Lords Sitting of 22 November 1938

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

HER MAJESTY THE LATE QUEEN OF NORWAY.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, it was exactly a fortnight ago that, taking part in the debate in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne, I remarked that the joys and sorrows of our Royal House were so much the joys and sorrows of their people that I felt your Lordships would desire me on behalf of this House to offer to Their Majesties and to the other members of the Royal Family our deep and respectful sympathy on the recent death of His Royal Highness Prince Arthur of Connaught. Once again it is my sad duty to offer to His Majesty, on behalf of this House, our respectful sympathy and condolences on the death of yet another member of the Royal Family.
Her Majesty the Queen of Norway was no stranger to these shores. The last surviving daughter of His Majesty King Edward VII, she was born in Marlborough House, she spent her earlier years in this country as a British Princess, and then, after her marriage in Buckingham Palace, she returned, I believe nearly every year, to her home in Norfolk. It was, therefore, with peculiar satisfaction that the people of this country watched the great place which as Queen Consort she won in the affections of the warm-hearted people of Norway. Endowed by nature with many gifts Her Majesty touched life at many points, whether in the arts, or indoor or outdoor pursuits, the town, the country or the sea. My Lords, the passing of Her Majesty the Queen of Norway necessarily leaves a great gap in her family circle and in the country of her adoption, and therefore it is no mere form of words when in the Resolution which I am about to move this House expresses its deep
124
concern at the loss which our Royal House has sustained. Equally your Lordships will desire to express your profound sympathy with His Majesty the King of Norway and with the Government and people of that country, to whom we are bound by so many ties.
It is perhaps not altogether inappropriate that it should fall to the lot of one who represents the Admiralty in your Lordships' House to move a Resolution conveying our sympathy to a King who is himself an honorary Admiral in the Royal Navy of this country and the ruler of a seafaring race like ourselves. I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Majesty the Queen of Norway; to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the King of Norway, the profound sympathy of this House with His Majesty and the Government and people of Norway.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Majesty the Queen of Norway; to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the King of Norway, the profound sympathy of this House with His Majesty and the Government and people of Norway.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, your Lordships will desire very sincerely to support the Motion submitted with such feeling to the House by the noble Earl. In our double capacities as individuals and as members of this House we wish to assure His Majesty the King of our great sympathy in the loss he has suffered of a revered member of his family. We also desire with equal sincerity to offer our respectful sympathy to His Majesty the King of Norway and to the people of his country in their loss of a beloved wife and Queen. The late Queen Maud was an English Princess, and the story of her life is, of course, known to us all. She was accomplished both as Princess and as Queen. People treasured her friendship and her life was rich both in service and

125
in example. My Lords, I desire to associate my noble friends and myself with the Motion which your Lordships are asked to accept.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, on behalf of those with whom I am usually associated in this House I desire also to express our whole-hearted support of the Motion which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has so admirably placed before us. Perhaps a few words in reference to the accomplishments of the late Queen of Norway may not be absolutely inappropriate. She was a person who was extraordinarily fond of the country of her birth. She was a person whose affection for her relatives and friends was well-known. She was admittedly beloved and admired for attention to her public duties. But she had many other qualities. She was not merely devoted to public work, she was modest and unostentatious in everything that she did. She was amiable in character, and generous. She showed throughout her life a fondness for outdoor pursuits. She was a great gardener. She was fond of the arts. But perhaps what endeared her most to the people of Norway was her great love of animals and children. Those for whom I speak desire to be associated with the expression of sympathy to His Majesty the King of Norway, King Haakon, and also to his son, who has lost his mother as the King of Norway has lost a devoted Consort. At the same time we have sympathy with the Norwegian people in the loss of their Queen, and we desire also to express our humble and dutiful sympathy with our own King and Queen and the other members of the Royal Family in their bereavement.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, allow me in a word or two to associate myself cordially with the words which have been so admirably spoken in remembrance of our own Princess and in sympathy with the King of Norway and their son. There is sadness in the thought that she was the last of the children of that happy home at Sandringham, where the gracious spirit of our beloved Queen Alexandra ruled. It was always a peculiar happiness to her that she was surrounded by the memories of that home in her own neighbouring home in Norfolk. She was always as deeply attached to the land where she was born and where she died as she was
126
to the land where she reigned as Queen. She was a woman, as the noble Lord has just reminded us, of many and varied accomplishments, but she lived, and loved, a simple life withdrawn from the intrusions of publicity: the life of home and of the country, its fields, its flowers, its animals and its people. It was this very gentleness and quietness which, combined with a very real kindliness and warmth of heart, endeared her to the good people of Norway. My Lords, in these days of haste, noise and self-assertion there is some refreshment in the remembrance of a life so quiet, so modest, so unselfish, so steadfast, so single-hearted. As she lived, so now may she rest, in peace.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD THANKERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to solicitors in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Thankerton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LIMITATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I need say little about this Bill. It came before this House for Second Reading on June 27 of this year. In Committee it was subjected to two sorts of Amendment: the first being Amendments which I myself introduced into it to deal with some very technical matters arising under Clause 7 of the Bill as it then stood. It was also subjected to some Amendments in Clause 22, which were moved or suggested by Lord Listowel, and were designed to protect certain public authorities from belated actions based on negligence. These Amendments were duly passed, and the Bill reached its Third Reading on July 13, when it left us for another place.

