Lords Sitting of 25 July 1938

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CANTERBURY GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SEWERAGE) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREEN BELT (LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

DESTRUCTIVE ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to such recommendations as require legislation of the Select Committee on Agriculture (Damage by Rabbits) appointed by your Lordships' House in November, 1936. It is a Bill to make better provision for the protection of agriculture and the land from the ravages of rabbits, to make certain provisions with respect to the extermination of destructive animals, and to prohibit the setting of gin traps in the open. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.

BILLERICAY URBAN DISTRICT ORDER.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 7th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KETTERING RURAL DISTRICT ORDER.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 14th instant be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (LOUTH DRAINAGE DIS TRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RATING AND VALUATION (AIR RAID WORKS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not think I need detain you very long explaining this Bill. It is indeed, I think, largely self-explanatory. The object of the Bill is merely to relieve the ratepayer of any obligation to pay rates or to have assessed for rates buildings that have been erected solely for the purpose of protecting the public against air raids. It will be seen that the Bill is a one-clause measure. Subsection (3) is required only because in its absence it would be impossible to bring into rating in London a room or hereditament which, though designed for air-raid purposes, was in fact used for other purposes, until the expiration of the valuation period of five years. As your Lordships know, the rating law in the case of London differs from that in the rest of England. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATING AND VALUATION (AIR- RAID WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, the purposes of this Bill are similar to those of the corresponding Bill for England, the Second Reading of which has just been agreed to. A separate Bill is necessary for Scotland because of the differences between the valuation and rating laws in the two countries. This Bill, like the English one, is a one-clause Bill. The first and second subsections in effect provide that no regard shall be had, in ascertaining the value for rating purposes of lands and heritages, to any additional room or other part of any structural alteration or improvement made and used solely for the purposes of air-raid protection. The third subsection similarly exempts from rating any separate subjects so used. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, the object of this Bill is, from the point of view of the administration of justice, of very considerable importance. The Court of Appeal in England has now been in existence a great many years, and it has become impossible for that Court to discharge all its duties at the present time with only two Appeal Courts sitting for most of the year. Occasionally it is found possible to constitute a third Court of Appeal by borrowing Judges from other Divisions, but when that is done it adversely affects the despatch of business in the King's Bench Division, and is on the whole a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the difficulty. There is also this to be said, that it is very desirable, in order that cases should be properly heard, that from time to time assistance should be afforded to other Divisions where, because of the great amount of work that they have to do, or because of illness of judges, or for some other reason, they are unable to deal with convenient

1093
despatch with the business of those Divisions.
Accordingly it has been thought best to deal with the difficulty, not by increasing the number of Judges of the King's Bench Division, at any rate at the present time—I do not know what may be necessary in the future—but by adding a sufficient number of Lords Justices to enable the Court of Appeal in ordinary times to sit with three Courts and thereby keep abreast of the extra work which modern legislation has imposed upon the Courts. Therefore this Bill provides in Clause 1 that the ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal are to be increased to eight, which, with one Master of the Rolls, makes nine Judges, and will enable three Courts of Appeal, each with three Judges, to sit at the same time. In doing this, care has been taken, by means of Clause 2 of this Bill, to provide that the members of the Court of Appeal appointed under this Bill when it becomes an Act, shall have duties which shall include the duty of sitting in one of the inferior Courts when requested by the Lord Chancellor so to do. That will be a very convenient arrangement in cases where the Court of Appeal has got abreast of its work and there is some reason for lending one of the Judges appointed under this Bill to the Chancery Division or the King's Bench Division.
I think that is all I need say to your Lordships about the main objects of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 provides for the customary request when persons appointed under this Bill are accredited to act as Judges of the King's Bench Division or the Probate Division. Clause 3 really only brings the existing law into effect having regard to the alterations made in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act by the extra appointments of Lords Justices, and Clause 4 provides in the customary way for the payment of the expenses involved in the appointments. I think it is a simple measure. It is a measure that is obviously necessary, and it accords, so far as it gees, with the recommendations of the Peel Committee. On the whole I think it may be safely commended to your Lordships without qualification.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ANGLO-TURKISH (ARMAMENTS CREDIT) AGREEMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MILK (EXTENSION AND AMEND MENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill is primarily aimed at enabling certain wage-regulating authorities to require the provision of holidays with pay, thus carrying out one of the recommendations of the Committee set up under my noble friend Lord Amulree, whose Report was issued as Command Paper No. 5724 some months ago. It affects potentially some 2,000,000 workers. I think it is agreed on all sides that holidays for our workers are most desirable, and although I understand that some 3,000,000 of manual workers are getting paid holidays by collective agreements and some millions of salaried workers, shop assistants and domestic servants are getting them otherwise than by collective agreements, there are still very many workers who are not getting paid holidays. That means in very many cases that they are not getting holidays at all, because a great many of the lower-paid workers really cannot afford to save up for holidays out of their wages. As in the Road Haulage Wages Act, which was passed a short time ago, holiday re-

1095
muneration was made the matter of statutory provision, so by this Bill holidays with pay will became a legal reality.
The Amulree Committee recommended early legislation on three main subjects. The first was to give power to trade boards, agricultural wages committees and any other statutory bodies for regulating wages to make provision for holidays with pay; the second was to entitle workers in domestic service to two weeks annual holiday with pay; and the third was to give power to the Minister of Labour to assist in the administration of special holidays schemes for industries with intermittent employment. This Bill implements the first and third of those recommendations. So far as domestic servants are concerned, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour announced in the House of Commons on June 2 that he did not think it would be "opportune to include in this Bill any proposal for dealing specially with domestic servants." but that this matter could be more appropriately dealt with in connection with general legislation on the subject of paid holidays and he saw no reason for legislating for one particular section of workers.
The Bill enables what are known as wage-regulating authorities to make provision for paid holidays, wage-regulation authorities being defined in Clause 5 of the Bill as a "trade board, an agricultural wages committee or the Road Haulage Central Wages Board." The trade boards and agricultural wages committees are given power to make provision for holidays and holiday remuneration. The Road Haulage Central Wages Board has already power under the Act to which I have just referred to determine holiday remuneration and by this Bill is given power to make provision for holidays. The workers who come within the scope of this Bill are those covered by trade boards, agricultural wages committees or the Road Haulage Central Wages Board. The approximate numbers, I am informed, are: under the trade boards, 1,300,000, under the agricultural wages committees, 600,000; and under the Road Haulage Central Wages Board 200,000, making in all just over 2,000,000 persons. The Bill also empowers the Minister of Labour to assist in the administration of voluntary schemes for securing
1096
holidays with pay for workers in any industry or branch of an industry. The Minister by Section 100 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, has power to assist in the administration of schemes for promoting greater regularity of employment, and this clause invests the Minister with similar powers in relation to the provision of assistance in the administration of voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay.
Now, if I may, I will deal with the clauses of the Bill. In Clause 1 it is provided that trade boards and agricultural wages committees, in respect of any workers for whom they have fixed or are fixing remuneration, may direct that such persons shall be entitled to holidays. Clause 2 makes provision for payment for holidays. Your Lordships will see that subsection (1) is mandatory. Where a wage regulation authority has directed that holidays are to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1, the authority
"shall make provision for securing that the workers shall receive pay in respect of the period of the holiday."
It will therefore not be possible for a wage-regulating authority to require holidays to be given without pay. Clause 3 is the administrative clause which makes applicable to holidays and holiday remuneration the procedure of the Trade Boards Act, the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act and the Road Haulage Wages Act. If they were not made applicable general provisions regarding procedure, enforcement and other matters would have to be included in this Bill, which would then become very lengthy. The clause also gives the Ministry of Labour power to make regulations regarding holidays and remuneration. This power the Minister already possesses in regard to other matters dealt with under those Acts.
Clause 4 is an important clause. It enables the Minister of Labour to assist voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay for workers in any industry. The Amulree Committee, in their Report, expressed the view that in industries with intermittent employment, such as the building industry and port transport, where the employment may be of a casual nature and with many employers in the course of the year, it might be necessary to introduce a system whereby the holiday payment was made proportionately

1097
by the various employers who employed the workers. The Committee suggested that power should be given to the Ministry of Labour to assist in such cases through the employment exchanges, which were considered appropriate for the purpose. This assistance is not limited to industries that come under Section 100 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. The clause invests the Minister of Labour with powers to assist voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay with this difference, that where a scheme under Section 100 of the Act of 1935 must apply to the whole industry concerned, the scheme under Clause 4 of this Bill may apply to any workers in an industry or branch of an industry. Clause 5 of the Bill is a definition clause. Only three definitions have been found necessary. Clause 6 is the short title and extent.
That is the Bill, which I have explained in some detail to your Lordships. Those of your Lordships who have read the Report of the Amulree Committee will know that it recommended the establishment of an annual holiday With pay for industrial workers as part of the terms of the contract of employment. The Committee proposed a probationary period of two or three years to enable industries to make voluntary agreements with their workers as far as they possibly can. My right honourable friend the Minister fully agrees with this recommendation and hopes that during the next two years as many voluntary agreements may be made as possible, because the more voluntary agreements there are, the less field there will be for statutory action.
The Committee further recommended that there should be legislation in the 1940–1941 Session o f Parliament making provision for holidays with pay in industry generally. Obviously His Majesty's Government cannot decide at this moment the nature or scope of the legislation which will be required to be brought in at that time. This legislation must depend on developments during the next two years. But they quite realise that the recommendation as to legislation in 1940–1941 was an important element in the very satisfactory unanimous decision at which the Committee of my noble friend was able to arrive. For this reason the situation will be carefully watched by His Majesty's Government between this time and a few years hence with regard to
1098
future action. In the meantime I present this Bill to your Lordships as at all events a step on the way to the final goal—namely, holidays with pay for all our workers, which is the goal at which I think the nation wishes eventually to arrive. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the noble Lord opposite for not being present during the first part of his remarks. I must confess that, as there were several other Second Readings on the Paper before the Second Reading of this Bill, I did not anticipate that it would come on so early. This Bill is one to which those of us who sit over here attach a great deal of importance, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I state as competently as I can our point of view. In the course of several years' experience those of us who sit on these Benches have learnt the habit of snatching somewhat greedily at any crumbs of social reform that may fall from the Government's table. We must confess that our appetite is never satisfied, and that we still continue to clamour for more. At the same time we prefer to accept whatever odds and ends may come our way rather than sit and starve.
This long-drawn-out metaphor implies what I am about to say: that we shall co-operate with the Government to our utmost in securing the passage of this Bill into law at the earliest possible opportunity and in preventing what no doubt the Government may fear: its demise through lack of Parliamentary time, which of course would involve the introduction of another Bill at some time during the next Session of Parliament. We are anxious that there should be no such delay before this humble but useful measure passes into law, and we are anxious to prevent the people who are affected by it from having to wait a day longer than they have waited already in order to receive the right to an annual paid holiday. The provision of this annual consecutive period of paid holiday is surely a measure of social reform that is not merely desirable on humanitarian grounds in the interests of the working people, grounds that have been described

