Lords Sitting of 5 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  NORTHOLT AIRPORT DISASTER.
  2.34 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the following question of which I have given Notice to the noble Lord, the Minister of Civil Aviation: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make regarding the aircraft crash at Northolt Airport yesterday.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I wish to express my own deep distress and that of His Majesty's Government at this disaster. I know that your Lordships will join me in offering our profound sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. The Chief Inspector of Accidents was on the scene soon after the occurrence, and preliminary investigations have already begun in association with the Royal Air Force and with the Swedish authorities. In the light of these, I shall decide whether a public court investigation should be held.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister if he will accept the assurance that the noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, as I am sure is the case on every side of the House, wish to associate themselves with those words of sympathy for those who have suffered? Secondly, without pressing the noble Lord in any way, could he arrange to make an announcement when he has come to his decision whether there should or should not be a public inquiry?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I will certainly make an announcement as soon as a decision has been reached.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
  Moved, That leave be given for the Lord Teviot's Motion (now standing for Wednesday, July 21) to be advanced to Wednesday, July 14.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I have the honour to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is a very comprehensive Bill and in many respects deals with the reforms that have been in demand for a long time past. I shall refer to some of them in the course of what I have to say. The Bill deals with the reform and the unifying of the franchise on the basis of a qualification of "One man, one vote." It deals, too, with the distribution, or redistribution, of some seats, with a small resultant alteration in the total number of Members of another place. It introduces some long-delayed and acceptable reforms in voting and other matters. It well may be that your Lordships feel that this is a Bill which is mainly concerned with another place. At the same time, it is an important constitutional matter of which this House quite properly takes cognisance.
  The first important aspect of the Bill is that it gives effect to the principle of "One man, one vote"—and one vote only. It is based upon residence. Happily it dispenses with something which some of us who were in another place in years gone by and were acquainted with the duties of our election agent's office felt was a very troublesome affair—the ascertainment of the period of residence and other matters affecting qualification. But, in this case, there are two registers a year. It is the business of the registration officer to take a house-to-house canvass of the constituency and enter up those who are in bona fide residence at that time. Those who are so in residence, if they

  289
  are also otherwise eligible by reason of age and so on, are enrolled on the register for that constituency. The adherence to this principle, to which we attach prime importance, has involved a departure in one respect from the recommendation of the Conference on which perhaps some of your Lordships may have some animadversions to make; and as a result those of us who are university graduates will not in future have two votes. We shall not have an additional vote because we are university graduates.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: But we have no votes at all.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I stand corrected by the noble Viscount. We are classed with those who are not capable of voting! However, putting aside the point which for the moment I must confess I had overlooked, that I happen to be a member of this distinguished House, I would remark that in years gone by I was a Member of another place, for fifty years or so I have been a Doctor of Medicine of the University of London, and upon various occasions I have had an opportunity of exercising a vote. To be quite frank with your Lordships, I have never been particularly impressed with the privilege. I quite agree that my views may perhaps have been a little jaundiced by the fact that never in my life as a university graduate did I vote for a candidate who was successful. An experience of that kind is apt to influence one's point of view. However, that no doubt applies to a great many more people. At any rate, the university vote will be abolished by this Bill, and along with it will go the second vote which was previously available to those who had business qualifications. That has a great effect, particularly upon the City of London, where the business vote was, of course, predominant. For my part—I speak now as a loyal member of long standing of my university, who has for many years taken an active part in its business—I do not in the least deplore the ending of the distinction between university graduates and other citizens, and I think that the adherence to the principle that one man should have only one vote is right.
  That principle has involved in the House of Commons—for which this Government must take full responsibility—the abolition of the university seats. It
  290
  carries with it, also, a consequence which, from the point of view of tradition and sentiment, some of your Lordships might wish were otherwise but which is inescapable. In the City of London there are, in all, fewer than 5,000 resident voters, and it would be quit absurd that a constituency of that size and character should be entitled to two Members. Alterations have been made, to which I will refer in a few moments, with regard to the City of London representation.
  Having said a word on the principle of "one man, one vote" which is embodied in the Bill, and what it carries with it in those two respects, I would like now to say a word about the redistribution of seats. There were two Speaker's Conferences and other Committees, to which I will refer in a moment, that dealt with the boundaries of constituencies and so on. Previous to the setting up of these Committees, there were 615 Members in the House of Commons, including the university seats and Northern Ireland. But that has not been a constant number. I find that from 1895 to to 1918 there were 670 Members of the House of Commons, and from 1918 onwards there were 607 Members; so there is nothing sacrosanct in the number of 615, which was the general objective of the Boundary Commission. The principle that was taken, on which I shall have to say a word, about the alterations that were made in the other place, was that, in general, 50,000 electors should be taken as the unit to return a Member to the House of Commons.
  The effect of the original recommendations of the Conference was this—leaving out the hundreds and taking it in thousands: the average electorate per seat in England was 58,000; in Scotland, 49,000, and in Wales, 51,000. The numbers for the boroughs, as we should expect, were higher than those for the county seats; and—again leaving out the hundreds—the average number of electors per seat in the boroughs was 61,000; in the counties it was 55,000. In the course of the discussions in the other place, it was found, notwithstanding this general aim to have a unit of 50,000, that there were eight boroughs with more than 80,000; and these eight boroughs were each divided into two constituencies, giving two Members for the borough. They are well known to your Lordships, I take it—Battersea, Blackburn, East

  291
  Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Norwich, Paddington and Reading. Each of those boroughs has more than 80,000 electors, and so it was decided to give them two Members. It appeared, also, that there were nine boroughs in which the numbers of Members proposed gave an unduly high electoral number. There was Birmingham, which had an average at that time of 63,000, Bradford with an average of 71,000, and so on. It was therefore decided in the House of Commons—all kinds of reflections have been made upon this, entirely unfairly, as I shall show your Lordships in a moment—to give an additional Member to these nine boroughs: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield.
  The result of the addition of one Member to those large areas is that in no case is the electorate less than 50,000. The smallest electorate of them all is in the sub-division of Leicester, where the electorate is 51,827 per Member. So it cannot be said that the alteration made in the other place in that respect has departed in the least from the spirit of the general intention of the Boundary Commission, which aimed at a minimum of 50,000 or thereabouts. The result of this has been to make the total number of the Members of the House of Commons 613, apart from the Members for Northern Ireland, of whom there are 13. There are 506 Members from England, with an average of 56,000 electors each; 71 Members from Scotland, with an average of electors of 49,000 (which is all very proper, seeing that the population in many parts is more widely distributed), and 36 from Wales, with an average of 51,000. So it will be seen that, whatever may be said as to the Bill as it now stands, the average number of electors for all the newly divided boroughs is substantially more than the minimum looked for. It is clearly right that in those places there should not be an average (as there would have been, for example, in Bradford) of 71,000 electors per Member. With the addition of one more Member the actual number of voters per Member in that city is 53,350. I am quite sure that no one would say that an electorate of that size was not entitled to elect a Member to the House of Commons.
  292
  I pass from that point, but I thought it was fair to give a general indication of what the position will be as a result of the small number of changes made in the House of Commons. Four Committees have sat on this matter—the two Speakers Conferences, the Oliver Committee on Electoral Registration and the Carr Committee on Electoral Law Reform. I will mention some of the alterations to the law which I think will be acceptable everywhere. Whatever criticisms your Lordships may make of the two matters to which I have already referred, I believe there will be general agreement on these other alterations. The basis of registration I have explained. It will take in all those qualified who are residents at a given time. It will be the business of the registration officer to ascertain who the residents are, and that will avoid what many of us with long experience of this matter have felt to be exceedingly undesirable—namely the touting around, shall I say, of agents and so forth, to ascertain names. It will all be done properly by the registration officer of the district.
  Another important change with regard to the facilities for voting is one which I am sure everyone will welcome. It is provided in the Bill that every parish—and some of them are very scattered, as we all know—shall have a polling station to ensure that people do not have to go unduly long distances in order to vote. This, as we know, has been in the past a great hardship upon a good many people. In some cases there are scattered hamlets with only a few voters, and places with only 30 electors will be able to make representations for additional facilities for voting. Another very acceptable change provided with regard to facilities for voting is that of voting by post. This will apply to Servicemen and people living in very scattered districts, such as the Islands off the West Coast of Scotland, civil servants who may be away on duty and their wives, and Service personnel generally. I think, too, we ought to be glad that Parliamentary candidates who may be away electioneering in another area will now be entitled to a postal vote for the constituency where they reside. That will apply to Parliamentary candidates and their wives.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it was always possible to do that.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, not by post. I am sure we shall all agree that this is a desirable improvement in the facilities for voting. There are various other minor matters which I need not particularise too much. Where there is an equality of votes, instead of the returning officer having the painful duty of giving the casting vote it is now to be done by drawing lots. The hours of polling in all places are to be from seven in the morning until nine at night, which will avoid the necessity of having to make application, and so on. Another valuable improvement is that it will be the business of the returning officer to send to every elector a poll-card showing the place and time of voting. Of course, that card will not contain names of the candidates with a cross marked against one name, as we have been accustomed to send out in the interests of our own Parties in times past.
  Similarly there are important and welcome changes with regard to local government elections. The residential qualification remains the same, but in local government franchise there is an additional vote for business or other property. The qualification is that it must be of the value of at least £10 a year and in some other place than the property giving the residential qualification. That is to say a person ought not to have two votes in the same place, but if he has business premises in one place and lives in another he will have a local government vote in both areas, one in respect of the business premises and one in respect of his residence. The times and facilities for postal voting are the same as for Parliamentary elections, except that postal voting facilities do not apply to rural district elections or to parish council elections.
  Another useful alteration in local government electoral law affects the date of the election. In the past we have often felt it very inconvenient that voting for boroughs should be in November and for councils in May. Now it is provided that voting in the boroughs will be altered from November to May. County council elections will be changed from March to the week including April 9. Rural district and parish council elections will be in the week including May 9. So we shall complete all these elections in the months of April and May, which I am sure will be a convenience. In the
  294
  case of Scotland, they will all take place in May.
  One important alteration has been necessitated in London. Owing to the reduction in the number of members' constituencies it was found that to have two London County Council members per constituency would not provide a sufficient total of members for the London County Council to enable that body to do its work properly. The London County Council has a vast amount of very complicated work to do, and it was felt that we must find some way of keeping up the number of members of the Council. It is therefore provided that in the future there will be three County Council members for each constituency, instead of two.
  An alteration which would have been welcome to some of us, at any rate, in times past, relates to the amount of money which can be spent in an election. At present the amount for a Parliamentary election is 6d. per elector plus £75 in respect of an agent. It is 5d. per elector in boroughs plus an agent's fee. In the Bill it is provided that there will be a basic figure of £450 allowed plus 2d per elector in the counties, and 1½d. per elector in the boroughs. I can give your Lordships the net result by this illustration. If you take a constituency of 60,000, you will find that in the case of a county the maximum that may be spent under the present law is £1,575. Under the Bill, the maximum that can be spent is £950. In the case of boroughs, the sum is reduced from £1,300 to £825, which I think is a welcome change, though even the latter amount seems a lot of money.
  Then there are changes in the law affecting the use of motor cars which, I think, will be very useful and which I believe are only right, particularly in country areas. It is possible under the Bill for the agent to employ motor vehicles for the carriage of electors to the poll, provided he shows a suitable placard on the vehicle—one car per 1,500 in counties, and one per 2,500 in boroughs. The Bill also provides that, notwithstanding the provision I have mentioned, people with cars can take members of their own households to vote. As to who are members of their households, I will leave others to define. At all events, it is quite proper that people should be allowed to take members of their own families in their own cars, but they

  295
  are not allowed to carry a placard asking people to vote for anyone, or behave as if it were a hired car. There are a considerable number of other minor alterations affecting such things as agents' fees, meetings, payments of speakers, and other matters which I do not think I need to detail to your Lordships. But the use of wireless transmitting apparatus in elections is prohibited, and people will be spared that infliction in their own homes, which I think is all to the good. Many of these minor amendments in our election law and conduct are exceedingly welcome, and, on the whole, I have great confidence in recommending this to the House as a very good Bill. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison).
  3.2 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to begin by thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the very full account that he has given your Lordships of this Bill, though I am sure he will not expect me to agree with everything he has said. Let me say at once, however, that we on this side of the House do not intend to reject or even to amend this Bill. It is not, as the Leader of the House himself said, in the same category as those other measures on which we have considered ourselves obliged to oppose the Government. It is evident that this Bill is of more direct concern to the House of Commons than to the House of Lords. It is true that the other place do not seem to have had quite the same sense of delicacy about the composition of this House; perhaps it would have been somewhat better if they had used the same discrimination as we do on this particular occasion! But, in any case, it will be agreed that it is unnecessary for us to follow their bad example in that respect. It should be remembered that under the Constitution your Lordships, together with criminals and lunatics, do not enjoy the privilege of exercising the Parliamentary franchise. And therefore it seems hardly appropriate, even if it is constitutionally legitimate, that we should attempt to mould the machinery to enable others to do what we ourselves are not allowed to do. That, it might well be argued—and no doubt would be argued—is somewhat outside our sphere. But if it is undesir-
  296
  able that we should try to amend a measure of this character, that surely does not preclude us from making comment on it. Whatever difference of view there may be about our other functions, there is one, I believe, on which there is complete unanimity; and that is that we should have the power, and indeed the duty, to discuss matters of burning public interest. I should have thought this certainly comes into that category, for with the three exceptions I have already mentioned it directly affects every grown man and woman in this country.
  Many of the provisions of the Bill which deal with the actual machinery of
  voting are, I think, not controversial. With those I do not propose to deal this afternoon. But there are others which have been the subject of bitter controversy in another place, and I am bound to say at the outset that we regard this Bill as it emerged from the other place, in spite of the skilful and elaborate special pleading to which we have listened from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, as a pretty shabby affair. As to the desirability of some measure to revise the machinery of the election of Members to the House of Commons, there is, so far as I know, no difference between any Party. Obviously some such action is necessary from time to time, if Parliament is to be what it purports to be—that is to say, if it is to be representative of the general population of the country as a whole. As was said a great many centuries ago, "Times change and we must change with them." That is specially true of the century in which we live. I do not suppose that there has ever been a period in the whole of our history which has seen such rapid and extensive movements of population. What were thirty years ago thriving urban areas have now become almost "pocket boroughs"; and other parts of the country which thirty years ago
  were remote and lonely parts of the countryside have now been transformed into thriving industrial towns or thickly populated suburbs. Clearly, account must be had of changes of that kind, if Parliament is to be in any way representative of the broad mass of the citizens.
  It was for that reason, I understand, that it was decided during the last Parliament, by agreement between all Parties, that they should embark on the task of redrawing the boundaries of the

  297
  constituencies. According to what has become a fairly well-established custom in such circumstances, a Conference was convened, under the Chairmanship of the Speaker, to examine the position, and if possible to produce a Report which would be acceptable and agreeable to all sections of opinion. To this procedure, all Parties assented. In due course, as your Lordships are aware, the Conference sat; and they produced a Report. That Report was not dissented from by any portion of the Government of the day, which, conveniently, at that time represented all the main Parties in the State. All that would appear to have been needed was to implement these recommendations. That was the position which was accepted by members of all Parties, not only in the last Parliament, but also in the early stages of this Parliament. It was agreeably recognised on every side that the traditional procedure for securing an agreed solution had once again justified itself. The British genius for compromise had won another notable victory. I have here, but I do not want to weary your Lordships with them, a number of quotations from Socialist Members of another place, which I think amply confirm the view I have given.
  Then—I think this is the only possible conclusion—quite suddenly a number of sinister figures appeared on the stage—the successors of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the Party managers of the Labour Party. A whisper began to be heard; "Was this settlement quite so good as it appeared? It may be fair, it may be British, but how will it affect the Party?" This agreed solution was going to lose the Party 35 seats. Was it not possible to pay too high a price for a fair and objective outlook? Gradually this whisper spread—we could even hear it in this rarefied atmosphere—from managers to Back-Benchers; and from the Back Benches to the Front Bench. And the more the representatives of the Government 'thought about these 35 seats, the more intolerable the situation appeared. Some way out must be found from obligations so foolishly entered into, when they did not know that they were going to have a majority in the next Parliament. No doubt that was a situation that was extremely embarrassing. Extricating oneself from agreements into which one has entered is always awkward. But,
  298
  "where there's a will there's a way," and eventally some ingenious mind, which I take to be the mind of the Lord President of the Council, found a way out.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? I am wondering where he gets his figure of 35. There appear to have been 17 alterations plus the university seats.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you alter 17 which were against you to 17 in your favour, you get a total of 34. Anyone who has taken part in a Division in this House will see that that is not an unfair calculation
  As I said, a new formula was propounded—namely, that what is done in an earlier Parliament does not bind the next Parliament. From from moment all was plain sailing. All that remained to be done was so to cut about the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference that the loss of 35 seats to the Labour Party was entirely neutralised. They were quite frank about it; there was hardly an attempt to conceal their real motives. They entered into this Party game with gusto and, I must confess, with very considerable success. They started first on the university seats. These had proved, as your Lordships know, singularly reluctant to return representatives of the Labour Party. As the voters for the universities are both intelligent and independent minded, this is perhaps not so very surprising; but it was quite sufficient to ensure their liquidation. It was argued that the university seats are not logically defensible—we heard it today from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—on the rigid basis of "one man, one vote." That may well be true. But there is a great deal in the British Constitution which is not logically defensible.
  The real question is: Do the university Members provide a useful element in the House of Commons? That is the point that ought to lave been considered, and to that, I should have thought, there is only one conceivable answer. They do—did, I am afraid it will soon be. They provide an independent element in a House which is already far too much dominated by the Party Whips. If the Members for the universities are not Socialists, they are, for the most part, certainly not Tories. Take such Members as Sir Arthur Salter, Mr. Wilson Harris,