127
On July 19 it reached a Second Reading in the other place, and then, unfortunately, owing to the lateness of the Session, it got no further. It was therefore incumbent on the Government to introduce the Bill again, and it is now introduced in the form in which it was before your Lordships on a previous occasion, subject to those two sets of Amendments, to Clause 7 and Clause 22, to which I have briefly referred.
In those circumstances I think your Lordships will not desire to hear from me any lengthy introduction to the Bill. Indeed, the topic, if treated with any completeness, would require a considerable time. The Bill is the result of the prolonged efforts of the Law Revision Committee, beginning, I think, in the year 1934, and of the Report which they made as a result of their labours. On the last occasion your Lordships had the benefit of speeches from my noble friends Lord Romer and Lord Wright, both of whom had sat on that Committee, which gave your Lordships some explanation of the reasons for the Bill and showed how desirable it was from the point of view of the law that this amending and consolidating Act should be passed.
Your Lordships will perhaps remember that the Bill deals with twenty different Acts, beginning with one of the reign of Queen Elizabeth and coming down to the year 1934. Six of those Acts are wholly repealed. I think I am right in saying that the Report of the Law Revision Committee contains a statement that the examination of measures running over three or four hundred years showed that the law has now reached a state of almost unbelievable chaos and confusion. I need not, therefore, enlarge upon the necessity for this measure, and I hope your Lordships, bearing in mind what was said such a short time ago, will be willing to give it a Second Reading again on this occasion. I need only add that if any noble Lord desires an explanation of the reason for any of these very complex and technical provisions, I shall be happy, to the best of my ability, to endeavour to give him one. I cannot, however, promise to explain very satisfactorily some of the exceedingly complex provisions which are to be found in this technical measure. I beg to move.
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.

THE COAL INDUSTRY.
VISCOUNT SAMUELhad the following Notice on the Paper: To move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying for a return showing, with respect to the Recommendations included in Chapter XXII of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925), what action, if any, has been taken in each case. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name, I should like to offer a very few observations to your Lordships on the reasons that have led me to commend it to your attention. Let no one think that I put it down as a peg on which to hang any observations relating to the prickly and thorny questions that arise in connection with the coal industry. The purpose of this Motion is expressed in its terms. Perhaps some of your Lordships may have noticed in the Press not very long ago a discussion on the value, or lack of value, of Governmental inquiries, either by Royal Commissions, by Select Committees or by Departmental Committees. The view has been expressed, and is indeed frequently heard, that such inquiries are usually futile, that they are a somewhat costly waste of time, that the Bluebooks which result are pigeon-holed in the Departments, and that in general Royal Commissions and the rest are useless.
No doubt some Reports are without fruit, and it may certainly happen from time to time that Governments, when pressed by some difficult question, and urged to adopt a policy which it is inexpedient to accept and inconvenient to refuse, take refuge in the appointment of a Royal Commission, feeling that at all events it will keep the matter in abeyance for a year or two and give them peace in regard to it. That may sometimes happen, no doubt. On the other hand, looking back on the measures of constructive legislation, certainly of the present century, you will find that a very large proportion of them have been preceded by