1099
very adequately at considerable length during the discussions on this Bill, but also as a measure of elementary social justice. It is surely an intolerable and insufferable injustice that the salaried workers, the professional workers, those who receive rent and interest, should have a holiday of at least a fortnight, and very often a longer holiday, every year on full pay while the great majority of wage-earners have no holiday at all. It is from that point of view, as the fulfilment of a perfectly justified demand for social justice, that we on these Benches regard this measure.
It is no exaggeration to say, as indeed has been said frequently before, that this reform is long overdue. We are indeed among the last of the wealthy industrial countries, although we were one of the first to become industrialised, to provide statutory holidays with pay for our wage-earners. As many as thirty-eight other nations have already given the working classes a minimum period of holiday guaranteed by law. These include several of our own Dominions, and in Europe I should like to point out the dictatorships, with whom we are not usually afraid to challenge comparison, as well as the democracies. In France, for instance, there is a fortnight's paid holiday for all workers, and in Russia—I think your Lordships will agree that a great many nasty things are said about Russia in this House, and that it may therefore not be inopportune to say at least one kind word—twelve days a year are given with full pay to workers, who are thus enabled to enjoy their holidays. Frankly, I am ashamed that our country should be in the rearguard instead of in the vanguard of this widespread international movement towards more repose and more leisure for the working classes.
Let us envisage the scope of this measure and find how much relief it really brings. It has been estimated by the Amulree Committee—and its estimate has, I think, been the basis of the figures given during the discussions in another place—that of the 18,500,000 employed people in this country about 8,000,000 already enjoy an annual paid holiday, leaving 10,500,000 who have no such right at present. This Bill, as the noble Lord has pointed out, does enable certain statutory bodies, the agricultural wages boards, the trade boards, and the Road
1100
Haulage Central Wages Board, to provide holidays for a number of wage earners that will amount approximately to 2,000,000. Assuming for the moment, as I believe is the intention of the Government, that the statutory authorities empowered to arrange for paid holidays by this Bill will, in the great majority of cases, actually arrange them, there is still a residue of 8,500,000 people for whom no provision will have been made at all, and who have no certain prospect in time to come of annual holidays, either by statutory right or through collective agreements. It is to me, and I have no doubt it is to other members of your Lordships' House, a most melancholy thought that nearly half of our working population will still be without an annual paid holiday after this measure is passed into law, and after the statutory authorities whom it affects have taken advantage of the powers that have been given to them.
In one important respect, at least, this Bill departs from the recommendations of the Amulree Committee, whose proposals have otherwise been accepted as the basis for its provisions, and I should like to know, because, having read very carefully through the debates in another place, I am not in the least satisfied, what reason the Government give for what would appear to be a very arbitrary omission. I am referring to the failure to include domestic servants among those who will be entitled to annual holidays with pay. It is exceedingly difficult to see why this recommendation should have been ignored. There can be no doubt that domestic workers are even more entitled to consideration of this kind by Parliament than workers in other occupations, and I think their special claim rests in the first place on the fact that they are unorganised, that they have no trade unions to represent them, and that therefore they are unable to bargain with the same effectiveness as organised workers, with those who employ them. In the second place, because they do in many cases work for much longer hours than people in other walks of life. There is no regulation of their hours of work, either by Statute or by collective agreement, and one knows of many instances where they have to rise exceedingly early in the morning and probably to remain up, after working for the best part of the day, until their employers retire to bed at night.

1101
The criticism that I have advanced in regard to this Bill would be open to the charge of unconstructiveness, I think, unless I was prepared to show that we have a very definite, and I think a very practical, alternative to offer to the measure that the Government are proposing. We want a Bill that would recognise the right of all wage-earners to a paid holiday, in the same way as other fundamental rights, such as the right to education, to medical attention in the event of ill-health, and to security in old-age, which have already been recognised by Act of Parliament. We advocate that a minimum period of a fortnight's holiday with pay should be laid down by Statute for all wage-earners, leaving the detailed arrangements to be fixed in every industry, according to its particular circumstances, by negotiations between the employers and those whom they employ. The effect of such a measure would surely be no more than to bring what at present everyone would regard as the backward employers of labour into line with the practice of enlightened employers, whether private individuals or public authorities, at the present day. I am glad to be able to say that the 80,000 employees of the London County Council enjoy a fortnight's holiday, with full remuneration, regardless of their particular grade of work, and it is simply to bring the standards of those who are now unwarrantably depressed in this respect, up to the level of those who are in the employment of people who are perhaps prepared to make sacrifices for the benefit of their employees—certainly enlightened employers—that we want a much more far-reaching measure than the Bill which the Government have provided. I suggest that in view of what has been happening abroad, and in view of public opinion in this country, the time is over-ripe for a Bill that would provide for paid holidays for all classes of wage-earning people in this country.
There is just one question that I would like to address to the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government. I am asking it because there is just a possibility that I may not have understood perfectly correctly the meaning of one statement which he made. The question is this: Do the Government, or do they not, accept the recommendation in paragraph 150 of the Amulree Report? That paragraph opens with these words:
1102
"During the Parliamentary Session of 1940–1 legislation should be passed making provision for holidays with pay in industry generally."
There can be no doubt that there was considerable ambiguity about the utterances of those who spoke for the Government in another place, and I thought I detected—
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I interrupt for one moment? Did the noble Earl say paragraph 156?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No, paragraph 150. I thought I detected in the remarks of the noble Lord something more definite than had been said in the course of the Government speeches in another place. I thought that what he at any rate implied by his remarks—he will correct me if I am mistaken—was that, provided of course that our efforts to dislodge the noble Lords are unsuccessful between now and then, the Government, if in power in 1940 or 1941 and if circumstances were such that wage-earners had not received a holiday period by agreement with their employers, would introduce some sort of legislation. He was very careful, and indeed very rightly careful, not to commit the Government to any specific measure or any specific type of provision, but he did say, I thought, that legislation would, if necessary, be introduced.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Earl for his comparatively warm welcome to this Bill, which we think is a very good Bill indeed, but which noble Lords opposite, like their colleagues in another place, appear to think is a very small effort. The noble Earl asked me two main questions. One was about domestic servants. He asked why domestic servants were not included. I think the noble Earl did say that he had not been here during the whole of my speech, and he must have missed that part of the speech where I specially dealt with that matter. I will therefore repeat what I said. As far as domestic servants are concerned, my right honourable friend announced in another place on June 2 that in his opinion it was inopportune to include in this Bill any proposal for dealing specifically with domestic servants. This is a matter which he thought could be more appropriately dealt with in connection with general legislation on the

1103
subject of paid holidays, and there was, he thought, no reason to anticipate for one particular class of worker that general legislation. Really this has nothing to do with domestic servants having no union and not being able to bargain. I rather thought that there was such a shortage of domestic servants in these days that they could more or less make their own bargains; at least I have generally found it so. If the noble Earl knows that there is a great plethora of domestic servants anywhere I wish he would let some of us know, because we have not found it so.
The noble Earl asked me a specific question at the end of his speech as to whether the Government intend to introduce legislation in 1940 or 1941, as recommended by the Amulree Committee. He said that I was very cautious in my statement. Well, I hope I was. I always try to be very cautious in what I say from this box, because otherwise one is apt to get into trouble. I am afraid I cannot be very much more definite than I was in my opening speech. I think I can say this, that the Government will watch the situation very carefully between now and 1940, always hoping that as many voluntary agreements on this important matter will be made as possible, and, as far as they know, they very much hope—except in the exceedingly unlikely event of the Party of the noble Lords opposite displacing us before then—that they will bring in legislation along the lines that I have indicated for providing holidays for all workers. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot go, and I hope that that will satisfy the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. They are almost entirely of a drafting character.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  [The references are to Bill No. 76.]
  In the title, line 3, after ("proceedings") insert ("heretofore usually dealt with")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a legal Amendment, almost of a drafting character. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end, insert ("and, in the case of any county in Wales or the County of Monmouth, a person able to speak the Welsh language")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as I propose to leave out from this Amendment the words "or the County of Monmouth" perhaps the noble and learned Lord would consider it convenient if I did so now. The County of Monmouth is an English county. I do not think that will be disputed, because in the Amendment itself it is mentioned apart from Wales. Monmouthshire is not merely an English County, it is an English-speaking County. Once, long ago, it was a Welsh-speaking County, but it is now impossible to find in the rural parts any person who can speak Welsh. In the industrial area the case is somewhat different. It is quite erroneous to suppose that the inhabitants of the Welsh coalfield are all, or nearly all, of Welsh origin. What is now the industrial area of Carmarthen-shire, Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire was in the eighteenth century sparsely inhabited by a few farmers. Then came the opening up of the coalfields, and people flocked in. These immigrants were derived chiefly from two sources, one from central Wales, and the other from Western England, and particularly Somersetshire, where the coal

