Lords Sitting of 22 February 1944

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
GUARDIANSHIP (REFUGEE CHILDREN) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PRIZE SALVAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Number and distribution of puisne Judges.
1.—(1) The number of puisne Judges of the High Court shall not be less than twenty-five nor more than thirty-two.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, whenever the number of the puisne Judges of the High Court is less than thirty-two a new Judge may be appointed by His Majesty by Letters Patent:
Provided that except in the event of the number of such Judges being at any time less than twenty-five His Majesty shall not be advised to make an appointment to fill any vacancy unless the Lord Chancellor with
864
the concurrence of the Treasury is satisfied that the state of business in the High Court requires that the vacancy should be filled.
(4) A puisne Judge of the High Court may be transferred by direction of the Lord Chancellor from one of the Divisions of that Court to another:
Provided that no direction shall be given for the transfer of a puisne Judge from the King's Bench Division, or from the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, without the concurrence of the president of that Division.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "with the concurrence of the Treasury." The noble Viscount said: I have given notice of an Amendment to the first clause of this Bill. I want to explain that it is not intended in any way to be hostile to the Bill, which I warmly approve and hope will be passed. There is one point, however, which seems to me to be of some considerable importance, in principle at any rate, and this I wish to raise before your Lordships. The Bill provides, as your Lordships know, that in certain circumstances additional Judges are to be appointed in the normal way on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury. The words are these:
"… His Majesty shall not be advised to make an appointment to fill any vacancy unless the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury is satisfied that the state of business in the High Courts requires that the vacancy should be filled."
That introduces the proposition not only that the Treasury can object, but that unless they concur the appointment cannot be made. That means that the Treasury will have the right, and I suppose the duty, to inquire into all the circumstances of the appointment and to decide whether or not it shall be made.
I cannot help feeling that that is a rather objectionable provision. To begin with, the Treasury are of course frequently litigants in the Courts. The one thing that stands between the taxpayer and oppression by the Treasury is the decision of the Courts, and it does seem to me at any rate unsuitable that the Treasury should be entitled to object to or to modify or in principle to decide upon the desirability of any addition to the Judicial Bench, at all events so far as this Bill is concerned. But quite apart from the par-

865
ticular circumstances of the Treasury, I venture to submit to your Lordships that there are very few things which are more important for the constitutional liberties of this country than the maintenance of the complete independence of the Judicial Bench from any interference by the Government of the country. That is a principle which has a very ancient history in this country, going back, at any rate, to Magna Charta, and it is, apart from its antiquity, a principle of the utmost value. Your Lordships will be well aware that wherever a despotic tyrannical Government is created in any State one of the first things that Government does is to obtain control of the Judicial Bench. Hitler did so, as your Lordships remember. He modified to a very serious extent the composition of an ancient Court, a Court which had a very high reputation in legal circles all over the world, putting upon that Court his own nominees to decide on criminal cases brought before it. In this country we have seen, I think with great admiration, that even under the very great stress of the war our Courts have not hesitated to decide, and to say whenever they thought fit, that the Government have exceeded their constitutional rights in any manner. Yet here we are going—not, I agree, for the first time—to say that for an appointment to the High Court the Treasury are entitled to a veto, and will be entitled indeed to exercise it—that is, to decide whether they will exercise it.
I think that is a very serious matter, at any rate in principle. Not long ago we had an important debate in your Lordships' House as to the danger of the Treasury having a measure of control over our Diplomatic Service. I will not go back on that except to say that, if it is desirable to keep the Diplomatic Service free from Treasury control, it is ten times more desirable to keep the Judicial Bench free. I know that two things may be said in answer. In the first place, it may be said that a precedent was established in that rather ill-omened year 1938, when this was done in the case of an appointment to the Chancery Division. In a way, no doubt, that makes it possible to say that this is only carrying out that precedent. But it is important to realize that if we do the same thing again now, it will be established as a definite part of the constitutional machinery of this country that the Treasury should have the right to veto
866
an appointment to the Judicial Bench in any future case, and it may undoubtedly be used, by those who desire to see that done, as a very powerful argument in favour of any future steps in that direction.
The other thing that may be said is that no harm will be done because the Treasury would not dream of interfering in the normal selection of the Judges, and if they were so ill-advised as to do so their action would be immediately overruled by the Cabinet. It is just that kind of thing which is dangerous. You get a principle established on the plea that it will never be misused; but if it is misused you have no remedy. I cannot help hoping that the Government will reconsider this proposal and agree to the omission of the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury." I cannot see that the omission would in any way interfere with the effectiveness of this proposal. On the contrary, it would make the proposal more effective and the Bill easier to work. I submit that anything that even suggests subordination of the Judicial Bench to the Executive Government in this country is a very dangerous precedent to create. I hope therefore that the Government will feel it possible to reconsider this particular detail of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("with the concurrence of the Treasury").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD ADDISON: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend on this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that a little more than a year ago we had in your Lordships' House an exceedingly interesting and important discussion on the subject of the duties gradually acquired by the head of the Treasury. There was a consensus of opinion at that time that the scope of the power of the head of the Treasury had been extended beyond what it ought to be. All of us who have been intimate in the affairs of government know how difficult it often is for the head of a Department to submit his considered proposals to the Government if, although he may have taken the very best advice obtainable in the country from people who understand the subject, he still has to satisfy somebody or other at the Treasury that it is all right before he can even

867
send his memorandum round to his Cabinet colleagues. That claim, to my personal knowledge, has been asserted on more than one occasion. On more than one occasion I have defied it, and sent my memorandum in to be considered by the Cabinet on its merits, because presumably the head of a Department, with the advice which he obtains, understands his business and knows what is really required in the Department better even than the Principal Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who has no day-to-day experience or knowledge of the matter. It is for the head of the Department to make his case good before his colleagues, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects, naturally he will state his abjection and it will be considered as a part of the whole case, which is quite right.
This is a similar case, but even more technical. In this case it is the Lord Chancellor who considers that it is necessary that the number of Judges of the High Court shall be augmented, and the Lord Chancellor, with the advice and knowledge which are at his disposal from day to day, is in a much better position than anybody else to know whether that is or is not necessary. It is for the Lord Chancellor to make his proposal, and, if the Treasury entertain any objection on the ground of public expense, they can state it, and the matter will be dealt with accordingly. To suggest that the Lord Chancellor himself must obtain the concurrence of the Teasury to the proposal that the state of business in the High Court requires the appointment of additional Judges is, I suggest, to put the Treasury in a position to decide matters upon which the Government of the country should rely for advice on the Lord Chancellor himself. It is to exalt the functions of the Treasury beyond the realm of finance into matters on which they are no more qualified than anybody else to express an opinion. They are the custodians of finance, and as such have the first authority, but they are not judges of whether the state of affairs in the Courts is or is not such as should satisfy the Lord Chancellor that there should be another Judge. That is to put the Treasury into a position which I suggest is constitutionally wrong, and I very heartily support my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): During the speeches which have been made in support of this Amendment, I confess that I have found it difficult to resist the suspicion that there is some misunderstanding. I would ask my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition to do what he is so well capable of doing, notwithstanding the fact that he has already burnt his boats, and that is to listen to the argument. Whatever may be said of me when my Lord Chancellorship ends, I hope it will not be said that I have ever failed to stand up for all the duties which should fall to the Lord Chancellor, and I should be the very last to surrender one scrap of my responsibility in the matter of choosing a Judge. That is not even a matter of which the Cabinet is informed. The appointment is made when the King's pleasure has been taken, and, if the Prime Minister takes an interest in it, he first knows of it when he reads of it in the morning paper. That is essential. I am not sure that I would go back as far as Magna Charta, as did my noble friend, but I would say that it certainly goes back to the Act of Settlement, and it helps to promote the complete integrity and independence of the Judiciary.
This matter, however, concerns a totally different question. It concerns, not the choice of a Judge, but the question of how many puisne Judges there should be. Parliament has always decided that, at any rate in modern times. There is quite a number of Statutes which deal with it. There used to be a fixed number—I think that it was twelve for the King's Bench at one time—and that was settled by Parliament and not by the Lord Chancellor at all. Then there came a period when in certain circumstances the appointment of additional Judges might be authorized. It is not an invasion of the duties of the Lord Chancellor or of the independence of the Judges for a proper authority to decide how many Judges above a certain minimum there should be. It is constantly done, and has always been done, not by the Lord Chancellor but by some other body more immediately responsible to the House of Commons.
In the case of King's Bench Judges, as I pointed out on Second Reading, the provision at this moment is that I, as Lord Chancellor, could get two more King's Bench Judges, but only provided that a.

869
Resolution is carried by both Houses of Parliament, declaring that in view of the state of business in the King's Bench Division one or two more Judges are necessary. That is not an invasion of the independence of the Judges, nor does it diminish the duties or the rights of choice of the Lord Chancellor; it merely amounts to determining whether in our machinery of government we have enough High Court Judges. That is at this moment the way in which the number of King's Bench Judges would be increased. In the case of the Chancery Division, it so happens—there is no merit in the distinction—that the nature of the provision is different. As the law stands, an additional Chancery Judge could be appointed, if the Lord Chancellor wished it, with the concurrence of the Treasury. That is an alternative to the provision, in the case of King's Bench Judges, that there must be a Resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
When this Bill was drawn up—and I had a large responsibility for it, of course—I had to consider which of those two provisions was on the whole preferable. My own experience is—and if my noble friend opposite will carry his mind back to the time when he was a member of the Government, I think he may recall an instance—that it is a very bad plan to say that additional Judges should be obtainable only if a Resolution to that effect is carried in both Houses of Parliament. It is one of the rare cases where it is perhaps as well that Parliamentary power should not extend in that direction. The reason is that it is necessary to pile up a case of justice being denied because justice is delayed; it has to be shown that there is too much work for the Judges to do, in order to carry the Resolution in the House of Commons. When this Bill was drawn, therefore, wisely or unwisely, but quite deliberately—and it commended itself to the House on the Second Reading—the provision was made that there should be a minimum number of Judges which could be maintained without any further question at all. I am speaking of puisne Judges. In certain circumstances they might be increased to thirty-two. Instead of maintaining the existing provision which requires a Resolution of both Houses I and others who considered the matter—and I certainly do not desire to reduce the authority of the Lord Chancellor—though it would be better to
870
say that the number could be increased with the consent of the Treasury.
There is a good deal of misunderstanding, perhaps, in some quarters as to what part is played by the Treasury in connexion with these matters. Appointing an additional puisne Judge means an extra charge on the Consolidated Fund and, speaking as somebody who has been both Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Chancellor—in that respect my record is perhaps unique—I tell the House that, even if you are going to do it by a Resolution of both Houses, the Lord Chancellor would certainly tell the Treasury. You have no right to put on the man who is responsible for the finances of the country an additional charge on the Consolidated Fund without his knowledge and approval. It is quite a delusion to suppose that that would not be mentioned by me in any case. I can think of other matters which come on the Consolidated Fund where the same thing would be true. The only thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be saying would be, "I agree that there should be another Judge"; he would not be saying, "I am going to find out whom you are going to appoint."
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, spoke of the exercise of a "veto" and voiced some noble sentiments regarding the independence of the Judiciary and its not being servile to the Executive. I cannot conceive that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is causing the Judiciary to be servile to himself, because, as it is proposed to put an additional burden on the Consolidated Fund, it is only right that he should say, "Yes, you have a perfectly goad case for that—go ahead and do it." That is not interfering with the independence of the Judiciary at all. It is exactly the same process that goes on in connexion with the Treasury whenever a burden is put on the Consolidated Fund. I cannot see that there is any question of interfering with the independence of the Judiciary. Do not let us use very high, language about this as if this is raising a question fought out in the time of Charles I, and as if this Bill is undermining the integrity and independence of the Judges. With great respect, that suggestion can only proceed from a confusion of what the provision is. The position is that there are twenty-five puisne Judges, and under certain conditions there may be more if