129
Governmental inquiries in one form or another. In my experience, which now goes back for a good many years, I recollect very few measures of importance, containing positive, constructive proposals, which have not been preceded by one, and sometimes more than one, inquiry by a Royal Commission, Select Committee or Departmental Committee. It appears to me, and I submit that it is necessary, that the public mind should be disabused of this notion that all such inquiries are waste of time. That idea lowers the prestige of Royal Commissions and other bodies and makes it more difficult to enlist the right type of man and woman to serve on these Committees and Commissions. I suggest that it might be a useful practice if, after a period of years, the results of any inquiry dealing with matters of importance should be reviewed, and a statement made showing what has been done and what has not been done.
In the last Session Parliament passed a measure for the unification, as it was called, of coal royalties. That was one of the principal recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, 1925–6, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, and it occurred to me that this was a suitable time when the public, and especially those sections and interests which are concerned with the coal industry, should be able to review the situation and see how much of that inquiry has in fact resulted in action. It aroused a great deal of interest at the time, and as one of the authors of the Report I may perhaps take a little pardonable satisfaction in the fact that it is one of the best sellers that has ever been published by the British Government, more than one hundred thousand copies having been sold. There were many recommendations in that Report. I believe that a large proportion of them have in fact been carried into effect, and it may be well to revive attention for those recommendations which have not been carried into effect.
It is for that reason that I desire to move this Motion. A Parliamentary Return is a very useful form of presentation, perhaps less used now than it has been in days gone by. If your Lordships will grant this Motion, and if such a Return is published and is found to serve a useful purpose in this instance,
130
it may prove to be a precedent for other cases, and after an interval another Chairman of a Royal Commission, or some member of either House of Parliament, may move for a Return in order to see how much result has followed from other inquiries. Perhaps in time this may become a usual practice, and may prevent the recommendations of inquiries from being left merely to accumulate dust in the pigeon-holes of Government Departments. The form of this Motion should be slightly modified from that in which it appears on the Paper. It seems that a humble Address need be presented only when the Department concerned is the Department of a Secretary of State. The Mines Department is not, and therefore it is only necessary to move that there be laid before the House a Return showing, with respect to the recommendations included in Chapter XXII of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925), what action, if any, has been taken in each case.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing, with respect to the recommendations included in Chapter XXII of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925), what action, if any, has been taken in each case.—(Viscount Samuel.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend in his suggestion, from a general point of view. I have been connected with one or two inquiries of this kind, and I know that it is sometimes rather difficult to get the very best people to serve. When you ask them, they tell you that an inquiry gives one a lot of trouble, one does a lot of work, and nothing comes of it. But, as the noble Viscount has told your Lordships, a good deal comes out of these inquiries, and if it were generally known that results did come out of them I think it would be beneficial from many points of view, especially in encouraging people to serve on inquiries in the future.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I beg to associate myself in support of the Motion. Personally, I feel a little misgiving, after what has been said by the noble Viscount with regard to these Reports, because personally I feel that a lot of them, if given proper binding by the Stationery

131
Office, would be quite as good sellers as H. G. Wells's books. There is just as much romance in them, and they are quite as thrilling. I have a good collection of them, some of which I have read several times. I have been refreshing my mind by reading Chapter XXII of this Report. On the whole, I think the noble Viscount ought to be rather pleased. I remember myself—I think it is rather a record—introducing a Land Drainage Bill which was recommended by a Committee of this House in 1877, and it was not until 53 years afterwards that anything was done about it on the lines of the Committee's recommendations. Here we did have the Government last Session doing something about amalgamation. So far as I am concerned, I remember saying in this House that I did not think that the colliery owners who did not want amalgamation need lose any sleep over the Bill, and I shall be rather surprised if the Return reports any substantial progress in that respect.
There are one or two other points upon which I would make an observation for a moment, because if I did not I should not be true to my faith. If your Lordships will refer to this chapter you will see a number of very invertebrate sentences—if I may say so with respect to the noble Viscount—about nationalisation. I ask your Lordships to think of the world as it is to-day. We have these totalitarian States with their unified control over great industries, directing the increase of their trade in all sorts of directions, and I cannot but think that if we had had the form of organisation of the coal industry which my political friends and I recommended established in this country now, and in working order, we should be able, by appropriate export organisation, to do a great deal to foster the prosperity of the coal trade, which there is not very much sign of at the present time. And I do hope that upon another matter we shall get some information—as to what has been done with respect to research. It is a long time since, at the end of the War, money was voted for the Coal Carbonisation Committee at that time for research into the use of coal, and I think the progress has been disappointingly slow in this country. Other countries certainly are ahead of us.
132
There is one part of this chapter on which I sincerely hope that the Return that is asked for will not be able to report any substantial progress. There is a recommendation there, and it has unfortunately to some extent become the practice of fixing miners' wages according to the selling price of coal. I understand that we are estopped from saying much about paragraph 5 on page 234, dealing with distribution, because there is a Committee inquiring into that question. But it was, and still is I think, a matter of wonder to householders like myself as to why we have to pay more than twice as much for the modest amount of coal we consume as the coal fetches when it reaches the pit top. I hope the Committee which has now been appointed will shed some light on that mystery. I confess that one would wish that more progress had been made in dealing with this matter, which I am quite sure is an obstacle to the increased domestic consumption of coal. I think myself that we ought to adopt the principle that the miner, like any other producer, is entitled to a decent wage and a decent standard of life because he produces the coal, and that his wage should be a first element in the fixation of the price of the coal, and not an accidental sequel of a price fixed in some other way. So far as that method was recommended by the noble Viscount's Commission, I sincerely hope that the Return which is asked for will not show any particular progress in that respect. I think it is an entirely wrong principle, and one from which I hope in due time we shall escape. Nevertheless, I am glad to associate myself with the request of the noble Viscount that this Return be supplied.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Motion which the noble Viscount has moved is one which refers to a Royal Commission set up by the Government in September, 1925. The terms of reference will be in the memory of many noble Lords, and the noble Viscount was himself made Chairman of that Royal Commission. The other members were Sir Herbert Lawrence, Sir William Beveridge and Mr. (now Sir) Kenneth Lee, and their Report was signed on March 6, 1926. The many recommendations which are contained in Chapter XXII of this Royal Commission's Re-