  1105
  mines were being closed down. In the western part of the area the Welsh immigrants predominated, and in the eastern part the English immigrants predominated.
  The result was that in Carmarthenshire and parts of Western Glamorganshire the Welsh language was able to hold its own, but in Eastern Glamorganshire the English language became predominant, and in Monmouthshire it has become in effect the sole language of the country. These statements are substantiated by the Census of 1931. In Carmarthenshire the percentage of people who then returned themselves as able to speak Welsh was 82. In West Glamorganshire the figure fell to 40 per cent., and in East Glamorganshire to 25 per cent.; while in Monmouthshire the number of persons who claimed that they were able to speak Welsh was only 6 per cent. I would ask your Lordships to note that figure of 6 per cent., because a couple of years ago a Committee was set up under the very able Chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, to consider the revision of the circuit system. Monmouthshire has for very many years been part of the Oxford Circuit. Before that Committee a number of Welsh Nationalists appeared, persons unconnected with Monmouthshire, who tried to persuade the Committee that Monmouthshire ought to be transferred to the South Wales Circuit, and with this end in view they did not scruple to tell the Committee that most of the inhabitants of Monmouthshire spoke nothing but Welsh, or anyhow they spoke Welsh as their ordinary language. But I am glad to say the Committee did not believe them, and Monmouthshire remains part of the Oxford Circuit. Had the Committee any reason to suppose that Monmouthshire would profit in any way by closer connection with Wales, they would undoubtedly have come to a different conclusion from that which they reached.
  I was talking only the other day to a man who had been on the Bench for sixty years and had been Chairman of Quarter Sessions for thirty of them. Never in the whole of his experience has it been necessary to employ a Welsh interpreter in Monmouthshire. Our present Chairman, whose father and grandfather were Chairmen before him, is an Official Referee of the High Court of
  1106
  Justice, and therefore may not, under Clause 2 of this Bill, be precluded from his office because he cannot speak Welsh. I am not sure whether it applies to the Vice-Chairman as well. But it may be—I do not say it will be—necessary for the Lord Chancellor to consider whether he should not be passed over because he cannot speak Welsh. I cannot imagine that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or any noble Lord who may succeed him, would dream of turning out an eminent King's Counsel from the Chairmanship of the Monmouthshire Quarter Sessions, but under this provision he would have to contemplate it. It is most undesirable that the noble and learned Lord should have to contemplate the commission of such an extremely foolish act. Although these words are simple, they create a very dangerous precedent. This is the first time that an attempt has been made to impose a statutory disqualification because an Englishman cannot speak a language other than his own.
  It may go a great deal further. In the other place the Amendment, as originally moved, was designed to make it compulsory that the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Monmouthshire should speak Welsh. There is no doubt that is what the Welsh National Party would like to see. They would like to see the Welsh language made compulsory, not only throughout Wales but throughout Monmouthshire as well. Why not Liverpool? There are certainly more Welsh people in Liverpool than in Monmouthshire. This Amendment has nothing to do with the administration of justice, and is merely an attempt to claim Monmouthshire for Wales and force the Welsh language upon it. The Amendment is very improper in a Bill which is intended to further the good administration of justice, and I hope your Lordships will reject it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out ("o. the County of Monmouth").—(Lord Raglan.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has, I am sure, said everything that can possibly be said in favour of this small Amendment. He has, however, not attributed quite enough weight to the place where the words occur because, after all, the Amendment is only this. In a case in which the Lord Chancellor for the

  1107
  time being has to appoint a person of the legal experience mentioned in Clause I to act as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions, the proviso requires the Lord Chancellor to consider in the first place the advisability of appointing somebody who resides in the district. That is not always possible, but he would like to get such a person if he could. Then follows, "in the case of any county in Wales or the County of Monmouth a person able to speak the Welsh language." It is perfectly plain that there is no rigid necessity that a man should be able to speak the Welsh language. It is only a thing the Lord Chancellor ought to consider, and in some counties in Wales it would be very desirable that he should consider it. With that we all agree. In the County of Monmouth, it is true, there are only a comparatively small number of people who speak only Welsh.
  LORD RAGLAN: Who speak Welsh at all.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And quite a number who do not speak Welsh at all. That is true about a number of other counties in Wales, but for many administrative purposes the County of Monmouth for a long time past has been grouped with Wales, and a number of provisions regarding Wales are provisions which contain the words "and County of Monmouth."
  LORD RAGLAN: Not for judicial purposes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree that it is not so in the case of circuit. In another place it has been thought desirable that on the whole there should be this consideration which the Lord Chancellor must bear in mind. The noble Lord says Monmouth should be left out. If Monmouth were left out, a few of the other counties should be left out too, and I do not quite know where we should be when the matter goes to another place and we begin to consider the counties in which Welsh is spoken. I would draw the attention of the House to the County of Radnor. In the County of Radnor the total population under the 1931 census was 20,362, excluding those who were not three years old. Of these, 967 spoke Welsh and English, and seven only out of the total spoke Welsh alone. Yet Radnor must be included in the definition of
  1108
  "Wales." But when we come to Monmouth, including Newport, we have these figures. The total population over three years old was 413,191. Of these, 24,449 speak Welsh and English, and I quite agree that a small number—514—speak Welsh only. That is 514 in Monmouth who speak Welsh only and only seven in Radnor. The effort to divide up the country into those places where there is a considerable number of Welsh-speaking inhabitants would lead to all sorts of difficulties. The net result is that there are over 24,00o people who speak Welsh and English in the County of Monmouth.
  Those who are engaged, or have been engaged, in the Courts of Justice know that somebody who speaks both Welsh and English can be very useful, and for my part, if there were two people applying for the post of Chairman of Quarter Sessions, exactly similar in all respects except that one of them had a certain knowledge of Welsh and the other had none, I should think that to some extent it would weigh the scales in favour of the Welsh-speaking person. I do not think this Commons Amendment has any sinister import. I think that it will do no harm to anyone. It will not be a precedent, and no Lord Chancellor who has any sense—and I hope that will apply to all occupants of this office—will bother about this provision in any material sense. Therefore I really cannot regard the matter as of importance. I think the whole of the other Amendments made in the other House to this clause are Amendments which your Lordships will accept without discussion. I desire that the Bill should not go back to the other place because, if that were so, delay might be occasioned by such an Amendment as that proposed by the noble Lord, which, as I have said, I cannot regard as of any real importance. In those circumstances, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I regard this as a matter of very great importance. Welshmen are always trying to bring in the use of their language in these matters. We in Monmouthshire are English and wish to remain English, and very much regret that the Lord Chancellor is bent upon compelling us to speak the Welsh language, a language which we do not know and do not wish to know.
  LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I should feel extremely sorry to do anything that would mean delay in the passing of this Bill into law, but I was not able to follow the Lord Chancellor's explanation of this matter, which I conceive to be of some importance in Wales. I cannot understand quite what is going to happen in Wales if this Amendment is passed, but, as I read Clause 1, it appears to me that a Welsh Court of Quarter Sessions would only have power to apply to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of a legally qualified Chairman providing that that legally qualified Chairman NN as also a Welsh-speaking Chairman.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I answer the noble Lord? That really is not so. This proviso is only what you may describe as a hint to the Lord Chancellor that he has to consider something in addition to the place where the Chairman ordinarily resides. He need not be occupied by it at all, but it is a thing that he has to bear in mind. I may add, for my part, that I believe he always would bear in mind the question of the residence of the proposed person, and also, if the district in question was a Welsh-speaking district, and whether the person to be appointed could speak Welsh. It is merely a reminder to the Lord Chancellor that in appointing people in Wales and Monmouthshire, he should bear in mind the question whether the person appointed could speak Welsh or not. It is nothing more than that, and is of no real importance.
  LORD CHARNWOOD: Of course, if the Lord Chancellor assures me the effect of the words used in this Amendment is as lie has stated it to be, I must accept his assurance, but I have the greatest difficulty in reading the clause as proposed to be amended in the sense in which he has just stated.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("of,") to ("deputy,") in line 18, and insert ("such a person as aforesaid as Chairman or")
  Page 2, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
  Page 2, line 24, after ("term") insert ("and on such conditions as to retirement")
  Page 2, line 25, leave out from ("shall,") to ("a,") in line 26, and insert ("if not already")
  Page 2, line 27, after ("appointed,") insert ("be a justice of the peace for that county by virtue of his office")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendments on Clause 1, page 2, down to line 27, are consequential, and with your Lordships' permission I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in those Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 2, line 30, at end insert:
  ("(4) In this Act the expression 'Deputy Chairman' means in relation to any Court of Quarter Sessions, a person, by whatsoever name styled, performing or nominated to perform the duty of presiding over the Court in the absence of the Chairman and of presiding over any second Court, and the said expression includes, in relation to any Court, any number of such persons.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons Amendment on line 30 is in fact a drafting Amendment. It enables the person nominated to act as Deputy-Chairman. I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in that Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out ("any,") and insert ("a")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 10, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 17, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 19, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 23, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out from ("borough,") to ("a,") in line 28, and insert ("having")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 31, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons Amendments on Clause 2, down to line 31, are purely

  1111
  drafting. I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in those Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("borough,") to ("a,") in line 41, and insert ("having a separate Court of Quarter sessions and")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is to amend a slip in the drafting because there are boroughs without a separate Court of Quarter Sessions. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 3, line 42, at end, insert:
  ("(4) For the purposes of this section a borough shall be deemed to have a population of not less than fifty thousand if according to the census last published before the commencement of this Act or according to any census published after the commencement of this Act it contained or contains a population of fifty thousand or more.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ensure that a borough which has a population of less than 50,000 at the last census shall not lose its jurisdiction as mentioned in the Act if the population happens to diminish during the period. In other words, it is to prevent the jurisdiction fluctuating with population. The effect will be to avoid the great inconvenience that might be caused if this provision were not inserted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 4, line 10, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (3) of this section")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is pure drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 6, page 6, line 29, at end, insert:
  ("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the power of the Lord Mayor of the City of London or any alderman of that City to direct that a person charged with an offence before him shall be tried at the Central Criminal Court.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a saving for the City of London. The power of the Lord Mayor or any alderman of the City of London to commit persons direct to the Central Criminal Court is one which ought not to he interfered with. The Central Criminal Court is a Court which is amply suited to deal with the less important as well as the more important indictable offences. Accordingly this proviso was inserted in another place. I think it is a reasonable one and one to which your Lordships may well assent. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 7, page 7, line 9, at end, insert ("by the High Court")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet the point that a writ of certoriari may be issued by the House of Lords and it is not intended to interfere with the procedure of the House of Lords. It is in order to make that clear that this Amendment is inserted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("the") to ("for,") in line 16, and insert ("High Court or any Division thereof")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that the King's Bench Division has not got exclusive jurisdiction in certiorari and accordingly the clause in that respect was defective. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 11, page 9, line 29, leave out ("than") and insert ("from")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I ought to express regret that my noble friend Viscount Bertie did not call attention to this matter, because the words in the clause were words which might well have claimed his attention in regard to the grammar. The words in the clause are "different than" instead of "different from." I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 10, line 3, at end, insert ("and the expenses of maintaining and removing prisoners")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment was in fact passed by your Lordships' House but it had to be excluded because it was a Privilege Amendment. Now it has been reinserted in another place. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 15, page 11, line 35, at the beginning, insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section")
  Page 22, line 9, at end, insert:
  ("(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any of the following enactments, that is to say—

  (a) Sections thirty-seven to forty of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.