  299
  and Miss Eleanor Rathbone. I mention only those names; your Lordships can think of many others. Can anyone deny that those Members were not only ornamental but useful to Parliament? I would suggest that this action which has been taken by
  the House of Commons must be particularly interesting to noble Lords in this House. In recent months we have heard a great deal from the Government Benches here in the House of Lords about the value of the Cross-Bench mind. It constantly cropped up during the debates on the Parliament Bill: the Cross-Bench mind must be preserved in any scheme for reform. That, we have been told, is
  absolutely vital. The university Members are the only Cross-Bench minds in the House of Commons, yet that did not save them from extinction. I think we can now see how much value we must attribute to Government protestations on that point. So much for the universities.
  And what about the City of London? It is equally easy to make a logical case against the representation of the City of London. But the City has played an immense and glowing part in Parliament throughout British history. Through all the period of the civil war it was firm against reaction, and to-day, and for long past, it has been the financial centre of the whole Commonwealth and Empire. Can anyone who looks at the matter with an objective mind say that the lustre of Parliament is not going to be dimmed by the abolition of the constituency of the City of London? Yet, because it was not a good Socialist seat, it was enthusiastically swept away into the limbo of the past.
  One might have thought that, having struck so valiant a blow for sectional as against national interests, the supporters of the Government would have been satisfied. But not at all. It seems that gerrymandering is rather like drink: it goes to your head. Having started on their career of destruction, the Labour Party ran amok, and they went on hacking about the Report of the Speaker's Conference until the ultimate result was, not what the delegates to that Conference had agreed was right for the country but what the Socialist wirepullers thought was right for their Party. Nor did they concern themselves merely with redrawing boundaries and constituencies; they threw in
  300
  extras, such as limiting the use of cars at elections, to which the Leader of the House has referred. The reason for that, I take it, is that it is assumed that only the rich have cars. But I should have thought that the storm over the basic ration would have disabused the Government by now of that illusion. In any case, this provision will not hurt the rich, who have their own cars. The only effect, undoubtedly, will be to make it difficult, if not impossible, for many poor people to register their votes at all. That is a strange achievement for a Government which says that it stands for democracy, and nothing but democracy.
  I do not know whether the Labour Party are satisfied with this Bill as it has left another place. No doubt, from the purely Party point of view, it is an improvement upon the original recommendations of the Conference. But is that the only, or, indeed, the best point of view? Taking the long view, have they not sacrificed more than they have gained? How can anyone in the future have any confidence in any agreement of this kind into which that Party enters? The other day, during the debates on the Parliament Bill, I remember the Lord Chancellor making a most moving and persuasive appeal to your Lordships to accept the Government proposals. I am speaking without the book, but I think the sense of it was to accept the Government proposals and put this problem to sleep again for another thirty years. If we had allowed ourselves to be persuaded by that plea, what would be our position now, under the Lord President's new formula? As soon as it was convenient, out that formula would come from its pigeon-hole—if, indeed, it had ever been put into its pigeon-hole. We should be told that nothing that was done in a previous Parliament bound the next, and further steps would be taken to eliminate the remaining powers of this House. It is as well that we should be wise to the new and convenient morality of the Labour Party in this particular respect. If the Leader of the House is doubtful about what I have called the "Morrison formula," I shall be delighted to give him the extract from Hansard. If he is already satisfied, I will not weary the House with it.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should like to have it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Very well. It is in Column 1002 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place on February 17, 1948. It arose from an exchange between the Lord President and Mr. Peake. Mr. Peake had said:
  "I am obliged to the right honourable gentleman. He would make things clearer if he would state categorically now whether he admits there was a bargain and agreement in the Speaker's Conference in 1944. Does he agree to that?
  MR. MORRISON: Certainly, in the Speaker's Conference in 1944 there were compromises, there were accommodations, that were reached.…
  MR, PEAKE: I am obliged to the right honourable Gentleman. He has made it clear that yesterday, when he said there was no bargain, he was saying that there was no bargain that would extend beyond the life of that Parliament.
  MR. MORRISON indicated assent."
  That is the extract. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of elucidating the point for the benefit of the Leader of the House. I do not, of course, mean that, if one Party in Parliament imposes a certain measure upon the other, the other Party cannot reverse it in a subsequent Parliament—of course I do not mean that. Clearly that would be entirely legitimate. But when the Parties have freely agreed to a certain course of action, and when one of those Parties, unilaterally, at a later date decides to repudiate that agreement, if it is not a breach of faith it is certainly a breach of one of the oldest and most highly respected traditions of Parliament.
  When I think of the general conduct of the Labour Party with regard to this Bill, I am reminded of an incident which occurred during the sittings of the Nonintervention Committee before the war. On one occasion, that rather ill-omened Committee had had a particularly unfortunate meeting—no progress had been made and general depression prevailed. In order to some extent to lighten the depression, one of the younger members of the Foreign Office went up to the Soviet delegate and said to him: "The Committee may not be making very much progress, but at any rate it has had one good result. All you gentlemen are learning excellent English." The Russian looked at him with a stony eye and said: "Well, there is one English word which the Italians evidently do not yet understand." "What is that?" asked the
  302
  Foreign Office representative. "Cricket," said the Russian. It may indeed be doubted, in the light of recent events, if even the Russian Government have entirely mastered the more delicate nuances of that word. But I am afraid that that is equally true, in the light of this Bill, of a good many Members of the Socialist Party in another place.
  The House will recall that, when the Conference held its meetings, and when it made its recommendations, the Conservative Party were in the same position as the Socialist Party now are. They had a great majority in the House of Commons. They could have pressed their own point of view far more strongly than they did. This was recognised by the Lord President himself in a speech which he made in another place on June 17, 1945. He said:
  "Let us be perfectly frank and honest. What was the issue before the Labour members of the Speaker's Conference on this question of plural voting"—
  which was at that moment under dis-cussion—
  "and what was the issue before the Conservative Members? Conservative Members had to consider, 'Ought we to give up anything or to stand pat?' They could have stood pat: they had a majority. There was nothing I could have done about it if they had decided to stand pat. They did not."
  We did not insist on proposals which were to our advantage, because we considered that the way of compromise and moderation was the way of wisdom. I do not claim the slightest credit for the Conservative Party in that respect. I think they took a very proper course and a right course. But the Labour Party, when once they gained power, merely used this agreed compromise as a jumping off place for further demands. I submit that that is hardly in full accord with British traditions of fair play. Whether they have definitely committed a breach
  of faith regarding the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference may no doubt be disputed by those who accept the Lord President's formula. But they have certainly debased the currency of fair dealing, upon which Parliamentary institutions ultimately depend.
  There is not the slightest doubt, I think, that in the earlier stages—and I do not think the Leader of the House denies it today—the Government regarded themselves as bound by the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. As late as

  303
  October, 1947, the Lord Chancellor, in the debate upon the King's Speech, used these words:
  "A Bill will be introduced, which will contain provisions for the Electoral reform arising out of the recommendations of the Committee of Electoral Registration, the Speaker's Conference and the Committee on Electoral Law Reform. If, as I fully expect, the noble Viscount"—
  that is, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—
  "is familiar with all the proceedings in those Committees, which I am not, he will know precisely what the Bill is going to do."
  Now would he have said that if he had thought that his Party were fundamentally to alter the proposals of the Conference?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? This has been quoted so often. It was a somewhat light-hearted remark in answer to an equally light-hearted question of the noble Viscount, who had asked me whether we were going to introduce a system of proportional representation. It has been quoted completely out of its context ever since.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that when the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords makes a light-hearted remark which does not mean what it purports, he ought to ring a bell.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can quite understand that the country might be deceived, but I hope the noble Marquess will no longer be deceived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I accept what the Lord Chancellor has said, but I hope that in future his lighter remarks will be in accordance with his more serious thoughts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Any remark taken out of its context is bound to be misleading. It is quite unfair to read that remark without any regard to the context in which it was made.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I said anything unfair.
  No doubt in particular the noble and learned Viscount assumed that the university franchise would continue, and it was natural that he should assume that, because he himself has entered as a candidate for a university seat, although he was, unfortunately, not successful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Marquess again? Would he say, because he was opposed to the nationalisation of transport, that when it was decided to nationalise transport he must never ride in a bus?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That does not seem to me at all an identical thing.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If Parliament decide that they are going to retain university seats, is the proposition that no Socialist Member must ever stand as candidate?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was merely saying that I presumed that the noble Viscount would not have stood for a seat if he was against university seats.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Viscount does not understand that, I really cannot undertake to make the point clear to him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not understand it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then it is another case where I must regard the noble and learned Viscount as humbugging himself.
  In any case, these proposals of the Conference have been altered, and they have been altered not for the good of the State but to secure temporary Party advantage. I repeat that we do not intend to reject or even to amend this Bill, for reasons which I have already explained. But we regard this measure as one that reflects very little credit upon either the Government or the Labour majority in the House of Commons, and I believe that it will be rightly reprehended by all those who hold the high reputation of Parliament dear.
  3.28 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we on these Benches do not differ in any material way from the general approach indicated by the noble Marquess to the discussion of this Bill in your Lordships' House. We recognise that the proper distribution of Parliamentary constituencies and the due regulation of the electoral machinery are a matter for another place, and that it would be inappropriate for your Lordships' House either to

  305
  reject the Bill or, indeed, to amend it in any substantive sense. But we desire to express—and, if I may say so, not lightheartedly—our regret (it would be an exaggeration to say our disappointment) that the opportunity has again been missed to make such an alteration in the voting system in this country, either by way of proportional representation, the single transferable vote or otherwise, as would ensure that the composition of another place more accurately represented the view of the electorate expressed at the polls than it does under the existing system. Perhaps we are not altogether surprised that no provision to that effect appears in the Bill. After all, the highest that we Liberals can now aspire to be is to have a status equal to vermin—for noble Lords on my Left are now proclaimed to be lower than vermin. At the risk of irrelevance, I would beg leave to interject that I have never, in a good many years of reading and listening to speeches, read a more deplorable speech than that made by the Minister of Health and reported in this morning's papers.
  The fact that we do not propose to criticise the individual provisions of this Bill does not, in our view, in any way inhibit us from expressing some views upon the circumstances surrounding its introduction, with which the noble Marquess has already dealt. It so happens that I heard the greater part of the Third Reading debate in another place. When the debate on the Amendment moved by the Opposition for the rejection of the Bill began, I confess that I had it in my mind that the Amendment was perhaps founded rather upon a tactical than upon an ethical basis; but as the debate went on I came, quite objectively, to the conclusion that the main charge had been made out, although the indictment was perhaps drafted in somewhat flamboyant language. Three points seem to me to emerge in connection with this particular controversy.
  The first is that this was not just a casual conference, or a conference presided over by some outside person; it was a Speaker's Conference, with all the prestige that attaches to a Conference over which Mr. Speaker consents to preside in person, and with the presumed status of the representatives of the various Parties selected to attend a Conference on that level. The second salient point is that
  306
  the recommendations of that Conference, upon which members of all main Parties served, were unanimous. And the third point—a highly important point—is that that Conference took place in 1944. In 1944 it was reasonably evident that the War was coming to a close. It was equally obvious that with the end of the War there would in all probability be a break-up of the National Government and the substitution for it of a purely Party Government of one Parry or another. It was, therefore, surely in the contemplation of the representatives of all Parties attending that Conference that, even if it were possible—unlikely as it might have been—to introduce legislation to deal with some part of the recommendations of that Conference, it would be quite impracticable, while the War went on, to deal with so voluminous a range of matters as are incorporated in the Bill now before us.
  It is said now that the decision of one Parliament is not binding upon its successor I do not propose to argue that point at any particular length, except to remark in passing that that doctrine does not altogether enhance our confidence in the assurances which are constantly given us in this House, when we take exception to the very wide powers for which Ministers are asking in Bills, that those excessive power will never be used to excess. I cannot help thinking that those who were present at that Conference, bearing in mind the date on which it was held, bearing in mind the probability of an entirely different set of circumstances supervening in a short space of time, must have had it in mind that the obligations into which they were entering were not confined to the duration of that Parliament but would carry over into the future. I find it difficult to believe if the result of the subsequent Election had been different from what it was—provided always that the Socialists saw some advantage to themselves in the result of that Conference—there would not have been raised a universal shout that the other Party—whichever of the two other Parties might have been in power—were jettisoning for purely partisan advantage an agreement freely arrived at by the consensus of Members of all Parties.
  If I may say so respectfully, I am afraid this is one more instance in which Ministers fail to remember that they are a Government and not a governess. They

  307
  are very fond of going about the country delivering harangues upon the high standards and lofty ideals of public life, but at the first remote muffled peal of thunder on the Left they drop all their protestations and scuttle for shelter. We had an instance of this, of a minor character, the other day in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Bill, in which, quite obviously as a result of internal pressure, they had changed the whole of one important clause. Here in quick succession is another example. It is true that the Government in power are not the Government which were in power at that time. But it is also true that the leading Ministers of the present Government were members of that previous Government, and that certain Ministers now holding office in the Government were actually representatives of their Party upon the Speaker's Conference. That being so, what are the considerations which have led those representatives, who arrived at unanimous conclusions, to change their views? The same factors, surely, apply now as applied then. If these recommendations were right then, they are right now; and if they are right now, they ought not to be abandoned merely because the Government are frightened of their own Shadow Cabinet.
  3.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: My Lords, as I was a member of the Conference presided over by Mr. Speaker, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two this afternoon on this subject. This is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of making a speech in your Lordships' House. When I was Chief Whip in another place, new Members about to make their maiden speeches would come and ask me, as an old friend and counsellor, for some advice. I always said: "There are three things you must observe. First, crave the indulgence of the House, because no matter how well you may speak there are others who can speak far better than you can." That, my Lords, is what I do to-day; I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House. Secondly, I used to say to those new Members: "There are many people who spoil their speeches by going on for too long." I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief.
  308
  Thirdly, I would say: "Try to avoid matters of sharp controversy." There I am afraid that I cannot follow the good advice that I gave to others, because the matter under discussion to-day is a matter of some considerable controversy. I find myself in this slightly awkward position: that my noble friend and leader, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, have covered the case, from my point of view, so amply and so much better than I could that comparatively little remains to be said. I agree entirely with what my predecessors have recently said.
  However, I ought perhaps to say one or two words upon the abolition of the university constituencies. I am not going to argue the merits of that proposal, although I am absolutely convinced that a very strong case indeed can be made for the retention of the university franchise. But I am going to argue as to whether it is seemly and right, in view of Mr. Speaker's Conference and of what has happened since, that these proposals should be made at this particular point. If everyone is in agreement, there is no need at all for a Conference, for there is nothing to confer about. It is just because there were differences at the time inside the Coalition Government that a Conference was called together to see whether, by good will and by a spirit of give and take, those differences could be ironed out and agreement reached. From the point of view of the Party to which I belong, it would have been perfectly easy for us to go to that Conference and voted for everything we liked and against everything we disliked, and let the matter rest there. But what would have happened to the Conference? There would have been no Conference at all. It would have ended in stalemate; it would have ended in failure, just like the Conference which was presided over by Lord Ullswater in 1930. That Conference came to an end because all the points put to it were voted upon on purely Party lines.
  Believing, as I do, that the success of a Conference depends, to a large extent, upon the amount of ground work that is done behind the scenes before the Conference meets in full session, I was very glad to have some informal conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—who, incidentally, I am sorry to hear cannot be present to-day—to see