133
port were accepted by the Government of that day, and some were embodied in the Mining Industry Act, 1926, while other proposals were implemented in the Bill of which your Lordships approved last summer.
I think it is undoubtedly true to say that the preparation of a large number of important legislative measures is often preceded by Royal Commissions, Committees of Inquiry, or Departmental Committees, and that inquiries which are undertaken by such bodies are of inestimable benefit in the working of Parliamentary government and the democratic system as we know it. This is, I think, the only way in which the information so obtained could be brought to light, and such inquiries undoubtedly are a useful means for the impartial investigation of every class of question on which Parliament may need to be informed. Illustrations of the work of Royal Commissions are probably in the minds of many noble Lords, but perhaps I might be permitted to give one or two over the period of a century. I think—and I have always thought—that the most remarkable is that of the Poor Law Commission which was set up in 1832, the result of whose labours was the absolute and complete transformation in 1834 of all the principles and methods of poor relief throughout England and Wales. Coming down to modern days, it was last Session that your Lordships approved of the Hire-Purchase Bill, which was drawn up as the result of a Committee's Report. There was the Betting Bill and the Tithe Bill of other years. There was also the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place yesterday. As far as we are aware, all those Commissions and Committees have discharged their onerous duties to the full satisfaction of both Parliament and the public. It may be perfectly true to say that in some isolated cases the recommendations contained in a Report were rejected en bloc by the Government of the day, but in a large number of cases Bills presented to Parliament do embody wholly or partly a number of the recommendations contained in such Reports.
His Majesty's Government are perfectly prepared to accept the Motion of the noble Viscount. I do not wish at this stage to
134
enter into a long discussion again upon the coal industry, but I could not let this moment pass without replying to one question addressed to me by the noble Lord opposite. It may be of some interest to him to know that the money spent by the Department of Scientific and industrial Research in connection with the utilisation of coal stands at a figure of £101,000 for last year. It is not more than fifteen years ago that the expenditure amounted to a figure of just over £30,000. The noble Lord will observe, therefore, that what the Government have done for research into this industry is of a very substantial nature. The Return which will be laid before this House will, I understand, give details of the recommendations which have been carried into effect, and those which the Government have not so far seen their way to embody in legislation. But of the number of recommendations which were made in Chapter XXII of the Royal Commission's Report no less than 75 per cent. have already been implemented by legislation or other means.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in making this Motion and the two others which stand upon the Paper in my name, I ought to say that this is the result of a mistake. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has for many years served on these three Committees in his personal capacity, as Leader of the House, and so forth, but he went off automatically when he became Lord Chancellor; and when he ceased to be Lord Chancellor he again dropped out because he had been an ex-officio member, so he fell between two stools. The matter has only just been called to my attention, and therefore I am moving these three Motions, which I am sure your Lordships will approve of, in order that we may have the advantage of his long experience on these Committees. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Viscount Hailsham be added to the Committee of Selection.—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Viscount Hailsham be added to the Special Orders Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Viscount Hailsham be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five o'clock.