871
the Treasury agree that the state of business in the High Court requires it. That is the law at this moment with reference to the Chancery Judges. I have never heard a human being complain or suggest that the Chancery Judges recently appointed are not completely independent. All I am saying is that, on the whole, this is a better way of dealing with the matter than asking for a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I hope that there has been no confusion on my side. My head is quite clear, and I am saying that there is no reason at all why the authority to have more Judges should not depend on the provision stated in this Bill. It does not, I repeat, in the least interfere with the integrity or independence of the Judges at all. It continues a position that now exists and of which, to the best of my belief, nobody has complained. I hope that your Lordships will take this view. I am very unwilling to see this Bill dealt with at this stage in a way that will raise the question as to whether a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament should be substituted—a far worse system—and I am very anxious indeed to put this provision in force.
May I just add this? I agree that supposing a Lord Chancellor had a case for an extra Judge and the Chancellor of the Exchequer none the less considered that the state of business did not require it, in that event it would be perfectly constitutional for the Lord Chancellor to take his case to the Cabinet and ask the Cabinet to decide. I do not suggest, and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Addison, does not suggest, that that would be improper; but I am not at all sure that the argument of my noble friend Lord Cecil would not involve its being considered improper. It would be a case of the whole Cabinet deciding whether there is to be another Judge and, if I understood the noble Viscount, that would be considered a breach of all the liberties which people have enjoyed from the days of Charles I. I do not agree, of course, but I do not think it is desirable to substitute any other system. If, in the circumstances I have mentioned, I felt I had a good case I should certainly take the matter to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet would decide. There must be some machinery to decide. I do not think that Parliament is willing to give to the Lord Chancellor, when at
872
this moment there are twenty-six Judges authorized, authority to appoint at his own will half a dozen more. That does not seem to me to be any interference with the Bench. What is provided in this Bill is that if I desire to go beyond a certain number, that increase would require the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and the noble Lord, Lord Addision, have drawn attention to a principle which is of course of the highest constitutional importance—namely, the complete independence of the Judiciary; but at the same time I am bound to express my agreement with the Lord Chancellor that it is a principle which is not here in question. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said he would oppose any attempt to give to the Treasury the right to veto appointments to the Bench, thereby implying that any particular appointment to the Bench would have to be submitted to the First Lord of the Treasury or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not so at all. All that the Treasury would have the right to veto would be a claim for an excessive number of Judges.
LORD ADDISON: No, no.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Certainly.
LORD ADDISON: No, no.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The provision is that His Majesty shall not be advised to make an appointment to fill any vacancy unless the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury is satisfied that the state of business in the High Court requires that the vacancy should be filled.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It has got to be a vacancy. You have got to make a special appointment. There are two processes mixed up.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not gather that from what the Lord Chancellor said. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will tell us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only give the noble Viscount my own understanding of the Bill. At the present moment, in my judgment, there are not sufficient puisne Judges. The moment this Bill passes, as I told your Lordships on the Second Reading, I shall propose that there shall be three more. That will be filling three vacancies because the total number is here stated to be thirty-two, and at present we have only twenty-nine.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I may have misread the Bill, and if I have done so I apologize, but it seems to me that it is not what the Lord Chancellor thinks it is. He has said with great truth that it is a very inconvenient procedure that when you want a new Judge you have to get a Resolution of Both Houses of Parliament that a new Judge is required. I agree that it is inconvenient and I agree with the general proposal on the whole. The proposal of the Bill, if I understand it aright, is this: that whereas the number of Judges may be up to thirty-two it shall not require any special vote of the two Houses of Parliament that a new Judge should be appointed. That is the first proposition we are going to lay down in this Bill—that thirty-two shall be the standard number of the Judiciary and up to that number it shall not be required that any decision of the two Houses should be made. That is one proposition, and a very important proposition, and one with which I am in hearty sympathy.
Then the Bill goes on to say that before any particular appointment is made, the Lord Chancellor is to advise that the appointment should be made with the concurrence of the Treasury. May I read the words?
"Provided that except in the event of the number of such Judges being at any time less than twenty-five His Majesty shall not be advised to make an appointment—"
that is a particular appointment; not a general proposition that a Judge should be made, but that somebody should be appointed to be a Judge—
"to fill any vacancy unless the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury is satisfied that the state of business in the High Court requires that the vacancy should be filled."
That is, not that there should be generally more Judges but that the vacancy, which the appointment is to fill, should be filled. I may be wrong, but that seems to me quite plain that in those circumstances the Treasury is required to concur that a particular appointment should be made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not of a particular man.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, that is what I read this to mean—that a particular appointment shall be made; and if that is not its meaning then there ought to be words put in to make clear what is the meaning. It is because
874
I dread the possibility of the Treasury being asked to say whether a particular man should be made a Judge or not that I object to the wording as it stands. That is the whole point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I relieve the noble Viscount? He really is, if he will excuse my saying so, labouring under a delusion. The only person who makes the Judge is the King.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is relevant to remember that, because the draftsman had to have it in mind, and the provision is that—
"… except in the event of the number of such Judges being at any time less than twenty-five His Majesty shall not be advised to make an appointment to fill any vacancy."
That is to fill the twenty-sixth, the twenty-seventh, the twenty-ninth, the thirtieth—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Or any one or more.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The proviso continues:
"… His Majesty shall not be advised to make an appointment to fill any vacancy unless the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury is satisfied that the state of business in the High Courts requires that the vacancy should be filled."
That proposition, that the state of business in the High Court requires the vacancy to be filled, does not depend upon the selection of any particular individual; yet that is the thing to which the consent of the Treasury has to be given.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It may be so or it may not. You may say the number shall not be increased. That I could understand because that eliminates the question of who shall be appointed, but if you say an appointment shall or shall not be made you surely do make it possible for the Treasury to consider whether in the circumstances that appointment should be made. I cannot doubt that if this Bill were passed in that form and a particular appointment was proposed, the Treasury, following their ordinary procedure, would proceed to examine whether there was a sufficient case for making a Judge and whether that particular man ought to be appointed. It seems to me that is the clear intention,

875
but of course if the Lord Chancellor says definitely that is not the intention, or could not be the intention, then that, to some extent, relieves my anxieties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wish to relieve my noble friend's anxiety and at the same time I wish to be courteous. I assure him most solemnly that the interpretation which he seeks to put upon the words is one that is not correct.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: When lawyer meets lawyer then comes a tug-of-war. Sometimes there also comes a confusion of mind. But as a mere layman it certainly seems to me that the Lord Chancellor is right and the noble Viscount is wrong, and that certainly the Treasury have got nothing to do with the matter except to be satisfied that the state of business in the Courts requires additional appointments to the Bench, one or more. If the Lord Chancellor says to the Treasury, "I propose to appoint another Judge and I want your concurrence because the business is congested", the only way in which I think the Treasury could interfere with the particular appointment would be if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to speak to the Lord Chancellor and say, "Look here, I understand you want to appoint another Judge. I am anxious that my friend Mr. So-and-So should be appointed and I shall not be satisfied that any additional appointment is required unless you appoint him." That, however, would obviously be a dereliction of duty and, if made public, would require at once the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such an eventuality is not merely improbable but in the present state of public affairs, impossible, although no doubt in the eighteenth century or in some other period possibly such action might have been taken.
That brings me to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that one important consideration in this whole matter has been left out of account, and that is the real reason, I take it, why the Treasury are brought into this Bill at all. There has always been for generations past a desire in Parliament to keep a check upon the number of appointments to the Judiciary, which has always been a very valuable form of patronage, and in early generations there was a great temptation to the Governments of the day, who wanted to give positions to supporters
876
of their own, to make additional appointments to the Bench in order to exercise the advantages of patronage. That has been checked by the number of Judges being fixed by Statute, and when the business of the Courts is congested and more Judges have to be appointed, either you have a new Act of Parliament which has had to be passed or else a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. That is the reason for the procedure. Neither of those procedures is very convenient. Therefore in the previous Bill, and in this Bill, the words "concurrence of the Treasury" have been inserted because it has been thought we cannot leave this matter wholly to the Lord Chancellor. We do not know that some Lord Chancellor, at some time or other, might not make unnecessary appointments, when probably there may be too many Judges already and when, if the Judges did not take such long vacations, or if a certain class of business could be relegated to the County Courts instead of the High Courts, it would not be necessary to make those very costly nominations. That, I take it, is the reason for mentioning the concurrence of the Treasury in place of the previous procedure of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and it seems to me quite a reasonable provision.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I say a word in reply to the noble Viscount who has just spoken? It does appear to me that in the first part of his speech he said I was quite wrong and in the last part that I was quite right, because what he says is that it was clearly necessary to have a check by the Treasury on the appointment of these Judges and that that is the reason why the concurrence of the Treasury has been insisted upon. That is the whole point.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On the number of appointments.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You cannot make a man a Judge unless he is within the number and it comes to the same thing in the end. If they have a right to insist on the number then they have a right, and indeed the duty, to consider whether an appointment should be made. And that is what the Bill says, but I do not intend to press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), after "may," to insert "with his consent." The noble and learned Viscount said: I hope my noble friend opposite will deal with me mercifully on this Amendment. It was suggested to me just before the Second Reading that the provision in the Bill for the transfer of a puisne Judge from one Division to another would only be properly applied with the consent of the Judge, and I think that is right. It seems to me that a Judge who has all his life practised let us say at the Chancery Bar, ought not to be removed against his will into another Division dealing with a perfectly different class of business. I must add that I do not think the Amendment I propose really makes any practical difference, because no Lord Chancellor in his senses would ever take a High Court Judge and move him into another Division against his will. It is not likely he would get such good work out of him if he did so, and it would be a very serious breach in the real relations which exist between the Lord Chancellor and his brother Judges. At the same time if anybody feels any anxiety upon the subject it is better to put it beyond doubt. I therefore move to insert in subsection (4) the words "with his consent." I do not think this proposal raises any high constitutional principles, and I hope it may be agreed to without much discussion.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after ("may") insert ("with the consent")—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair].
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
CLAUSE 9 [Obligations as to employment of quota of registered persons in substantial staffs]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): The Amendments to this clause which stand in my name on the Paper are all drafting Amendments. Their insertion has become necessary because of the introduction in another place of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill. If we do not make these Amendments in the Bill now it would be necessary to introduce legislation at a later stage to amend the Bill now before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("it is") and insert ("apart from that subsection it would have been")
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("reinstate in ") and insert (" take into ")
Page 6, line 44, leave out from the first ("of") to ("or") in line 47 and insert (" any Act, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act ")
Page 7, line 1, after ("agreement") insert ("to reinstate him in his employment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Provisions as to offences.
(4) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director or officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the contravention was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) Where any offence under this Act committed by a corporation is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the corporation he, as well as the corporation, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The noble Lord said: I have had this matter drawn to my attention in my capacity as the honorary treasurer of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and I feel that it is a matter that ought to be brought before your Lordships. Subsection (4) of this clause as it stands at present provides that where an offence has been committed by a body corporate any director or officer of that body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty unless he proves his innocence. This provision appears to introduce into a Statute, which I would particularly point out will operate in peace-time, provisions which are contained in Regulation 91 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939–40. That Regulation provides that:
"Where a person convicted of an offence against any of these Regulations is a 'body corporate,' every person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was a director or officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge; or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence."
While it is realized that this provision has been accepted by Parliament as a war measure, I wish to submit that it is an elementary principle of our law that no man is deemed guilty until his guilt is proved. I submit therefore that before this subsection (4) as it stands is accepted by your Lordships this departure from a well-established principle should be carefully studied and considered.
If provisions similar to Regulation 91 are to be embodied in Acts of Parliament which are going to operate in time of peace, it is going to be within the power of those instructed to act for Government Departments to issue summonses against directors, and such directors will be placed under an obligation individually to go to Court and into the witness box to prove their innocence in any case in which they are summoned. I submit that there is no justification for any such provision in any Statute intended to operate in peace-time. The Companies Act, 1929, contains no such provision and I am informed that the only case where the onus to prove his
880
innocence is placed on the defendant is the case of false information in a prospectus. That, I understand, is law today. The Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, which I understand is to come into force shortly, provides us with an alternative subsection to which, so far as I can see, there can be no objection. Under Section 18 of that Act there is a similar provision to that which I seek by my Amendment to insert in this Bill. I think I ought to read Section 18 of that Act of 1929. It is as follows:
"Where any offence under this Act committed by a corporation is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the corporation, he, as well as the corporation, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
I submit to your Lordships that a similar provision should be adopted in this Bill.
I feel sure that there ought not to be included in any Act of Parliament intended to operate in peace-time any provision under which, when an offence is committed by one person, any other person, even if he is a director or employee of that other person, is to be deemed guilty of the same offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. It has long been recognized that a "body corporate" is a separate legal entity from its members, directors and officers. The principle of making all directors and officers automatically guilty of the company's offence unless they prove their innocence is in my view fundamentally contrary to British justice. If subsection (4) of this clause as it stands is passed by your Lordships' House it will set a precedent for any other Bill introduced into Parliament dealing with offences by companies. I ask your Lordships to view this matter very seriously and not to permit this subsection to be passed into law without very grave consideration. It simply means that whereas in the past no one was guilty here in this country until he was proved guilty, now in certain cases if this subsection is passed instead of having guilt proved against him he will have to prove his own innocence. Therefore I move this Amendment hoping that it will cover, as I think it does, anything that is likely to arise. I think that