  309
  if we could resolve some of the difficulties which were bound to come up in front of the Conference, I have known the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for a number of years. We were colleagues together in another place. We have been friends for a long time. I have always found him to be a most reasonable and fair-minded man, a man of whom one can say that his word is as good as his bond. I simply cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is happy about what is being done to-day. Knowing the noble Lord and the conversations which I had had with him across the floor of the House in another place, it came as no surprise to me that we were able to agree without much difficulty on the main points that divided us. It was, therefore, agreed that I should recommend to my Party that the Parliamentary and local government franchise should be assimilated, and that he would recommend to his Party the retention of the university constituencies and some other proposals dealing with the business vote.
  When those matters came before the full Conference, they were agreed to without a Division; there was no controversy over it at all. Indeed, I do not now recall any Labour representative or Independent raising his or her voice in a contrary sense. There were long debates and sharp differences over other points. There was a great deal of controversy and, by looking at the White Paper, it will be readily seen that Divisions took place upon those subjects. But on this matter of the universities—No; there agreement reigned. We had at that Conference people of such Left. Wing opinions as the late Mr. Maxton and Mr. D. N. Pritt, Members who were not afraid to say: "It is all right for you people; you can agree upon this, but I do not." So far as I can remember, the Conference was unanimous in passing this recommendation that university representation should be maintained.
  Furthermore, I do not recall any member of the Speaker's Conference saying: "This agreement to which we have come is only of a temporary nature and will last only up to the next General Election." I do not remember it. Therefore, I am entitled to say—and this point was made very clearly by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading—that, in the opinion of those who took part in that Conference, the agreement to which we came was an
  310
  agreement that was going to stand, at any rate for some time. Whilst I fully agree that no Conference, however authoritative and however weighty, can bind Parliament, yet I do say that there is such a thing as fair play and honest dealing. It is only by strictly observing these rules that politicians can avoid being dubbed "tricky." Outside, it is a common thing for people to say, "Yes—tricky politicians." I deny that absolutely. But I do say that unless we observe the rules of fair play and honest dealing, that term of "tricky" does bear some weight. In this case, I am bound o say that I think that the Government have been tricky. I think that they have, if I may use a term which is not perhaps quite appropriate to this House, been a bit "hot." They have not fulfilled their side of the agreement, whereas our side of it was fulfilled in December, 1944, when the Parliamentary and municipal franchises were assimilated and became the law of the land. So the Government have done all the taking and refuse now to do any of the giving.
  Do they really think that they would have got the assimilation of the two franchises through the Cabinet in 1944 if they had said quite frankly at that time: "If we win the forthcoming General Election, we shall throw over the Speakers Conference and do away with the university seats"? Never: If that had been made perfectly clear to the Coalition Cabinet in 1944, I do not believe that that provision would have been agreed to. I know that there was a great deal of hostility amongst my friends and supporters on account of our having agreed to the assimilation of the two franchises. It was considered to be something of most doubtful merit. But we were prepared to agree in general to the all-round basis of the agreement reached under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. If, however, it had been said: "No university seats are going to remain," I do not believe for one moment that agreement would have been reached in the Cabinet.
  Suppose the situation were reversed; that we, the Conservatives, had won the General Election of 1945, and that we had brought in a Bill to disfranchise 7,000,000 municipal voters, what would have happened? A howl would have gone up from the Socialist ranks and, in my view,

  311
  that howl would have been justified. We should have been called "dishonourable"; we should have been called "untrustworthy"; we should have been called "cheats." It would have been said: "What can you expect from the gentlemen of England?" All the old sneers that I have heard so often in the other place would have been trotted out again, with increased vehemence. The only difference would have been that on this occasion the sneers and gibes would have been justified. If my Party had acted in such a way as that and if I had been in office, I should most certainly have resigned, rather than serve a Government that acted so shabbily. Had I been a Back Bencher I would have come to your Lordships' House and repudiated my Party by speech and by vote. I feel that that is the action I would have been called upon to adopt by reason of the breaking of the agreements that had been come to in Mr. Speaker's Conference.
  I noticed the other day in The Times a report of a speech by Mr. McNeil, the Minister of State, who was speaking at Greenock with reference to the situation in Berlin. He used words which struck my eye as being relevant to what we are discussing to-day. He said:
  "When we make bargains, we make them to keep them. We expect other Powers to do the same, and we will not yield upon this."
  My Lords, I commend that doctrine to the present Socialist leaders and to all their followers.
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I consider it a great privilege to follow the noble Viscount to whom we have just listened, and I am sure I am speaking for as your Lordships when I say that, whatever we may think about the subject matter of the speech, we shall be pleased to listen to him again because he speaks with such sincerity. This subject to-day is one with which I have been closely connected over many years. During the past year or two, it has been a pleasure to me to be a member of various Committees appointed by Governments to consider a reform of the franchise—a pleasure increased because of the fact that, in addition to myself as the chief agent of the Labour Party, there were present on those Committees the principal agents of the other Parties; and on their
  312
  behalf I would like to say that, whatever may be the faults of some parts of this Bill, the Bill in its main features provides a basis for settlements reached during our discussions. During the work of those Committees I have been particularly friendly with Sir Robert Topping, who was the principal agent of the Conservative Party. In matters of politics we have been friendly rivals, but in matters of detail, in technical subjects, we have approached our problems as fellow craftsmen and it has not been in the least difficult to reach conclusions about them. I think it is as well, if this Bill goes through your Lordships' House, that we should think not only of what we owe to leaders and to Members of Parliament but of what we owe to the artisans of Party politics who, in the main, have to remain behind the scenes.
  The first thing I did, on looking at this measure, was not to read the first few clauses but to look at the schedules at the end of the Bill. I was anxious to know what particular measures which have guided our work in the past are to swept off the Statue Book, and I was agreeably surprised to see that a large number were to 'be dealt with in that way. However, I do not think that, when the schedules have gone through, the law of elections will be as simple at it ought to be. Indeed the Committees of which I have been a member have urged that after the passing of the present Bill there should be introduced a consolidation Bill which would make the law relating to elections mote easily understood by those who desired to use it. It must be remembered that whereas few lawyers give time and attention to this side of the law, no measures that go through Parliament receive such close attention from the rank and file of the great political Parties.
  I propose to deal in a moment with one or two of the points raised in the discussion, but before I do so there are two other points I would like to discuss. I would like, if I may, to issue a word of warning about absent voting, about the use of the proxy and of the postal vote. If I had been at the Home Office and I had been responsible for this Bill, I would have lent my influence towards a reduction in both matters. First of all, I have not been able to convince myself that a proxy vote, or the nomination by a

  313
  soldier, of a proxy elector, does in fact mean exercising a soldier's vote; it is not a direct vote by the soldier on the issues of the day. To my mind, the proxy elector is a new form of plural voter, and if we remember that some of the principal features of this Bill are to wipe plural voting off the Statute Book, we must remind ourselves that, when the business vote has gone and the university franchise is no more, there will remain upon the electoral registers a substantial number of plural voters, voting as proxies. The postal vote can be a grave danger to us. Before 1872, in elections in this country corruption was rife. Many attempts were made to break down those features of the electoral system, but it was only when the Ballot Act of that year was carried into effect that we began to put a stop to corruption and bribery as it had previously existed. A man who bribes an elector is anxious to buy something that the elector has. So long as his bargain can be brought home to him he will continue to bribe; but if, because of the secrecy of the ballot, he can never be certain what takes place in the polling booth, he must always be in doubt whether he has had his money's worth. Since 1872 that feature of our electoral system has been almost entirely killed.
  Now we come to the matter of the postal vote. An elector receives, say, an envelope in which there is a ballot paper and a certificate of identity. Someone approaches him and offers a sum of money for the ballot paper after it has been completed and after the identity form has been filled in. They are both then enclosed in the envelope and the envelope is handed to the person who tenders the bribe. That means that the briber has not only paid his money for a vote but has the value of the vote in his own hands. I am not going to suggest that there has been a great deal of bribery in recent years, in connection with the postal vote, but I think noble Lords will realise the possibilities that exist; and, they will, I am sure, take great care not to extend absent voting with postal voting so as to bring back into British politics the bribery and corruption which were formerly known.
  I wish now to refer to one feature of plural voting to which little or no attention has so far been given. When speaking of plural voting we have been thinking
  314
  more especially of the business vote. I want to say a word or two about the university vote. It is sometimes claimed—indeed it has been claimed in your Lordships' House to-day—that the university constituencies provide a means by which distinguished men of peculiar attributes can reach Parliament. If it could be said with truth that such men could not reach Parliament by any other means, there might be a case for the continuance of these seals. But it would be untrue to ay that the only independent men, the only distinguished men, who have been in the House of Commons during the past fifty or sixty years have been those who have been elected for university seats.
  There is another point, however, and I think that we ought to be more concerned about this than about the representation of these constituencies. A second vote is given to those in possession of a degree. This degree is conferred upon a man or a woman at about the age of twenty-one, not because they have made any special contribution to the well-being of the country, not because they possess great knowledge and experience, but simply because they have succeeded in passing an examination at a university. Millions of people in our country, before reaching middle life, have not only made far greater contributions to the country's welfare than the man who merely wins a degree but have gained knowledge and experience which university students, even with first-class degrees, cannot obtain or possess so early in life. Yet, in order that we may have university seats, we have a university franchise which confers a second vote upon a man or woman long before it has been earned by services to the State.
  The noble Marquess made some reference to the subject of redistribution, and he also made a reference to myself. It was, I think, very highly coloured.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, I did not make any reference to the noble Lord—certainly I did not intend to do so. I think I spoke of "the noble Lord's successors." I believe those were the words I used. I certainly would not wish to make any animadversion upon the noble Lord.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I thought the noble Marquess's statement was rather highly coloured, and rather amusing. It is a pity that it was not true. Parties do

  315
  not work in the way the noble Marquess described. If the suggestion is that some of the faults committed by this Government, or some of the errors contained in the Bill, are due to the intervention of either myself or my successors I want
  to give a categorical denial at once. We have our own views, of course, and we can express them in our Party conferences. We can make representations if we so desire; and we can discuss these matters in our executive committees if we wish to do so. But the members of the Labour Party, whether in Parliament or serving on the Speaker's Conference or other Committees concerned with this matter, are just as free and independent as the members of other Parties. It is just as well that we should understand that, because it has been said on more than one occasion that this Government would have carried through a supposed agreement of the Speaker's Conference if the Government had been left to themselves. It has even been suggested that the only reason why the agreement was not kept was that pressure was brought to bear from outside. That is quite wrong. It ought to be stated that we, on our part, have some right to resent such a suggestion.
  The noble Marquess who sits on the Liberal Benches addressed your Lordships in his usual manner, and the result of his remarks was to cast doubt upon the honour and integrity of the Labour Party. The noble Marquess and the Liberal
  Party which he represents do not wish the Labour Party to carry through their work under certain conditions. For instance, they have objected to the Labour Party introducing through this Government, a Bill which is designed amongst other things, to do away with the university seats; and because that has been done, they suggest that we ought not to run candidates for the constituencies in question. I want to say to the noble Marquess, as I say to any member of your Lordships' House, that if there is an Election, whether we like the existence of the seats or not, we are going to fight those seats, because that is the only way in which we can try conclusions with our political opponents.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reproof,
  316
  but I said nothing in the nature of what he has just attributed to me.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I am very sorry, and I do express my regret to him. But I want to repeat to the noble Marquess who sits on the front Conservative Bench, and who made the remarks, that whether we agree with the principle of university seats or not, if there is an Electon we shall take advantage of them in order to fight our political opponents upon the issues of the day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding about this. I quite see that on this question differing views can be held. There may well be those, like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who hold the view that so long as there are university seats, even if you do not believe in the existence of such seats and do not think that any of the voters ought to be entitled to vote, nevertheless you are entitled to stand and get yourself elected by them if you can. That is the view taken by the Lord Chancellor. I do not take that view. I, personally, would not feel justified in standing for a seat in Parliament, if I felt that none of the electors in the constituency ought to have a vote. I should feel that to do so would be contrary to my convictions. I still hold that view. I should feel very much embarrassed if I were asked to take the sort of view which is put forward by the noble Lord. No doubt there may be two views about this. But to say that you propose to stand for a seat when, in your heart of hearts, you feel that there ought not to be such a seat, and that none of the electors ought to have a vote, is the sort of thing that I should find it impossible to do.
  LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess must, of course, make up his own mind on this question. I am certain of this, that in all types of constituency in future, there will be Conservative and Labour candidates fighting on the programme of their Parties, whether they like the seats or whether they do not.
  The noble Marquess on the Front Liberal Bench did denounce the Labour Party because of certain features of the Bill. He said the Labour Party were bound by the agreements of the Speaker's Conference. Well, if one assumed that

  317
  the Labour Party had been remiss on these matters, why should the Liberal Party follow their example? During the Speaker's Conference there was mention of P.R. and the alternative vote. Neither of those subjects was contained in the agreement finally reached. Although agreement could not be obtained upon them, they were subjects of the Speaker's Conference and as the Liberal Party were bound by the Speaker's Conference I should like to know why, when this Bill went through the House of Commons, the Liberal Members put down Amendments to the Bill in favour both of P.R. and of the alternative vote. Liberals cannot have it all ways. If the Speaker's Conference binds the Labour Party, it also binds the Liberal Party. We have as much right to claim liberty in this matter as our friends the Liberals.
  One other point before I sit down. The Bill before us contains a good many things which, had they been discussed in Committee, would have afforded us an opportunity of reviewing the whole electoral system of the country, but as this is not likely to be, I would like to finish by making an appeal—this time to the Government. The appeal is made on the subject of election petitions. The Carr Committee decided to recommend to the Government that the law on election petitions should be altered because the present law had come to a dead end. No political Party now had enough money to undertake the expense of election petitions. The Government decided that they could not proceed with this subject in this Bill, but proposed to reserve it for a future occasion. I hope they will remember that, because I was not the only politician in favour of amending these laws. My opposite numbers of all political Parties, after consultations within their own ranks, were agreed on the matter. Therefore, I hope we may have some assurance from the Minister, either now or before we leave the Bill, that at some stage in the very near future, the law on election petitions will be brought up to date in order that the purity of our elections may be maintained.
  4.14 p.m.
  LORD MACDERMOTT: My Lords, I would offer, if I may, one or two observations on that part of this measure
  318
  which proposes to abolish university constituencies, and I would offer these observations with particular regard to the university of which I am a graduate and on the Senate of which I have the honour to serve—I refer to Queen's University, Belfast. I propose to speak briefly for two reasons. First of all, it is becoming that one who has not had the privilege of addressing your Lordships before should be brief and, if he can, to the point. Secondly, as one rising from the Cross-Benches and ordinarily serving this House in a judicial capacity, I want to avoid the controversies which have arisen both as regards the history of this measure and the principle on which so much of it turns—namely, the principle of "One man, one vote." That is a principle on which reasonable men may take different views, but I propose to assume that it is a principle which is deserving of the highest respect and nothing should be contained in the Bill which would do it a real injury.
  But the question still remains whether, in order to preserve that principle, one has to sweep away every anomaly which may stand in its path and perpetuate an absolute uniformity. I venture to think that the retention of university constituencies would not imperil the principle of "One man, one vote" in the least. References have already been made to the fact that this interesting Constitution of ours already contains many anomalies. I am sure I shall be forgiven if I refer to the classic instance represented by the office of the Lord High Chancellor. Everyone agrees that good government means the separation of executive and judicial functions. Every visitor to our shores who studies our Constitution at once remarks on the circumstance that the head of the Judiciary is a member of the Government of the day. No one would suggest now that the principle is injured by that circumstance, and I do not think anyone to-day would propose that the situation should be changed. And I am quite certain that, if it were, as conditions stand the loss would be great and the gain imaginary. I venture to Biggest to noble Lords who represent His Majesty's Government that if university representation is allowed to remain, it may well be the exception which proves the rule, represented by the principle of "One man, one vote."

