship of legislation which is passed elsewhere. It is one of its principal functions, and we have had an example of that to-day, with reference to the procedure adopted for correcting the absolutely unworkable structure called the Government of India Act which was condemned in unanswerable language as unworkable at the Third Reading stage, but which is now going to be made workable by a most capable effort of draftsmanship, legal study, and knowledge of practical administration. Theoretically that ought to have been done before the Prorogation. Now the pudding is to be cooked a second time. The possibility of that was likened to a new edition of the Apocalypse. Nevertheless it is being carried out.
Then we have to face the fact that in this House there is taxation without representation. The majority of members of your Lordships' House are deprived of their votes, disfranchised, and not allowed to stand for the House of Commons; but they have to pay taxes if they reside in this country. The Irish Peers, however, can stand for the House of Commons. I ask your Lordships' House, and I ask any legal adviser of the Government, why should an Irish Peer be allowed to protect his finances by standing for the House of Commons while an English Peer is not so allowed? That is one reform which appears to me urgent and which might be carried out by one of a series of small Bills by which this House may be saved from disintegration.

71
And I must observe that there is great discouragement in working for one's country and for the Empire by studying questions and coming to this House to get replies that may be equivalent to "No" in 120 words, or may be equivalent to a reproduction of reports coming from overseas, written quite frequently without a proper sifting of their correctness, which ought to be the duty of Imperial Ministers.
I feel it a duty—and perhaps at my age I may be allowed to do it—to warn your Lordships of what may be expected if we do not reform ourselves within the lifetime of this Parliament, where there is a large Tory majority or National majority (call it what you will), where our leaders can boast that they represent democracy, and where, as I have shown, they can assert that there has been a mandate from the electors not to destroy our House because those who went to the country on that cry were defeated. The time will come when the swing of the political pendulum will put the Socialist Party in a large majority in the House of Commons after they have gone to the country on the cry of abolishing this House. When they have got into office, not only will they abolish this House, but they will go on passing Bills for the prolongation of the life of the House of Commons, and we shall have a new autocracy, a one-man Government, Fascism, or anything else in disguise, but not Democracy.
It may be asked, what authority have I for making these prophecies. All prophecies of any value are based on history, and it did happen, when I had the honour to represent the King in New South Wales, that the Leader of the Labour majority, not a big majority, was asked by the caucus to resign, and he did not resign. Instead, he arranged to cross the floor of the House and put the majority on the other side without facing the electorate, which was obviously a constitutional duty required to be done before changing the majority from one side of the House to the other. As there were only three months of that Parliament to run, a bargain had to be made, but the other side would not bargain for a three months' advantage, and so a Bill was passed to prolong the life of the Parliament. I felt it my duty, as custodian of the Constitution, to refuse my assent, and as a result I had to come
72
home, at the end of my term of office, but that precedent has been of great value to my successors in office.
It is indicative of what will happen here. Human nature in Australia is the same as human nature here. They are our own flesh and blood, and though Socialism as interpreted by the text books is rejected by the majority of the electors to-day, the time will come, if we do not reform ourselves, when this House will be dissolved and One-Chamber Government will be adopted in this country. That destruction has begun in a very subtle manner by the most curious legal concoction, which is not legal, and which prescribes that the decision as to what is and what is not a Money Bill shall be entrusted to the representatives of one of the Parties in the contention. That is an obvious parody of the elementary principles of a judicial decision. With a Government such as this, professing the principles that have brought it into office, and having the majority it has, surely some remedy might be found, not in an omnibus Bill dealing with all these difficulties, but in one Bill that would put on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or some other authority, and not a member of the other House, the duty of deciding what is and what is not a Money Bill?
I think I should say no more on this occasion, although I should be in order if I took the opportunity of pointing out the discouragement of attending this House when questions are put and answers are given which are really no answers. I do not refer merely to my own personal experience. I shall never forget the debate in this House started by a right reverend Prelate on the subject of the distressed areas. We heard potent speeches delivered from the box on the other side by orators who are neither Socialistic nor Communistic, and everybody went away with the feeling that those who asked for information had been given none by members of the Government. If this House is to be useful to the country, if representatives of every branch of national activity are to be brought here, they must receive encouragement for their patriotism, their study, and their energy in giving help to overworked Ministers. Let us have the credit when we come to the floor of this House with

