Lords Sitting of 24 April 1947

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

  RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
  4.5 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD INMAN): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to radioactive substances and certain apparatus producing radiation, and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Inman.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT BILL. [H.L.]
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill for the better securing of the liberty of the subject, and to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  4.7 P.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have been asked to make the following announcement with regard to future business. First, it will be of particular interest to Scottish Peers to know that it has been arranged to take the Committee stage of the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill on Monday, May 12. As your Lordships are no doubt already aware, the Second Reading of that Bill stands on the Order Paper for debate on Thursday next, May 1. Then, for the general information of your Lordships, I should say that the debate on the Food Situation, on the Motion standing on the Order Paper for Wednesday, May 7, is likely to extend
  124
  over the next day, Thursday, May 8. This is to meet the expressed wish of many of your Lordships, who have notified the usual channels of their desire to take part.

  CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1947.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order, 1947, dated March 31, 1947, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which Order was presented on April 3, be approved. This Order comes to the House from the Special Orders Committee who are of opinion that it cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order. The proposed Order terminates, as from April 8, 1947, the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Agreement which was originally established in 1936 and was re-established in 1940. It brings it to an end in view of the fact that the purposes of that clearing arrangement, in particular the liquidation of debts, have now been achieved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDER;
  URBAN DISTRICT OF LEIGHTON BUZZARD ORDER;
  RURAL DISTRICT OF EASTHAMPSTEAD ORDER;
  RURAL DISTRICT OF MIDHURST ORDER.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move the Order that stands in my name. I think I should point out that this Order goes a little further than is the normal practice. It deals not merely with all Consolidation Bills, but with all Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing Statute. That is to say, the proposal is that where you have a Statute relating to England and desire to apply the precise provisions of that Statute to Scotland, it shall be referred to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I believe that is considered to be a convenient course to adopt.
  Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that in the present session all Consolidation Bills and all Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing Statute be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to. Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution; and to desire their concurrence.

  TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL.
  4.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It amends in two respects the provision made by Parliament in 1806. In the first place, it terminates the annuity payable to the holder of the title of Earl Nelson after the deaths of the present Earl Nelson and his heir, who is his brother. In the second place, it relaxes for the benefit of the present Earl and his successors the provisions of the Trust, under which the Trafalgar Estates are now held. Nothing in this Bill detracts in any degree from the immortal glory of Nelson. There is no likelihood of our people, who so recently were themselves faced with the danger of the threatened invasion by
  126
  Hitler, forgetting what is owed to the brilliant sea Captain who did so much to protect our island home from invasion by Napoleon nearly 150 years ago. The record of the services of that great fighter of battles will continue for ever to be an honoured chapter in the history of our island. As Mr. Pitt himself said at the time, "Nelson's fame is coeval with the British name."
  The first thing that the Bill does is to terminate the Nelson annuity of £5,000 a year. I noticed that in the discussions in another place it was said that this pension had been granted in perpetuity to Nelson's descendants. That is not so. No descendant of the great Admiral has ever held his title, enjoyed the pension, or lived in Trafalgar House. None of the beneficiaries has been a direct descendant of the famous Lord Nelson. All have been
  collateral descendants. Parliament was not unanimously in favour of the Act of 1806. Doubts were expressed at the time as to the desirability of paying a pension not to direct descendants but to collateral ones. Mr. Francis said at the time:
  "Lord Nelson's collateral relations personally are unknown to the public, and can have no claim but what they derive from the accidental honour of bearing his name and from services in which they had no share. The gratitude due to his memory would, in my opinion, be better expressed with less profusion."
  Notwithstanding these and other doubts that were expressed in Parliament, a perpetual pension of £5,000 a year was voted and a further sum of £99,000 was provided to purchase the Trafalgar Estates. The pension has now been paid for 141 years.
  The Nelson annuity is the last outstanding annuity of its kind. Noble Lords will be aware that for a long time perpetual pensions have been regarded as objectionable in principle To-day such a pension is regarded as an anachronism. In 1887 a Select Committee of another place was appointed to consider perpetual pensions, and it recommended that no such pension should continue beyond the lifetime of its then holder. In 1889 an offer was made to commute the Nelson pension at twenty-seven years' purchase, which would have involved the payment of £135,000. That offer was refused. Since that time the family have drawn £285,000 gross under the head of perpetual pension—over twice the proposed commutation lump sum. The question of