  319
  On this general issue one has to remember that to-day, as never before, the universities are faced with an enormous task and with great responsibilities; that to-day, as never before, their activities mean more to the community as a whole; that to carry out those responsibilities, universities have an income which is increasingly provided, I believe, from public funds; and that they also are the custodians of a unique and very precious liberty which everyone agrees is essential for good education. It would seem to be fitting that the custodians of that liberty should have representatives in the councils of the State, who may be called to account for their stewardship and who may be able, if necessary, to protect the liberty of which they are the custodians. I do not suggest for a moment that the present Government want to curtail that liberty or that they have anything other than good will for the universities; but we are legislating for the future, and I suggest that it is not unfitting that in another place representation should be found for those who guard such liberty.
  I would like to add a special point which has reference only to my own university. It raises a principle which I doubt if the Government considered but which I think is worthy to be regarded in considering how far the principle of "One man, one vote" is to be carried. The point arises in this way. Before 1920, Queen's University had one representative in this Parliament. It was then, as it is now, the only university in Northern Ireland. When the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was passed, that representation was continued. As your Lordships are aware, that Act represented a constitutional settlement which, though not greeted with enthusiasm in any quarter, was accepted by Northern Ireland and has since been operated. When the settlement was being worked out, it was necessary to do two things. It was necessary to delimit the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and to provide for representation in this Parliament in respect of a realm which was still in the exclusive jurisdiction of this Parliament. In the course of arranging that representation, the representatives from Northern Ireland were reduced by about 50 per cent. and were fixed at twelve from ordinary constituencies and one from the one university constituency. It
  320
  is quite clear from the Government of Ireland Act that there was good reason for that decision, because that Act provided that the privileges, rights and immunities of Queen's University should not be touched by the Parliament of Northern Ireland without the consent of the university. So in 1920 the University of Belfast was left with a voice in the only Parliament which, without its consent, could affect its rights.
  I think it is a generally accepted principle of practice that a constitutional settlement, once effected, should not be lightly disturbed in the absence of consent. I do not suggest for a moment that circumstances may not arise in which it will be necessary to change a constitution of that kind. Time may bring alterations; there may be some grave change in circumstance. But I think it is generally recognised that, in the absence of any such factors, what has been settled should be left alone, unless there is a desire and an agreement for its change. The Government of Ireland Act, in so far as it affects Northern Ireland, has been changed on a number of occasions, but always with consent, and always after a full exchange of views. This Bill, I think for the first time, proposes an alteration in the basis of the settlement which has not the consent of the body most concerned.
  I do not want to exaggerate the effect of this measure on that settlement if it is passed into law. There will be no cataclysm; there will be no alteration, I am sure, in the friendly relations which have always existed between the University of Belfast and the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland. But this is not a case in which there has been any change at all; this is not a case in which any unusual circumstance has arisen. What is really happening is that this Bill is saying that the settlement of 1920 should be altered, not on account of something which has happened since, but because when that settlement was made it should have been different. I venture to suggest that that is a very dangerous precedent which, if accepted, may have repercussions far beyond the part of the United Kingdom with which I am most concerned. I would suggest that there is there a principle which must be considered face to face with the principle of "One man, one vote." That principle has been meticulously recognised and

  321
  observed by this Government and by their predecessors. So far as I am aware, this is the first time that there has been any suggestion that the settlement of 1920 should be altered without any change of circumstance and without consent. I would ask His Majesty's Government to consider this matter fully before they embark on a change of such a sweeping character, which would take away that right which has existed since Northern Ireland was constituted as a separate State, a right which is greatly valued by the university which on this occasion I have the honour to represent.
  4.26 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it falls to my happy lot this afternoon to congratulate the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down on the maiden speech which he has just delivered in your Lordships' House. I am sure I have the support of all your Lordships in saying how delighted we have been to hear him. The noble and learned Lord, if I may say so, an absolutely true to the Ulster tradition of standing up for the rights of that very gallant and energetic part of the United Kingdom. While I am talking of maiden speeches, perhaps I may be allowed, also, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Margesson, under whom I first served in the Whips' Office in the House of Commons, on what Lord Shepherd has rightly described as an extremely sincere speech. We are all very glad that he has taken part in this debate, for he was actively concerned in the Speaker's Conference.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made some interesting observations, both about
  the postal vote and about the proxy vote. If I may say so, I agree with him that the Service man's proxy does, in fact, mean giving somebody a plural vote. I quite see the possible disadvantage of any great extension of the postal vote facilities, for the very reasons which the noble Lord gave. I thought he was on less sure ground when he was attacking the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about proportional representation. The difference between what happened at the Speaker's Conference on proportional representation and the university vote was that there was complete agreement on the maintenance of the university seats, whereas there was a division about proportional representation, which was carried against the four members of the little group who voted
  322
  for it. That puts the university vote into a completely different category from the proposal in regard to proportional representation which, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Margesson, this afternoon, was one of agreement between the parties—a "give and take" between them—as indicated by the unanimous report they made on those particular items.
  The noble Lord entered into the conflict about standing for university constituencies. He said that Labour candidates would continue to stand, if there were in future—as there certainly will be—university constituencies, although it has long been a principle of that Party to abolish those constituencies. If that has been the principle of the Labour Party, it may in some way account for the fact—which seems to be a matter of complaint in the Labour Party—that there have been no Labour Members returned from the universities. Obviously, if it is a principle of your Party to abolish that type of constituency, and you are an advocate of that principle, it is not very likely that the electors will return you as their Member of Parliament. On this matter of the university constituencies, I very much deplore the action that the Government have taken. I agree with the noble Lord that not every good man who sat in the House of Commons came through a university constituency—of course not. I can name a large number on both sides of the present House of Commons, or of the House at the time when we were there ourselves, who did not. I was never returned for a university constituency myself—not that I say I am a great man; but I certainly would not put it forward on that ground. But it does enable a certain number of extremely good persons to have a seat in the House of Commons. I take a man for whom everybody who has worked with him, or who knows him, has the greatest possible respect—the Right Honourable Sir John Anderson.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord express a view as to his ability to win an ordinary seat?
  LORD LLEWELVN: It is not for me to express that opinion. As has been pointed out already to-day, I no longer have a vote for any Parliamentary seat in the country. I should think that a

  323
  sensible constituency would be likely to return Sir John Anderson. On the other hand, Sir John Anderson has a large number of other things to do; for instance, he is Chairman of the Port of London Authority, and has other very responsible positions. He is the kind of man who probably—I have not consulted him about this—has not the time to attend to the large number of duties that a Member for an ordinary constituency has to perform. In that matter, although he is not in the organisation of a Party, perhaps he is a better man than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd——
  LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord agree that Sir John Anderson is not the only man of that quality at present sitting in the House of Commons as representative of an ordinary constituency?
  LORD HAWKE: Is he not an Independent?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: As my noble friend behind me says, he sits as an Independent Member, and in the Coalition Government he was always an Independent Member. In the times when I was working for him one certainly could not rely upon him to take the Party view—not that many of us in that Government ever did, I am glad to say. But there are a number of people who, through the ages, have entered the House of Commons through university seats. I would only say two things on this. First, the abolishing of these university seats will be a loss to the House of Commons. I think it is a complete repudiation of an agreement that was made; and it seems to me that this means that we have had the last Speaker's Conference ever. It means that the Party who are at present in power have taken steps without the preliminary of a Speaker's Conference, and there is no reason why some other Party, when they return to power, should not take other measures without any such preliminary as we used to think was a proper prerequisite for action of this sort. I deplore the loss of the university seats because it seems to
  minimise the importance which Parliament places upon a good education in our universities, and I think that that is a bad thing. I deplore, equally, the loss of the franchise for the
  324
  City of London and for the same reasons. That again is going back on agreements reached, and at a time when we ought to do all we can to maintain our financial and economic position in the world. It shows the world that Parliament and the present Government are minimising the position of the City of London.
  I do not want to say much more about that. I am glad the noble and learned Viscount is on the Woolsack, because I want to read the whole of a remark that he made in this House of October 21 of last year. It is true that he was replying to a passage in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in which he had been discussing whether anything was to be done about proportional representation or the alternative vote. The Lord Chancellor said this:
  "The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me a question about the phrase: 'to reform the franchise and electoral procedure.' He will not be surprised, and I hope not unduly disappointed, if I tell him that that does not mean that we propose to introduce proportional representation."
  I agree that a person like myself would recognise that that was said in—I would not say a lighthearted manner, which is the phrase the Lord Chancellor used, but perhaps, after what we have heard from the Lord President, a better term is a 'bantering' manner. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say what it does refer to. He said:
  "It does refer to a Bill to be introduced, which will contain provisions for the electoral reform arising out of the recommendations of the Committee of Electoral Registration, the Speaker's Conference and the Committee on Electoral Law Reform. If, as I fully expect, the noble Viscount is familiar with all the proceedings in those Committees, which I am not, he will know precisely what the Bill is going to do."
  I have so much respect for the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that I do not believe that at that time he knew the Bill would contain provision for the abolition of the university seats; otherwise, I think he would have told us so. I do not believe that at that time the Government had made up their mind; otherwise the noble and learned Viscount would have been quite frank with the House and told us so.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite right. I do not think I had this matter in my mind at all. I agree that the adverb I used was most unfortunate,

  325
  but as one has a great many speeches to make on a great many topics, one would be very lucky if one did not sometimes make unfortunate remarks.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not say that it was an unfortunate remark at all. But we all, rather naturally, took it at that time that the Government intended to implement the recommendations of those three Committees—including the Speaker's Conference—and that at that time they had not decided to abolish the university seats. I do not believe they had, otherwise the Lord Chancellor would have known about it and would have told us about it. The comment we make, that this was a later decision, is rather borne out by the Lord Chancellor's remarks on that occasion.
  Before I sit down I want to say one thing about the new provision in regard to the use of motor cars. This is quite obviously a restrictive provision. The election agent will be able to hire a certain number of motor cars, which was not possible before; but apart from that it will restrict people from putting their cars at the disposal of a political Party to take their supporters to the poll. That is rather reminiscent of some of the things we have seen going on in Eastern Europe. The first thing that happens is to make it more difficult for your opponents to get to the poll. The second step is to have only one list of candidates for whom the electors can vote. We have not yet reached that stage in this country. But obviously the feeling is that there is an advantage to the Conservative Party in having more cars at their disposal, so that they may be able not only to convey electors to the poll but also perhaps to "show the flag" around the constituency. The feeling seems to be that the Conservatives have a greater advantage in this matter than their opponents.
  Let us remember, however, that this is the first time in the history of this country that legislation has been brought in which has the effect of making it more difficult for people to get to the poll. That is what this provision is going to do; and this will be the first Government to introduce a provision of this kind. It is quite true that we are to have more polling stations—and I am glad that we are—but we could have had them and still had the use of any motor cars that
  326
  might be available. It looks as if the Government are saying, in effect, that rather than that the electors should be given a lift in a car and helped to the poll, they should be given to understand that their votes are not wanted.
  It is quite clear why this originated. There are certain respects in which the Labour Party have political advantages over the Conservative Party. There is a considerable advantage, for instance, in being able to collect political funds through the trade union machine; and it is possible that there are other matters which may later on follow the same lines. I am therefore very sorry that in these matters the Government have departed from the agreement made at the Speaker's Conference and have introduced such matters as this one about motor cars. They have obviously been put into the Bill entirely for the advantage of the political Party in power at the moment. Most of the Bill tends to clear up electoral difficulties and it contains much on which we are all agreed. It is because these other things have been tacked on that I at any rate think it was not, as has been said, an honour for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to introduce this Bill—although it may have been his duty.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I shall take up very little of your time, because so many of the important points of this Bill have already been dealt with by previous speakers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred to the City of London, and pointed out how grievously it feels the taking away of its Members. On the other hand, in the City of Westminster in which I reside, and in which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who is chairman of one part of the Conservative Association there, takes such an interest, I am glad to say that though we are not satisfied we think the Bill is much better than the original proposals. As regards Chelsea, I believe the people in Chelsea, too, are more satisfied. This is, not to say, however, that we are content. I do not want to elaborate this point because it has been made over and over again in both Houses of Parliament. All I would say is that this measure is a pis aller.
  There is, however, another point to which I do not think anybody has called your Lordships' attention, and that

  327
  concerns London County Council representation. As noble Lords will be aware, in every electoral division there are now to be three members of the London County Council instead of two. How does that work out in the City of London and the City of Westminster? At the present moment they have eight members of the London County Council. When the Bill comes into operation they will have only three, because there is to be only one Member of Parliament for the two Cities of London and Westminster. I think that would be rather hard. I know that for the London County Council election there are statutory requirements to take into account as regards the various differences of rateable value; but the fact remains that there is an enormous difference between the Cities of London and Westminster and the rest of London. Those two Cities are responsible for £16,000,000 out of the £54,000,000 total rateable value of London.
  Now let me turn to the electorate for a moment. The number of electors whom these three gentlemen will have to represent is colossal. I think there are nearly 80,000 electors on the local government list. How can those three representatives tackle all the intricate questions which will arise, especially from the business centres? The two Cities are putting forward a claim for six members instead of three. They quite realise that they cannot have all they want—namely, the original eight members—but, as I have shown, the disparity in both rateable value and in the number of electors is enormous. This number of 80,000, or, to be more exact, nearly 90,000 electors, compares with an average electorate in other districts of 55,000. It will be a tremendous job for anybody who represents those two places. Therefore, I hope that some consideration will be given to the humble request from the two Cities that they should have more members allotted to them. It will be an almost impossible job under this representation for the members of these two Cities to cope with the letters they will receive. Will the noble Lord consider that when he comes to deal with this point?
  LORD AMMON: I wonder if the noble Lord will tell me how he makes up the 80,000 voters in Westminster and the City? There are only 5,000 in the City.
  LORD JESSEL: I am talking about local government. It is so. The number is 12,000 alone for the City. I think you will find that I am correct when you come to analyse my figures. It was an official statement that was presented to the Home Secretary. I am sure that my two figures are correct on addition. That is all I have to say. The matter arises later in the Bill. I thought it only right to adumbrate this point so as to bring out the very big discrepancies that exist. It will be quite an impossible job for the gentlemen who are elected for both Cities.
  4.51 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, when the noble Lord opposite replies to the debate, I hope that he will not talk about "One man, one vote," as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did, but will say "One citizen, one vote," because there are women concerned in the matter.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite well aware of that. That is a common expression that takes in both sexes.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I wish to add a few words about the university seats. Of course, everybody agrees that there are no restrictions upon Parliament's powers. That is not the question here at all. As I see it, the point is this. A proposal to Parliament is made by His Majesty's
  Ministers in this Bill. Some of those Ministers, to say the least of it, were deeply involved in the Speaker's Conference. The question is, whether in the circumstances they are really justified in making the proposal which they do make about university seats. Going back some way, I recall that I criticised the university vote, when the university electorate consisted (as it did some thirty-five years ago) of nothing except M.A.s who kept their names on the books. That was the old qualification of a university voter. In substance, that amounted to this: that, apart from certain teachers in a university, the electorate, to a vastly preponderant extent, consisted of clergymen who kept their names on the books because, as members of this or that college, they there by might have a better chance of being given a university living, if the occasion arose.
  All that was changed by the earlier Speaker's Conference, of which I was a member. The Representation of the

  329
  People Act, 1918, provides (in those days it affected only men; women came in later) that:
  "A man shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a university constituency if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and has received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at any university…"—
  and so on. To-day, of course, the electors for a university seat are not some select body of M.A.s who, for whatever reason, have kept their names on the books by continuing to pay a small fee; they are, in fact, everybody who has a B.A. degree or any other degree in the university. When you add to that the fact (and it is one which satisfies us all) that those who go to the universities come from a much wider range of homes—indeed, in the university which I know best the majority to-day come from elementary or secondary schools—then I do think that the university electorate, as they are now, form a valuable and fair cross-section of the community, taken as a whole.
  It seems to me, having read these papers with all the care that I can and with as little prejudice as I can, that the case is clearly made out for saying that, in the circumstances which now exist, it is not right for the Government to present to Parliament and endeavour to carry through a Bill which abolishes university constituencies. I say so frankly and firmly, and I have four reasons, which I will state briefly. The first is that this was an all-Party Conference, proposed in the year 1944 when Parliament had only another year to run, to be presided over by the Speaker. It is quite obvious to anybody who looks at it fairly that in an all-Party Conference of that sort, proposals, if agreed, are intended to have a certain measure of permanency. To suggest that it was a Conference for the "fag end" of a particular Parliament until there was a General Election, is to suggest something which I think few people sincerely considering the matter will feel able to accept.
  The second reason is shown quite clearly in the Report of the Speaker's Conference, which I have here. It includes a number of unanimous recommendations, some of which could not possibly be carried out before the General Election
  330
  and which would be quite useless if regarded as limited to the life of that Parliament. You could not have the elaborate arrangements which were proposed far revising the boundaries of constituencies and redistributing the electorate, and do the whole thing within matter of a year. Nobody ever imagined such a thing. It is, therefore, quite obvious, from the character of the Report and that unanimous recommendation, that it was never intended to be simply a recommendation for the Parliament then sitting. It was unquestionably intended to be a proposal which would be carried through in due course by agreement.
  In the third place, I must say that I share the feeling of my noble friend, Lord Llewellin. I find it impossible to believe that when these declarations were fist made by prominent spokesmen on the Labour side on this subject they had any other idea. I am very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is not able to be present to-day, otherwise I would have quoted from him; but I will content myself with saying that no candid and fair-minded man can read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on December 19, 1994, without seeing that the proposition that I am advancing is correct. In that speech, he was urging that we should accept the Bill that was then brought forward; for instance, to assimilate Parliamentary and local franchise, and one or two other things. And he was saying in terms, "This is part of the agreement that has been reached. This part may well be thought to benefit my own side, but it is only half of the agreement. The other half of the agreement"—and he is plainly referring to the university seats, because he mentioned them by name—"is equally binding and will in due course be fulfilled" I can easily quote his words if it is desired; I have not in the least altered the substance of them. I say again, that nobody could read Lord Pethick-Lawrence's speech on December 19, 1944, without seeing that he was saying, as he thought as an honourable man he ought to say, "You are getting the advantage now, but it is you who later on will have to give to the other side what you think is their advantage, when the time comes, in respect of university seats."