881
my Amendment meets any case which may have been in the minds of those who drafted this Bill and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teviot.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend has moved an Amendment which seeks to make it incumbent to prove affirmatively consent or connivance on the part of a director or other officer of a company which has contravened the provisions of this Bill before in fact any such director or officer can be 'made answerable for that contravention. If I accepted this Amendment it would render practically unenforceable the clauses of the Bill which deal with companies. In practice, I am advised the Amendment would mean that the director or officer of a company who has taken a decision which led to the company acting in contravention of the Bill could hardly in fact ever be made answerable. The facts showing consent or connivance on his part would hardly at any time be discoverable by those whose duty it would be to enforce the provisions of the Bill. On the other hand, these facts will be fully within the knowledge of the director or of the officer and he should not really have any difficulty whatever in proving his innocence.
My noble friend supported his Amendment by arguing that the present wording of subsection (4) was based on war-time practice only, and that it should not be continued into (permanent peace-time legislation. I hope he will forgive my saying that in point of fact that argument is not sound. There are plenty of precedents in Acts of Parliament which are in operation to-day containing words very similar to those of subsection (4). I need not read out the titles of all the Acts, I think, but I might mention the last three that have been passed. There was the Theatrical Employers Registration Act, 1925, the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, and the Public Health Act, 1936. My noble friend will therefore have observed that when he objects to the words in this Bill by saying that they are based on war-time practice, in point of fact that objection is not capable of any substantiation at all. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and myself have thought over this Amendment with great care and I cannot really sec that
882
there is any likelihood of hardship being inflicted upon directors or their servants in a company if we leave this subsection as it stands in the Bill. In view of the fact that there are precedents I hope your Lordships will support the Government and leave the subsection as it stands.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank my noble friend for his reply, but I am afraid I shall go away with much perturbation. It does appear that for the first time, so far as we know and so far as I am advised, it is laid down that it is necessary for a citizen of this country to prove his innocence and not for the prosecution to prove his guilt. I know that in France, if a case was brought against a man, he had to prove his innocence, but in this country guilt had always to be proved against him. It appears from the noble Lord's answer that in certain cases the position here will be the same as in France; and, while I must accept his answer I am very perturbed at this new departure in regard to the administration of justice in this country. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

INDIA (ATTACHMENT OF STATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Attachment of States.
(2) This section shall be deemed always to have had effect:
Provided that His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States may give such directions, if any, as he thinks proper for rendering valid or lawful anything done or omitted before the passing of this Act which would otherwise be invalid or unlawful by virtue of the provisions of this section.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: The Amendment which stands in my name is to leave out subsection (2), which is an example of retrospective legislation. I drew attention to the matter on the Second Reading, and do not propose to detain the Committee by repeating the observations which I then made. I have put down this Amendment in order to give the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill an opportunity of making a further explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Samuel.)
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, and I am reinforced by the suspicion which some of us felt on the Second Reading that this whole matter was being rushed with inadequate explanation through your Lordships' House. Until I protested and the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say a few words there was no reply to the weighty objections put forward by noble Lords. The noble Viscount has drawn attention to a piece of retrospective legislation, thus bringing matters to a head.
Many noble Lords have no doubt had the same experience as myself, of receiving a number of lengthy cables from India protesting against this Bill, contesting the arguments put forward in its favour, and making certain grave statements which I think must have impressed your Lordships. I have received a number of these cables and have sent them on to the noble Earl, except for the last one which arrived this morning and which I should like to read. I would particularly draw attention to the fact that the argument used by the noble Earl, and I believe repeated by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, that there were geographical difficulties in the way of attaching these States for administrative purposes to British India, is controverted in this cable.
The cable is apparently a copy of one sent to His Majesty, but it is addressed to me, and my noble friend Lord Faringdon has received a copy, as no doubt have other noble Lords. It is dated February 13, and is as follows:
"Intensely perturbed at Second Reading in House of Lords of India (Attachment of States) Bill, 1944. to legalize scheme of attachment. Even text of Bill vitally affecting lives
884
of 800,000 inhabitants and 200 States not cabled to India and not available here."
I think that that should be explained. If it is true that this Bill has not been cabled to India and that these people do not know its terms, I think that that is a good reason for postponing any further progress with it until there has been time for this matter at any rate to be before the people concerned. The cable continues:
"This question is more than hundred years old. Parliament should not rush through legislation to legalize the scheme put into force without our consent and without consulting our subjects in particular when we have no effective means to represent our case and to communicate our subjects' wishes owing to war conditions."
Your Lordships who were here during the Second Reading will remember that that was a point made with great force by my noble friend Lord Faringdon. No attempt has been made, apparently, to consult the 800,000 subjects of these States.
The cable then goes on:
"Proposed legislation not competent under Paramountcy and Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Bill postulates that our States are part of Your Majesty's dominions which they are not."
That, of course, is accepted.
"Bill negatives long accepted legal position of States and is a reversal of Parliamentary policy towards States. Scheme is against solemn engagements, pledges and promises made from time to time and is in violation of our rights, privileges and integrity, which are guaranteed. Our status is recognized and given effect in Government of India Act, 1936. Scheme is in effect annexation of our States to larger States in time of peace and transference of our direct allegiance to Your Majesty to other rulers, and is contrary to principles embodied in Government of India Act, 1935."
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the next sentence:
"It is not true as stated by Undersecretary of State for India that our States are not included in First Schedule to Government of India Act, 1935. In fact our States grouped together are given definite representation in both House of Legislature in First Schedule. We are prepared to accept immediately any scheme short of attachment evolved by Committee representing all concerned including our subjects to secure to our subjects benefits of modern administration. Scheme does not secure any benefits. On the contrary our subjects are deprived of benefits of justice by British Courts based on rule of law by transferring them to attaching States whose judicial administration is not based on rule of law. Scheme is a retrograde

885
step not accepted and entirely opposed by our subjects and is not likely to achieve the desired objects."
Now I come to the argument of the noble Earl that there are geographical difficulties in the way of attaching these smaller territories to British Provinces:
"Under-Secretary of State for India stated that to attach these petty States to a British Province is utterly impracticable from geographical point of view alone. This statement is unwarranted. All attached States in Gujarat and some States cm the outskirts of Kathiawar are entirely contiguous with British India. Some attaching States have no contiguity or geographical connexion with attached States. Request Your Majesty only to ascertain from map the location of States to assess the official objection."
That is a very grave statement to make in a cable, completely controverting the arguments put forward by the noble Earl. I think, before we proceed any further, we might have a map put in the Library showing the proposed transferences of territory. The noble Earl said that it was impossible geographically to follow my noble friend Lord Faringdon's suggestion and attach these territories to British Provinces because they were too far away; there were no communications, and so on; but here we have the exact contrary stated by the people who know where the shoe pinches because they are living in these States and I dare say that their knowledge of the local geography is greater even than that of the noble Earl.
I now come to another important matter. The cable continues:
"Some Hindu States are attached to Mahomedan States. Our States and our subjects are transferred to other States as if they were mere things. This is entirely opposed to principle of self-determination and is against the accepted and practised principles of British rule and justice. Governments of all attaching States are not efficient and no benefit will result to us or to our subjects by attachment. Your Majesty may be pleased to drop the scheme and allow us an opportunity to evolve a scheme in consultation with His Excellency the Crown Representative to secure the desired objects for welfare of our people. Kindly direct that Bill may not be proceeded with ex parte without hearing us and our subjects."
That was the point made by Lord Faring-don on the Second Reading. The cable is signed by Fatehsinhji Dabhi, President, Western India States Agency Jurisdic-tional and Non-jurisdictional Chiefs and Taluqdars Committee, and Thakor Shri of Ghodasar State. Those are the signatories of that cable, which comes to me "Via Imperial," and which in due course I
886
shall forward, as I did the other cables, to the India Office.
I want to say this in addition, If there is anything in that cable, the attempt to rush this Bill through this House, where it originated, and to send it to another place as being passed unanimously here with only a little argument is really an abuse of Parliamentary procedure. There is too much of that in these days. We meet only two or three times a week and our times of sitting have been cut down, and that is used as an excuse for what I can only describe as an attempt to rush legislation. Unless there are protests, the whole tendency is to hurry legislation through this House without any proper explanation from the Government, although I agree that when we do protest we are met always with courtesy and sometimes with information. This is an example of rushed legislation, and if there is any truth in what Lord Faringdon was advised to say and what is in this cable, there has been no opportunity for the people concerned—numbering, apparently, 800,000—to be consulted or even to see the text of this Bill. This Bill has not even appeared in India. That is an absurd situation. If those are the facts, and if we are asked to pass a Bill which has not even been made known to 800,000 of our fellow subjects for whom we are responsible, I think it is an abuse of the procedure of Parliament.
I should like to make one remark about the Indian States. I have lived in large States and in small States. Some of them are excellently governed and administered and indeed far in advance of the similar administration in British India. That is true of several of the larger States. In all the States in which I had the privilege of living, however, large and small, I was always impressed by the fact that the ordinary country people in the villages, as compared with those in similar districts in British India, in some cases only a few miles away, seemed to be better dressed and happier. The women seemed to have more jewellery and generally they seemed to live lives of greater contentment than people in British India. I have heard a great deal of abuse of the badly governed States and I dare say it was well founded. We know that the Government have power to take action where States are maladministered and use that power freely. The impression forced itself upon me in India,