  127
  commutation was re-opened in 1904, but as neither Earl Nelson nor the Treasury made any definite proposals, nothing was done.
  The proposal in the Bill does not follow either the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1887 or the commutation offer of 1889 which was refused by the Lord Nelson of that time. The Bill proposes that the pension should be terminated at the end of two lives—that is, the lives of the present Earl and his heir, who is his brother. Since the pension was first instituted, a sum of £700,000 has been paid, not to Lord Nelson's direct descendants but, as I have said, to descendants of his collateral relatives through successive generations. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place in the discussion on the Bill:
  "The link with the great sailor has now become so distant and tenuous, that there is no longer any justification for continuing what modern opinion must regard as a strange anomaly from other days."
  The second thing that the Bill does is to relax the conditions of the Trust which now govern the Trafalgar Estates. Under the Act which was passed in 1813, which was one of the series of the Trafalgar Estates Acts, it was definitely laid down that no holder of the title could bar the entail, and therefore the Estates have been entailed to successive holders of the title since that date. At present the tenant in tail—Lord Nelson—has not the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 1925. He cannot sell or exchange the property subject to the proceeds being held by the trustees, and even the trustees themselves cannot sell or dispose of the mansion house and its park. Clause 2 (1) will enable Lord Nelson to appoint new trustees in place of the official trustees. The Trust will not, in the sense that it is now, be a public trust. Clause 2 (2) gives Lord Nelson the powers of a tenant for life. Clause 2 (3) removes the special restriction on the alienation of the mansion house and park, and on the legal obligations imposed by the original Trafalgar Estates Act to re-invest in land the proceeds of sale of any land forming part of the Estate. In future the proceeds may he reinvested in trust securities if desired. Reinvestment will not be limited to land. These relaxations will be beneficial to the present Earl Nelson and his
  128
  successors, and I believe are welcomed by the present family. Their effect will be to put this somewhat peculiar estate on the same footing as an ordinary settled estate, save that the tenant in tail cannot bar the entail.
  There is just one other matter, not directly connected with the Bill, to which I propose to make a brief reference before I conclude. During the discussion on the Bill in another place my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he felt it would be most suitable if Trafalgar House and grounds were to pass into the hands of the Admiralty and were used for some naval purpose which the Admiralty might think fitting. This possibility was then being considered by the Board of Admiralty. I understand that the First Lord has since informed Lord Nelson, in a personal letter dated April 2, that the Admiralty have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the age of Trafalgar House, its layout and situation, so far from the nearest town and railway and from any other naval establishment, are insuperable obstacles to its use for naval purposes. I feel sure that there will be general regret and disappointment that the suggestion of taking over Trafalgar House for some naval purpose cannot, for practical reasons, be brought to achievement. Having explained the purposes of the Bill I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed.

  FOREIGN MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
  4.19 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a short Bill and I believe it will be regarded as non-controversial. Its main purpose is to remove doubts that have been raised as to the validity of some ninety-two marriages which have been solemnized "within the lines" by Naval and Air Force chaplains. These marriages were solemnized under the provisions of Section 22 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892. That Section provides:
  "that all marriages solemnized within the British lines by any chaplain or officer or other

