Lords Sitting of 6 September 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has been pleased to create the Right Honourable Sir Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip, Knight, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, a Peer of this Realm, by the title of Viscount Caldecote, of Bristol, in the County of Gloucester, with remainder to the heirs male of his body.
His Lordship, having retired to robe—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then resumed his seat on the Woolsack.
3.19 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before we begin the business which is on the Order Paper of to-day, I ask your permission to say a few words on the changes of Ministers so far as they affect your Lordships' House. First of all, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to say a word as to the retiring Lord Chancellor, Lord Maugham, and to say, I am sure on behalf of all your Lordships but especially on behalf of my noble friends, with very great sincerity, how greatly we have appreciated his courtesy and his helpfulness to us in our work. I fear there have been times when we have caused him some anxiety, and possibly resentment. Accustomed to the measured language and the emotionless restraint of the Courts, our more mobile and searching phraseology in this place perhaps caused him some distress. But we have worked together with great friendliness and we thank him for all the help that he has given to us and express the hope that he will have pleasant memories of his association with us in this House.
It is a very special pleasure to me to welcome as Lord Chancellor Viscount Caldecote, and to congratulate him on assuming the very high office to which he has been called. An old colleague in
1004
another place, a strenuous opponent but an unwavering friend, we have fought many battles, those of us who were his colleagues—I, especially—in another place. He always brought great weight to bear on the argument which passed between us. I wish to assure him that, so far as it is consistent with our duty and our responsibility here, we shall give to him all the co-operation and assistance that we possibly can. We wish him very great happiness in his new responsibilities.
3.22 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I be allowed to add a word to what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Snell? I will not attempt to enumerate all the noble and learned Lords who have sat on the Woolsack since I had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House. They would run well into double figures and I have never ceased to admire the dignity and the eloquence with which they have filled that most important office. I think it is a most fortunate matter for His Majesty's Government that in the appointment by His Majesty of Lord Caldecote to the office of Lord Chancellor, they get the benefit at this moment, when the Navy is in all our thoughts, of his vast, almost unrivalled, experience in matters connected with the Navy; and it is evident to us all that in those matters both his care and his counsel will be of value. I would also like to join the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in assuring your Lordships of the respect we have all felt for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Maugham, during his term of office, and His Majesty's Government are again to be congratulated on still having the benefit of his vast experience and his incomparable legal acumen. Like the noble Lord, I wish the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack every possible prosperity in his office.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I, in one sentence, associate myself, representing the Spiritual Peers, with what has been said with his wonted felicity by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and with what has fallen from the noble Marquess? It is a very special pleasure to me that we

1005
have on the Woolsack not only a distinguished lawyer and a very able administrator, but, if I may say so, a much valued personal friend.
3.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CALDECOTE): My Lords, words would be inadequate to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, the noble Marquess, the most reverend Primate and to your Lordships on this occasion. I desire to thank the noble Lord, the noble Marquess and the most reverend Primate for their most generous words. Encouraged by them, I hope I may have wisdom to discharge my duties and, although I know that I shall often need the forbearance and indulgence of your Lordships, I submit myself to the service of your Lordships' House.
3.27 p.m.
LORD MAUGHAM: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for and touched by the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord, the noble Marquess and the most reverend Primate. With regard to them, so far as I am concerned, I must say that I am merely conscious of having done my duty so far as it was within my power. Nevertheless, I shall long remember with gratitude the observations to which I have referred, and I will add this, that I shall never forget the uniform courtesy and kindness with which your Lordships have treated me during my time on the Woolsack, and also the fact that my shortcominngs have always been treated with a blind eye. I thank your Lordships very deeply.

THE SINKING OF THE "ATHENIA."
3.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they are now able to give any further information as to the sinking of the s.s. "Athenia," the casualties, the number of survivors, and in particular the cause of the disaster.
EARL STANHOPE: Yes. Statements have now been taken on oath from the Chief Officer and numerous survivors, both British and American, which enable a fuller picture to be given than was possible on Monday. I regret to inform
1006
your Lordships that the disaster may prove to be of greater magnitude than was indicated by earlier reports. As far as can be ascertained, there were on board 1,418 persons, of whom 315 were crew and 1,103 were passengers, some 800 of whom possessed British or European passports, and over 300 possessed passports of the United States of America. It is now clearly established that the disaster was due to an attack, without warning, by a submarine. At 7.45 p.m. local time on the night of Sunday, September 3, a torpedo struck the ship abaft the engine room on the port side, when she was 250 miles north-west of the coast of Ireland. Soon after the torpedo struck the ship the submarine came to the surface and fired a shell which exploded on "C" deck. The submarine cruised around the sinking ship, and was seen by numerous persons, including American survivors who have given affidavits to this effect.