887
however, that the position was as I have stated, and I put that forward to, the Committee as a reason for pausing before uprooting and disintegrating what may be ancient and paternal and perhaps in modern parlance not very progressive administrations, which nevertheless seem to suit the people. Do not let us disrupt the whole system in the face of protests such as those which have reached us and without at any rate letting the people who arc intimately concerned know what is going on.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There are two questions that arise on the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved and in connexion with the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has made—a speech which, if I may say so, sounded to me more like a speech on Second Reading. I told the House on Second Reading that a revision application had been made to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner last year, alleging that the order of attachment was illegal and went beyond certain powers which had been conferred by Parliament on the Crown Representative. I further told your Lordships that the Court delivered judgment in favour of the appeal for reasons which I stated at that time. From that moment onwards there were two courses open to His Majesty's Government—either to appeal to the Privy Council or else to seek Parliamentary approval of new legislation. The period of time which would inevitably have elapsed before an appeal to the Privy Council could have come up for hearing normally ruled out that method, but it will be appreciated—and I ask the noble Viscount to note this—that if in fact it had been practicable for an appeal to be made to the Privy Council, and if that appeal had been allowed, the effect would automatically have been retrospective.
As it was, however, immediate action was obviously necessary, for reasons that were fully stated on Second Reading, and legislation would have to be introduced. If this legislation meets with the approval of Parliament I, quite frankly, can see no sound reason why it should not also be retrospective in character as well. The noble Viscount will realize that both before and after the doubt which had been cast upon the powers of the Crown Representative by the judgment in question,
888
many acts will have been done both in the Courts and out of the Courts, and many contradictory and inconsistent orders will have been made, all this in good faith, in some cases on the validity and in other cases on the invalidity of the attachment. It thus follows that there are bound to be many anomalies waiting to be cleared up, and the only result of leaving the situation as it is without having retrospective legislation, would be additional litigation and a great deal more friction. It was for this reason, and this reason only, that it was felt necessary to insert subsection (2) of Clause I in the Bill which, as the noble Viscount will observe, confers power on the Crown Representative to render valid or lawful acts done before the passing of the Bill, which will in fact enable him to ensure that the retrospective effect of the measure docs not work unfairly or harshly. That is really all that this subsection is designed to do—to enable the Viceroy to clear up outstanding difficulties.
I turn to the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who comes down to the House with a telegram received at a late hour this afternoon and endeavours to try to prove that on the Second Reading of this Bill I deliberately misled your Lordships. When I come to the House to move a Second Reading of a Bill, what I state is the truth, and I am not prepared that the noble Lord on the Committee stage of a Bill should dispute what I have said or cast doubts on the accuracy of the statements I have made. Honestly I do not think that on this occasion the remarks of the noble Lord are really worth replying to. If the noble Lord had read the Bill he would have seen that these small States are not mentioned in Divisions I to XVI of the Table of States in Part II of the First Schedule of the Government of India Act, which apparently he has not looked at. If he had taken the trouble to inquire he would have found that this Bill is fully known throughout India and that the Indian Press, for a long time, has contained the whole story and a description of what has taken place since the attachment scheme was first mentioned. I cannot believe that the noble Lord himself thinks that because this measure is going to be passed 800,000 people in India will be cast aside without any thought for their wishes. The Bill is designed to improve the lot of

889
these very people. That seems to me a truly democratic way of going about it, although it was not considered appropriate by the noble Lord. It is in this way that His Majesty's Government are showing their interest and attention in this matter.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not accuse the noble Earl of deliberately misleading your Lordships—certainly not. I said he had been ill-advised or wrongly advised. That is what I intended, at any rate. The noble Earl is incapable of misleading your Lordships as a deliberate act. It is not in him to do so. But his information is wrong if that telegram is right. That is what I wanted him to answer and that is what he has not answered. This Bill appears in a worse light than ever. This is an Act of Indemnity for certain illegal actions by officers or officials in India. Instead of going to the Privy Council to have a judgment against them reversed the Government think it is cheaper and quicker to pass this Bill through the House of Lords. That is what we are asked to do this afternoon—to pass an Act of Indemnity so that the Government need not use the ordinary legal processes. It is to cover up the wrong deeds of certain functionaries of the noble Earl and his associates. This is an Act of Indemnity against illegalities committed in India, and that is why the Bill is being made retrospective. The noble Earl talks about the urgency of providing roads and health services and the like for these ancient States. I wish we would pay more attention to what is going on in Bengal where millions of our fellow subjects have been starving. That is a matter of urgency where the Government have failed. It is not for the noble Earl to affect indignation here in connexion with these little States. There is no starvation there, and people there are not dying in the streets. Look after your own bailiewick. The Government are responsible for Bengal and to us in Parliament for the atrocious conditions which are disgracing the British name throughout the world.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD STRABOLGI: Pay attention to that. Pay attention to your own incompetence.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD STRABOLGI: There is nothing disorderly in what I have said. I said the conditions in Bengal disgrace our name, and that is true. No one regrets it more than I do, and I wish the noble Earl would pay more attention to these things. In the meantime I hope the noble Viscount will insist on his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My comparatively small Amendment has given rise to a speech which is not strictly concerned with subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the India (Attachment of States) Bill. My Amendment was moved only in order to give the noble Earl an opportunity for stating why this retrospective provision should be put into this Bill. He has given these reasons, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

CONSCRIPTION FOR COAL MINES
LORD KEYES LORD KEYES rose to call attention to the hardship which has been inflicted on members of Naval, Military or Air Cadet Corps and Service Training Corps who have for a period of years voluntarily undergone training to fit themselves for one of the Fighting Services, and have attained a high standard of proficiency in the several corps, by being conscribed to the mines; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this matter first of the conscription of Service Cadets for the mines on December 15, when it first became generally known that the Minister of Labour and National Service intended to take for the mines by ballot one-tenth of all the boys who had been conscribed for military service. I asked my noble friend Lord Snell, who replied for the Government, to draw attention to the hardship which would be inflicted on a number of cadets who had given up much of their leisure time to train for the three Fighting Services if they were conscribed for the mines. As the House was about to rise for the Christmas Recess I tabled a Motion that members of these Service Training Corps who, for a period not less than eighteen months, voluntarily engaged in training to fit themselves for one of the Fighting Ser-

891
vices, and had attained a standard of efficiency appropriate to such a period of training, should be exempt from conscription for the mines.
At that time I had particularly in mind the Sea Cadet Corps. Many of these cadets join as little boys and look forward eagerly to joining the Merchant Navy or the Royal Navy when old enough. As they have given up all their spare leisure and holidays, perhaps, for several years they are able to perform many of the duties they will be called upon to undertake when they go to sea. Sea Cadets who intend to join the Navy or the Merchant Navy can generally do so before they reach conscription age, but many others stay on to train for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve or to fit themselves for the Navy when they are called up to join it. Sea Cadet Corps have been in existence for about thirty years and their value to the Navy is well recognized by the Admiralty by capitation grants for equipment, training and upkeep. When the second Socialist Government came into power and all Cadet Corps were suppressed and capitation grants were stopped the Sea Cadets continued to exist, thanks to the Navy League and its generous supporters and also to the very devoted service given by a number of retired and pensioned officers, petty officers and men of the Royal Navy.
During the Christmas Recess I was told by representatives of the Admiralty and War Office that they were satisfied, as the Minister of Labour had given an undertaking in another place that boys who volunteered and were accepted for one or other of the Services before attaining 17½ are placed in reserved categories, and need not register, with the result that since the mines ballot is based on registration these boys will not be directed into the mines. There is still a breach of principle and good faith where these pre-Service organizations are concerned, because any boy can volunteer whether he has joined a pre-Service Cadet Corps or not. Thus the merit of a boy who has done a good deal of pre-Service training is not recognized. However, that was considered satisfactory as far as it went, and it was suggested to me that I should withdraw my Resolution. I said I would gladly do so if the Minister of Labour would include a number of very hard cases of boys who were over 17½ when
892
the ballot was introduced, who had reached a high degree of efficiency in a Cadet Corps and were eager to join one of the Fighting Services for which they had trained, and for which, for various reasons, they had not actually volunteered before the announcement of the ballot.
Many hard cases have been sent to me from all three Services. I find that almost invariably the boys themselves have been very anxious to volunteer, but have, been dissuaded by their parents from doing so, because they wished them to continue their studies or apprenticeships as long as possible in order that they might have some trade to fall back upon after the war is over. I think that is a very good reason. Others have been persuaded by parents for financial reasons to remain in employment until they are actually called up for service. I should like to give your Lordships three or four typical examples which have been given to me. The Chairman of the Navy League told me that the very best boy in his local Sea Cadet unit had been directed to the mines. He was 17 years 10 months old when the condition about volunteering before 17½ was published. Another boy whose father is in the Army joined a Cadet battalion of the Royal Berkshire Regiment. He became staff sergeant and a musketry and drill instructor and was very keen to join the Army, but he was dissuaded from volunteering by his parents because he was apprenticed to a dental mechanic. They thought he ought to get more training in that profession, his future career, and wait until he was actually called up. Another very hard case is that of an air cadet who wished to volunteer for the Royal Air Force but felt it his duty to remain in well-paid employment in order to help to maintain his parents, his father being ill and unemployed and his mother about to undergo an operation. He had been a cadet for nearly four years and I am told he was a first-class cadet. He was provisionally accepted by the Royal Air Force on October 22, 1943, but on his eighteenth birthday, on December 23, he was directed to the mines.
I think perhaps the hardest case of all that I have come across is that of a cadet born in an East African Colony, who came home to be educated for the Army, with the idea of returning with a Commission