  (b) Section thirty-six of the Building Societies Act, 1874;

  (c) Section four of the Telegraph Act, 1878;

  (d) Section ten of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886;

  (e) Section one of the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment Act, 1886.")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments relate to the same matter. They are savings for appeals from the Mayor's Court, which under existing law go, not to the Court of Appeal, but elsewhere. It really was not intended to prevent these cases going to the Chancery Judge as directed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, or the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, or
  1114
  going, under the Telegraph Act, 1878, to the Railway and Canal Commission or under the Parliamentary Elections (Return of Officers') Act (1875) Amendment Act, 1886, to the King's Bench Division. These appeals were saved from the operation of the general provision relating to County Court appeals by Section 192 of the County Courts Act, 1934, and they should be accordingly excluded here from the provisions of the clause as mentioned in the proposed Amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 20, page 13, line 26, at end, insert (",and any Act passed during the same Session of Parliament as this Act")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to include in the Acts a measure which is at present before Parliament entitled the Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill, in which Section 90 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1934, is being amended so as to enable Middlesex justices to appoint an Assistant Chairman. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 13, line 34, leave out ("October nineteen hundred and thirty-eight,") and insert ("January nineteen hundred and thirty-nine")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is obviously to postpone the commencement of the measure to the beginning of next year, which is thought more convenient. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 15, line 28, after ("order") insert ("where it secondly occurs")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is pure drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Fourth Schedule, page 21, line 5, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is one which I hope will rejoice the heart of Lord Strabolgi, because when the matter Was before your Lordships on a previous occasion he complained bitterly that two words were being removed from Magna Charta. When the matter went to another place, the same objection was felt by other persons, and it was thought a great pity that anything should be removed from Magna Charta. Clause 12 of this Bill provides for the abolition of the particular species of outlawry to which it was desired to put an end; so, the clause having effectively put an end to outlawry of the only kind that now remains, it was pointed out to those people who are so concerned about Magna Charta that it would not matter if the words were left in, because they were going to be removed once and for all by the present measure if it became an Act of Parliament. That was agreed to. Perhaps I may say for myself that I, too, am glad that Magna Charta will not be affected by anything with which I am concerned, so that I shall not go down with Lord Keeper Jeffreys and others as having acted against the interests of this country.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 23, leave out lines 48 and 49.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it has been discovered on consideration that this repeal goes too far, and therefore those lines should be omitted.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1 [Provision of fire services]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the first three Amendments which stand in my name are all drafting Amendments. I do not know whether your Lordships will let me move them en bloc.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships approve, I will put these Amendments together.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 2, line 14, leave out ("which complies with") and insert ("whose local fire services are of")
  Page 2, line 16, leave out ("discharged their duty under") and insert ("complied with the provisions of")
  Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("may") to ("into") in line 20, and insert ("secure local fire services for their borough or district by themselves providing and maintaining either wholly or in part, such fire services or by entering").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  No payments to be made by owners and occupiers in respect of fire services.
  5. A fire authority shall not be entitled to require the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur to make any payment in respect of the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires, and all enactments under which fire authorities may require such payments to be made by the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur shall cease to have effect:
  Provided that…
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out "the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires" and insert "local fire services or any fire services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under subsection (5) of Section one of this Act or in pursuance of a scheme made under this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next two are practically drafting Amendments, but perhaps I should add that they will render it unnecessary to make any further or special amendment in Clause 28 to meet the special case of any of the Highland counties or burghs which may be exempted from the compulsory provisions of the Bill by Order of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and have no regular local fire services. I understand that the representatives of the insurance interests have been consulted on these Amendments and have no objection to them. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 7, line 9, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 10, and insert ("local fire

  1117
  services or any fire services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under subsection (5) of Section one of this Act or in pursuance of a scheme made under this Act")
  Page 7, line 11, leave out ("such")
  Page 7, line 13, after ("occur") insert ("in respect of the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment and the next apparently operate together on Clause 5. I have heard what my noble friend has said, but as he has mentioned other districts I am a little in doubt as to his exact meaning. In order to shorten my question I will put it in this way, if I may: May I take it that these Amendments do not impair the effect of Clause 5 in the sense in which it was accepted on the Committee stage?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I did say that the insurance interests had been consulted about these Amendments and had raised no objection to them.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Schemes for co-ordination of fire services.
  9.— (1) If the Fire Service Commission report, as respects any fire authorities, that adequate arrangements have not been made for the provision of such assistance as aforesaid, they may submit to the Secretary of State a scheme (hereinafter referred to as a "co-ordination scheme") for ensuring the provision by those authorities of such assistance:
  Provided that, before submitting any coordination scheme to the Secretary of State, the Fire Service Commission shall give an opportunity to all file authorities affected by the scheme to mace representations with respect thereto, and shall submit any such representations together with the scheme.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "scheme," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "and to any other persons appearing to the Commission to be specially concerned." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down in recognition of the fact that in framing co-ordination schemes under Clause 9 not only fire authorities will be concerned, but also such persons as factory owners whose premises may constitute a special risk and where probably
  1118
  a private fire brigade is maintained. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 6, after ("scheme") insert ("and to any other persons appearing to the Commission to be specially concerned").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Powers of fire brigades and police in extinguishing fires]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next two Amendments are to Clause 14 and are manuscript Amendments.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the first is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 34, leave out ("cause") and insert ("require").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next is also drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 40, leave out ("the provisions of this section") and insert ("such a requirement").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Definition of "fire brigade duties" for purposes of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, and this Act]:
  THE EARS OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 43, after ("shall") insert ("as soon as may be after regulations have been made by the Minister of Health under the next following subsection").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 6, leave out ("continue to apply to him accordingly") and insert ("apply to him, and be deemed to have applied to him as from the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 11, after ("him") insert ("and be deemed to have applied to him as from the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Central Advisory Council for Fire Services]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is practically a drafting Amendment. The words which have been left out here have been reinserted in Clause 24 (2). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 2, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 6.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Power of Secretary of State to require uniformity of appliances and equipment]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is drafting.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Should the reference not be to line 40?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The words which we propose to leave out are "after consultation with the Central Advisory Council for Fire Services," and the Amendment should read: "from 'State' in line 39 to 'may' in line 40."
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 39, leave out from ("State") to ("may") in line 4o.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Provisions as to orders of Secretary of State]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
  "(2) Before making any order prescribing scales of payments for fire services or any order requiring uniformity of appliances and equipment and fire hydrants, the Secretary of State shall consult the Central Advisory Council for Fire Services, and before making any order prescribing standards of efficiency for fire services, the Secretary of State shall consult with the said Council and with such associations representing fire authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any fire authorities with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will recall that, on a previous stage of the Bill I informed Lord Saltoun that I should be moving an Amendment at this stage of the Bill, in fulfilment of the pledge which I gave him at that time. I do not think there is any necessity further to explain this Amendment to your Lordships, as I think it was fully dealt with on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 19, at end, insert the said new subsection (2).—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 21, leave out ("under Section one of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 27:
  Provisions as to London.
  27.—(1) The provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of Section two and the provisions of Sections three, five and twenty-one of this Act shall apply to the administrative county of London, subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—

  (a) for the references to a fire authority and to the borough or district of a fire authority there shall be substituted references to the London County Council and the administrative county of London, respectively; and

  (b) for the reference in Section twenty-one to this Act there shall be substituted a reference to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 1865;

  but save as aforesaid this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 4, at end, insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, these Amendments are all drafting.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 21, line 6, leave out from ("London") to the first ("to") in line 8, and insert ("and the London County Council, and accordingly—
  (a) the references in those provisions")
  Page 21, line 9, leave out ("there shall be substituted") and insert ("shall be construed as including")
  Page 21, line 13, leave out ("for")
  Page 21, line 14, leave out ("there shall be substituted") and insert ("shall be construed as including").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "but save as aforesaid this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London" and insert:

  1121
  "Provided that nothing in the said Section five shall be taken to affect Section sixty of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1934.
  (2) The provisions of Section one of this Act, so far as they relate to the provision of fire services for any borough or district by other fire authorities, shall have effect so as to enable such fire services to be provided by the London County Council and accordingly the references in subsections (3) and (5) of Section one to other fire authorities and the references in subsection (4) thereof to a fire authority shall be construed as including references to the London County Council; and the duty of a fire authority (not including the London County Council) under subsection (5) of Section one of this Act may be discharged, either in whole or in part, by entering into arrangements with the London County Council under Section forty-nine of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1936."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of some importance, and perhaps I should explain it fully to your Lordships. The opening proviso !is a matter of drafting, for the purpose of safeguarding powers that the London County Council already possess to recover penalties for chimney fires. The new subsection (2) has been put down to meet two points which have been raised regarding the application of the Bill to London, especially as respects the relations between the London Fire Brigade and the brigades serving adjoining areas. Under Clause 1 a fire authority, in lieu of providing and maintaining local fire brigade services on their own account, may enter into arrangements with another fire authority to provide for fire services on their behalf; but the Bill as it now stands would not permit of such an arrangement being made with the London County Council. The London County Council have been consulted, and agree that this gap in the Bill as it now stands should be filled. The House will recall that Clause 1 (5) of the Bill at present makes no provision for the co-operation of the London County Council and the London Fire Brigade in measures for mutual assistance for dealing with exceptional fires. Section 49 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1936, provides very similar machinery to that in the Bill, as respects the London County Council and fire authorities adjoining or near the Council's borders, and the object of tins Amendment is to make any necessary adaptations. I might mention, in conclusion, that the London County Council
  1122
  have been consulted on these Amendments, and they concur in them.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, leave out lines 16 and 17, and insert the said proviso and subsection (2).— (The Earl of Munster,)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of the London County Council, I should just like to thank the noble Earl for the Amendment that he has put down, and also for meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. The London County Council is now absolutely safeguarded against the danger that it might lose its power to recover penalties in respect of fires in chimneys.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of the clause:
  "(4) Save as is in this section provided, this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London or to the London County Council."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 37, at end, insert the said new subsection (4).— (The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28:
  Application to Scotland.
  (4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the county council of any of the following counties videlicet: Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Zetland, or with the town council of any burgh situated in any such county, by order direct that the provisions of this Act in their application to such county or burgh shall have effect as if—

  (a) subsections (1) to (5) of Section one and Sections eight to thirteen were omitted; and

  (b) the word "may" were substituted for the word "shall"—

  (i) where that word first occurs in subsection (1) of Section two; and

  (ii) in subsection (8) of the said section.

  THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE had given Notice of Amendments in subsection (4), to leave out "the" ["the county council" and insert "any," and to leave out "of any of the following counties videlicet: Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Zetland." The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 28, subsections

  1123
  (4) and (5), as amended in Committee, and as I understand them, enable the seven Highland counties to set up special fire brigade districts in the more populous places, in order that the mountainous regions and the islands should not be rated for fire fighting services, appliances and apparatus, which cannot be provided owing to inaccessibility. The object of this Amendment is to extend this concession to all the Scottish counties, most of which, in this respect, are practically in the same position as the Highland counties. Take Lanarkshire, for instance, the most important industrial county in Scotland. In what is called the Upper Ward there are large districts of the whole County where fire engines could not possibly manœuvre, even if there were water, which there often is not. On the other hand, a small county like Clackmannan, which is almost wholly industrial, would, if allowed to form special fire brigade districts, almost certainly form one district for the whole County, with the burghs therein, which are within a reasonable distance of each other.
  The Amendment may be clumsily drafted, as I am an amateur in these matters and I am advised that the paragraph should be re-drafted to read:
  "(4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the county council of any county or with the town council of any burgh, by order direct that the provisions of this Act in their application to such county or burgh shall have effect as if"—
  It is no doubt too late to substitute that to-day, but if the Amendment is accepted that could be altered on the Third Reading. At any rate, as I have stated, the object of this Amendment is perfectly clear. It is that the concessions proposed for the seven crofting or Highland counties should be extended to all the Scottish counties.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 22, line 22, leave out ("the") and insert ("any") and leave out from ("council") to ("or") in line 24.—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: When my noble friend says "the Secretary of State" I suppose he refers to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Yes, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, if I may say one word, I must for my own part admit that I had considerable misgivings from the Scottish point of view when this measure came before your Lordships' House, because it seemed as if unnecessary expenditure was to be thrown upon the local authorities, not only those in the Highland counties which have already been mentioned, but also those in the counties of which the noble Earl has just spoken. But, with two other members of your Lordships' House, I had an interview with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was kind enough to see us, and from that conversation I am quite satisfied in my own mind that no unreasonable measures will be insisted upon in any of the districts such as have been mentioned by the noble Earl, where it can be shown by the local authority that they would be neither workable nor in the best interests of local government. For that reason I think it is not necessary to amend this clause as the noble Earl has proposed, and I for one would like to support it as it stands.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the two noble Lords who have just spoken have given your Lordships to understand that this Amendment applies to Scotland, but it seems to me that the effect of an Amendment such as this will apply to more than Scotland. Unless the county councils which the Bill specifically mentions are kept in the word "any" might apply to any English county council.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at subsection (1) he will see that the whole of Clause 28 applies only to Scotland. It begins thus:
  "The provisions of this section shall have effect for the purpose of the application of this Act to Scotland,"
  As I understand it everything that follows in the clause applies to Scotland only.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged. I am sorry.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to alter the Scottish Application Clause so as to extend the special provisions regarding the seven crofter counties and the burghs therein to every county and burgh in Scotland. Suggestions that this should be done, at any

  1125
  rate for landward areas, or alternatively that the list of counties specified in Clause 28 (4) should be extended so as to include counties such as Angus, Banff, Berwick and Perthshire, were made during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I undertook to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter with a view to his giving, if possible, an undertaking, but I did warn the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that I did not think that reconsideration would be likely to result in any such Amendment as this being accepted. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these proposals, and has reached the conclusion that he would not be justified in asking Parliament to confer power upon him to exempt any county or burgh, other than the seven crofter counties and burghs therein, from the compulsory provisions of the Bill. These seven counties present special problems in the way either of numerous islands, or of sparsity of population and length and difficulty of road and telephone communications, and their special circumstances may justify the exercise of the power of exemption which is given by Clause 28 (4).
  There are of course certain other counties with relatively sparse population, or with tracts of moorland and mountain, but these counties differ so much from the crofter counties in their size, or their means of communication, or in the number of burghs situated within or near their boundaries, that they cannot be placed in the same category. For instance, Angus has eight burghs, Banff has eleven, Berwick has four and Perthshire has eleven. All of these burghs are separate fire authorities under the Bill, and will be under a duty to co-operate with the county councils in the provision of fire services. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are so drawn as to enable full account to be taken of differences in the requirements of, and the facilities available in, different kinds of locality, as has already been stated to the House, there is no intention to subject rural areas—for instance, areas which would have to do their fire fighting with natural or static water instead of water from Water mains—to the kind of standard which would be appropriate and feasible only in urban areas.
  At the same time, the Government fully recognise the need for adequate consulta-
  1126
  tion before standards of efficiency are prescribed under Clause 1 (2). The Bill has hitherto provided for consultation, as regards standards of efficiency in Scotland, with the Scottish Central Advisory Council for Fire Services—a body which will include representatives of Scottish county and town councils. In order further to safeguard the position of local authorities an Amendment to Clause 24 has been put down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, which will make it compulsory upon the Secretary of State, before making any Order prescribing standards of efficiency, to consult not only that Central Advisory Council but also such associations representing county or town councils as appear to him to be concerned, and, in addition, any individual county or town council with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable. This new provision, coupled with the fact that Orders prescribing standards of efficiency are open to challenge and annulment by Parliament, give local authorities full protection against the imposition of impracticable or unduly onerous requirements. In these circumstances, and in view of that further explanation, I very much hope that the noble Earl will feel inclined to withdraw his Amendments.
  THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I am glad I have raised the question, because we have had a very full and lucid explanation of the clause and of the Bill from my noble friend Lord Strathcona, and also because my noble friend Lord Airlie, who lives in Angus, which is one of the counties I had in mind as being mostly a Highland county, is satisfied. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendments.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Third Schedule[Enactments Repealed]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the two next Amendments are both drafting and I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 29, line 35, at end insert—

  ("25 & 26 Vict.c.ccv.

  The Salford Improvement Act, 1862

  Section two hundred and seventy-four, so far as it relates to payments by owners of property.")

  Page 31, third column, line 6, at beginning insert ("and of a").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BACON INDUSTRY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to make one or two preliminary observations before dealing with the merits of the Bill. The first is that in what I say this afternoon I claim to be speaking on behalf of some forty women's societies in the United Kingdom and about 120 women's societies in the Dominions, all of which are composed of representative and responsible women. I may add that the Bill also had the support last week of the International Council of Women which met in Edinburgh and which represented thirty-one nations. The second observation of a preliminary character that I desire to make is this. I beg your Lordships not to regard the comparative brevity with which I hope to address the House as commensurate with the importance of this subject. If I were to attempt to deal fully with all the constitutional problems which are involved, and with the legislation and attempted legislation which has taken place with regard to the nationality of married women, or were I even to recite the various conventions and conferences, national, international, and Imperial which have been held regarding this matter, then I should make an unpardonable inroad on the time of your Lordships' House. All I can hope to do, and all I propose to do, is to give your Lordships
1128
some short account in, so to speak, tabloid form, of these matters, and then to present the argument for the Bill as shortly and succinctly and, I hope, fairly and temperately as I can. The last preliminary observation I desire to make is that I regret that the form of the Bill is somewhat obscure, in fact to a lay mind, I should think, almost unintelligible; but I have been advised that in order that this measure should fit in with what I might call the jigsaw puzzle of the series of Statutes which deal with the nationality of married women the Bill had to take this particular form.
The Bill deals, as I say, with the thorny question of the nationality of married women. To-day, as your Lordships are aware, an alien woman, on marrying a British man, ipso facto becomes herself a British subject. On the other hand a British woman who marries an alien loses her British nationality if, by reason of her marriage, she acquires the nationality of her husband. In other words, the question of whether or not a British woman who marries an alien loses her nationality depends on the law of the State of which her husband is a national. The principal purpose of this Bill is to restore to the British married woman the right to retain her nationality when she marries an alien, and to restore the corresponding right to an alien woman who marries a British subject.
There are four propositions which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to submit and, I hope, to establish, because they appear to me to be of the first importance in connection with this subject. The first is of this character. I said a few moments ago that this Bill proposes to restore the right of a British woman who marries an alien to retain her nationality and to restore the right to an alien woman who marries a British subject to retain her nationality. "Restore" is tile right word, for it cannot be too strongly emphasized that up till comparatively recently, by the Common Law of England, the marriage of an alien woman to a British man, or of a British woman to an alien, left the question of nationality entirely unaffected—that is to say, if a British woman married an alien she remained British, and if an alien woman married a British subject she remained an alien. It was not until the year 1844,

1129
by virtue of a Statute passed in that year, that an alien woman on marrying a British subject became herself a British subject. It was not until an Act passed in 1870 that a British woman, for the first time in British history, on marrying an alien lost her British nationality and herself became an alien. It is very difficult to discover at this time of day precisely why these changes in the law were made. The debates in both Houses do not show clearly or distinctly why this thing was done. The question of the right of an alien to hold property in this country was very much in the forefront in the course of the debates in 1870, but, on the other hand, very little importance seems to have been attached at that date to the nationality of a British woman who married an alien. Incidentally, I may add that the passport system as we know it was not then in use. I desire, therefore, as my first proposition to stress that this Bill sets out not to confer a new right, but to restore an old right.
The second proposition is this. The Bill seeks to equalise the position of the sexes in the eyes of the law. To-day a natural-born British man cannot lose his nationality except by his express and deliberate choice—in other words, unless he applies for, and is admitted to, naturalisation in a foreign country. Further, a British woman, until her marriage, enjoys the same right as a British male subject. On the other hand, a British woman who marries an alien forfeits her British nationality and all the privileges attached to it, subject to the one condition which I stated a few moments ago. She is refused a British passport, and she loses her right to vote in municipal or Parliamentary elections, or to be elected to a municipal or Parliamentary body. When she is abroad she is refused the protection of the British Government, and when she comes home and seeks for a post in this country she is very often brought under the ban which prevents the employment of aliens here. Even though she has never left this country, and cannot speak a word of the language of her alien husband's country, she is nevertheless doomed to perpetual alienage. There are other disabilities which I could recount, but I do not wish to delay your Lordships' House by doing so. I can sum it up in a sentence by saying that the British woman married to art alien is classed with minors
1130
and lunatics and becomes a mere chattel in the household. I venture to think that such a doctrine to-day is repugnant to all enlightened and unprejudiced minds. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reciting the painful and harsh cases which have come to one's knowledge in this connection. Within the last few weeks I have had under my personal observation several cases of intolerable indignity, of hardship, and indeed tragedy, inflicted upon British married women who have married aliens, by reason of the operation of this law. These cases are no doubt comparatively limited in their number. I venture to think that, had they been more numerous, the British women of to-day would not have had so long to wait as they have for the remedy which they seek.
So much for the position of a British man who marries a foreign woman. Now take the case of a foreigner who marries a British woman. Before a foreigner is admitted to British nationality he must take the Oath of Allegiance, and he must fulfil certain other specified conditions. That also applies to an unmarried foreign woman. But in the case of a foreign woman who marries a British subject she has British nationality thrust upon her whether she wishes it or not, and whatever her loyalties may be to the country of her origin. As we know, the present law, moreover, enables women to become British subjects who would not otherwise be allowed to remain in this country. These doctrines, and the practices which have followed upon them, humbly appear to me to be obnoxious, not only to the spirit of the age, but to the spirit of justice as well.
It is not surprising in those circumstances to find that the proposals which are contained in this measure have had the unqualified and authoritative support of His Majesty's Government in times which are quite recent. If your Lordships will bear with me just for a few moments, I want to document that proposition if I can. On April 15, 1929, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, on the eve of a General Election, made the following statement to a deputation which he received from women's societies of the United Kingdom. He said he agreed with the following proposal—namely:
"A British woman who marries an alien shall not automatically lose her nationality. A foreign woman who marries a British sub-