The House will realise that owing to the nature of the disaster accurate details of the number or the names of the victims cannot yet be ascertained. No estimate can be made as to how many were killed at the first explosion, nor as to the numbers drowned by the reported capsizing of several boats after the passengers had taken to them. Survivors have been picked up by two British destroyers, by the steamships "Knute Nelson" and "City of Flint," and, it is hoped, by a Swedish yacht. At present some 125 passengers and crew are unaccounted for. It is still possible that a number of these may be aboard the Swedish yacht. Every effort is being made, by wireless and otherwise, by the Admiralty and the Donaldson Atlantic Line, the owners of the ship, to ascertain the names of the survivors. The s.s. "Athenia" was not defensively armed—she carried no guns, and her decks had not even been strengthened for this purpose. The House will wish me, I know, to convey on their behalf our profound sympathy with the relatives of those who may have been bereaved by this outrage and also to those who at this moment are racked with the anguish of uncertainty and suspense.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, may I associate them and myself with the expression of sympathy which has just fallen from the noble Earl? May I ask him two further questions? First, what steps His

1007
Majesty's Government now propose to take in view of this atrocious crime? The noble Earl will remember that he said the War Cabinet would be considering this matter and would take the necessary steps as soon as the facts were established if they proved to be as it was originally believed they were. We want to know what is being done about it. We place great importance upon that as upholders of International Law. I speak for all my noble friends and for the whole of my Party. We do not just want expressions of outrage. We want this sort of thing stopped, and there is international machinery for bringing it to an end. That is a matter that requires very careful legal and diplomatic consideration. The noble Earl is better aware than I am of the means which exist for that purpose. I do not speak of reprisals. I speak of legal machinery for bringing these crimes home. I must not be taken, on behalf of my noble friends, as advocating reprisals, though they are not ruled out if they are of a legal, recognised kind.
The second question is this. I know what the answer will be, but it is just as well that the public, and the seafaring community in particular, should be quite certain. Is it not a fact that the seamen and officers who were lost in the course of their duty, injured or killed, are entitled to compensation under the emergency legislation we have passed during the last few days, despite the fact that the ship sailed before the outbreak of hostilities?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, I am not yet in a position to say what action the War Cabinet are proposing to take in the matter, but of course, as he himself said, there is one thing we certainly shall not do, and that is attack merchant ships belonging to the German nation in the way in which they attacked the "Athenia." Such other steps as will be taken will, I trust, prove adequate, but that is not one of them, as the noble Lord is the first to recognise. As regards the second question, I think I am correct in saying that undoubtedly these officers and men in the "Athenia" are covered by the legislation we passed a few days ago. I have not had time to look into the matter, because I did not know the noble Lord was going to raise it, but I am perfectly certain that from the moment the
1008
crisis began, whether a ship had sailed or not, it would be covered by the legislation your Lordships agreed to recently.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I am sorry I did not give him notice that I was going to ask this question, but time was rather pressing. May I remind him that my noble friends and I raised this question of compensation being made retrospective in this way, and that a satisfactory assurance was given by the Government that they believed that to be the case? Therefore there should be no difficulty.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not think there is any doubt, but we have passed so much legislation in the past few days that it is difficult to keep it all in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I ask my noble friend at what time the disaster occurred?
EARL STANHOPE: At 7.45 p.m. on Sunday, September 3.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That would establish the fact that it was broad daylight, and that all the statements which have been obtained are obvious facts.
EARL STANHOPE: It was getting towards evening, but there must have been plenty of visibility, particularly at sea.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Visibility must have been perfect because this was two hundred miles west of Ireland, which means two hours difference. I want to emphasize that to show that the statements made by the witnesses are obvious facts.
A NOBLE LORD: It was 7.45 p.m. local time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LIABILITY FOR WAR DAMAGE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill deals with a group of cases in which the goods of one person are in the possession of another. The question always arises, when damage takes place in these circumstances, as to the liability for repair or for payment in respect of the damage. The Bill deals with cases of damage by war. The position in Common Law may be stated very broadly and generally. It is that the person who is in possession of the goods—called the bailee—is only liable in the event of his negligence having caused the damage; that is to say, he would be under no liability to repair or make good war damage. There are two exceptions to that rule—that he keeps the goods after the bailment or possession of the goods should have been terminated or he departs from the terms of the contract, say, by removing the goods to a place not authorised by the owner of the goods. But, in general, the position of goods is regulated or decided in such cases by a special contract which may contain an absolute undertaking that the goods shall be returned at a particular time or in their proper state, and the bailee may be under liability—and very often is—to insure the goods.