  331
  Lastly—and it is strange that this should not have been mentioned; I leave out the Lord Chancellor's declaration and accept what he has said; and there is also a declaration by Mr. Attlee—of all the declarations that have been made, the one to which some attention must be paid is that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He stands in this matter in a position of exceptional authority. To the best of my belief, he is the only Minister who was an active member of the Speaker's Conference and a Cabinet Minister whose name is on the back of the Bill. He spoke, therefore, as indeed he was claiming to speak, with special knowledge. His theory of the matter, as given to the other place, was this: "You say there was an agreement, and an agreement which extended to this present Parliament. Oh yes, but it was the Conservative Party that broke the agreement, and therefore we are now released." I would venture to read a sentence from the statement made by the Minister of the Crown:
  "But, since the election, the Conservatives have broken that agreement by using the university vote to send back to this House Conservatives whom, at the General Election, the electors rejected at the Poll."
  There is no point in such an observation unless it involves saying this: "Yes, I was a member of the Speaker's Conference; there was an agreement. It was an agreement which was not limited to the last Parliament, but ought to be fulfilled in this. But I must find a reason why it should not be fulfilled, and here it is—that the Conservatives have broken the agreement by returning Conservative Members for the universities."
  I am sorry that Lord Shepherd is not here at this moment. I was interested to hear his remark, though he might not approve of university seats, "We shall certainly fight them if they remain." What sort of logic is this? Apparently you may have a university seat and a Labour man may fight it (indeed, as a matter of fact a very distinguished Socialist and friend of mine, Mr. J. B. Cole, did stand for the University of Oxford), but if a Conservative stands, then that is a breach of the agreement. If the country paid the slightest attention to this argument, they would be bound to reach the conclusion that this is a miserable attempt to excuse what, in the opinion of some of
  332
  us, is conduct which is not to be expected. It is silly to suggest that a Speaker's Conference was called to decide something that would run for twelve months. It is silly to suggest that Lord Pethick Lawrence, as a member of the Conference, did not speak as a man of honour would be expected to speak when he said, "We are getting part of the bargain now, but we shall have to give part of the bargain to the other side later." It is amazing to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland, with his special connection with this particular subject, should be reduced to offering the argument: "No doubt there might be an agreement, but it has been broken; and, as it has been broken by one side, then we can break it in our Party." I recognise that at best it is only a gentlemen's agreement, and nothing more. I do not for a moment deny what no doubt the Lord Chancellor would confirm, that you cannot get an injunction to stop people breaking a gentlemen's agreement; that is not what a gentlemen's agreement means. But in the circumstances, it is not surprising that even "vermin" should turn.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Before the noble Lord replies, there is one point I would like to raise on this Bill because, as was said by our Leader on this side, we are not going to move any Amendment on the Committee stage. I would like to raise the point as to whether merchant seamen can vote by proxy. On this Bill as drawn at present, there is a little doubt about that point. Perhaps the seaman will be classed under the heading of "auxiliary forces" in Clause 8. During the war he was classed under such a heading. But what is his position now? As many of your Lordships know, seamen frequently have no residential qualifications, because in between voyages they go to a room in a seamen's lodging-house, and then they go to sea again. I would like to have an assurance from the noble Lord that he will look into that point and make quite sure that the merchant seaman is covered so that he can vote by proxy in the same way as members of the Services.
  5.6 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord who spoke last would allow me to reply to his question at once. I have not had an opportunity to inquire

  333
  into it, not knowing that he intended to raise this point but I can tell him at once, that the point will be looked into in a friendly way. I will communicate with him in regard to whether it is met and, if it is not met, whether there is any way in which it can be met. When the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, asked me to wind up this debate, I was in some considerable doubt as to what kind of a debate it was going to he, and therefore I came to the House this afternoon thinking it would perhaps follow the line that has obtained during the time I have had the privilege, of being a member of your Lordships' House. However, I find that it has been an entirely different debate from any that has taken place since I have been in this House. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who opened the debate, said that your Lordships did not consider it would be proper for them either to reject this Bill or to move any Amendment to it, and so some of your Lordships proceeded in full strength to throw at the Bill as much mud as possible. They said, "We are not going to reject it; neither are we going to amend it, but here goes," and on we went.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And we hit the target!
  LORD MORRISON: It occurred to me that there was an easy way to reply to this kind of debate, and that all I need do, in order to make an effective reply, would be to equip myself with a large stock of similar ammunition to that which has been fired from the other side, and then launch it. Those of the public who read your Lordships' debate would then have come to the conclusion that it is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." I am not going to do that, because I do not think that is the kind of reply that is most suited to your Lordships' House.
  May I digress for one moment? I am now informed that merchant seamen can claim the right to vote by post if in the United Kingdom—here I refer to Clause 8 (1) (b) (i)—and by proxy, under Clause 8 (2). We will have this matter clarified, however.
  Having rejected the easy way of replying to this debate, I have to fall back upon the difficult way. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he made his announcement that there would be no
  334
  rejection and no amendment, said at the same time words to the effect that there was no reason why they should not have a good "go" at this Bill. That makes it no easier for me, because in the ordinary circumstances many of the points brought up this afternoon would have been brought up on an Amendment and considered in detail. I would not for one moment have your Lordships suppose that I am complaining of these tactics. After all, noble Lords on the other side get plenty of brickbats thrown at them from another place, and it would be too much to expect them to resist the temptation to throw a few back. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, while not proposing any Amendment or rejection, said that he and those with him stood up for the right to comment; and their first comment was that this Bill was "a pretty shabby affair." That sounded to me more like the language used frequently in another place. The noble Marquess will know that both he and I have been Members in another place, and I hope it is not going to be said that I am settling down more quickly in this House than he has done.
  The noble Marquess then went on to develop his argument on the assumption that the officials and managers of the Labour Party are clever, cunning and crafty, while the managers of the Conservative Party machine are, without exception, innocent, straightforward, and honest-to-goodness paragons of virtue. In reply to that I would say only that; with a fairly long experience, it seems to me that the noble Marquess's assumption is a little exaggerated. I can only urge him for his own good, when he employs that kind of ammunition, to read some of the speeches of his opposite number in another place. I will say no more about that. Some of us have had a difficult task in a House where the Government are represented in a considerable minority, and we have to exercise a great amount of restraint. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite know how much restraint we have to exercise. Therefore, I am appealing to the noble Marquess not to exasperate us too far.
  My opinion may not be of as great importance as that of the noble Marquess, but I think it would be of more value to the country if this problem were approached on the assumption that both

  335
  Parties were actuated by equally honest motives. When I came into your Lordships' House I endeavoured to assume all the time that wherever noble Lords were sitting, and however diametrically opposed to mine their views might be, I ought to give them credit for being as honest and sincere in their opinions as I am in mine. If we depart from that and accuse each other of craftiness and cunning we are not doing ourselves any good, but we are letting this House down in the opinion of the country. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who, if he will forgive my saying so, represents a Party more numerous in this House than in another place, followed on somewhat similar lines, and what I have just said in reply to the noble Lord, the Marquess of Salisbury, applies to him.
  The maiden speech on the noble Viscount, Lord Margesson, has sustained the high opinion which I had of him in another place. But he put up the argument that if the Conservatives had won the last Election, they wound have been quite honest in this matter, whereas the Labour Party has been dishonest, and so on. Is that as high as your Lordships' House can get?
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: What I said was that if we had gone back on our part of the agreement the other side would have said, justly and rightly, that we were not behaving in an honourable fashion.
  LORD MORRISON: I must point out to the noble Viscount that it is customary to make a maiden speech as little provocative as possible.
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: I did warn the noble Lord at the beginning that I should have to be provocative.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Viscount has travelled a long way from orthodoxy since he left another place, where he exercised discipline, though I myself never came under it. Then the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in a practical speech, entirely free from allegations against honesty, reminded us of the law of election petitions. I may tell the House that it is intended to consolidate the election law at the earliest opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord MacDermott, again in a maiden speech, upon which I am glad also to congratulate
  336
  him, raised, not for the first time, the question of university representation. That was largely the subject also of the speech by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I would remind him that there are in the present Parliament, I think, 422—but in case I am wrong in my figure, let me say, between 300 and 400—graduates of universities, and a large number of them in your Lordships' House. In those circumstances, it would be difficult to convince the public—and, after all, the public are the masters of all of us—that the universities are in any way handicapped in their representation in either House of Parliament.
  Indeed, if I may draw upon my experience in another place, university Members have not taken part there to any extent distinguishable from that of other Members. It may be difficult to assess this when one sits and listens to debates day after day, month after month, and year after year, but if one reads the debates without knowing what constituency a Member represents, I think it would be difficult to find in the speeches of university Members—who take part in all the debates in another place—any feature which is particularly distinguishable from the kind of view put forward by the ordinary Member representing the ordinary constituency.
  The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, dealt again with the subject. I notice that he did not repeat the statement, made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, that if a Conservative Government are returned the university seats will be restored. I am sure that the public would be interested to know whether that statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place also expresses the opinion of your Lordships. Possibly this is a question upon which you are not supposed to make any comment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: In fact I did. In part of my speech I said that I believed university seats would be restored, and as I thought at an early date. I meant immediately after the next General Election.
  LORD MORRISON: Then from my comparatively limited knowledge of the people of this country, I can only say that I do not think any great proportion of the public will be very enthusiastic about that promise. It seems to me that if the noble Lord's Party are looking for-

  337
  ward to a majority at the next Election they will need something heavier in their locker than that particular item.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: We are not relying on that alone.
  LORD MORRISON: Similarly, I am certain that the public in this country would not support the retention of a constituency like the City of London—a constituency with 5,000 people returning two Members of Parliament. I think that public opinion would be firmly against that.
  In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may I say that I believe that the marriage of the City with Westminster will turn out to be a happy one for both parties? I was glad to hear him say that, to some extent, at any rate, he agreed with that. With regard to his other point about the London County Council, I am authorised to say that the Home Secretary will consider a request for greater representation on the London County Council on its merits, but taking no account of rateable value. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, spoke at some length about the use of motor cars in elections. He carried my memory back to the election when I was elected, at the first time of asking, to the British House of Commons. My opponent, a Conservative, had the use of 150 motor cars, and it was only a small constituency. I had the use of one car and it broke down at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask whether that disaster was caused in the same way as one which occurred in that very same election in my constituency? Someone foolishly put one of the posters of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald over the radiator of a car of which I had the use and so prevented any air getting through it.
  LORD MORRISON: The breakdown of my car was due a much simpler cause. The election took place in November. A dense fog came down on the constituency, and my car struck a lamp-post. The result was that I had to walk for the rest of the day, and my supporters were put into the position of either having to walk or of travelling in Conservative motor cars—which I consider a most reprehensible expedient. I am sure that I have collected many hundreds of votes from people who have travelled to the
  338
  poll in Conservative motor cars, but it was always difficult to know whether they were going to do so. Frankly, consider that it is a practice to be discouraged by everyone concerned. May I remind the noble Lord that candidates will not now be allowed to hire cars? They will be able to employ only cars which are lent to them. Under Clause 33, a person is permitted to give his neighbour a lift if he does so out of neighbourliness, and not with a view to promoting or procuring the election of any particular candidate. I think that noble Lords in your Lordships' House who have spent any considerable time in another place may be forgiven if they fall back on their own past experiences occasionally. I had on one occasion an opponent who appeared in the constituency only the day before nomination day. He, or his agent, had a brilliant idea. At that time, the names of women were set out separately in the electoral lists. This candidate, or his agent, managed to get hold of a list of the women voters. The word went round: "Concentrate on using the cars to get all the women you can to the poll." The assumption was that, in those days, the result of having a motor car call for a woman to take her to the poll, would ensure her voting for the candidate in whose interests the car was being used.
  I think that, as this part of the Bill will work out, it will prove an advantage. I do not agree that it is limiting the power of people to go to the poll. I think there is a great deal in this Bill which will make it much easier than heretofore. To sum up these somewhat disjointed remarks, I think that this has been a short but interesting debate. When the public read of it, or of such small passages of it as the Press will be able to print in these days of small newspapers and large cricket scores, I doubt whether it will cut much ice with them. If I may say so, I think that one of the habitual mistakes made by noble Lords opposite is to exhibit a tendency to underrate the intelligence of ordinary people. I know what the ordinary people of my old constituency, amongst whom I still live, will say about this debate, particularly about the speeches of noble Lords opposite. They will say: "Satan rebuking sin."
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  NURSERIES AND CHILD-MINDERS REGULATION.BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL.
  5.28 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, in asking for a Second Reading for this Bill, we are passing from what might be regarded as pure politics to trade. That is quite a change. There is, I think, general agreement with the principles of the Bill, and I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that its introduction is overdue. The purpose of the Bill, in brief, is to enable the Government to have inquiries made into restrictive practices and monopolies in particular trades or industries and to provide for appropriate measures to be taken after investigation. Many highly industrialised countries have discovered that private enterprise does not necessarily mean free competition, and they have taken steps to give to their central Governments some power in relation to this matter. North America, in particular, has taken the matter seriously for some time, and Europe is now following suit. In 1890, the United States passed the Sherman Act which declares illegal any combinations operating in inter-State trade which seek to restrain or monopolise trade. In 1923, Canada passed a Combines Investigation Act under which a Commission has power to investigate restrictive practices, and on the basis of their report the Minister of Justice may take action in the courts. In 1946, Sweden introduced a law setting up a monopoly tribunal with compulsory powers of inquiry. More recently Belgium has introduced a Bill and Norway already has such legislation.
  In this country, serious consideration of the problem of restrictive practices first engaged the Government's attention in recent times when under the Profiteering Act of 1919 a Standing Committee on Trusts was set up to obtain information regarding the nature, extent and development of trusts. There were no sanctions.
  340
  The Committee produced some twenty-five Reports, but it came to an end in 1921 when the Profiteering Act lapsed. Subsequently, a Committee on Industry and Trade reported in 1929 that there was no urgent case for legislation for restraining abuses arising from combinations, and from then until 1944 nothing was done. In 1944, much thought was given by the Coalition Government to inquiring into the desirability of legislation in regard to restrictive practices; and the White Paper on Employment Policy, which they issued in 1944, had this to say on restrictive business practices. Here I quote:
  "Employers, too, must seek in larger output rather than higher prices the reward of enterprise and good management. There has in recent years been a growing tendency towards combines and towards agreements, both national and international, by which manufacturers have sought to control prices and output, to divide markets and to fix conditions of sale. Such agreements or combines do not necessarily operate against the public interest; but the power to do so is there. The Government will therefore seek power to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive agreements, and of the activities of combines; and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole."
  The present Government has continued the consideration of this problem and in the Economic Survey issued in February of last year it asserted that there was no place for industrial arrangements which restrict production, prices or employment. Later in 1947, the Industrial Charter of the Conservative Party contained this paragraph:
  "The first necessity, we believe, is to bring the facts out into the light. We accordingly propose that if, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, there is a prima facie case for investigation into allegations of monopolies or restrictive practices, he should refer them to a statutory commission for inquiry. The definition of restrictive practices would include oral as well as written arrangements but would exclude wages and conditions of work. The Commission would have the right to report whether the allegations were true and whether the practice was against the public interest."
  Thus since 1944 it is seen that there has been the clear intention of all Parties to introduce legislation to deal with this question. For various reasons legislation has been delayed, but certain inquiries have been set on foot in the meantime. These inquiries have covered the field of radio valves, cotton textile machinery,