1131
ject shall not have British nationality imposed upon her unless she applies to be admitted as a British subject; and a married woman shall no longer be classified in the nationality laws with minors and lunatics, as a person under a disability, but shall be deemed competent to apply for and be admitted to British nationality in her own right."
That was the Prime Minister's enunciation in 1929 of the policy of His Majesty's Government of the day.
Again, in 1930, on the eve of the Codification Conference which was summoned by the League of Nations, and which took place at The Hague, the Foreign Secretary in this country, in a letter addressed to the Six Point Group, stated:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in principle in favour of the policy with regard to the nationality of married women with which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald expressed his agreement on the occasion of the deputation of women's societies received by him in April, 1929, and that the delegation of the United Kingdom be instructed to endeavour to obtain the adoption of this policy by the Conference."
Again, if I might trouble your Lordships with another short quotation, in 1930, during the Second Reading debate on a similar Bill to this in another place, the Home Secretary—I have already quoted the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, and we now have the Home Secretary—speaking for the Government of the day, said:
"I would like to express in the most emphatic terms the approval of the Government of the principle embodied in this Bill."
Then he added:
"If a Second Reading is given to this Bill, I shall regard it as a demonstration of a principle which is acceptable to all."
And yet again—and this is a most important episode in the history of the matter—the first National Government, at the Assembly of the League of Nations, held at Geneva in 1931, through the mouth of their delegate, Dame Edith Lyttleton, made the following declaration of policy. It is only a sentence, but it is a most important sentence:
"The British Government considers that it is right that all disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed, and that, in so far as nationality is concerned, a married woman should be in the same position as a man, married or unmarried, or any single woman."
And in 1933—and this is my last quotation—in the House of Commons during a debate on the Nationality and Status of
1132
Aliens Bill of that year, this declaration which I have just quoted was read and acknowledged by the Home Secretary to embody the policy of His Majesty's Government. This policy, if I may respectfully say so, is a just and right policy, but it is entirely out of accord with the present laws of our country. It is to be noted also that the policy thus enunciated so clearly and authoritatively by successive representatives of the Government of the day has never been renounced or repudiated or modified in any way by any subsequent Government. Accordingly, we have had any amount of sympathy, but very little or no action.
My last point in this connection is to indicate to your Lordships what has happened in this matter of nationality in other countries. During the last twenty years great progress has been made in nearly every other country in the extension of nationality rights to married women. In 1918 the rule in most of the European countries and in most of the North American States was that the nationality of a woman followed the nationality of her husband, but that was never the law in the Southern States of America, or at least in the greater number of them, where the rule always has been that the national status of a woman remains unaffected by her marriage. Now Russia, in 1918, gave married women the same nationality rights as men. The United States of America, in 1922, passed similar legislation. Since 1929 China has allowed her woman nationals to retain their nationality on marriage with aliens. That means that States in whose territories are comprised half the population of the world permit a married woman to retain her nationality on marriage with a foreigner. Belgium, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Albania and Cuba have all conferred similar rights on their nationals, and, I may add, with certain and no doubt important exceptions, Sweden. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and France have conferred similar rights upon their woman nationals. Accordingly, this country, I venture to say, lags far behind all these other countries which I have named in refusing nationality rights in her own person to a married woman, and lags far behind, I would venture to add, in the pursuit of a policy of equality and justice.
All this being so, I feel entitled to ask: What reasonable objections can be taken

1133
to the proposals which are embodied in this measure? The first, which I have heard urged, is that there should be only one nationality in one family. Having regard to the rights of men today, this argument hardly seems to me to be tenable. In essence it involves and postulates that the woman should be a subordinate partner in the marriage and should be the mere chattel of her husband—a doctrine which would surely not find favour to-day. The second objection taken is that it would be troublesome to accord protection abroad to the British-borne wife of an alien husband. I ask respectfully: Why should women be denied that particular privilege solely on the ground of their sex? A British man and his alien wife are given their passports and have at least that measure of protection afforded to them. Argentina gives to her women subjects abroad—I am quoting—"succour and aid from the representatives of the Republic." Is it really to be suggested that this country should lag behind the law and the practice of Argentina?
But, my Lords, I venture to think that the chief line of opposition to-day—and I shall not be surprised if I hear it in a few minutes from the Front Bench—will be based upon a plea for uniformity of nationality within tie British Empire. In other words, it is what we lawyers would term a dilatory plea and not a plea upon the merits. That was made quite plain in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House in 1933 by Viscount Sankey, the then Lord Chancellor, when he said:
"The reasons which prevent the Government from taking this matter up at the present time"—
that is the subject of the present Bill—
"are not reasons connected with the intrinsic advantages or disadvantages of the proposal. They are quite different reasons, based on the Imperial character of our nationality law, and on the impracticability, at the present time, of securing agreement on other points than those dealt with in this Bill."
Then the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, added in words which are, I venture, to think, significant to-day:
"I certainly hope to sec the day, at no distant time, when all these grievances"—
that is, the grievances which this measure seeks to remove—
"will be removed."
We are still waiting for the arrival of that day. The object of the present Bill, as
1134
I have indicated, is to place both sexes on the same footing in the eye of the law, and also to place the married woman in the same position in this regard as the unmarried woman.
May I with your Lordships' permission, examine just for a moment a little more closely the argument which the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, used in urging upon the House the acceptance of the Bill which was then promoted by His Majesty's Government? The argument is based on two things and two only. It is based, firstly, on the uniformity of nationality. It is based, secondly, on the importance of obtaining Imperial agreement as a condition precedent to this reform. With regard to the uniformity of nationality, that argument seems in my humble view to be no longer acceptable. If I am not misinformed, uniformity of nationality throughout the Empire no longer exists. There is nothing new in having British nationality recognised in one part of the Empire and not recognised in another part of the Empire. By the adoption of new legislation in New Zealand and Australia, rights of British nationality are being conferred on many women who are still aliens in other parts of the Empire. In short, it is eminently arguable that to-day uniformity has ceased to be a characteristic of British nationality.
Then, with regard to the consent of the Dominions, the second ground upon which Lord Sankey based his argument, I venture to say that it is anomalous and worse that this reform, approved and applauded by successive British Governments in the past time and again, should be held up until the last and most reactionary Dominion has come into line. It does seem to me unmaintainable that one Dominion of the British Empire should claim the right to veto the progress in this matter of all the other parts of the British Empire. I do not know in the least which Dominion or what Dominions is or are to-day holding up this reform. Information on that topic has hitherto been refused us. It was refused in another place during the debate on nationality which took place in 1933. What we do know is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India favour this reform. Surely justice to women should not be subservient to a uniformity which is based on injustice. In that connection I would respectfully ask whether

1135
there was consultation with the Dominions when the Acts of 1844 and 1870 were passed—Acts which revolutionised the whole question of nationality.
But, assuming that I am wrong in all that I have said up to now, I still think that I am entitled to ask the Government, as I most respectfully do, what action they propose to take in order to give effect to a reform which in principle they in the past have applauded and described as just and right. Will the Government not take us into their confidence and tell us which Dominion or Dominions are in the meantime holding up this reform? That information, has, up till now, been denied this country. Do the Government, I respectfully ask, propose to sit with folded hands and let events drift, or will they not once again summon an Imperial Conference, put nationality in the forefront of the agenda, announce their policy, which has always been to reform the law in the direction which I have mentioned, and endeavour by argument to persuade the dissenting Dominions if there be such—and I assume there are—into line? In other words, will the Government not give a lead in this matter? If they do, for my own part I have little doubt that we should not have long to wait for the reform which is desired. Surely in a matter which involves a conflict of vital principle such as this it is better to be in the vanguard than the rearguard! I cannot imagine, if I may respectfully say so, a more eloquent gesture on the part of His Majesty's Government than by assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, even if it had added to it a suspensory clause, to the effect that it should not come into effective operation until the Dominions came into line. At any rate, I do beg that a lead should be taken by the Government in this matter to give effect to the policy which they have long approved and indeed applauded.
I come now for a moment to refer to the Bill itself and I do not propose to detain your Lordships by going through the clauses. Those of your Lordships who have looked at the Bill will see that it is prefaced by a Memorandum, which, it seems to me, fully explains the contents of the measure, in so far as it is necessary to do so on Second Reading, and all other points can be discussed quite properly at the Committee stage.
1136
I apologise to your Lordships for having detained the House so long in dealing with this measure. My only excuse must be the supreme importance which I conceive to be attached to it. In conclusion I venture without hesitation to submit for acceptance three propositions. The first is that to enjoy nationality in one's own person is a fundamental political right. The second is that nationality should not be imposed upon, nor taken away from, any adult citizen of either sex without the express consent of that person. The third is that to await, without effort to secure it, the concurrence of the Dominions in this matter would be a spineless, a pusillanimous and a defeatist policy, and I cannot for a moment think that His Majesty's Government would adopt it. I venture to think that these propositions are fully documented and unimpeachable. I earnestly ask the Government to reconsider their passive attitude in this vital matter and to take active steps to bring about a reform which all their Ministers who have addressed their minds to this matter in the past have approved and applauded, and which I venture to think commends itself to the good sense and the sense of fair play of every right-thinking man and woman. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alness.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, for a moment or two I want to say a word on this very important measure on behalf of the Opposition. We support the general principles of this measure, and we hope very much that this House will give a Second Reading to the Bill. I personally regret very much that the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill has done it so very late in the Session, because of course it makes it, apparently, impossible that it can in fact get through this Session. I hope, however, that I may be mistaken in that view, and that whoever speaks for the Government will be able to give us an indication in that regard. But in any case I think to introduce a Bill of this importance at this very late stage, two or three days before the Recess, might conceivably make it appear that the Bill was not considered of that importance which I think it really possesses. In my opinion the Bill is of so great an