893
to join the East African Regiment. He joined the Junior Training Corps of his school and took his A certificate. On leaving school he joined the Cadet battalion of a famous Fusilier regiment and was raised to the rank of Second-Lieutenant. He spent hundreds of hours training cadets to pass for their Certificate A and generally in studying his military duties until he was old enough to join the Army. Meantime he was employed as a clerk in a bank. He was called up last April, was then told there was no vacancies in the Army and was put back. In September he was told he could join the Navy or the Royal Marines. I have ascertained that he was provisionally accepted for the Royal Marines on September 19 and was then fold that he would be called up directly there was a vacancy. However, in December he was directed to the mines. I went to see Mr. Bevin and put a typical hard case to him and asked him to reconsider and release all such cases. I pointed out that they could not appreciably affect the number required for the mines as it would only be a very small percentage of boys between 17½ and 18½. He agreed that the number was small but said he could not possibly make any exceptions. I therefore amended the terms of my Resolution to the Motion which now appears on the Paper.
I wish to call your Lordships' attention and that of the Government to the injustice that is being done to a number of public-spirited boys and to a breach of faith which will be committed by the Government if Mr. Bevin adheres to his decision. On December 21, 1941, the Prime Minister, speaking in another place, said:
"It is proposed to register both boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 18 … their education, their well-being, their discipline and the service they can render must be carefully supervised. All boys and girls of this age will be registered and systematically interviewed under arrangements made by Youth Committees and education authorities … those who are not already members of some organization, or doing useful work of some kind, will be encouraged to join one or other of the organizations through which they can obtain training required to fit them for National Service."
He went on to say:
"They can serve in various youth organizations such as Cadets or Junior Training Corps, Air Training Corps, Sea Cadets and voluntary organizations on the civil side."
The result of this registration is given in a pamphlet called "Youth Registration, 1942," issued by the Board of Education, and the Scottish Education Department. With your Lordships' permission I will read a few extracts which bear on the subject. On page 6 under the head "The Response," it is stated:
"In several areas 50 per cent. or more of the young people concerned are reported to have followed the suggestions made to them and in others the response is much less."
It goes on:
"An estimate—perhaps more of a conjecture than an estimate—would suggest that registration directly or indirectly had had the effect of increasing the total number of young people in the age group concerned who are associated with further education, pre-Service organizations and the Youth Service generally, by 15 to 20 per cent."
Then, later, it says:
"If this is the case it means that between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of all boys who have registered are now either at school or associated with some form of leisure time training and discipline."
On page 7 this is said:
"The pre-Service opportunities for boys in the Air Training Corps and in the Army and Sea Cadets made a strong appeal at the interviews and there were in all areas large numbers of candidates for entry to each. Indeed the demand for membership exceeded the immediate possibilities of admission."
On page 9 it is stated:
"The appeal that youth should engage in some form of service was always strongest when it could be related to a specific task or purpose.".
The three fighting pre-Service Cadet Corps are of course only a fraction of the approved youth organizations, which also include Boy Scouts, Church Lads Brigade and other organizations on the civil side, which teach and inspire boys to be good citizens but have no connexion with the Fighting Services. It will be noted that it has been the role of Youth Committees since 1942 to encourage boys to join organizations through which they can obtain training required to fit them for National Service. This encouragement has met with marked success when related to a specific task or purpose. What specific task or purpose have the Youth Committees been offering boys as an inducement to join the Air Training Corps, the Sea Cadets or the Army Cadets? If these boys are later put into the mines after giving all their spare time to pre-Service training, is it not obvious that they will regard the work and advice

895
of the Youth Committees as an absolute fraud, and the Government's action in conscribing them for the mines as a breach of faith, especially after the appeal of the Prime Minister to boys to join the various Cadet Training Corps? Personally, I think the Prime Minister has been very badly let down by those responsible for allowing this injustice to take place, and I would include the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry, who have allowed boys on whom public money has been spent in training, equipment, etc., to be taken from them and forced into the mines. I suppose that the number of boys affected is so small that it is not thought worth their while to fight the redoubtable Minister of Labour on their behalf, but I regard it as a matter of principle and justice.
I can assure your Lordships that it is causing a great deal of discontent and discouragement and concern in the Cadet Corps all over the country who do regard the Government's action as a breach of faith. In this pamphlet it is stated that the total number of boys registered in 1942 is 687,189, of which 46 per cent. were not in approved activity and were asked to attend for interviews. Only 77 per cent. of these came and 71 per cent. were recommended to approved activity, but of these, according to page 6 of the pamphlet, only between 45 and 50 per cent. were actually in some approved occupation and 12 per cent. were in such occupation that they could not be usefully advised to take anything else. They found also that the number who undertook service to fit themselves for National Service were about 15 per cent. That means about two-thirds of the whole number registered in England alone. The relative numbers in Wales and Scotland and London are practically the same. Apart from the boys in youth organizations on the civil side, this leaves about one-third or 33 per cent.—in England it amounts to approximately the same or about 229,000 boys—who either did not respond to the invitation of a panel to an interview, or who, after an interview, refused to take the advice of the panel and are engaged in no approved activity of any kind. I submit it is from that class that the large proportion of juvenile criminals come. Surely all these boys should be considered available to draw upon for the mines before there is any
896
question of conscribing boys who are giving their leisure to fit themselves and have been training to serve their country in the Fighting Services.
The present ballot procedure involves waste of public money in capitation fees and equipment, waste of time and discouragement for the splendid team of voluntary officers and instructors in cadet units as well as the complete destruction of faith the boys may have had in the guidance they have received from Youth Committees and a feeling that whatever service they may be prepared to give they are liable to be treated on a par with those who have refused to give any service at all. I think they have every reason to feel very discouraged and annoyed. It is not surprising that recruitment and attendances in the pre-Service organizations have already suffered a serious setback. The mines ballot has indeed come as a formidable damper upon recruitment to the pre-Service organizations because if a boy's proficiency and service in a training unit still leaves him open to be refused entry to the Service for which he has been trained and subject to direction into the mines, there is obviously no reason why he should sacrifice his leisure to train for such entry.
Apart from the cadets it is so disheartening for the instructors, who in most cases after their long day's work is over have perhaps for many years devoted the whole of their spare time and even their holidays to train and inspire boys to become worthy members of their old Service. It would indeed be hard to exaggerate the good that these pre-Service Cadet Corps and their splendid instructors are doing for the youth of the country, especially in these days of indiscipline and self-seeking when there is such a very serious and alarming increase of juvenile crime amongst boys not in training organizations. Can it be seriously contested for one moment that the conscription of a few score of cadets can appreciably affect the situation in the mines or in any way make up for the million tons of coal lost by strikes last year, to say nothing of those lost by absenteeism? Even if it were possible for some of these public-spirited cadets to influence their fellows the effect could be only very limited.
It will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that the strike complex is so rooted in the mines that within the first

897
twenty-four hours boys in the first batch were on strike. Surely it is obvious that the only way of immediately improving the coal situation is for young miners already in the mines to be conscribed, made to work the full number of shifts and prevented from striking or indulging in absenteeism, which is the admitted cause of the coal shortage. It seems an outrage to conscribe boys who have voluntarily prepared for the Fighting Services, and it is futile to conscribe boys, who cannot possibly have an effect on the coal output, if the Government are not prepared to conscribe young miners of military age already in the mines and make them work full time under military discipline. Why should a man be con-scribed to work and fight the clock round and live under conditions infinitely harder and more dangerous than life in the mine if his brothers in the mines are free to strike illegally and against the advice of their leaders, to absent themselves and escape the punishment they have made themselves liable to because it is feared that the result might be another strike and a still further slowing down of production of munitions so vitally important? In such regiments as the Welsh Fusiliers, the Durham Light Infantry, the Sherwood Foresters, the York and Lancashire Regiment, and many Scottish regiments you will find a very large proportion of miners. I cannot help feeling that if the sort of leadership which has inspired these miner soldiers to deeds of heroism and endurance in Malayan jungles, Burma forests, in the Africa desert and on the mountains and beaches of Italy were introduced into the mines it would have a very good effect.
During the last two years I have visited aircraft factories and munitions works, many of them in mining areas, and one can have nothing but admiration for the way in which elderly men, women and young girls are working in them. In some areas, of course, miners are working splendidly, but in other areas young miners seem absolutely out of control and their leaders do not seem likely to regain control. I would recommend turning to the next generation and starting all over the country in the mining districts pre-entry mining cadet units. I saw a unit of that sort only last week. It was formed in a very old-established iron foundry and the same firm had a number of mines belonging to it. These cadets were work-
898
ing enthusiastically in great rivalry and were well equipped and came up to the standard of the best Sea Cadet unit I have ever seen. They were doing splendid work training for the mines. I was very interested to note that the officials responsible for this innovation, who had the control of some 8,000 men, were all officers in the Army or Navy in the last war. I saw the miners at the pit mouth and I learned that there had never been a strike among the employees of that firm throughout the war, that their output was first-class and, incidentally, that they held the record for contributions to National Savings in the whole mining community.
I hope the Government will consider these constructive suggestions I have made, because it is quite certain that the conscription of a few cadets cannot possibly affect the output of coal now which would be the only possible excuse for such a breach of faith. These cadets have not the protection of powerful trade unions such as is enjoyed by apprentices in the engineering, boiler making and other skilled trades, to save them from the mine ballot. I therefore ask your Lordships to support me in the appeal I am making to the Government to keep faith with all Service cadets who have attained a high standard of efficiency and to release those who, through no fault of their own, have been caught by the mine ballot at a moment when they had every right to think that they were about to join the Service of their choice, for which they had trained over a long period. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, when men are com-pulsorily directed to work in the mines, care is taken that no undue pressure is put upon them to join a trade union, in cases where they are unwilling to do so; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if all the three Motions which stand on the Order Paper are debated jointly. I therefore propose first to deal briefly with the particular aspect of the question that I have put upon the Paper and then equally briefly to add a few more general observations. Some people are feeling perturbed, and I think with justification, lest undue pressure should be put upon these