Clause 1 of this Bill provides that in all such cases as I have mentioned, except those express contracts to the contrary, which are related to war, the bailee shall not be liable for war damage. That is the rule now proposed in Clause 1, subject to the two exceptions I have mentioned. I propose at a later stage to ask your Lordships to agree to a small Amendment to Clause 1, which will come in at the end of subsection (2), to provide that where there are reasonable grounds for the bailee removing the goods to another place for the purpose of additional security he shall still be entitled to the protection which Clause 1 gives to him. Clause 2 deals with the case of goods on approval or sale or return, and it provides that liability for war damage should not fall upon the buyer. Clause 3 applies
1010
the same principle in the relief of innkeepers from liability, and innkeepers as such will be relieved from having further liability for loss or damage. Clause 4 deals with the case of fire arising from war when the goods have been made the subject of a pledge, and the loss in this case will lie where it falls. The pawnbroker is not to be liable to make any payment in respect of the value of the pledge and unless (in the case of damage) the pawnbroker redeems the pledge he shall not be liable to repay the loan.
Clause 5 deals with the same principle applied to a rather different subject matter. It applies to Customs Duty and Excise Duty, and the provisions contained in Clause 5, subsections (1) and (2), deal with the case where the goods are entirely lost by war and where the goods are damaged by war. The duty will not be chargeable where the goods have been lost by war before the duty has been paid. In the case of damage by war where the duties are chargeable upon the value of the goods, the value upon which the duty is payable will be the damage value. Where the duty is assessable upon the weight or quantity of the goods the goods may be abandoned if the owner so pleases to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and thereupon the duty shall not be chargeable; otherwise it will be upon the full rate of duty notwithstanding the damage to the goods. The Bill applies to Scotland and the other provisions that are contained in the Bill are for that purpose. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.42 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we do not offer any opposition to this Bill, but I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount, The Lord Chancellor—if he will excuse my ignorance—to tell me the meaning of the Latin phrase in Clause 6, page 4, line 4—locatio operis faciendi. I apologise for my Latin being so rusty, but probably the noble and learned Viscount has been using Latin more recently in his legal work, and perhaps he will tell others of your Lordships who might be as ignorant as I am—there are not many I am sure—what exactly it means. That will save whoever takes this

1011
Bill in another place a similar explanation. As their time is less valuable than ours, if that is done now it will help us to get the Bills back so that we can get on with the more important work.
That is the only question I venture to ask the Lord Chancellor, but I want to take this opportunity on behalf of my Party of raising a matter of principle. This Bill now says that the person who otherwise would get compensation because of losses for war damage is not to get compensation. That, in a sentence, is what it is. Therefore in any case that person loses. On the other hand, we have passed legislation insuring warehousemen who keep stocks needed for the nation at the present time, insuring grocers keeping extra foodstuffs who suffer loss through war damage, and we also insure shipowners, of whom I see several present amongst your Lordships. The moment they have a ship lost at sea they get the value of the hull and so on. But we are not yet in possession of the Government's intentions. We do not want to complain about this. I only want to press this point now as it is apposite. We are not in possession of the Government's intentions with regard to damage to ordinary property, hereditaments, and so on, and this matter has been for a long time exercising the minds of a number of small property owners and large property owners as well. We raised this matter in your Lordships' House before the outbreak of war. The Government, when they were pressed, eventually said that they were going to appoint a Committee of business men. I do not remember whether they were appointed or not, or, if they were appointed, who they are. I would be glad to know if it is intended still to appoint these business men to look into this matter of compensation for war damage to ordinary property.
EARL STANHOPE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I understand the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is to ask a private notice question about that to-morrow.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not know about that, and I do not want to anticipate what the noble Viscount has to say about it. I will say nothing about
1012
the Committee, but I want to say something on the broad question, and I am sure the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches will be glad to support me in principle. The Government have made very heavy weather about this question. I speak as a property owner myself, and I know I speak for thousands of property owners in the country. We are quite prepared to subscribe at once to a fund and to take out of that fund, if we have to make claims upon it owing to loss by war, what the fund will bear. It does not matter as long as there is some fund and we know we can get some compensation if our property is destroyed by enemy action. There really should not be any difficulty about this. The business men I have spoken to, and those who have written letters to The Times newspaper, have pointed out that there should not be any difficulty or delay. We want to know that there is to be some compensation.