1137
importance that it is regrettable that it has come in so late.
The noble Lord mentioned particularly in his speech the question of the vetoing of legislation by the Dominions. I seem to remember that when we were debating in this House the Statute of Westminster in 1931 or 1932, it appeared to be the case that the Dominions might or might not adopt legislation introduced into this Parliament, either adopting it as introduced here, or, as in the case of the Union of South Africa, embodying such legislative proposals in their own law because of their non-recognition of any laws passed by the British Parliament in this country. I think it would be interesting if we could have from the representative of the Government just a word of what is the actual position with regard to the Dominions in this matter. If, of course, the position is as the noble Lord appeared to suggest: that any one Dominion can in fact veto legislation in the British Parliament here, that position would seem to be intolerable and, I should think, entirely unexpected. It would at least be interesting to know how the position stands.
The noble Lord said that he was only going to make a tabloid speech. I think it was a very digestible tabloid, if I may venture to say so, because he did give a most interesting and valuable historical survey of the position that we can now have on record. In particular he referred to some of the older debates on this subject of many years ago in both Houses, and suggested that no importance was at that time given to the nationality of British women who married foreigners—that it did not appear to be considered. It is, of course, conceivable that it was felt that so few British women would ever take such a lamentable step as to marry some foreigner that the number of cases was very small. But at least we must remember that it is almost normal in such few Royal families as remain in the world for foreign marriages to take place, and therefore we cannot dismiss as of negligible importance the marriages taking place between foreigners. In consequence it is of vital importance that the law should be put upon a just basis in connection with this matter.
The noble Lord suggested that this was in a way a reversion to the question of the private property in women, the chattel
1138
status of women. Of course I am bound to say it does appear in some way to follow that line of thought. I think, however, that men would desire to divest themselves of this responsibility for frequently undesirable or risky property over which they have little or no control, and that position in law has already been recognised by such legislative proposals as the Married Women's Property Act and other matters which have been dealt with in the British Parliament. In the United States of America a woman, of course, is considered a human being and can retain her American citizenship. She can also assume the nationality of the foreigner she marries, and the curious case arises that a number of American women who have married foreigners have two passports—a most useful situation in case of certain activities and very valuable to American women, but, as far as I know, not existing in the case of the women of any other nationality. In Britain the one case, apparently, as far as I know, in which British women do not assume the nationality of their husband is when that husband has no nationality. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, does laugh at that, and yet there are a considerable number of people in that position to-day.
EARL STANHOPE: I was only laughing at the suggestion that she should adopt a nationality which does not exist.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Earl explains his amusement, and I join with him in being amused. At the same time, I am not unaware of the tragedy of women who might even desire to assume a nationality did it exist. For example, there are a number of persons, such as Russian refugees, who are living in this country who hold only Nansen passports and therefore have no nationality. They are Stateless persons, and if a British woman marries one of these persons she does in fact retain her British nationality. That has been a very great difficulty in other countries. In France, for instance, there are a considerable number of cases of Stateless persons who are living illegally. When they many, the woman dare not announce her marriage, and any children born cannot be French citizens, as they would be normally, because were the child registered the legal position of the refugee

1139
would become apparent and he would be liable to be removed from the country under the position of the law which existed before the Décret de Loi of May 2 this year, which has to some extent regularised this position. But clearly the anomaly of certain cases in which a woman may retain British nationality on marrying an alien—if a Stateless person can be considered to be an alien in this connection—is a position which I think might be, in the interests of uniformity, cleared up.
We then have the position of a British woman who marries a foreigner and takes on his nationality and then is divorced, and I understand there are differing laws in different countries as to the unhappy position in which that woman finds herself. She cannot then retain the nationality of the country in which she finds herself, and as far as I understand the matter, she has a difficulty in returning to a British nationality. I hope I am wrong in that, but that is as I understand it. This peculiar position of obtaining nationality by marriage has led to a number of very curious anomalies. Take, for instance, the position in Palestine. In Palestine, it is interesting to note, there is the highest proportion of divorces in any country in the world, because a number of persons marry entirely to obtain nationality in that country, and they marry as a sort of arrangement. There are, I think, professional husbands there and, roughly speaking, 40 per cent. of all the people married are divorced within a year. They are married merely in order to obtain citizenship. This is a most undesirable state of affairs, and one which would be dealt with under the clauses of the present Bill.
A case which is nearer home, and which will be well within the minds of many of your Lordships, is the case of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. There a British woman who may have been a prominent and valuable member of Chatham House for many years marries a foreigner, and loses her right to remain a member. She is turned out. On the other hand there may be, from a British nationality point of view, quite undesirable people who marry people of British nationality, and then can become members of Chatham House, attend all its meetings, and even have
1140
access—I do not say it is necessarily abused, but access to information, statements and so on, which are not intended to be public property, but which by this means may become immediately available to other Powers. With the growth of espionage, and of undersirable foreign activities, in this and other countries, and notably in the United States of America, we do find a factor which should not be lost sight of when considering the present state of the law—a factor which would be cured, I think, if the present Bill were to be passed.
In this connection let me remind your Lordships of the new racial theories which are spreading over the world—the theory of retaining the nationality of a man's race when living in other countries. For instance, the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia. There may be a Department of State in Germany for the express purpose of looking after the interests of these Germans living in other countries, and that clearly brings about a state of some difficulty, owing to the divided loyalty in the case of a German woman who marries a British subject, and who has the pull of divided loyalty towards her previous German citizenship and towards her present British citizenship. It would be, I think, desirable to remove that danger and difficulty, which is felt very greatly in some of the mandated territories, such as, for instance, the ex-German South West Africa, in which the present state of the law renders the position difficult if not dangerous. For these reasons, as well as for the reasons adduced by the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, I very much hope that it will be taken as a very serious measure, and that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, although that may be only a preliminary to its subsequent reintroduction at an early date, and that the Bill will then pass into law.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I hope you will pardon me if I detain you for a few moments on a subject with which I had considerable connection during the time I spent in another place. I agree that it is unfortunate that this Bill comes on so late in the Session, although that may be necessary from the point of view of the promoters. I am sorry that we shall not have the advantage of any observations from the Bench directly opposite me. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had intended to speak, but owing

1141
to the alteration in date he is unable to do so to-day, having had to leave for some other public engagement. I think we are very grateful to Lord Alness for bringing forward this proposal on this occasion. I can assure your Lordships that there are thousands of women, I might say hundreds of thousands, who will be equally grateful, for although the effect of this measure will be comparatively small, it proceeds upon a principle to which women all over the world attach the greatest importance—namely, the principle that marriage shall not ipso facto deprive a woman of any of her rights as a citizen.
The most important right possessed by a British citizen is British nationality. He or she obtains it by being born in territory of the British Empire, and so long as he or she commits no offence no one can deprive him or her of that right. It is as complete as was the Roman citizenship of the Apostle Paul, and it is as valuable to us as that was to him. Yet since 1870 our law says that a woman, who commits no crime except that she marries a foreigner, thereby loses that right. Is there any sufficient reason for an act of such cruel discrimination? Personally, I can see none. I have read all the speeches made in this House and the other place on this matter. It has been discussed in Parliament on three or four occasions in recent years, and I have been able to find only one single instance in which the proposal to give a woman freedom to retain her nationality has been controverted on principle. In another place Sir Gerald Hurst, the Member for the Moss Side division of Manchester, argued at considerable length against it, but the whole of his argument was expressed in one sentence. He said:
"I think that when a woman marries a man it is best for them both that she should take his nationality. That was the reason why the change was made in 1870."
Sir Gerald was probably right in assigning this origin to the Act of 1870; but things have moved since then.
At that time a woman's property, on marriage, passed to her husband. In the absence of a settlement she lost control altogether over her own affairs. Moreover, in 1870, women had no political power, and so far as I have been able to learn no woman was consulted when a committee of lawyers proposed this
1142
immense alteration in the position of women. It was regarded by them as merely another step in the normal process of subjection to man, to which all women were expected to submit themselves. During the next forty years, however, these notions were rapidly dissipated, and in 1914, when Mr. Harcourt brought forward his British Nationality Bill, in which it was proposed to re-enact the provisions of 1870, women's associations on all sides protested, and those of us who represented the interests of women in the other place were able to obtain certain modifications in the Bill, which have proved to be of considerable importance. The Government agreed that if the British husband of a British-born wife ceases to be a British subject his wife may retain her British nationality. Also, if a British woman has married an alien and war breaks out between their respective States the wife may resume her British nationality. Furthermore, provision was made whereby in the case of death or dissolution of marriage a woman who was originally British can regain her former nationality.
These alterations, although not all that we desired, made an important breach in the wall of prejudice round the citadel, for if it be once admitted that a woman, on her husband becoming a foreigner, may remain British, there can surely be no objection to a woman on marrying a foreigner exercising a like option. And since then further breaches have been made in this indefensible structure, although we have not yet obtained full recognition of the simple proposition for which we contend. The leaders in this crusade have attacked, one after the other, the League of Nations, the Conference at The Hague and the Imperial Conference. They have also approached the various Governments and Parliaments of civilised countries and have obtained a very considerable measure of success. In the first place, the Hague Conference was induced to make certain important recommendations which have now been accepted and are embodied in the British Nationality Act of 1933. The most important of these is that which enacts that if a British woman on marrying a foreigner does not by the law of his country attain the nationality of her husband, she can retain her British nationality. This concession has affected many

1143
marriages between Canadian women and American men. The one partner is still British; the other still American. No evil results have accrued. The arrangement works well, and, if it does not work, it can easily be remedied by mutual consent of husband and wife. At any rate, it is another nail in the coffin of that antiquated corpse, the Act of 1870. What I may term a home circle with dual nationality has proved to be practicable and unobjectionable from any public point of view, and there is, I submit, no justification for depriving a British woman any longer of her rights, simply because she has committed the crime of falling in love with an American or a Frenchman. In these troublesome days I should have thought that such an Act might be regarded as one of real patriotism.
Secondly, although British Governments have shown themselves very lethargic in relation to this question, public opinion in the rest of the world is alive to its importance. Since it was first raised in connection with the legislation of 1914 the women's organisations in many States have pursued it with intense activity. My noble friend has told the House of a number of countries in which changes of law have been brought about through this agitation. It has even gone so far as to bring about a total change of opinion among Turkish men and women. I believe that we shall find that the Turkish women enjoy this right long before the British women have been given it by Parliament.
Then there is the Imperial Conference. This has already been twice trotted out as the bogey man in the way of any progress. The Government have said, and I am afraid will repeat to-day, that they have tried their best at two Conferences and found it impossible to obtain universal assent to the proposition we have advanced. The Government contend that as the law of naturalisation affects the whole Empire no change should be made unless it is accepted by every member. If this is to be an accepted principle, I fear that the Imperial Conference will prove to be an obstacle in the way of Imperial solidarity rather than a means of common progress: but I submit that this is all the more reason why His Majesty's Government should try by persuasion to
1144
alter the views of any dissentient member. I believe that if a serious attempt were made to urge the acceptance of the principle that a woman on marriage should be free to retain her own nationality, the Dominions would not hold out against it.
We have certain opinions already expressed on behalf of the principal Dominions. In 1932, in a letter from the Department of the Interior of the Australian Commonwealth, addressed to Mr. Nairn, he was informed that:
"in regard to the principle that a woman on marriage shall not lose her nationality or acquire another without her consent the Commonwealth Government is prepared to adopt that principle and to amend its laws accordingly, provided that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and in other self-governing Dominions agree to do likewise."
In New Zealand the Prime Minister said that if Britain made this alteration he would be willing to fall into line with her. As to Canada, the Honourable Hugh Guthrie, at the League of Nations Assembly of 1931, said:
"He believed that his own country would go as far as granting equal rights if the other countries of the world decided to do likewise. The sooner the equality of the sexes was realised, not only in nationality but in regard to all matters of law, the better it would be for the world."
With that approval of those three most important Dominions, surely it is not hopeless for our Government, if our Government chose, to throw their weight alongside those opinions which I have just quoted.
It is not unlikely that they would be able to convince the other Dominions who are hesitating upon this question up to the present moment. As a matter of fact, these Dominions are not waiting for any such consent, for we have in Canada, Australia and New Zealand already legislation which has been passed whereby British-born wives of aliens may retain their rights within those Dominions. They have not waited for unanimity, and I suggest that we need not wait either. If we would pass our own laws in that direction within our own territory I believe the time would very shortly come when all the Empire would rally to the same opinion. In any case, even though the Government should decline to do anything to-day, I hope they will not continue to bury their heads in the sand. May I just quote the words of the Report