  129
  person officiating under the orders of the Commanding Officer of a British Army serving abroad, shall be as valid in law as if the same had been solemnized within the United Kingdom with a due observance of all forms required by law."
  Early legal opinion advised that an Air Force overseas could be deemed to be "a British Army serving abroad" for the purpose of the Statute. Some seventy-five marriages have been solemnized "within the lines" by R.A.F. chaplains. In addition, seventeen marriages have been solemnized during the war by naval chaplains within the lines of Mediterranean stations and elsewhere. So far as is known, the validity of none of these marriages has ever been challenged. A recent legal opinion, however, has now expressed doubt as to whether a Royal Air Force unit serving abroad could be treated for the purpose of, the Statute, as "a British Army serving abroad," and also as to whether the naval chaplains to whom I have referred could be considered as acting under the orders of the Army Commanding Officer. I am sure your Lordships will agree that these doubts should not be allowed to persist in future as a possible source of worry and distress to those concerned, whose marriages have been entered into in the belief that they were valid. Hence the need for the Bill.
  The Bill does three things. First, it validates all these marriages, with retrospective effect. A saving clause, however, has been included, the effect of which is to avoid creating the offence of bigamy by retrospective legislation. Such a danger might conceivably arise in the unlikely event of a party to one of these marriages having married again during the lifetime of the other party. We have no reason to think that any such second marriage has occurred, but if a second marriage has taken place before the Bill becomes law, Clause 1 (1) will not affect the present legal position of either marriage. In this case we are leaving the law exactly where it stands at present, and are not inclining to either the first marriage or the second.
  The second thing the Bill does is to specify the conditions governing future marriages under a new Section 22. In future a marriage will be valid if it is celebrated by a Naval, Army, or Air Force chaplain (or any other person specially authorized for this purpose by the Commanding Office) between the parties, one of whom is a member of His Majesty's Forces serving in foreign territory, or a
  130
  civilian employed in that territory in a prescribed capacity. The purpose of this latter provision is to include in the scope of the Bill marriages of personnel of the Control Commission in Germany and Austria, and to enable ancillary personnel to be covered if desired. The expression "foreign territory" is defined, and I think noble Lords will agree that it satisfies the intention of the Bill, which is to provide special marriage facilities only in countries outside the United Kingdom where recognized facilities are lacking under the local law. It will be noted in this connexion that a British ship which is for the time being in the waters of any foreign territory will be "foreign territory" for the purposes of the Bill. Section 12 of the Act, providing for marriages on board His Majesty's ships on a foreign station, is deleted. This provision is now unnecessary in view of the new Section 22. I understand that the original facilities have never been used.
  The Bill does not apply to Dominion Forces. It does, however, provide for the recognition in the United Kingdom of a marriage entered into under similar legislation of a Dominion. Statutory provision already exists for the registration of Army and Air Force marriages, but there is no provision for the registration of marriages of naval personnel abroad, or marriages under Section 22 of the Act where both parties are civilians. This omission is now repaired. The Bill also gives the same protection to marriages solemnized under the new Section 22 as is given to other marriages tinder the Act in Section 13 (2). Noble Lords will have noted the reference to orders in Council in Clauses 2, 3 and 6. It is provided that such Orders in Council shall only be laid before each House, without the negative Resolution procedure. That is the procedure governing Orders in Council made under the Act, and it would be rather incongruous to have two different procedures under the same Act. Moreover, it is most unlikely that these Orders in Council will be controversial.
  Thirdly, the Bill brings the Act up to date by one or two amendments of detail. The Registrar-General or Superintendent Registrar has power to dispense with the need to obtain the consent of parents or guardians for the marriage of minors in England and Wales in cases where the parents or guardians are not available. There is no similar dispersing power in

  131
  connexion with the marriages abroad of minors. It is now proposed to remedy this deficiency by inserting a proviso at the end of Section 4 (1) of the Act giving the Secretary of State or Registrar-General similar power to dispense with such consent. Section 18 of the Act deals with the registration by Consuls of marriages celebrated in foreign countries in accordance with the law of those countries. Hitherto registration under this section has been permissible only when a Consul has been able to satisfy himself by personal attendance at the ceremony that provisions of the local law have been fulfilled. Clause 6 of the Bill enables provision to be made by Order in Council for the Registrar-General to receive copies of certificates, and to issue certified copies of these certificates, even when the Consul was not present at the ceremony. Such certified copies will have the same evidential value as the original certificates.
  I have dealt with the objects of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, I think they are non-controversial. To put aside any uncertainty which may trouble the minds of those men and women involved, who entered into their marriages in all good faith, and to place marriages under the Act on a firm basis for the future, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a speedy passage to another place. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Henderson.)
  4.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I imagine that everybody will be in sympathy with the purposes of this Bill. As the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said, it can never be desirable, when two people believe they have been validly married to one another, and enter upon the status of man and wife, that out of a mere technicality which can be cured, as this Bill seeks to cure this technicality, they should be put in doubt as to whether their marriage in fact has satisfied all the legal conditions. As I understand it, there is no doubt that the marriage of a soldier, celebrated behind the lines (which I suppose means behind the front line) not necessarily by the chaplain, but, it may be, by an officer who has been specially authorized to conduct the ceremony and
  132
  to marry such man with the lady of his choice, would normally be valid. I am not concerned with the apparently conflicting legal opinions which have been offered at different times, because it is desirable not only to validate that which is only accidentally invalidated, but to remove doubts which might greatly distress the married couple.
  There is one provision in the Bill, a provision of detail, which, as it stands, I think needs to be very closely examined. I doubt very much whether it is right. It is in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1 provides that if there is any doubt because the parties have been married by a chaplain of the Air Force or the Navy, that doubt is to be removed, and they are to be regarded as having been validly married from the start. I think that is quite right. Subsection (2) deals with the difficulty which may conceivably arise if one or other of the parties goes through a second ceremony with somebody else, the second ceremony not being invalid in point of form. No doubt that is necessary, because if, in all good faith a man, let us say last year, contracted a perfectly valid marriage with a lady, he could not be regarded as having committed bigamy because ten years before he had gone through a ceremony with somebody else —a ceremony which was in fact invalid. It is very unfortunate, especially for the lady, but there is no doubt that a man does not commit bigamy unless the earlier of the two marriages is a good marriage.
  What this Bill provides, however, is something entirely different. It gives an opportunity of a very strange kind; it gives notice, so far as any Statute of this sort gives notice, that if a man at this moment is, as he believes, married to a lady under the authority of the Act of 1892, and nothing further has happened to him, none the less he may now go to his solicitor and say, "If, before the passing of this Bill, I can manage to marry the lady I now like very much"—and the passing of the Bill will not take place, I dare say, for two or three months—" then the Government have been so good as to propose that that will be quite all right. They will not validate the first marriage, because I have been married again, with all due form and ceremony, in a real marriage before the passing of this Bill." I cannot think that that is what the Government mean to do. What