  341
  cement costs and building materials. They have strongly reinforced the case for a permanent investigating body, and the introduction of the present Bill has naturally followed.
  The Bill is in a form which I am sure your Lordships will agree is well suited to our national outlook. It does not set about its business by condemning any general restrictive practices out of hand, but it provides for the appointment of a permanent Commission to investigate particular cases. The Board of Trade will not refer to it some general restrictive practice like retail price maintenance, or the prohibition of new entrants, or loyalty rebates, but will refer to it the case of a particular class of goods where it is thought that a restrictive practice is in operation. The constitution of the Commission and the choice of its members are obviously matters of first-rate importance. The success of an investigating body of this kind must depend on the type and quality of its membership and staff. Clause I proposes that the constitution of the Commission shall be not less than four and not more than ten members. This number was agreed on discussion in another place, and my right honourable friend then said that, in view of the load which the Commission will probably have to carry in its early stages, he proposes to appoint six members to the Commission, including the Chairman. The actual composition of the Commission has yet to be settled, but clearly professional men with an objective outlook on these questions are best qualified for membership.
  Reference to the Commission will be made only by the Board of Trade. In this way, the Commission will not be overloaded by miscellaneous grievances and His Majesty's Government will be responsible for the order in which matters are referred to them. Normally the Commission will operate on formal references referred to them for investigation, but it is also specifically provided by subsection (2) of Clause 2 that the Commission shall have the duty of advising on matters referred to them informally. Clauses 3 to 5 settle the type of case which can be referred to the Commission. They deal with the supply of goods, processing of goods and their export. Briefly, the position is that, if a dominant firm or groups of firms covering more than one-third of any industry or trade are restricting
  342
  competition, they are liable to be the subject of reference to the Commission for investigation and report. In the case of exports, reference will be conditional upon those concerned controlling one-third of the country's production of the goods in question.
  Reference to the Commission may be of two kinds. The Commission may be asked to report facts; that is, they will be asked to say whether one-third of the trade or industry is in the hands of those concerned and whether in fact they are restricting competition. In this case the Commission will be required to give details in their report of the way in which the restraint is exercised. Any report under this heading may be published. The other case is where the Commission are asked not only to find the facts, but also to report whether or not what is happening is against the public interest. In this sort of case the report of the Commission will always be published. Where the Commission find that the conditions reported upon operate against the public interest, they may recommend what action should be taken to remedy or prevent the resultant mischief. In this case the component authority, that is the Government Department concerned, may by order prevent the making or carrying out of the offending arrangements or require them to be determined. It will also give power to deal with boycotts. His Majesty's Government hope, however, that publication of a report and voluntary arrangements with those concerned will normally dispose of the problems raised and that these sanctions will not need to be frequently used.
  The Bill does not attempt to give a precise definition of the expression "public interest," but there was a feeling in another place that some guidance should be given on what was meant by this term. Clause 14 was accepted as meeting this point. It sets out the aims which must be kept in view by those who run monopolies or restrictive arrangements if they are to operate in the public interest. It provides guidance for the Commission, and also for Parliament, who will be receiving reports of the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 of the Bill. Parliament will, in fact, have an opportunity of overriding the findings of the Commission about the effect of any particular practices on the public interest.

  343
  I do not think there is any need for me to refer at this stage to any of the more detailed provisions of the Bill, though I might mention that in addition to Clause 14, which was added during the discussions in another place, Clause 16 was similarly added. It provides for an annual report to be made by the Board of Trade to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Clause 15 was added in the same way, and provides for the Commission to report at the request of the Board of Trade on the general effect on the public interest of practices of a specified class. It will be of considerable importance when the Commission are able, in due course, to draw conclusions from the separate inquiries made into particular industries which may have raised the same type of restrictive practices.
  Finally, I might mention the position of this Bill in relation to the conclusions of the Havana Conference of the International Trade Organization. Your Lordships are aware that signatories to the International Trade Organisation Charter, which has not yet come into force, undertake certain obligations in connection with cartels and monopolies which have a substantial effect on international trade. These obligations are set out in Chapter V of the Havana Charter. The present Bill was drafted at the same time as the Charter was being given its final shape at Havana. The two documents are entirely consistent; the procedure of the International Trade Organisation will, like our own, be one of investigation into particular restrictive arrangements to try to establish what effects they have on international trade, If at a later date His Majesty's Government ratify the Charter, and are called upon to take any action under Chapter V, this Bill will provide us with adequate power to carry out our international obligations. The normal method of dealing with this type of case will, in fact, be through the machinery provided by the Bill. The Bill is in line with developments in other countries with similar economies. It has the support of all Parties in its general purpose. It is a measure which I commend to the sympathetic consideration of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Bill which the First Lord of the Admiralty has so clearly and agreeably presented to us is, I think, rather like the curate's egg. I agree with the noble Lord that there is general agreement that there should be an egg, but it would be desirable, if possible (I recognise the limitations of this Government under pressure), that it should be a wholly good egg. I am only sorry, approving, as I do, of so much in the Bill, that it is not wholly good. If it is not indelicate to mention it, I would venture to suggest that the title is not very happily chosen, though that is not the greatest objection, to the Bill. It is a Bill which, as your Lordships will see, is headed "Monopoly (Inquiry and Control)." As the Bill excludes from its purview every kind of Government nationalised monopoly, that does not seem to me to be a very happy title. It would be more correct to call it a Restrictive Practices Bill. I believe the President of the Board of Trade invited competition from anybody who could suggest a better title, but in another place nobody said: "Pay that man ten shillings." I do not know whether the competition is still open here, but I feel sure, if it was, that the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Balfour, would come out on top, with the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party a good runner-up.
  Superficially, there might be the comment that if you are dealing with restrictive practices you ought to deal with restrictive practices in labour, as well as in trade. But I am quite sure that the introduction of a Bill of this kind is not the way to do that. As the First Lord said in his speech, quoting from the White Paper which we all produced together, there is no room to-day for any restrictive practices, whether of trade or labour, in the production of goods we need. I think in both there has been an excuse, and, indeed, reason, for such practices in the past, in times of great trade depression. But that is not now the risk. The risk to-day, I think we should all agree, is not that there is likely to be an excess of production, but that unless we all work a great deal harder there will not be enough production of the things that we most need. Nor, indeed, are all agreements in trade bad, any more than all trade union practices are bad. There may be agreements of a restrictive character, or, let me say,

  345
  of a regulative character, which often serve a very useful purpose. Where those practices are good, I am sure those engaged in them have nothing to lose by publicity, because it is the publicity about sound trade practices which show that they are right.
  I was very glad that the First Lord said that the reason for having the Bill is, not that every practice is a bad practice, but in order to see whether there was a prima facie case that a practice is bad, and, if so, to investigate it. I entirely agree that it is right that the Board of Trade should have the duty of sifting any complaints and deciding which of them ought to go to the tribunal. It would be quite impossible to set up a tribunal of this kind and then invite everybody to inundate them with complaints. What would happen would be that either ignorant or sometimes malicious persons—possibly competitors—would flood the tribunal with complaints which they ought not to be troubled to hear. It is quite right that the Board of Trade should have the primary duty of sifting those complaints, and sending them on only if there is a prima facie case. The test, of course, is really the efficiency of the industry—home and export—and the interests of the consumer. I am glad that "public interest" is being defined, and I am bound to say that I think the definition in Clause 14 is about as good a definition as could be given, and it is one which I certainly could not better. I am not going to attempt to better it and, therefore, I am perfectly prepared to endorse it.
  Of course it is anti-social by restrictive practices, whether of capital or labour, to restrict the production of goods which are needed; but it is not pro-social to produce what nobody wants. All production has an element of restriction in it, because nobody would dream of making large quantities of goods which in no circumstances could he sell. The Government, by one means or another, have been trying to direct labour and production activities of all kinds into the most important channels. Indeed, I have often heard the advocates of nationalisation defend nationalisation on the ground that it is a good way of avoiding wasteful competition. But I would say that, broad and large, what is wanted to-day is not less competition but more competition. I am sure that the proper way to deal with trade
  346
  union practices, where they are restrictive, is not in a Bill like this, but in negotiation in industry, with the common object in view of getting the best under the best conditions. The proper way to deal with restrictive trade agreements is by an impartial, expert, judicial inquiry such as would be
  established by the Commission under this Bill. Therefore, I wholly support the establishment of a Commission with power to investigate and report. I think also that there must be power to take action on the report.
  I agree with the noble Viscount—and I am glad that he said it—that there are many cases where the practices have nothing against them and, indeed, are beneficial; but it would be all the better that they should come to light. Where a practice is not good and the fact is brought to light, I think it will be quite sufficient to give it publicity, because I believe public opinion is a much greater force than some of my friends on the opposite side are prepared to admit. I think that action taken because of public opinion, and because there is a genuine consensus of opinion that a thing is right or wrong, is a great deal better than action taken or not taken because people are compelled to do either this or that. But there should certainly be the power to enforce a finding.
  There is a clause to which the First Lord referred and which has been imported into the Bill—Clause 15—about which I am much more doubtful. That is the clause which says broadly that the Board of Trade may ask the Commission to make general reports—not to report about a particular practice, but really to write economic essays. I am very doubtful about the wisdom of that provision. I think the Commission will have quite enough do investigating concrete cases, and I am sure they will be well qualified to do that if the right people are appointed. Do you really want these essays written? I should have thought that there were quite enough of them. We get them from the Government every few weeks. White Papers come like "leaves in Vallombrosa." The economic and uneconomic papers follow each other in rapid succession. What do you really want out of this Bill and out of this Commission? Do you want a judicial inquiry, or do you want a brains trust to write essays? I am quite sure you want the judicial inquiry, and I am pretty

  347
  certain that you do not want an essay-writing brains trust. I think there are about enough of them as it is.
  I come to the next thing which the First Lord slid over most skilfully (I must not mix my metaphors: I should have said "he sailed round with most skilful seamanship") which was the complete omission from the Bill and from all investigations, of the Government nationalised industries, Government-owned and Government-sponsored corporations. That seems to me to be very odd. Here are these monopolies, embracing not only the whole of one industry but the whole of many. We shall be dealing with the gas industry again this week, and we are seeing in the case of fuel that not only is coal nationalised, not only is electricity nationalised, not only is gas to be nationalised, but the whole are to be co-ordinated—blessed word!—under the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I am not going to anticipate our debates on the Gas Bill as to the importance of the consumer having his free choice; but when you take the whole of the fuel and power industries and make them into one co-ordinated monopoly under the same control—after all, as we are always being told, it is the control which counts; and it is the Minister who controls this combine—it does seem to me most extraordinary that this Monopoly Commission is to be forbidden to consider the effect upon the public of the practices of these Government monopolies.
  The President of the Board of Trade gave the reason for this. He did not say that the Government monopolies might not be very damaging to the public, but he said they should not be subject to the Bill because they will be subject—I have his exact words—"to searching and detailed examination by the High Court of Parliament" That is exactly what they are not. After the great difficulties which are encountered in another place in finding
  out anything about them, I am glad to say that rather more information is given here. Every day when Members in another place try to put questions about these monopolies—try to conduct "the searching and detailed examination by the High Court of Parliament"—they are told by Ministers: "But you cannot ask in the High Court of Parliament about these matters. These are matters not for
  348
  the Minister, not for Parliament, but for the Board, because they are matters of business management"
  The last matter to which I want to refer concerns the extraordinary provisions of Clause 10 (1) (e) (ii). That clause gives the House of Commons the power to declare that the findings of the Commission are wrong, and the Minister may then make an order, not through the process of an Act of Parliament, where a Bill has to be introduced and passed through all its stages and be considered in Committee in both Houses, but a summary order under this Bill, contrary to the findings and the recommendations of the Commission. What can be the justification for that? If Parliament is to be the judge, why set up a Commission? The House of Commons will not have heard the case. Why should the Government propose action where the Commission do not recommend it, and in fact very likely recommend exactly the opposite? It is really no good the Government saying that this will be seldom done. I do not know. We have an example of it to-day. We had an example in the Criminal Justice Bill, where we saw the Government accept or propose what they did not believe in, under pressure from their extremists. The purpose of this Bill is that judgment shall be given by an impartial judicial Commission who have heard and weighed the whole of the evidence.
  How can it be right that when the Commission have heard the whole of the evidence and made recommendations, it should rest with the House of Commons to throw it all over by a Resolution saying: "We do not mind what the Commission have said; we do not like this," and then deal with it under summary procedure? If the Government want to legislate on Party lines, the proper way to do so is to bring in a Bill and pass that Bill in the ordinary way. This is really an abuse of the process under the Bill. What will be the position of this judicial Commission on a subsequent inquiry if the House of Commons have decided against them? What are they to do when they get their next case? Are they to give what they believe to be the right finding on the facts of the case, or are they to follow what they think would be the view of the House of Commons? I think this is a very serious blot on a Bill

  349
  which in many ways is admirable. I wonder why the Government must turn a good Bill into a bad Bill and turn what could easily be an agreed industrial reform into a bone of contention.
  6.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it is clear that this Bill receives support from all quarters of the House—and nowhere more cordially than from the Liberal Benches. The Liberal Party do not claim to be the only begetters of this Bill, but we do claim to be the first begetters of it, for it is now twenty years since there was published, in 1928, the Liberal book called Britain's Industrial Future, otherwise known as "The Liberal Yellow Book;" which comprised our proposals at that time for industrial reform. In that book there was a section dealing with monopolies and restrictive practices, and a series of recommendations which, we are happy to see, are almost precisely reproduced in the terms of this Bill. So we undoubtedly welcome it with much cordiality.
  At that time, we held the view that we in this country ought not to follow the example of the United States of America and pass legislation like the Sherman laws there, the object of which was to prevent the formation of large combinations. We stated in that 'Report that in this country we should try to find room in our industrial system for large-scale semi-monopolistic private concerns, but we held that they ought to be subject to very complete investigation and to a large measure of control. Measures which attempt to break
  up or prevent the formation of combinations lend themselves, as we have seen in America, to constant evasion. Francis Bacon, in one of his books, quoted a Greek philosopher as having said:
  "Laws were tike cobwebs, where the small flies were caught and the great brake through"
  So it has been in measures which seek to prevent the formation of these great industrial or commercial combinations.
  This matter was discussed at some length in your Lordships' House in March, 1945, on a Motion brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who was not then a member of the Government. On that occasion, I drew your Lordships' attention to some facts which had been
  350
  recently published in a paper by the then Statistician to the Board of Trade, Mr. Leak, and read as an address to the Royal Statistical Society. In the course of that paper it was shown that fewer than 1,000 firms—938 to be accurate—produced 49 per cent. of the whole output of British industry and employed 45 per cent. of the working people. In other words, roughly 1,000 firms produced half of the British industrial output, and employed close upon half of the working-class population. Eighteen gigantic concerns produced close on 10 per cent.—actually 9.7 per cent.—of the whole of the industrial output of the nation, and employed 8.5 per cent. of the working classes. It will be seen from those very striking figures—which are not usually realised by the public in general—how easy it is to create these huge modern combinations, when the industry is already so greatly concentrated in a few hands. Furthermore, there are the trade associations, devoted—as we know—largely to price fixing; and other combinations and cartels of different kinds.
  All these are facilitated—and I hope the noble Viscount who has just spoken will forgive my referring to the matter—by the existence of protective tariffs. They are encouraged by protectionist laws which, because these combinations are no longer kept in check, as they used to be, by the fear of foreign competition——
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And by Liberal laissez-faire. Liberal laissez-faire never interfered with anything.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I really do not follow the noble Viscount's argument. Under laissez-faire—which I do not defend to the extent to which it has been carried—the ports were open; and if any industry banded itself together and artificially raised prices above what was legitimate to cover the cost of production, the goods would come in from other countries and the efforts of the industry to band together would be defeated. Under a restrictive tariff, if it is sufficiently restrictive, this becomes impossible. Indeed, in the United States of America there has long been a common saying: "The tariff is the mother of trusts" The more tariffs you have, the easier it is to form these restrictive combinations.