899
young men who have been directed into the mines to become members of the miners' trade union, the Mineworkers' Federation. It may be noted that that trade union, possibly more than any other, has extended its original and proper function of looking after the craft interests of its members to include political aspirations, the legitimacy of which can be gravely called in question. In those circumstances some of us at least think it somewhat unfair that any form of pressure should be permitted to be exercised upon those who have taken up that industry only temporarily, and, I think we may say in practically every case, most unwillingly. To suggest that such freedom may remain to the individual may, of course, rouse indignation on the Benches opposite and may produce from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, another of his celebrated emanations of forensic fury and synthetic indignation; but that, I fear, is a risk we must run. Of course, should any one of these directees of his own free will choose to join the union, no objection could be taken, but I do think he should have an assurance that His Majesty's Government intend to make certain that no undue pressure is permitted to be applied.
On the general question I am in complete agreement with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Keyes, in the case he has put forward—a case which many at least of your Lordships, and I think the majority, will view with very great sympathy, for not only in your Lordships' House and in another place but all over the country considerable indignation has been caused by one of the latest bungles in a long series of bungles which has characterized the handling of the mining situation. On the whole His Majesty's Government has dealt with problems at home with great success but in the case of the mining problem, admittedly one of great complexity, their success has been very small indeed. This direction of lads who are already to a very great extent trained soldiers, sailors or airmen only awaiting a final polish to make them accomplished fighting men, is something which many of us think should never have taken place. There is no reason or justification for it, and no administrative difficulties stand in the way of its being abandoned.
All that need be done is that when the ballot brings up the name of one of those
900
affected, the fact that he can prove that he has served for a requisite period—be it eighteen months suggested by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Keyes, or some longer or shorter period—accompanied by a certificate that he has obtained reasonable proficiency during that period, ought to be enough to spare him from feeling the ignominy of having wasted all the scores and hundreds of hours that he has put in to train for National Service by being directed away from that form of service on which he has set his heart. There is an impression, whether right or wrong, that while perhaps the Air Training Corps members who are likely to qualify as members of air crews are going to be exempt, the other and much more numerous class who would probably be mere members of ground staffs are not going to be exempted. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give us an assurance that that will not be the case.
I remember very well some few years ago a lecture being given to the local branch of the Air Training Corps in my own part of the world. It was given by two young men who in peace-time might have been in their first year at the university. Each of them, however, had many operational flights to his credit and each had won decorations for valour. When the two of them had described very modestly some of their experiences, one ended by assuring the large number of cadets present that, although only a small proportion of them could hope to become members of air crews and a still smaller proportion actual pilots, the others whose lot it would be to service machines on the ground need not feel in any way despondent because, as this lad pointed out with all the emphasis he could command, no aeroplane could leave the ground and no operation could take place were it not for the services of ground crews who were every bit as valuable to the war effort and to the war in the air as those who actually flew and fought the machines. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give some reassurance on that point.
If His Majesty's Government are not willing to make the very small concession to justice which is called for by the three Motions on the Paper to-day, they may rest assured that there will be a very great volume of indignation throughout the country—indignation not just in political circles. Only the other day I was talking

901
to a man, not a politician, who has done a great deal of lecturing to the troops and he informed me that among the rank and file of the many units he has lately visited great indignation has been expressed to him by men who had young brothers or sometimes sons who were in danger of being directed to the mines.
In nearly every case these young men had either been members of pre-Service units or else were doing some other work of national importance. There can be no justification for the waste of public time and money that this equal waste of young man-power involves. There are no administrative difficulties which need to be overcome; all that has to be done is to make a decision which is in no sense a climbing down, but which merely recognizes the justice, the logic and the common sense of the demand which has been made. I very much hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Keyes, or, if they cannot accept it in its present terms, that they will give the, assurance that they will adopt it in the spirit if not in the letter.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON, who had given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to some of the disadvantages of basing conscription for service in the mines on the principle of blind chance and to ask for information as to certain anomalies in the treatment of the young men who have been recruited in this way; and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I understand that it will be for your Lordships' convenience if I address my few words to the Motion of Lord Keyes, and not specifically to the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper. I wish, from perhaps a slightly different angle from that of the two noble Lords who have already spoken, to draw your Lordships' attention to the waste, the pitiful and irrational waste, of basing conscription for the mines on a system of blind chance. At first sight, and purely on a priori grounds, is not it an astonishing anomaly that in the midst of the most completely planned war in history, a war the result of which, it is generally agreed, is likely to turn on the success of our planning, a war, moreover, during which civilian post-war planning has become so popular that scarcely a week passes without some enthusiast reminding us that after the war we may look forward
902
to having all our waking activities planned for us—that in such a war, recruitment to so vital an element in the war effort as coal-getting should be relegated to the drawing of a ticket from a hat?
I have been surprised that there have not already been passionate protests from some of the more active planners, who, after all, are not in the habit of being un-vocal folk, against this return to the laisser faire principles of the last century, and indeed to the primitive practices of the remotest past. However, I need hardly say that the case against Mr. Bevin's methods is very far from resting only on a priori grounds, and I should like to draw attention to some of the (as it seems to me) alarming consequences which are likely to follow from this unexpected timidity on the part of a Minister who has hitherto shown no lack of courage.
At the present time there is, I believe I am right in saying, an alarming falling off in the intake of young men with the necessary intellectual, personal and technical qualifications for commissioned rank in the more technical branches of the Fighting Services. I believe that in the coming special cadet courses at the various universities, which open this spring, there is expected to be a falling off of no less than 50 per cent. from the numbers now on the present cadet courses at the various universities. If you take Oxford University as one example, the figures already published show that the present numbers attending special cadet courses total 710, but for the next courses, the spring courses, there will be no more than 429.
There is plenty of evidence, with which I shall not weary your Lordships, that the Army authorities attach great importance to this specialized academic training of their specially selected young men. Only the other day I heard a high and responsible university authority express the view that in this stage of the war and in present circumstances to send even one potential tank or sapper officer to manual labour underground was, as he put it, criminal folly. The same evidence would, I believe, be forthcoming—and here I touch on rather different ground from that covered by the noble Lord, Lord Keyes—from the Navy. I would ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that the authori-

903
ties at the naval training establishments are seriously disquieted by the high percentage of the cadets who come to them for special courses whom they have to return to their units because they prove unable to stay their very exacting course. After all, I believe that in ten weeks they have to learn, in tabloid form, what in normal times the Regular naval officer takes something like three-and-a-half years to master, and most of them prove unable intellectually to stay the course unless they have previously been educated up to the point at which, so to put it, they have at least learnt how to learn; which means, in effect, unless they have had a university or at any rate a good secondary education. There again, to send even one potential naval officer to manual labour underground is wasteful folly, which will almost certainly, in due course, result in the waste of some of our men's lives. To send fifty may delay victory; to send five hundred would almost certainly lose us the war.
I believe that the same evidence, although it is not so easily gathered, could be collected from the authorities in charge of the Air training establishments overseas. I have certainly heard evidence which gives good ground for believing that they too would endorse the view that to send even one young man who might make a suitable candidate for some of the highly technical work in the Royal Air Force to do manual labour underground is wasteful folly.
The main charge, therefore, against the Minister of Labour seems to me to be that he has taken, as we are all so often tempted to do, the line of least resistance in order to avoid the various political difficulties in which he might be involved if he took the normal and natural course of selecting the most suitable men for the mines and leaving those with special intellectual, technical or personal qualifications to do the work for which they are best suited. Although I have been emphasizing the potentially disastrous results to the Fighting Services which are bound to ensue from introducing the system of blind chance into conscription for the mines, it is obvious, of course, that this system—it seems ridiculous to call it a system—is equally irrational in relation to the mines themselves. Mining, after all, is an ancient, honourable and arduous calling,
904
and if your Lordships wanted to choose miners I am certain that the last course you would adopt would be to put a number of names into a hat and draw out, perhaps, a bank clerk, a senior wrangler or a minor poet.
If statements which I have seen in the Press are correct, Mr. Bevin does not even adhere to his own system; not all the names do, in fact, go into the hat. It is said that exceptions are made. But they are not made in favour of the young men on the special military courses at the universities, who may have spent two or three years in preliminary training and have taken Certificates A and B and have shown high qualifications as tank or sapper officers; they are made in favour of lads who can show a trade union card proving some degree of skill in some particular trade. If this is so—and the noble Lord will no doubt tell me—I hope he will tell your Lordships what justification there is for a system of chance which is not even applied impartially all round.
One reason for this policy which I have heard advanced from a very authoritative source is that if the normal course of selection were followed, those responsible for selecting would in fact find themselves mainly selecting the sons of miners; and their parents for the most part do not wish them to spend their lives in the mines. Yes, but this is a temporary war emergency. There is no apparent reason why conscription for the mines should lead to life-long service there. We have to remember that hundreds of thousands of citizens do not like seeing their sons conscribed for the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, yet in an emergency they are willing to let them go without Mr. Bevin's having to impose a ballot between himself and their resentment.
There is one defence, put forward, I believe, by the Minister's Department, which I trust that the noble Lord will not use to-day, because I must say that it seems to me a singularly unfair and legalistic argument, and it has certainly caused much resentment in some of the universities. As an excuse for taking young men who have spent years preparing themselves for the. Fighting Services—and I know of one young man who has taken Certificate B but was sent to the mines—it has been said, I think unfairly, that such young men might at an earlier stage have made a voluntary enlistment,

905
and that if they had done that they would have been exempt from the ballot. That may be an answer which will serve for the man in the street, who does not know the facts, but for those who do I must say that it seems a rather shabby example of special pleading.
To make a voluntary enlistment would in fact have meant enlisting in one of the Young Soldiers Battalions, which were expressly intended for young men who did not have the special qualifications for going on to the university and attending one of the special courses for the Fighting Services there. At that time all the authorities were telling these boys, as they then were, that it was their duty not to go into these Young Soldiers Battalions, but to wait and to use their special abilities in the special courses at the universities. For the Minister, now that he has changed his mind and finds himself in difficulties, to tell these young men, with an implication that they have shirked their duty in the past, "Ah, if you had been wise, you would have gone into one of these battalions" (which was what all the authorities, including his own representatives, were then advising them not to do), may be a clever piece of pleading, but it certainly rouses extensive resentment among the young men themselves. A preferable alternative, if it must come to that, would be the return from the Armed Forces of the trained miners who are there, those skilled men whom some star-crossed bureaucrat allowed to slip through his fingers in the early stages of the war, and many of whom are now said to be sweeping the floors of messrooms.
There is one other aspect of Mr. Bevin's raffle to which I should like to draw attention, because it is causing, as I have reason to know, very grave concern to a very large number of citizens. A parent whose child joins up in one of the Fighting Services does at least know that the discipline there and the contagious spirit of the Service will in itself be one of the finest of educations.
How different is the prospect, alas, which faces the new recruit to the mines. That the spirit there, too, can be contagious seems clear from the incident to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred—namely, that within 48 hours of arrival recruits in several of the mining centres were already on strike. That is the sort of contagion
906
to which a very large number of parents are extremely reluctant to expose their children. Surely they have a right to expect from the Minister of Labour very much more care and consideration than either the Minister or his Department have so far shown any inclination to display. After all, the mining industry just now, as the noble Lord, Lord Keyes, pointed out, is in a very parlous state. The causes of the trouble are ancient and deep-seated, and do not concern us at the present moment, or in this context. No doubt those responsible for them are not the miners only, but the mine owners and Parliament and the nation; but be the causes what they may—and most of your Lordships, I think, have a soft corner in your hearts for the miners—the fact remains that output, despite all the improved processes and higher wages, has been falling for more than 50 years, and is continuing to fall even in the crisis of the fight for our lives, while the great issue hangs in the balance. Strikes, many of which are illegal, and which The Times has lately characterized as wanton, seem to be endemic in the industry—strikes against wage awards, strikes against judicial decisions by courts of law, strikes against the advice of their own leaders, strikes against what seems sometimes to be a very mild exercise of discipline by the authorities, strikes occasionally which seem to be undertaken for no discernible reason whatever.
Such, at the moment, are the surroundings into which Mr. Bevin is pitchforking his recruits, many of whom had, as we have been told, prepared themselves for years for a happier fate, and some of whom have long family connexions with one or other of the Fighting Services. I should like to remind your Lordships—I consider this is the most important aspect of the charge against Mr. Bevin—that so potent is the moral atmosphere of our surroundings, that even a lazy or selfish boy who finds himself in one of the Fighting Services will often within a few weeks be clamouring to undertake some arduous and dangerous service without any extra pay, and equally the most idealistic and most unselfish young man who is sent to the pit may soon be finding himself absenting himself from work or taking part in an illegal strike if such be the mood of the pit to which he happens to be sent. Clearly parents whose sons are conscribed by the arbitrary say-so of the Minister