  133
  they mean to do, I feel sure, is to validate the past ceremony if and in so far as it was invalid for technical reasons.
  They mean to say, of course: "We cannot do that if, before we make these proposals, either the man or the woman has married a second time, when their first marriage was invalid." But there is no reason on earth why they should go on to say: "Between to-day, when this Bill is given its Second Reading, or perhaps when it was first introduced, and the day when the Royal Assent is given to it, months hence, there is an opportunity for anybody who is tired of the wife he married perhaps ten or fifteen years ago. He had better go to his lawyer at once and ask whether, since the ceremony was conducted by a Naval chaplain, it really was not an effective marriage at all. If he gets good advice and thinks fit to act upon it (perhaps he does not like his former wife at all; he has quarrelled with her and there is another lady whom he loves very much), he can say, Let us lose no time; let us get ourselves married with due ceremony in church and declared to be man and wife before this Bill passes.'" I cannot believe that the Government desire to do anything of the kind.
  That may be a very unlikely case but, having called attention to the possibility of some of these marriages in the past not being valid, surely the right provision is that unless one or other of the parties has validly married already, the previous marriage should be validated as from this moment and not from the passing of the Act. I suggest that that is ordinary common sense. Although the case may be improbable, once you are touching this business of marriage you have to think of even the individual instance. I cannot conceive any reason why a man should not be held by the validating provisions here—which merely remove a technical objection—from this hour. I cannot see why anybody should think fit to give him the opportunity, if he wishes to use it, of availing himself of an interval (which I presume will be an interval of a month of two) to get himself married to somebody else and then to say, "The Act does not in the least affect the invalidity of my previous marriage." It is purely a Committee point. I ask only that it shall be considered, because I find it very difficult to believe that any of us here seriously
  134
  desire to give that further opportunity in the case I have described.
  I ask the second question with more hesitation, because I have not looked into it closely. I undestand from the noble Lord that whereas the previous Section 22 may have been broader in its operation, the revised Section 22 will only operate provided that one at least of the parties to the marriage is "a member of the Forces serving in the territory," and so on. I am asking for information, and not necessarily putting the noble Lord to the trouble of answering now. Is the impression one gets at first sight right—namely, that Section 22 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892, provided for a valid marriage between any two parties if it was a marriage solemnized within the British lines by a chaplain or officer? If so, of course, you are cutting that down by saying: "We impose the condition now that one at least of the parties must have been a serving soldier, sailor or airman." I should not think it was a very common thing for people who were not serving to be married in this exceptional way by a chaplain behind the lines, but I do not know whether the Act of 1892 did go to that length. It may be quite right to cut it down. I am merely putting this forward as a matter to be considered hereafter.
  The first point I regard as a serious one, because in these matters one cannot get rid of it by saying: "This is very unlikely," or, "This will happen in but very few cases." If it happened in one case, it would be undesirable and I do not see why we should not alter the Bill in Committee to make it operate so as to exclude not second marriages which take place before the passing of the Act, but second marriages which take place from this moment.
  4.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM:My Lords, I would suggest that it would be highly desirable that the Order in Council which is referred to in various parts of the Bill should be passed on the day, or on the day after, the Bill comes into force. I will not explain why that seems to be necessary, but I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will realize that since there are references to conditions which may be prescribed by the Order in Council, the Order in Council ought to exist.
  LORD HENDERSON: As to the first point raised by the noble and learned Viscount we could perhaps meet it by inserting the words "before April 24, 1947," but that is a point which can be dealt with in Committee.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: That is exactly my point.
  LORD HENDERSON: I will see that the matter is considered between now and Committee stage. I think we shall be able to meet the noble and learned Viscount on that point. I am not competent to give a firm opinion on his second point. I will merely say that the first section of the Act of 1892 refers to marriages between parties of whom one at least is a British subject.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: A civilian may be a British subject.
  LORD HENDERSON: That is a matter which can be looked into before Committee stage. I think the same remarks apply to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  4.40 p.m.