  351
  The consequence has been the continuous rise in prices which we have seen in this country, and in many other countries, in recent years, and which is now becoming excessive. As the pressure continues, countries have higher and higher wages, and higher and higher profits, whereas there is very little pressure on the other side—from the standpoint of the consumer—to preserve him from the effects of the continual rise in the cost of living due to the increase in prices. At the present time, we see on all sides excessive dividends being declared by great numbers of companies; and in spite of taxation, immense private fortunes are rapidly being built up. Under the present conditions the consumer, who is also the taxpayer, is the shorn lamb of the modern world. And this Bill, at all events, is something, if only a very modest answer to its diffident bleat.
  With regard to the Title of the Bill, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has referred, I agree that it is certainly not a very happy one. It might well be altered. The President of the Board of Trade in another place, towards the end of the discussions upon this Bill, suggested that it might be amended to read: "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Bill" I cannot think of a better Title than that. The noble Viscount suggests that we should enter into a competition to try to suggest a suitable Title. "Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill" does not mean very much, and it does not seem to cover what can hardly be called monopolies at all—namely, such restrictive practices as those of certain classes of trade associations and cartels. I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether the Government intend to pursue the suggestion tentatively thrown out by the President of the Board of Trade in another place—that perhaps, at a later stage, an alternative Title might be suggested for the Bill.
  With regard to the non-inclusion in the Bill of nationalised industries, I do not concur with the view which has just been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. But that is not because I think that State industries by their very nature are free from the evils that attach to other monopolies. I do not think so at all. They are just as liable as other very large-scale industries to the vices of lethargy and bureaucracy resulting in that costli-
  352
  ness of production which occurs in the case of private enterprises when they get developed beyond a certain scale. Indeed, they are even more liable, since, while private enterprises may become bureaucratic, public enterprises are born bureaucratic. It needs a constant effort to rescue them from those innate diseases. But the reason I do not concur with the noble Viscount is that I do not think this Bill is a suitable occasion for dealing with such industries as coal mining, railways and the other vast industries that have now been nationalised. The Commission will have enough to do to deal with the private enterprises which are of a monopolistic character and the widespread practices that exist through industry. I do not think that it would be very sound constitutional practice to set a Commission, appointed and directed by the President of the Board of Trade, to inquire into the coal mines, which are under the superintendence and direction of the Minister of Fuel, or the railways, which are under the Minister of Transport, or, one might add, the Post Office, which is under the Postmaster-General. These industries are already under State control and investigation, and if there is any idea in the public mind that they are guilty of various monopolistic abuses then they ought to be investigated by a Select Committee of another place, by a Joint Select Committee, or by a departmental or other Committee appointed ad hoc, and not by some Standing Commission which forms part of the organisation of another Government Department.
  There is another point that might have been raised in the discussions on this Bill—namely, how far trade union restrictions can be dealt with under its provisions. There again, no controversy has arisen over facts which are not specifically referred to, because I think it is generally agreed that such matters as trade union restrictions must be dealt with in connection with trade union matters generally, rather than as part of an investigation into monopolies and similar practices. In practice it may be found convenient to investigate certain trade union practices, and there is a clause in the Bill which provides that the trade union laws, barring certain actions at law where trade unions are concerned, shall not apply under this Act. Perhaps the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill can tell us for what reason that

  353
  clause has been put in. It is Clause 11, subsection (4). In general, I presume that it is not intended to arrange a roving survey throughout the field of trade union activities. I agree with what was said on behalf of the Opposition in another place, that this is not the right vehicle for dealing with restrictions of that character. I think that it is to the credit of the Government that, in spite of a very crowded legislative programme, they have not sought to find any excuses for not proceeding with this measure, but have pressed it on speedily. The principles of it are agreed. The details of it are a matter for later stages. I have no doubt that your Lordships will make no ado about speedily giving a Second Reading to the Bill.
  6.19 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I view the legislation proposed in this Bill as being amongst the most important and far-reaching that has been presented to Parliament by His Majesty's Government. If its provisions and proposals are implemented and carried to their logical conclusion, it will affect the whole basis of British industry and trade, and perhaps the economy upon which that industry and trade have been built. Therefore, in giving a very warm welcome to, this Bill, I am fully seized of the huge nature of the task which confronts this Commission. In the observations which I shall venture to address to your Lordships' House, I do not intend to deal so much with the thorough-going combine and cartel which has been so well covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as with those quasi-monopolistic organisations and restrictive practices which have spread themselves with an ever-growing degree of speed over a large section of British industry and trade and which have resulted in the public being denied the efficiency of production and distribution. These practices have encouraged inefficiency to a most marked extent. Today, we are a high-cost producing nation, we are a high-cost selling nation, and one of the contributory factors
  is these restrictive practices to which I have referred. It is when we turn to ordinary consumer goods, purchased by the ordinary person of this country, that we see that these practices are so marked.
  I expect many of your Lordships have read with interest the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble friend
  354
  Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, which was charged with the task of inquiring into the cost of distributing building materials. The words "building materials" in the Report could be erased, and the name of dozens of the products of other industries inserted, and the context of the Report need hardly be altered. I ought perhaps to disclose to your Lordships' House what might be a special interest in this subject, as I have spent a large proportion of my industrial life in an industry which, on the one hand, has been the victim of monopolistic arrangements, and which, on the other, has built up restrictive policies practically unparalleled in British industry and trade. Before the war, nearly
  70 per cent. of the cost of production of a British motor vehicle was made up of raw and semi-fabricated materials and over two-thirds of that proportion was controlled by rings and combines. The British motor vehicle producer had to pay anything from 30 to 100 per cent. more for his fabricated assemblies than his American competitor. Therefore, is it to be wondered at that, in competition in world markets, the British motor car cost 15d. per lb. to manufacture against the American motor vehicle at approximately 8d. or 9d. per lb.? I cite that only as an example, and it was true of nearly every industry. Even to-day, the British motor vehicle manufacturer has only one supplier for all his electrical equipment. That is a ring which, unfortunately for myself, or unfortunately for them, happens to bear my name—and I would make it clear that I no connect on with them. But with quite a lot of other fabricated materials there are only one or two suppliers. One of the root causes of all this is the introduction of the branded article and, with the introduction of the branded article, the disappearance of that perfect competition so beloved by the classical economists of the Eighteenth Century. The branded article has grown enormously. It has achieved huge customer and consumer acceptance because of the guarantee of quality which it carries. But the price-fixing arrangements which have followed the introduction of the branded article present a further and still larger problem to this country which will grow as the branded article expands (and it will expand), as being the cause of more inefficiency in distribution than anything

  355
  else. It has had some very cruel consequences for purchasers. Competition in prices has practically ceased over a wide range of articles in commerce. Competition in margins has taken its place. Suppliers have sought to impose conditions upon the resale of their articles which has ruled out competition; they have brought the retailer and the wholesaler under the absolute domination of the producer, and in consequence the British people have had to pay higher prices for those articles. I will quote two examples. It matters not whether you purchase a motor car or a tube of branded tooth paste. You pay exactly the same price, whether you buy it from the largest and most efficient store in the heart of the West End of London or whether you buy it from the meanest shop in the meanest street in any out-of-the-way town in any part of the country. The British public are denied the benefits of efficient distribution, and those who wish to pass on those benefits have to live their entire commercial lives under the threat of a boycott by these suppliers.
  Such have been the evils of price fixing. I am quite prepared to admit that in certain circumstances there is a case for price fixing; but there is no case whatsoever for the manner and the method by which commodity prices are built up before they are fixed. The classic argument always used in support of price fixing in the between the war years was, of course, that unless you had price fixing the ultimate effect of price competition rested upon the shoulders of the industrial worker—sweated wages—with the result that the employers did not mind what wages they paid or what conditions of employment they imposed so long as they could bring the price of their goods below that of their competitor. There was some truth in that, but that all disappeared two or three years ago with the advent of the Wages Councils Act and there are to-day 15,000,000 workers under industrial and basic wage agreements.
  I know that the facts which I have tried to put before your Lordships raise fundamental issues, and that is why I opened my remarks by saying that this Bill strikes at the very economy upon which British industry and trade has been built. Has the producer of any article in commerce the right to put his name to
  356
  that article; the right to fix the price under which it shall not be sold; to control the channels of sale, as to who shall or shall not sell that article, and the conditions under which he shall sell it? Has the producer of an article the right to enter into an agreement with his fellow producers and to boycott and drive out of business anyone who will not subscribe to those conditions? Those are some of the fundamental issues which this Bill raises. Is it right that the producer should have under his domination the economic livelihood and existence of everybody in industry and commerce who is selling these articles? Those are fundamental issues, and they must not be shirked. Is it in the national interest that such economic power should be vested in producers? It never stops at one producer; there is always evolved a combination of producers. Or are there (to quote the Preamble to this Bill) mischiefs? I agree with the wise words uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—namely, let the public know these things. If there is nothing to hide in these practices then there is no hurt done by bringing them to light, and subjecting them to the focus of public opinion. But if there is anything evil—and I am persuaded that there is—then the sooner they are brought before the bar of public opinion the better.
  6.30 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, because everything that has been said has commanded a general measure of agreement so far as the principles of the Bill are concerned. But there is one particular matter which raises a question of fundamental principle—namely, the fair administration of the Bill—and I venture to raise it on Second Reading although no doubt it will come forward again in Committee. The point I am making relates to Clause 15, which deals with reports by the Board of Trade. As I understand it, the Board of Trade will be the instrument which refers matters for investigation to the Commission. The Board of Trade is, as it were, the only channel by which the Commission will receive directions to make investigations. There are provisions for the Board of Trade to report, quite rightly, on general questions, as set out in Clause 15, but the

  357
  Bill seems to provide that there should be, so to speak, a queue of applicants who are under request to the Board of Trade for investigation, and that queue of applicants must be listed. As I read this clause, any number of persons substantiating a claim to represent a particular interest can make a request to the Board of Trade, and that request must be cited in the Board of Trade's report, even though the Commission have not started any investigation at all. That seems to me to be, however unintentional, an unfair pillorying of particular interests.
  Let us suppose that the tobacco workers of the United Kingdom wished to claim that there was a monopoly in the tobacco trade working against public interest, and that meanwhile the Commission were fully occupied with other matters. The Board of Trade would have to cite such an application in its report, and, if the trade was an export one, I can conceive that great harm might be done to our exports by the casting of some kind of stigma, some suggestion that the trade in question was under suspicion and was about to be investigated. I cannot see the justification for setting out in the annual report of the Board of Trade the names of a waiting queue of industries which are to be investigated. Let the report contain a full list of investigations which have taken place, and full information as to who instructed the investigation, but let it not go beyond the actual work of the Commission and deal with their prospective work, because that would not be in the interests of those engaged in the trade concerned. That is a general point to which we shall return, but it is only right to bring it forward on Second Reading.
  6.34 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I can but express the gratitude of my colleague the President of the Board of Trade and of the Government for the friendly reception which this Bill has received at your Lordships' hands. Indeed, there appears to be unanimity amongst those who have spoken that the Bill is not like the curate's egg, good in parts, but that in its main parts it is very good, and it is receiving the support of your Lordships from whatever Party point of view you speak. Concerning the question of the Title of the Bill, I admit that it is certainly not a happy Title, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out. The President of
  358
  the Board of Trade will consider again the matter of the Title in the light of the debate which has taken place to-day. I will certainly represent to him most strongly the views which have been submitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and also by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in relation to this matter.
  There is general agreement that this Bill is not suitable for dealing with trade unions. I entirely support that view. I am not suggesting that sometimes there are not restrictive practices which are carried on among the trade unions. I could give many instances in my own experience in relation to the coal industry, particularly in South Wales, where we have had certain difficulties in regard to this matter, but they were effectively dealt with by the trade union concerned. Therefore no point need be made as to why the trade unions ought not to be included in this Bill. The other matter which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was ably replied to by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—namely, the question why nationalised industries are not included in the Bill. This subject took up a long time when the Bill was in another place, both in the House itself and in committee, Strong reasons were given by the Lord President of the Council, though they may not be acceptable to the noble Viscount opposite. In some cases it was suggested that, to deal effectively with some of the practices which this Bill proposes to prevent, certain industries should be nationalised, so that they could be controlled by the public. A full inquiry could be conducted into any restrictive practices or indeed into anything that would interfere with production.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked about Clause 15 and laid stress upon the point that the Commission, when conducting an inquiry, ought not to do so for the purpose of writing economic essays. I entirely agree, and it is intended that Cause 15 shall be made much clearer by an Amendment which the Government will move on Committee stage. I shall be quite prepared to consult the noble Viscount in relation to that matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, rightly said that the Liberal Party had much to do with the preparation of this Bill. I well remember the Yellow Book of the Liberal Party which devoted a considerable space to this

  359
  particular question and gave a great deal of useful information. Indeed, I fought an election on the Yellow Book; but I am afraid that, in view of industrial conditions in the area in question, whilst the Yellow Book did play a part in the election, it did not win it for the Liberal Party. But that does not for a moment detract from the many excellent parts of that book. I think it is the feeling among Liberals that this Bill does not go quite far enough.
  A question was asked concerning Clause 11 (4). That subsection is in the Bill for the purpose of dealing with Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, so that it shall not apply to any civil proceedings in respect of a contravention or apprehended contravention of any part of any order under Clause 10 of the present Bill. I am afraid that I cannot make this matter very clear to the noble Viscount. But there is this legal point with which I think it deals.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: What sort of case would it deal with?
  VISCOUNT HALL: Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act states that:
  "An action against a trade union whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained by any court"
  This subsection is for the purpose, I understand, of dealing with cases of that kind. I have not come prepared to answer the question in detail to-day, but I will look into it and deal with it fully at a later stage.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Taff Vale judgment said that a trade union could be sued in tort. Before that judgment was given everyone thought that it could not. The term, "a trade union or combine" includes employers' combines as well as trade unions. I gather that what the Government wish to do by this clause is to say that notwithstanding this section in the Trade Disputes Act, an aggrieved person shall be able to sue an employers' combine in tort if the tortious act was a breach of an order made by Parliament under this Act.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The employers were going to come up disguised as trade unions.
  VISCOUNT HALL: The matter has been well put by the noble Viscount. Subsection (4) is intended to cover that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his speech in which he gave many strong reasons for this Bill. He dealt particularly with the question of price fixing, which, I feel sure, will be brought to the notice of the Commission. Lord Balfour of Inchrye referred especially to the question of the fair administration of this Bill. In the course of my speech I pointed out how important it was to ensure getting the best kind of Commission by having the right type of persons sitting on it—persons who will see that the administration and all matters referred to them are dealt with in a thoroughly efficient way. The matters of detail to which the noble Lord referred and to which, I understand, he has given notice that he will return during the Committee stage, will receive thorough consideration in the meantime, and we shall then be able to deal with them fully. There is nothing more for me to say except to thank your Lordships warmly for the friendly reception which you have given to this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  Clause 18 [Detention in a detention centre]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that there are so many Amendments but I think they are nearly all drafting or, in substance, drafting, except perhaps the first one. If I may take the first group of Amendments, which are to Clause 18, together, I will tell your Lordships how they come about. The idea of detention centres, if and when they are established, is that they shall be places to which young persons can be sent, and the clause provides that you cannot send a person to such a centre for a shorter period than three months. In exceptional cases you can send him for as long as six months. The magistrates of the London juvenile courts—and they have great experience in this matter—have been to see the Home Secretary and have pointed out to him that in regard

  361
  to young offenders, children of compulsory school age, children of fourteen or fifteen, three months may be too long because it means a considerable break in the child's school life. They think that in respect of those particular children (they do not want to have short sentences for others up to the age of twenty-one) it would be desirable to confer on courts the right to send them to these centres for as short a time as one month. I think there is substance in that point. Indeed, I think that anything which the magistrates of the juvenile
  courts of London may say must be regarded as having great substance in it. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment to Clause 18. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("(except as provided by paragraph (c) of this proviso)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if I may say so, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that, except for this group, nearly all the Amendments on the Paper, so far as I can see, are drafting Amendments. With regard to this particular group, I am glad that the Government have accepted the suggestion from the London juvenile courts magistrates. I must say that I had rather overlooked the fact that under the Bill a shorter term at a detention centre than that of three months could not be imposed. In many cases, that would clearly be too long, especially for boys or girls—I suppose the offenders would mostly be boys—who are at school. I understand that those who advise the Home Office on these matters, particularly those who may be likely to have charge of some of these detention centres, think that the period of one month would, in normal cases, be too short. The view is that for about a fortnight the boy would feel himself rather entertained in his new surroundings, and during the next fortnight he would just be thinking of getting out of them. Therefore, those who advise the Home Office do not think that they will be able to do much good unless they have a longer period than one month—they want at least three months in the case of the older delinquents. That is the opinion of the people who will have to run these places and, naturally, their views are entitled to a great deal of consideration. These detention
  362
  centres will, after all, be new places. If, later on, it is found that sentences of less than three months would be all right for the older well as the younger delinquents, then I think will be the time, rather than now, to amend this particular provision. I certainly welcome it in regard to the younger offenders.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD GRANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 26, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE: LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 34, at end insert—
  ("and
  (c) if the offender is of compulsory school age and the court is of opinion that a term of detention of three months, or equal to the maximum term of imprisonment aforesaid, would be excessive, the term for which he is ordered to be detained as aforesaid may be any teem of not less than one month and not more than three months or the maximum term of imprisonment aforesaid.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 14, at end insert ("and the expression 'compulsory school age' has the meaning assigned to it by section thirty-five of the Education Act, 1944:
  Provided that section eight of the Education Act, 1946 (which provides that a person attains a particular age during a school term shall be deemed not to have attained that age until the end of the term) shall not apply.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Borstal Training]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after "London" to insert
  "or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, we made an error here. We forgot that there are in this country many boroughs—over 100 I believe—which

  363
  have their own petty sessional divisions but not their own Quarter Sessions. Clearly, in those cases, we must provide for committal to the appeal committee of Quarter Sessions of the county in which the borough is situated. This applies to Borstal sentences and also to extending leave to appeal, where that is granted. There has clearly been an omission here which we must put right.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 40, after ("London") insert ("or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 42, at end insert ("or for the county in which that borough is situated, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Committal for sentence in respect of indictable offences tried summarily]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 17, after ("London") insert ("or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 19, at end insert ("or for the county in which that borough is situated, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Challenge of juries and separation of juries]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment has been suggested to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The Amendment permits an accused person to challenge any juror for cause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 3, at end insert ("and any juror or jurors for cause").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 4, leave out ("In any criminal proceeding") and insert ("Upon the trial of any person for an offence on indictment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) For the purpose of the last foregoing subsection the expression 'sentence' includes any order made on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction, not being—

  (a) a probation order or an order for conditional discharge;

  (b) an order for the payment of costs;

  (c) an order under section two of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which enables the court to order the destruction of an animal)."