On the occasion of the last War the Government had an insurance scheme of this kind, and they made a profit of £10,000,000 out of it, which was very good for the general taxpayer. It worked perfectly well. A great deal of damage was done by enemy aircraft in various parts of the country, particularly in cities like Hull, which I represented at that time, and where the damage was very great. It was not known how great was the damage, but it was all compensated for in due course. What we do not want is to have to wait perhaps for years until the Government have assessed what is the whole amount that has to be paid and how much money there is to pay. In the meantime, many property owners may be ruined. I speak particularly for the small property owners whose houses are perhaps destroyed and who will have to whistle for the money. We will pay our shot. We will pay into a general fund. We will not expect to get the whole of the compensation at once, but we want something at once to enable us to get some relief for the damage suffered.
In saying this, I speak what is felt by thousands of small property owners, including workingmen who are buying their houses on an instalment plan and who will be ruined if their houses are destroyed and they get no compensation. I only want to take this opportunity of seeing that this question is at present in the minds of the

1013
important members of the Government who sit in your Lordships' House so that when other things have been taken care of perhaps they will be able to appoint someone to look after this matter. I know perfectly well that I am speaking not only for my Party, who feel very strongly about it, but also for large property owners in the country. I hope we shall get some comfort from the reply of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me the meaning of a phrase that appears in this Bill applying the Bill to Scotland. The term is a Scottish phrase, although it is in Latin. I understand that it refers to a case in which the person who has possession of the goods is under contract to perform some work upon them. With reference to the other question asked by the noble Lord, I can assure him that the Government have been alive to the difficulty of this question. It is under constant consideration, but I can assure him that the circumstances of the last War afford very little guidance to those who are considering the circumstances that may arise in the present war with regard to damage by war. As I have said, the matter is under constant consideration, and the Government will no doubt make a statement when their consideration is ended.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, committed to a Committee of the whole House forthwith.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Liabilities in respect of bailments.
(2) Nothing in this Section shall relieve a bailee of any liability for loss of or damage
1014
to any goods occurring while the goods are being kept or transported in a manner or at a place which is contrary to the terms of any contract relating to the custody or transport thereof.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack announced, there is an Amendment to be moved which he has handed in in manuscript. The Amendment is to page 2, line 5, at end, to insert "unless the bailee satisfies the Court, in any proceedings brought to enforce any such liability, that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods were less likely to be lost or damaged while being kept or transported in that manner or at that place than while being kept or transported in accordance with the teems of the contract."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the Amendment which has just been read. I apologise to your Lordships for not being in a position to have the Amendment printed, but your Lordships are aware of the circumstances in which these Bills are being prepared. It has been thought right, for the reasons I have mentioned, to insert this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("unless the bailee satisfies the Court, in any proceedings brought to enforce any such liability, that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods were less likely to be lost or damaged while being kept or transported in that manner or at that place than while being kept or transported in accordance with the terms of the contract.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Amendment reported.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE AND FIREMEN (WAR SERVICE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
3.52 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill is to safeguard the position of members of a police force or a fire brigade who may serve in His Majesty's forces during the present war. The Bill deals also with some minor points in relation to police and fire services on which emergency legislation is required. Broadly speaking, the provision to be made for the police and firemen is similar to that being made for other services. This Bill closely follows the Order made under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. As regards pay, the police authority or the fire authority are empowered under Clause 1 of the Bill to make the service pay of a policeman or fireman who joins His Majesty's forces up to the rate of pay which he would have received in the police force or fire brigade. Where this is done the appropriate superannuation deductions, amounting to five per cent. of the pay, are to be made.
As regards superannuation, the position is slightly more complicated than is the case with regard to other services. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that if a policeman or fireman who has joined His Majesty's forces is killed or disabled, he or his dependants shall be entitled to the benefit which would have been payable under the existing law if he had died or retired in consequence of an injury received otherwise than in the execution of his duty as a policeman or fireman. The clause also provides that the police or fire authority may in their discretion make a grant at a higher rate so as to bring any grant payable from Navy, Army or Air Force funds up to the special rate of pension or allowance which would be payable if the man had died or been disabled from the result of an injury not of an accidental kind received
1016
in the execution of his duty. The only other provisions of the Bill to which I need refer are those contained in Clause 10 which suspend the right of a member of a police force or fire brigade to retire on pension without a medical certificate except with the consent of the appropriate authority, and Clause 11 which provides that a war injury suffered by a member of a police force or a fire brigade while on duty shall be deemed to be non-accidental and it will therefore attract the maximum rate of pension. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a: Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
4.57 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I propose that we should now adjourn until to-morrow at three o'clock.
LORD SNELL: May I ask if the noble Earl is able to say anything about what the business is likely to be to-morrow?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes, it is proposed that we should take the Import Duties (Emergency Provisions) Bill, the Income Tax Procedure (Emergency Provisions) Bill, the Government and Other Stocks (Emergency Provisions) Bill, the Exchequer and Audit Departments (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the Control of Employment Bill has been postponed.
House adjourned at four minutes before four o'clock.