907
of Labour, on a system of blind chance, into so anarchic an industry as the mining industry is to-day, have a right to expect very careful preparations for their welfare, moral as well as physical, to be made in advance.
But the Minister of Labour did not even discover beforehand how much it would be necessary to pay these young men under their new conditions. After the strike which Lord Mansfield mentioned and with which, one is bound to say, characteristically enough the whole proceedings opened, the Minister of Labour appropriately rounded off the whole anomalous business by hurriedly announcing a scale of allowances which, as far as the outsider can judge, is itself riddled with anomaly. This is a minor point, but in its small way it does seem characteristic and disquieting. Mr. Bevin proceeded to announce that the scale of allowance for the billeting of one of these young men with a miner's family would range from 25s. to 35s. a week. The allowance for a young farm worker who eats, I imagine, equally voraciously, and without benefit of canteen, is, I am told, only 15s. a week. Certainly, as many of your Lordships have experienced, the allowance for a full-fledged civil servant is only one guinea a week. The appetite of a civil servant may not be so large, but his profession has bred him to expect surroundings of dignified ease. Can the noble Lord explain what is the basis of these curious anomalies? They are not of any great importance but they seem symptomatic of the hurried, scrambling fashion in which the whole scheme has been carried through. I will conclude merely by saying this. Mr. Bevin has often enough shown courage and energy in the past. The country owes him a great deal. Will he not now have the courage to admit that there has been a mistake, and the energy to rectify it?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, when these three Motions appeared on the Order Paper my noble friends, after considering them, were good enough to ask me to express our point of view especially in connexion with the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Keyes. I wish to express our point of view with regard to the very serious and important speech which he delivered to your Lordships this afternoon. The noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet did bring forward a
908
serious case and we think it deserves a serious reply. I commiserate with him on the two speeches which followed, which completely destroyed the effect of his speech—especially the last one to which we have listened. The case which the Labour Party, as represented in your Lordships' House, wish me to put is this. We think there is a great deal of hardship involved in the case of these young cadets who have given much of their time and leisure to training; but once you begin exemptions you open a very wide door. For example, the noble and gallant Lord wishes to have exempted those who put in a certain amount of time in the three Cadet Corps and the Service Training Corps. On paper and in theory that is an excellent case. I had a small amount to do, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, with the early formation of the Air Training Corps. I was one of those who originated that scheme which has been of great value to the country, and for many years I have tried to help with the Navy Cadets. I agree with what the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet said about the excellent work these organizations do in preparing young men for the Armed Forces, but once you open that door you open half a dozen other doors as well. Now we have the noble Lord, Lord Elton, coming along, and if I understood his speech correctly—I hope I misunderstood parts of it—he wishes to exempt all those now at the universities. I do not know whether that applies only to Oxford.
LORD ELTON: Certainly not, as the noble Lord seems to imply, all those at the university, but all those who have been specially selected by the Service authorities for training in a specialized technical military course at any of the many universities which run such courses.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord did not say that when he spoke. He referred to all the potential tank and sapper officers and he went on to speak of all the potential naval officers.
LORD ELTON: All the potential naval or tank officers who were on the tank or naval courses.
LORD STRABOLGI: That was not said and my noble friend beside me reinforces my recollection. There you have the door opened still wider. Then we had a

909
general attack on the whole system which could only mean there was to be no more conscription for the mines. That of course raises the whole question of Government policy. I must say I was rather surprised to hear the two noble Lords, Lord Mansfield and Lord Elton, whom I have always regarded as supporters of the Government. Their speeches were extraordinarily hostile to the Government and especially to the Minister of Labour. I could not have been more hostile to the Government myself. I am here to-day to support Mr. Bevin, who has had a most difficult task, not only in connexion with labour for the mines but throughout the whole range of labour for the war and the whole man-power problem. Taking it by and large, I believe the country considers he has done extremely well. He has been under great difficulties. He has been one of a team in a so-called Coalition Government and he has had to implement a general policy that will not work with regard to the mines. He is to be sympathized with and supported, and I consider that the speech which Lord Elton made was of a most mischievous character. I do not suppose it was intended to create, but it might be expected to create, if anyone paid attention to it, despondency and discontent amongst these young men who are being sent to the coal face to carry out the dangerous, arduous but necessary labour of winning coal. Everything was said in his speech to belittle their effort, to hold up the mining men already working in the industry to contempt and, generally speaking, to discourage these young men and their parents. It would have been much more helpful if some words of encouragement had been spoken by the noble Lord as by the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet.
With regard to this whole question of exemptions, may I remind your Lordships, and particularly commend this to Lord Keyes, that one of the clever things the Germans did—they have not done many—from the beginning of this war—was rigidly to exempt from all forms of military service every coal-face worker both in the hard and brown coal mines? In all those drastic comb-outs of labour in Germany, whereby they managed to scrape together the equivalent of another sixty divisions after Stalingrad, they still exempted all workers at the coal face. That is something we might have copied
910
here and now we are in the difficulty of getting young men to go to the coal face. It is hard on them no doubt when they have been looking forward to joining the Fighting Services, and when many of them are from families whose male members are already in the Fighting Services; but men have to be found, and it is a case of encouraging them, and helping them, and hoping that the war will soon be over so that they can go back to more peaceful avocations. My noble friends on these Benches cannot support the suggestion that these boys connected with the various training corps should be exempted.
May I just say a sentence with regard to the remarkable speech of Lord Mansfield? He objects to the boys being asked to join the trade unions and he says that the miners' union is engaged in objectionable political activities. I find their political activities most helpful. They send sixty members from perfectly safe seats to sit in another place, and I wish they could extend their activities. The fact that he finds them objectionable commends them to me. May I remind him that the political levy has to be contracted into by these young men? The fact that they joined the union does not mean that they automatically pay the political levy.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I did not mention the levy.
LORD STRABOLGI: But the noble Earl mentioned the political activities of the union and the political activities of the union can only be paid for from the proceeds of the political levy. If a man were forced to pay the levy he would have a right to apply to the Court and he would get judgment in his favour. The only money that the union can use for political purposes to which Lord Mansfield objects is money arising from the political levy. All that is entirely voluntary. Indeed, the new entrants have to contract into that.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord has gone off on a side issue not raised by myself. I was merely advocating that no amount of influence should be brought to bear.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think I was speaking very much on the lines of the noble Earl's argument. He was objecting to the political activities of the mining union, and I was pointing out that these

911
boys, these Bevin boys as they are called, do not have to pay the political levy. They have to contract into it and therefore they need have no concern with the political activities of the union. And why should they not be asked to join the union? They are not compelled to join it. Why should not pressure be brought to bear upon them? We have accepted in this country the principle of the closed shop against much resistance, and in most industries it is recognized that the men have a right to object to other men working alongside them who are not members of their union. And that is the case in many other callings. The noble Earl could not practice at the Bar if he was desirous of doing so unless he had gone through the rigmarole of joining the lawyer's trade union, which is a very powerful one. Nor in the same way could he practice medicine without joining the doctor's trade union, which is also a powerful one. That probably applies to most professions nowadays. Very great pressure is brought to bear on the young architect and on the young veterinary surgeon, who cannot practice at all unless he belongs to his trade union. It really is too much to expect us to put back the clock to the hungry forties and expect these rules to be broken up, or, rather, men allowed to work in mines unless they are members of the miners' union.
I cannot follow Lord Elton's objection on the ground of blind chance. I do not see how any fairer method could in the circumstances have been adopted. Painful as it may seem to Lord Elton, the average Englishman likes a gamble and the taking of numbers out of a hat is not so objectionable to his ethical sense as Lord Elton may think. He knows that much of life is governed by blind chance.
LORD ELTON: I made no suggestion that the question of the ethical views of the public on gambling entered into the question at all. What I am concerned with is whether blind chance is the best method of picking the best officers and the best miners.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I point out that probably blind chance plays a great part in all the works of life? The noble Earl, Lord Munster, who will reply and myself are here in this House by blind chance. We happen to be sons of our fathers. The noble Lord himself is here
912
by blind chance. It so happened that he attracted the attention of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who recommended his name to His Majesty in order to raise him to the Peerage. If he had been born a miner's son he would not have met Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and we should not have had the pleasure of listening to him in this House on this and other occasions. It was blind chance. Blind chance comes into this and into business and into many other departments of life. You cannot eliminate it. Taking all things into consideration I think Mr. Bevin has faced a most difficult task and a highly complicated task in a way which, though it is open to criticism, was probably the only way that he could adopt in the circumstances.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, there seems to me to be a special case that does require attention, and I hope that now that we have heard the reply of the noble Lord, who says he is representing the Minister, we shall get a different reply from the noble Earl who is representing the Government. The case I refer to is that of a very small class of young men taken to the mines who were over 17½ at the time the Bill came in and had not already enlisted. That is not opening the door to anything. There is a small block of men who were 17½ and who had not enlisted, who were taken for the mines. As I understand the situation, this class can only be composed of a small number and many of them were highly skilled and trained cadets. It does seem to me that there is something very near a complete breach of faith after the Prime Minister's speech and the encouragement they received. It is a small group, it is easily defined, and I think those are the ones who really require and are entitled to receive special treatment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have to apologize to your Lordships for having to inflict a third speech on the House this afternoon and I shall be as brief as I can in replying to the debate. But I think it would be your Lordships' wish that I should deal carefully, and as accurately as I can, with it. At the same time I feel it would be for the convenience of the House that I should compose my reply in such a fashion as will enable me to reply at the same time to the three Motions on the Paper, and not discuss them individually. I want also if I can