1145
of the last Imperial Conference, to which I presume they put their signature? After referring to the discussion that had taken place on the enactment of legislation to provide that the nationality of married women should not necessarily be dependent on that of their husbands, the Report stated:
"It was not found possible to arrive at an agreement in favour of any change in the existing law. While, therefore, the Committee was unable to put forward any recommendations, it was assumed that the matter would be the subject of further consideration by, and consultation between, the respective Governments."
I think I am entitled to ask the Government most respectfully whether they have already given further consideration to this question, and whether any further consultation is going on.
I would join my request to that which has already been made by my noble friend, that there should be some opportunity given by the Government to those who are interested in this question to lay their views before them in sufficient time to prepare the ground for the next Imperial Conference. If Britain gives a definite lead, I am firmly convinced that this measure can be passed into law. I do not believe that any harm will be done even if we go a step or two in advance of one or two of our Colonies; and, as regards other countries, it is useless to wait for them inasmuch as in most of them the laws which regulate nationality are so radically different from those which prevail with us that they could not in any case be assimilated.
May I add one further observation so as to clear away an objection which is often raised in relation to Bills on this subject? People are wont to ask what provision is being made with regard to the nationality of the children. The answer is "None," because this is not the place for such a provision. The nationality of a child is regulated by laws that differ greatly in the different countries. In some places he takes the nationality of his father, in some that of his mother; in others, notably throughout the British Empire, he does not necessarily follow on that of either his father or his mother, but takes his British nationality from the soil on which he first sees the light. The mere fact that the law we are asking for would enable a British woman to retain her rights as a British subject can have very slight effect
1146
upon the ordinary nationality laws of children, and where it does affect them, they could easily be adjusted so as to meet the difficulty. Accordingly I hope I may once more quote the words used by the British Government in 1931, to the effect that the Government consider that in so far as nationality is concerned a married woman shall be in the same position as a man, married or unmarried, or any single woman. That was the announcement made on behalf of the Government which has been quoted by my noble friend, and we beg that they will act on that principle.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alness, who has moved the measure that stands in his name has explained quite fully to your Lordships the purport and intention of the Bill to which he invites the House to accord a Second Reading. Noble Lords will have read the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill, which is a generally accurate statement of the course that British legislation has taken on this question over a period of many years. The Bill, as the noble Lord himself has said, is designed to effect a very considerable alteration in the existing law. I should, in replying on behalf of the Government, like to confine my remarks to a general summary of the course of this subject during the last few years.
Firstly, it is generally admitted that the question of the nationality of married women has been a subject of controversy for a very long time between those people, on the one hand, who consider that a woman's nationality should not be affected by her marriage and those people, on the other hand, who consider that the possession of different nationalities by a husband and a wife is bound to impair the unity of the family. It is, as was stated by noble Lords in the course of this debate, a question which has come before successive Imperial Conferences, and so far we have not been able, nor has it been possible, to secure agreement on proposals for amending the law so as to give women a position more closely approximating to that of men. Your Lordships will know very well that the general principle laid down in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act is, as I think was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, that the wife of a British subject

1147
shall be deemed to be British and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien; but for many years past there have been various exemptions from the principle. Your Lordships will recall that in 1933 an Act was passed providing that a woman should retain her British nationality on marriage to an alien if she did not, by reason of her marriage, acquire her husband's nationality.
The Imperial Conference of 1930, which discussed this question, placed on record these words which, with the permission of the House, I shall read:
"The Conference are satisfied that any proposals for the further modification of the principle of the existing law"—
that was the law of British nationality—
"would fail to secure unanimous agreement."
It is perfectly true to say that consultations took place during 1931 and 1932 in connection with the proceedings at Geneva, and that the United Kingdom delegate did make a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government in September, 1931. The purport of that statement has been mentioned to your Lordships, and I need not repeat it; but it was not made clear, as it should be, that it was stated by the Government that we in this country—that is, the Government—were not prepared to take any action in this matter in the absence of agreement between other members of the Empire.
As to my own views, I feel that if you have a large Empire containing many hundreds of millions of people, each owing common allegiance to the Crown, it is absolutely essential and vital that any legislation on a subject like this should be of a general character, agreed by all the members of the Empire, rather than be of a unilateral nature. If I may for one moment refer to the Act passed by your Lordships' House in 1933, the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, in introducing that measure used these words:
"However important such legislation might seem to those who are impressed, as many of us are, by the grievance which the existing law is liable to cause, the Imperial considerations are more important still, and legislation changing the principle can only be contemplated when such a change becomes acceptable to the Governments and Legislatures of the other members of the British Commonwealth."
This matter was again considered at the Imperial Conference of last year, and it
1148
was not found possible to arrive at an agreement in favour of any change in the existing law.
I should impress upon your Lordships that His Majesty's Government attach the very highest importance to the fact that there must be uniform legislation as regards the conditions governing the acquisition and the loss of the common status of British subject. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that every sympathy will be felt by noble Lords with those women who desire to retain their British nationality and who are unable to do so under the existing law, but in the circumstances, and due to the circumstances, which I have indicated, we regret that we could not possibly see our way to support this Bill or to offer to my noble friend Lord Alness facilities for the passage of it. As I think was indicated in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1937, this subject is one for still further consultation between members of the Empire. I hope that my noble friend will observe that, while His Majesty's Government have every sympathy, we cannot depart from the course which I have indicated to your Lordships this evening, and I hope my noble friend will withdraw the Bill which stands in his name.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Alness replies, may I in a few sentences express my profound disappointment with the reply which has just fallen from the noble Earl who answered for the Government? He said that it was the conviction of His Majesty's Government that legislation in this matter must be universal and not unilateral. That would be all right if there was common agreement among all the Dominions that that principle should be adhered to, but some Dominions are going ahead and making a change. Why should His Majesty's Government lag behind? After all, this is a simple matter of justice, and it does seem to me very unfortunate indeed that His Majesty's Government should be so slow to accord that justice to people who are in very great need of it. I did not venture to address your Lordships before the noble Earl replied, because the case had been so admirably put from other quarters of the House and there was really nothing more to say. I rise now only in order to express, as I have said, my very profound disappointment with the

1149
Government's reply. I would like to add one word of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Alness for his very admirable speech. As the noble Lord opposite said, it seems now that that will be the only good thing we shall get out of this debate. At all events we shall have his statement on record, and it will provide a good reference for anybody who is interested in this subject. I very much regret that the noble Earl has not given a more sympathetic reply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish only to say that there is really nothing to be found out by making a further investigation. If the noble Lord who has just spoken really wants to investigate the subject he will find in the Report of the Select Committee which dealt with the matter, and which was ordered to be printed in 1923, not only a most interesting Report but also a good deal of evidence from people who have gone thoroughly into this matter. It will, I think, satisfy him that this is not a simple matter but one of very great difficulty which requires the greatest consideration. It is quite a mistake to think that it is a subject of a simple and easy character, or that the arguments in favour of the measure introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, are really incapable of an answer.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, perhaps you will permit me a few minutes in which to make one or two observations arising out of the debate that has taken place. In the first place, I want to thank the noble Earl for his very courteous reply, but I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in expressing my extreme disappointment with the terms of the reply made on behalf of the Government. I was disappointed but not surprised, because the reply followed precisely the lines which I ventured to adumbrate and the arguments contained in it I attempted to meet in advance in the course of my speech. I quite realise, if I may say so, what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has just said, that this is not a simple subject. I ventured to make that the starting point in my argument and to impress upon your Lordships, not its simplicity, but its complexity. I have endeavoured to familiarise myself with the various historical steps taken in connection with
1150
this matter. I have read the Report which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has referred to, a very interesting and informative document, in which all the members of your Lordships' House voted one way and all the members of another place voted in the contrary sense. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reiterating the arguments which, I am afraid at too great a length, I have already presented to your Lordships' House. I will only say that at this stage of the Session and in the circumstances in which I find myself, I will not venture to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. With the leave of the House I will withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, before the adjournment of the House I would like to state that as your Lordships know, there is a long Motion on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for discussion to-morrow. I understand that he has been in correspondence with my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, who proposes to reply to that Motion on Wednesday when he replies to other Motions on the Paper in regard to foreign affairs generally. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has agreed to that being done. I only make this statement now so that your Lordships will realise that there is not likely to be a long debate on Lord Davies's Motion to-morrow; at any rate there will be no reply to it then because that reply will be made on Wednesday. In regard to Wednesday, my noble friend Lord Elibank has agreed to ask your Lordships' leave to move his Motion after the Motion of my noble friend Lord Snell. Therefore the order of proceedings, if your Lordships agree to that, will be that the Bishop of Chichester's Motion in regard to post-War refugees will first of all take

1151
place, and my noble friend Lord Plymouth will reply to that. Then Lord Snell will move his Motion on general international affairs, and Lord Elibank will move his Motion in regard to China. Then the debate will take place on those two Motions, to which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will reply at the end of the debate upon them.

AROON KUMAR SINHA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Ordered, That a Commission do issue to examine upon Oath viva voce Gobinda Mohini, Lady Sinha and such
1152
other persons as may be deemed necessary and to take down in writing their answers to the several questions set forth in several Interrogatories annexed to the Commission, and to report the same to the House: and that evidence taken before Mr. Justice Biswas, a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, whom failing, Mr. S. M. Bose, Standing Counsel to the Government of Bengal, be evidence so taken as to comply with this Order of the House, for the purposes required by the Committee for Privileges on the Petition of Aroon Kumar Sinha praying for a Writ of Summons to Parliament.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.