  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and several other people are very anxious that we should make it quite plain that there is always an appeal against the decision of a magistrate: for instance, such matters as the endorsement of a driving licence or anything of that sort, where there is no other punishment, should be treated as a sentence. We commit ourselves to the absolute principle that there is always an appeal, except in the three instances of the Amendment. In the case of (a) there can be no appeal because a probation order presupposes consent. There can be an appeal against a conviction on which the probation order is based. There can be no appeal against an order for payment of costs. There never has been, there is not now, and it is undesirable that there should be, litigation on costs before the courts, and the exception (b) keeps the law as it is to-day. Exception (c) provides there can be no appeal against an order under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. This refers to cases where animals are diseased or destroyed. Obviously, there can be no question of appeal there, where it is necessary to have an animal destroyed. With these three exceptions, we have committed ourselves to the principle that a sentence includes any order made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and that there shall be the right to appeal against these orders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would like to ask one question on paragraph (c). If I have a dog condemned as savage, does that come under this clause? I think there is an appeal against that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That does not come under this clause. It deals with diseased or destroyed animals.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there is a separate Act for dogs.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(b) in the case of quarter sessions for a borough, by the recorder or any deputy recorder;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (5):
  "and may be exercised either within or outside the county or borough for which the quarter sessions are held"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this provision is thought desirable, where the case is not to be heard by Quarter Sessions but by a Judge or Recorder. For instance, a Recorder may have his chambers in the Temple and the person who seeks bail may go to him at his rooms in the Temple, which may be altogether outside the area for which he sits as Recorder. This was a lacuna which we are now filling in. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Bail on appeal, case stated or application for certiorari]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 41, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(b) in the case of quarter sessions for a borough, by the recorder or any deputy recorder").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Page 41, line 30, at end insert ("and may be exercised either within or outside the county or borough for which the quarter sessions are held").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 39 [Amendment of Criminal Appeal Act 1907]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "(5) The Court of Criminal Appeal may, when they dismiss an appeal or application for leave to appeal order the appellant or applicant as the case may be to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the appeal or application, including The cost of any transcript of the shorthand notes of the proceedings at the trial made in accordance with a direction given by the registrar under section sixteen of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907; and any order under this subsection may be enforced by the person to whom the costs are ordered to be paid in the same manner as an order for the payment of costs made by the High Court in civil proceedings"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this clause, which has been agreed by the Lord Chief Justice, takes the place of the existing Clause 35 and expands it by making it plain that the cost of the transcription of the shorthand notes is part of the costs. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 43 [Order of Speeches]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a matter of grammar and drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 6, leave out ("prosecution") and insert ("prosecutor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  In Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
  "(3) The provision of the last foregoing subsection shall not apply to proceedings before examining justices"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because the procedure about proceedings before examining justices is already carefully set out in the Criminal Justice Act, 1905. Later we shall amend the appropriate Schedule to bring it into conformity with the present system. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  page 47, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is the term "examining justices" a term of general use? It is not contained in the definition clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is borrowed from The Criminal Justice Act, 1925, Section 12, the section we are amending.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Payment of costs of defence on acquittal, etc.]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is to remove a subsection which we have already replaced by an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 41, leave out subsection (8).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51 [Acquisition of land for prisons, and other institutions]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, This Amendment is necessary because we may get an existing building that we can adapt and there may be no need to build at all. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 44, leave out ("building") and insert ("establishing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Arrest on failure to surrender to bail before courts of summary jurisdiction]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because otherwise the court might have power wide enough to include even witnesses. Obviously we mean the person who has been convicted of an offence. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 12, leave out ("has entered") and insert ("charged with or convicted of an offence has been released upon entering").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule [Transitory Provisions]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the first of a group of
  368
  Amendments in the Eighth Schedule dealing with the same question. Unfortunately, there are some people who have escaped from prison or Borstal and at the time of the passing of this Act will be at large, though they ought not to be. As the Bill has been drafted, we have not brought these people within our net, and it is obvious that we ought to bring them in. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 42, leave out ("Any person who, having") and insert ("Where a person has").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 43, leave out ("is") and insert ("then if").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 44, after ("Act") insert ("he is or ought to be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 46, leave out ("then").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 48, after ("Act") insert ("he").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule [Consequential and Minor Amendments]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the provision already made in regard to costs. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 16, column 2, at beginning insert—
  ("In section thirteen, at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words 'except as otherwise provided by section thirty-seven or section forty-three of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment gives a single Judge, before whom application for leave to appeal goes, power to order the payment of costs if he thinks it a proper case. He can, of course, adjourn the case to the full court. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  page 95, line 26, column 2, after ("1948") insert ("or to make orders for the payment of costs under subsection (5) of that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  7.1 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, you will see that this Amendment refers to that part of the Schedule which deals with the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. It is the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, and Section 12 in particular, which uses that phrase "examining justices," of which I did not know until this morning—I am glad the noble Lord did not know it either—and sets out the complete code. Therefore, we have to write these words into that Act in order to make the matter right. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 8, column 2, at beginning insert—
  ("In section twelve, in subsection (5) for the second and third paragraphs there should be substituted the following paragraphs—
  'If the accused in answer to the question states that he wishes to give evidence or to call witnesses, or both to give evidence and to call witnesses, the justices shall proceed to take the evidence of the accused if he wishes to give evidence himself, and of any witnesses called by him who know anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused.
  Where the accused is represented by counsel or a solicitor, his counsel or solicitor shall be heard on his behalf, either before or after the said evidence is taken, at his discretion, and may, if the accused gives evidence himself and calls witnesses, be heard on his behalf with the leave of the justices both before and after the evidence is taken:
  Provided that where counsel or a solicitor is so heard both before and after the evidence is taken, counsel or the solicitor for the prosecution shall be entitled to be heard in reply.'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on Amendments we made dealing with borough recorders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 20, column 2, leave out from ("additional") to end of line 25.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I will just say a few words on this Bill. It has been subjected, as these Bills always are, to very careful consideration by your Lordships. It has been amended in not a few respects. I think it has been greatly improved. We have inserted a clause giving the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial, and I hope and believe that we have safeguarded that power. We have inserted a clause enabling persons in our employment abroad, in Embassies, and so on, who misbehave themselves, to be tried here. Your Lordships have taken a different view from the view the Government took in regard to judicial whipping. As the Bill now stands, birching remains, though whipping with the cat o'nine tails has gone.
  Your Lordships have taken a different view with regard to capital punishment from the one contained in the Bill when it came to us. With regard to that I would like to say this. I was greatly impressed—I am sure all your Lordships were—with a passage in the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury dealing with that matter. He said this:
  "I believe now that matters have gone as far as this it will be a moral setback simply to revert to the status quo."
  He expressed the opinion that the sanctity of human life would be best assisted by some modification of our present law. He thinks that that would be
  "not a concession to weak sentiment, but as a true progress in allowing the Christian law of love to permeate and influence the secular law of protective punishment";
  and he expressed the hope that it will still be possible so to amend the existing law that we shall mark our sense of the importance of doing everything to strengthen the regard of the sanctity of human life. It has not been possible for us in this House to work out any such Amendment. I still hope, for the reasons which the most reverend Primate so convincingly gave, that it may be possible to find some compromise which has regard to the very deep views which are held by persons in all quarters of the country.

  371
  With those few remarks, and thanking your Lordships for the trouble and attention you have given to this Bill, which, as I have said, is in no sense a Party measure, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  7.5 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before this Bill passes, I think your Lordships will expect me to say a few words on the matters which the noble and learned Viscount has just raised, although I had not intended to speak. I myself think we did the right thing in regard to allowing the Court of Criminal Appeal to order new trials, so long as we maintained the right of a man who had been previously acquitted on any count not to be tried again on the count on which he had been acquitted. The clause we passed in regard to foreign jurisdiction is one with which I very much hope the other place will agree fully. I believe it is better than that originally produced, and, as we are assured, it fully meets the point of view of the Foreign Office on that matter. I noticed a distinction in the words used by the Lord Chancellor in saying that this House had disagreed with the view taken by the Government in regard to corporal punishment. On the other hand, we agreed with the view taken by the Government in regard to capital punishment. There is the distinction between those two.
  I am one who, as I said in my original speech, has just as much regard for the sanctity of human life as any other member of your Lordships' House. It depends entirely what we mean by "the sanctity of human life," and of which human life. So long as we believe that capital punishment is a deterrent against the unprovoked killing of an innocent person, then, in my view, we are right to maintain that punishment. It is difficult to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent against killing a policeman, and to suggest at the same time that it is not equally a deterrent against the killing of a householder protecting his goods. I believe that the decision to which this House came on this matter is the right one. It is not a Party decision. I see the noble Lord sitting opposite who, by speech and vote, supported the Amendment which I moved;
  372
  and, of course, it was a noble Lord opposite who told for me in regard to it. I believe that in taking that decision we have the country very much behind us. I only hope we shall not, by failing to agree on a matter of that sort, endanger the other provisions of this Bill becoming law.
  There is a remedy if we cannot agree, because Clause 1 as it was in the Bill when it came to us was not in the Bill when it originally started in the other place. If we cannot come to an agreement between the two Houses on this matter (I believe there have to be two compromises between the Government and some of its own supporters, and a compromise between that compromise and the view this House might take) surely it will be quite simple once again to leave out the clause, and to have a new Bill incorporating a compromise, so that we shall not, by such a disagreement, lose a Bill the main provisions of which have met with complete agreement on both sides, not only in this House, but in another place.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, during its long passage through your Lordships' House this Bill has had the benefit of much diligent consideration, and has had the assistance of many of those best able to contribute knowledge to the solutions of the problems which it raised—not all of them, by any means, lawyers by profession. I think it is right to say that we have, in the course of its passage, improved the Bill, and that there is still the outstanding question remaining—the one which we discussed at such considerable length—which led to the removal of the then Clause I of the Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that it would be a great pity if the Bill were to be lost owing to an insoluble conflict on that particular question. At the same time, it is a question upon which people feel strongly, not from hardness of heart or prejudice of mind, but from a perfectly sincere conviction as to what is in the public interest. Therefore, whatever one's hopes may be as to the possibility of solving the situation by means of some compromise, one would require to see the form which that compromise is likely to take before expressing any further view.
  On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  7.12 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments read.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in moving the reception of this Report, I should like to make some brief comments on two points to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred at the beginning of proceedings in Committee on Thursday, July 1. The noble Lord will remember that he referred to the Department—I am quoting his words—"making a large income to the tune of at least £16,000." I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is necessary to look at more than a single year. There are ups and downs in the balance sheet of the Sasines Office. A deficit was shown for several years up to 1922. After a revision of the scale of fees, a surplus was shown for the next three years, 1923 to 1925, followed by a deficit for the next seven years, 1926 to 1932. The scale of fees was again revised in 1934 and yielded a surplus until 1938.
  During the war, as a measure of economy, the accounts of allied services between Departments—that is, of services rendered by, for example, the Ministry of Works and the Stationery Office to Government Departments generally—and apportionment of indirect charges such as superannuation, were discontinued, and the annual accounts of revenue and expenditure in the Sasines Office could not, therefore, be completed. But as I stated during the Committee stage, the issue of annual accounts will be resumed, and the balance sheet for 1947 is now in preparation. It is the practice to communicate the annual accounts to the profession and if, on a long-term view, a further revision of the fees appears to be desirable to secure a due balance of revenue and expenditure, this will certainly be considered in consultation with representatives of the profession. It will not be overlooked, in the consideration of the balance of revenue and expenditure, that (as pointed out in
  the report of Lord Macmillan's Committee) the staff is at present below
  requirements and the work seriously in arrear. As I said on July 1, it is hoped substantially to strengthen the staff of the Sasines Office in the immediate future.
  374
  The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred also to the representative capacity of the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland. It is not for me to make any comment on the representative capacity of that Council, but I may say that it was constituted under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, and comprises representatives elected by the three principal professional societies in Scotland—The Scottish Law Agents' Society, The Society of Writers to the Signet and the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court—as well as by thirty local faculties. As to the opinion expressed by the General Council on the proposals, which have now been dropped, my information does not accord with that of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. He said, in his speech on the Committee stage, that he had been told
  "that the General Council of Solicitors themselves have said that they did not support the proposals in any way; that the only comment they made when the proposals were laid before them was that it was a highly controversial matter, and that they would prefer not to express any opinion on it at all."
  The Facts are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings on February 5 last, when I said that the proposals in the form of draft instructions for the preparations of this Bill were reported to the General Council on June 23, 1947.
  On August 6, 1947, a deputation from the General Council raised no objection to the proposals, and on the following day the Clerk to the General Council wrote as follows:
  "As was indicated by the deputation from this Council which was received by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, my Council have no representations to make regarding the proposals contained in your letter of June 23 last."
  I went on to say that no representations have since been made to the Scottish Office by the General Council, and the comment attributed to them by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, "that it was a highly controversial matter and that they would prefer not to express any opinion on it at all," appears to refer to subsequent proceedings within the Council in November, 1947, as reported in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald of January 26 last in a letter by the Clerk to the Council after the Second Reading debate. I thought it only right that I should make that statement for the purposes of record. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Morrison.)
  7.17 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time very long on this matter, but there are one or two points I should like to make. In the first place, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I apologise to him for anything which I said that was wrong. With regard to the question of finance, to which I referred, of course I had not those figures, but they bear out what I said, that this is a self-supporting service. Even reckoning the allied services in the same proportion as in the years that are recorded, in the past ten years there should have been a surplus of something like £220,000, which would certainly serve to provide sufficient staff to deal with the present arrears. With regard to what the noble Lord said about the General Council of Solicitors, of course I entirely accept that. My information was the best I could gather. But it does rather bear out what I ventured to say about it not being very representative of the profession, because here you have a Bill which is approved in the way the noble Lord has described, by the General Council of Solicitors, and which raises the whole of the legal profession in Scotland up in arms against it. Therefore, I do not think that they could have represented the profession quite so well as they thought.
  There is one other point which causes me a great deal of concern. This Bill was introduced by His Majesty's Government, and in reply to our objections they stated that they were quite determined on the Bill. We had the privilege of being received by the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, and by representatives of the Department concerned. They gave us to understand that they were not going to move on this matter at all, and that the Bill had to go through and be put into operation. I put down my Amendment on the Committee stage, feeling very doubtful of the issue. It was a great privilege for me to be supported by the noble Lords by whom I was supported, and it was very fortunate for Scotland and for us all that they were able to be in the House that afternoon. The matter was then sent to a highly qualified Committee under the chairman-
  376
  ship of the noble Lord, Lord Macmillan, whose capabilities we all know and admire. When the matter was gone into carefully we realised, even those of us who do not understand the Scottish system, that had the Bill gone through in that form it would probably have had the effect of reducing the Writs of Scotland to inextricable confusion.
  But, apart from that, the general question strikes me as of very considerable importance. Here is a Bill brought in, sponsored by the Department and backed by the determination of the Government to get it through; and it is stopped only by
  the merest fluke. Had it been carried through it would have led to disaster. The danger is so great that anybody living in Scotland and understanding the Scottish system knows the risk we ran and what we nearly incurred; and I think that on the general question we ought to inquire how a Bill like that comes to be presented. It might well have gone through, with the disastrous results I have indicated.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on June 15 last discharged, and the Bill committed.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.