913
in the course of my remarks to give noble Lords as clear a picture as possible of the procedure, which my right honourable friend the Minister of Mines introduced after careful consideration, to direct young men compulsorily into the coal mines. I have no wish to go into the general position of the colliery industry, which was, I think, mentioned by my noble friend behind me and by my noble and gallant friend in front of me. That of course can be debated at any stage and at any time in your Lordships' House.
I would like to recall to the minds of noble Lords that a short time ago any man who was called up for military training had the right to volunteer or opt for coalmining work. Noble Lords will remember quite well that this method failed to produce anything like the number required. I myself believe that it can possibly be attributed to the attractions which are offered in one of the Services of the Armed Forces of the Crown. Other methods had therefore to be sought to procure the necessary hands that were so urgently required in the industry. If compulsion was to be used it became quite clear at an early stage of consideration that any plan of that character must in the very first place bring all classes of the community into the. field of selection, and, secondly—very nearly as important—it must be equitable to all whom it might concern. I cannot help thinking that if we had made any approach to this question other than the one I have described it would have been utterly indefensible, and would, quite rightly, have received very severe condemnation at the hands of noble Lords. A ballot system, as we know, was finally devised as the most appropriate method for use in the circumstances.
Although my noble friend behind me in his true Oxford language describes it as the principle of blind chance, I feel much more inclined myself to call it a system based upon the luck of the draw. But whatever it may be called, it has undoubtedly this commendable feature, that it treated everybody alike, and without question it has been fair and equitable to all concerned. Certain classes of men were excluded from the ballot and I think it would be well to call to mind again the five classes of men who were so excluded. First, there were those born before January 1, 1918, that is to say, men of
914
twenty-six years of age or over. Secondly, there were those men who were not placed in medical grades 1 and 2a—that is to say, men who for one reason or another were found by the statutory board to be medically unfit to work in mines. Thirdly, there were those men who were accepted for flying duties in the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm. That alone will answer the question of the noble Earl. Fourthly, there were those men accepted for service as artificers in submarines of the Royal Navy. Fifthly and lastly, there were those men in a short list of highly skilled occupations who are called up only for Service trades and who were not even allowed to volunteer for coalmining at all.
I should not like noble Lords to think that there has been any degree of immorality or swindling in the adoption of the ballot system, or indeed that my noble friend the Minister of Labour has turned his Ministry into a gambling house of low repute. Quite the contrary. He has found a good and excellent precedent in the Militia Act of 1860 and another Act which goes even further back into the realm of Parliamentary antiquity. I might in passing tell noble Lords that that Act—that is, the Act of 1860—did not apply to Quakers, and it enabled men called up for the Militia to send a suitable substitute in size and stature instead. However good that might have been at the time, my right honourable friend has not incorporated it into the present system. There are other ways in which we could obtain compulsorily the labour so urgently required. I would ask permission of the House to put before noble Lords some ideas and suggestions which have come to my mind so that your Lordships may judge for yourselves whether in point of fact any of these schemes would be fair and equitable to all concerned.
Firstly, could we have devised a method so that the registrants in every period of registration could be hand-picked to ensure that those whose homes were in the neighbourhood of coalfields would automatically be directed into the industry, or that interviewing officers in the period of registration could have been empowered to direct to the industry those whom they considered likely to make skilled miners? That method would have certainly relieved the already overburdened

915
machine of administrative work, but it would be manifestly unfair to discriminate between those men living in the coalfield areas and others who live further afield. Furthermore, to give interviewing officers these unlimited powers would I think undoubtedly have produced a scheme certainly not free from the suspicion of bias, and it would have thrown an uneven burden on the Ministry officials. In any event, my Lords, I cannot believe that a scheme based on that principle would have received the approbation of, or support from, Parliament.
Secondly, should we have excluded all young men who had received public or secondary school education in the belief that their educational qualifications would serve them in better stead in other occupations? Any such exclusion as is contemplated by that suggestion would at once be labelled as a scheme of class discrimination. Indeed it would be, in my judgment, rightly said that education could not possibly be made a reason for discrimination and distinction amongst men working within the coal industry. Or thirdly, and lastly, should we have excluded all members of the pre-Service training units because they have voluntarily, and of their own free will, entered upon a course of semi-military training before their call-up? I have no doubt that suggestion has been in the mind of my noble and gallant friend in that he calls attention to the hardship that has been inflicted upon members of the pre-Service training units.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships, but I do think it necessary to examine in detail whether the hardship would be allayed if we decided to proceed on the lines which I have suggested and which my noble friend supported in his speech. I am told that a quarter of the men who registered on December 11 last year were members of pre-Service training units, the Air Training Corps, the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Corps, of course the Senior and Junior Officers Training Corps or of that admirable body which was not mentioned, the Home Guard. Therefore one quarter of the intake for that period would have been ineligible for compulsory direction into the coal industry. It follows from a very simple calculation that to obtain the required number for the industry one-third
916
more of the remaining registrants would have to be selected and their chance of working in the coalfields would be increased by 33⅓ per cent. It is plain that if compulsory membership of a pre-Service organization—and no one has greater admiration for them than myself—was made a ground for exemption, it would cause very severe hardship to a very large number of the remainder. Bitter feeling would have prevailed and at once wholesale avoidance of the ballot would in fact have taken place. On this occasion 1 agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that if my right honourable friend had attempted to introduce any of the three methods which I have just des-scribed, he would have placed himself in a most invidious and utterly impossible position. I know of no other method than the ballot system, and certainly my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Keyes, made no additional suggestions that would really fulfil the need, always remembering that it must be fair and equitable to everyone who came within the field of selection.
It is true that my noble friend behind me did suggest that miners who had gone to the Forces should be returned from the Services to the mines, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not enter into that matter to-day. It has been discussed on many occasions in another place and in your Lordships' House as well. I am quite prepared to admit that there are disadvantages in directing men to the coal-mining industry, or for that matter to any other industry, but I do not really believe that there is any practical alternative to the system which has been adopted and which is now in operation. I should never agree with my noble and gallant friend opposite that we have broken faith with members of the pre-Service training units or, in point of fact, that they are really suffering any severe hardship. Far more serious hardships have been inflicted upon countless thousands—millions almost—who have been directed to the Armed Forces and elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Elton, in the course of what I thought a most interesting and ably delivered speech, asked whether I could tell him anything about the officers now entering into the three Armed Forces of the Crown with regard to the courses at either Oxford or Cambridge

917
University. I have been told that young men are not accepted for short courses unless they have been enlisted in the Services concerned before the date when they would have otherwise been required to register for National Service. That may mean a reduction in numbers going through the next course. As regards the Air Ministry, and I think generally speaking the Admiralty as well, both Ministers are satisfied that the candidates they are getting are suitable and that there has been in fact no deterioration in quality. More than that I cannot say, but my noble friend can of course address a question to one of the Service Ministers at any time on that point.
Before I answer my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield, I would just like to take you: Lordships back to the summer of 1939 when the Military Training Act was passed. It will be remembered that then everyone who was knowledgeable about the selection of men for an Army stressed one vital point that all, whatever their education or social position, must be treated in exactly the same fashion. A departure from that in this case would be lamentable. It would wreck the whole scheme and certainly do no good whatever to the coalmining industry. The noble Earl asked whether men directed to work in the mines are compelled to join a trade union. I have been informed that there is no statutory obligation whatever on any man compulsorily directed to work in the coal industry, to join a trade union, nor in fact is pressure applied either by the Minister of Labour or by the Minister of Fuel and Power. Under the direction which is given by the National Service officer to any man directed into the coalfields, the conditions of his employment are specified as the agreed district rates and conditions. The man is therefore subject to conditions of employment which are laid down in any agreement entered into between the association of coal owners and the representative trade union in the district. The details of all these agreements, I am advised, vary from district to district, but there are none which provide that workers shall, as a condition of their employment, automatically be members of any trade union movement. All these agreements have been freely negotiated between the owners and the workers and it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to disturb any
918
of the agreements which govern the conditions of service of any man. Any man who is compulsorily directed into the industry is expected to abide by and to conform to them.
I have not had time to answer all the detailed questions addressed to me, but perhaps I may make this concluding remark. Any cricitism or ridicule or political quibbles which tend to make these men dissatisfied with their important work do not really assist the war effort. These men are working as much for the cause as any man in the Armed Forces of the Crown. Although their work may not be so spectacular and their rewards for service, for gallantry and devotion to duty may not be so frequent, they are nevertheless helping to produce that raw material which will undoubtedly assist in winning the victory. If I was in their position I should have no fear that anyone would belittle my efforts or cast aspersions on my work. If through no fault of my own I had missed the chance of a fighting career, I should hold my head high and with dignity and pride declare I did help to cut and hew the coal without which the freedom of mankind could never have been assured.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I must protest against any suggestion that anyone in this debate has sought to cast any aspersions upon the miners. I should like also to ask the noble Earl if he could give me a categorical reply as to the position of those members of the Air Training Corps who are not going to be members of air crews?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, if my noble friend had listened he would have known that I answered this question right at the beginning of my speech. I told him one of the five classes of men excluded were those accepted for flying duties in the Royal Air Force and in the Fleet Air Arm. He will notice I said "flying duties." That means in the air, not on the ground.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I do not see why the noble Earl should reply in this fashion. Why could he not give a direct answer and not merely an answer by implication?
LORD KEYES: My Lords, my noble friend who replied for the Government told us that a quarter of all the boys

919
registered in 1943 were either in one of the Pre-Service Cadet Corps or in the Home Guard. But has it escaped his notice—the figures are given in this pamphlet—that one-third of the whole number of boys registered in Great Britain refused to undertake any pre-Service training of any kind, and are doing nothing whatever for the country? Yet the Minister of Labour is putting boys who are giving a great deal of their time to helping the country on a par with boys of the same age who are doing nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, objected to any exemptions, but my noble friend Lord Elton said he had seen it stated in the newspapers that boys who were apprenticed in certain skilled trades were exempt. This bears out what I have been told by the leader of one of the trade unions, that no boy in one of the skilled unions would be compulsorily sent to the mines if he were called up, but would be given the choice of going into the Services or into the mines. I think that that disposes of the objection to the exemption of cadets for which I have asked. I think these cadets should at any rate be placed on the same footing as the apprentices in the skilled trades unions.
I do not know what action my noble friends who have supported this Motion wish to take. I do not propose to press it for the moment, but I cannot believe that if the Minister of Labour reads the case which has been made to-day he will not release these boys between 17½ and 18½, who had every right to think that they were about to join the Fighting Services; and that is all I ask for in my Motion. If he is not prepared to do that, I shall raise the matter again. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commis-
920
sion) revoked certain Letters Patent and appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being, The Viscount Hutchinson (Earl of Donoughmore), The Earl of Onslow, any person who shall have been Chairman of Committees (such person taking precedence by reference to the date of his appointment to that Office), The Lord Denman, The Lord Granard (Earl of Granard), The Lord Stanmore, The Earl of Clarendon, The Viscount Hailsham, The Earl of Lucan, The Viscount Mersey, The Viscount Sankey, The Viscount Maugham, The Viscount Caldecote, The Lord Templemore, The Lord Atkin, The Viscount Simon, The Lord Noel-Buxton, The Lord Addison, The Lord Hare (E. Listowel), The Lord Southwood, Speakers of the House in the absence of The Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.

REORGANIZATION AREAS MEASURE, 1944.
Text of the Measure laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE
Ninetieth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Rural District of Penybont (Parish of Pyle);
Borough of Sunderland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for Affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.