  TREATIES OF PEACE (ITALY, ROUMANIA, BULGARIA, HUN GARY AND FINLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
  NAVAL FORCES (ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
  EDUCATION (EXEMPTIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).

  MINORITIES IN BURMA.
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether in negotiating with the Constituent Assembly in
  136
  Burma it will be an essential matter of policy that effective provision shall be made for the protection of the Karens, Indians and other minorities wherever dwelling. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to revert to a point to which I referred on February 3, perhaps prematurely—namely, the position of the minorities in Burma. On that occasion the then Secretary of State for India and Burma said merely that he was sure the question of minorities would be fully present to the Constituent Assembly in Burma. But now the Constituent Assembly have been empanelled, and will have to negotiate with His Majesty's Government, I cannot but ask if His Majesty's Government have this matter fully present in their own minds. Certainly, in the like question arising in India, the Government have always professed that they would make provision for the protection of minorities, and then as time passed they seemed rather less insistent upon this matter than they had been in the past.
  I do not wish to go into the general question of policy in Burma. I might raise a doubt as to whether it would be possible for the Burma Government to raise armed forces which would be adequate for their duties, both external and internal. I wish only to refer to the position of the minorities. In Burma—according to the last information I have obtained—there are some 9,000,000 Burmans proper, and there are altogether some 1,200,000 Karens; but of those fewer than 100,000 have been recognized in the Statute of the Government—those who dwell now with certain other minorities on the frontier. Nothing is said about those who dwell among Burmans on the plains, although there are some 1,100,000 of them. Then there are some 900,000 Indians who, of course, differ fundamentally from the Burmans in race, religion and tradition. There are also 150,000 Chinese and 120,000 Anglo-Burmans, corresponding, of course, to the Anglo-Indians in India.
  I do not want to dwell particularly on the matter of numbers, because it seems to me that you ought to look to the rights of the individual rather than to the rights of particular communities who live in certain defined areas. What is needed is the protection of the status of individuals, whether they are dispersed in the rest of the community or whether they live apart.

  137
  My own view—which I expressed in the discussion upon India—is that you can only give them protection, first by an organic law which cannot be repealed or altered by a bare majority, and secondly, by having an independent Supreme Court to interpret that law and a Governor with the reserve powers to enforce the findings of the Supreme Court. These conditions are found most fully developed in America, but there seems to be every reason, and with greater substance, why they should be enforced in a country like Burma. In connexion with the Bulgarian Treaty, we have had reference to "human rights," and therefore I suggest that the question of the rights of these people ought to be remembered and preserved. If the Government have any plan other than that which I have indicated, I trust they will explain what it is. It is for that reason that I put the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  4.47 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am afraid it will not be possible for me to give to the noble Lord a very different reply from that which he received when he addressed a similar question to my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence in February, and for the simple reason that events have not moved very far in the space of two months. The question of the extent to which special provision in the future Constitution of Burma for the protection of minorities is called for in the circumstances of that country, will doubtless be considered by the Constituent Assembly, elections to which have recently taken place. The noble Lord himself referred to the fact that the Constituent Assembly has not yet started to function.
  As the noble Lord is aware, twenty-four seats in the Assembly have been reserved to representatives of the Karen Community—for which he very properly shows such a keen concern—and four seats to those of the Anglo-Burman Community. Both these Communities will, therefore, be in a position, through their representatives, to urge their respective interests. As for the people of the Frontier areas—of whom I think the noble Lord
  138
  was also thinking as a minority in Burma—a Committee in Burma, under the chairmanship of Colonel Rees-Williams, M.P., is at present considering the best method of associating the Frontier peoples with the working out of the new Constitution for Burma. I would add only that I am perfectly satisfied and convinced that the majority Party returned at the recent elections in Burma, the A.F.P.F.L., are most anxious to give a square deal to minorities and have evinced a keen desire to see that minorities receive exactly the same consideration and treatment as other inhabitants of Burma.
  LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I put one supplementary question? There will, I understand, be negotiations, but will the Government negotiate with the Constituent Assembly or with the Constituted Assembly when it exists?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid that is a question which I cannot answer at the present moment, because the position is that the Constituent Assembly have not yet started to sit, and naturally until then we cannot tell what will emerge from their deliberations, or how soon the final Constitution will be set up. But the noble Lord, of course, is perfectly right in assuming that it is highly probable that there will be a treaty between this country and Burma in connexion with the transfer of power.

  CERTIFICATE FROM THE EXAMINERS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill have not been complied with:
  London Midland and Scottish Railway.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.