73
experience which is useful, and let there be a general movement to save this House from the danger of extinction which I hear apprehended all around me by a majority of your Lordships' House. Let us realise that reform is better than suicide. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, my noble friend has given an example to your Lordships of that pertinacity and versatility of interest in great political questions which gives him so distinctive a place in your Lordships' House, and I only regret that a larger number of noble Lords were not able to be present to listen to the speech he has just made. He has ranged over a wide field and has made yet one more contribution to that great mass of literature which now stands upon the shelves of our political libraries upon this question of the reform of the House of Lords to which he has addressed himself by this Motion. He has laid before us this afternoon in a very clear and lucid form a great variety of ideas, some original, some less original, but all of interest to an earnest student of the question. He will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail through the various steps of the discussion that he has introduced for reasons that, in a few words, I will attempt to give your Lordships.
I could not, for example, address myself to examine at short notice whether or not ho is right in his anticipation that, were any principle of self-election from their own number, such as has from time to time been suggested, adopted by the hereditary Peers, it would have the effect of depriving us of the opportunity of enjoying the services of those whom I think he described as the more loquacious or the more contentious of our number. I should regard it as a great misfortune from the point of view of the range of our political knowledge were we, by any accident, to be debarred from the services of my noble friend. I am bound to deprecate, however, the reference, less than just I think, that he made to the character of the answers given to some questions and to some speeches from this Bench or from the Front Bench in another place. He will permit me to say that the fault, if the answer is unsatisfactory, does not always lie with the answer; it sometimes lies with the question that does not
74
permit of any very adequate answer being given, and, when he is apportioning blame for the answers that are in fact given, I hope that in justice he will bear in mind the character of the conundrums that he among others has not infrequently put to Ministers on this Bench to which no easy or short answer is always capable of being made.
He has this afternoon raised a very large question, and has associated with it a smaller question on which I will first say a word. The larger question is, of course, the whole question of the reform, as he would recommend, step by step, of the procedure and the composition and the powers of your Lordships' House. The smaller question is whether there is or is not a case to be made for calling to the councils of Parliament, and giving them a place in this House, distinguished statesmen from overseas who might be willing to come and contribute to the Parliamentary work and to the debates of this place. As regards this second and smaller point, I have only one observation to make. I seem to remember that some twenty or twenty-five or thirty years ago there was not infrequently a suggestion made that this House might be reinforced in some such way as he suggests, by the inclusion in it of distinguished statesmen from the Dominions or from overseas who might by their presence reinforce and strengthen the links of Empire as he has suggested. But I think the noble Lord would agree that in the years that have passed since then the whole development of Imperial political thought has been rather away from that kind of federation, that kind of unitary notion, as applied to the Imperial structure, in the direction of what we are now accustomed to speak of as the idea of Dominion nationhood, and that that change of direction is not without its influence upon the suggestion that he has submitted to your Lordships in that connection this afternoon.
I have always myself felt this difficulty, that if that idea had ever been pursued in the way in which he has suggested with the object of drawing to this place those who were possessed of great influence and held positions of public importance in their own distant parts of the Empire, the very fact that they were withdrawn from the distant parts of the

75
Empire and were set in a wholly new environment in this country would probably with the lapse of years tend to diminish the very influence for which you sought to bring them to your councils, and, therefore, you might not in the end find any considerable achievement of your main object. That is all I would say with regard to the smaller purpose that the noble Lord has outlined.
With regard to the larger, I am afraid I must say even less, because he will be the first to recognise—indeed it was, I think, quite fairly stated in his speech—that although there have been repeated and various attempts made from all quarters and at the hands of a great many different persons and parties to find the ideal solution for the question he has at heart, it is almost true to say that the principal result of those efforts has been to make it abundantly plain that, while there is a large measure of agreement upon the general desirability of doing something, there is singularly little unanimity ever to be found upon any precise course of action to carry that general desire into effect. I would remind my noble friend that it has been the experience that that difficulty of concentration upon a single desirable course has not only been felt by Governments in the past, but, as the debates of this House have shown, it has been very clearly demonstrated also to prevail in this House itself.
76
Therefore he will not, I think, expect me within a week of the formation of a new Government, having regard to the intrinsic difficulties of the question and having regard also to the history with which it comes to us, to say more than this, that His Majesty's Government of course recognise the immense importance of the issues that lie has raised. They recognise also the possible value that may attach in the minds of many people to some of the concrete suggestions which the noble Lord has made. This question will of course engage the attention of His Majesty's Government and may possibly engage the attention of your Lordships' House, and if and when that time comes I can assure my noble friend that the contribution he has made to it this afternoon will not be left aside.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, may I most respectfully thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House not only for his courtesy but for replying so very fully to the remarks I ventured to make. It has been part of my duty for many years to study constitutional law, but I have learned a great deal from what he has said, and therefore I thank him for his instruction as well as for his courtesy. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes before six o'clock.