Lords Sitting of 13 December 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Denham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PETROL IMPORTS
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government:

1. How much is spent in dollars per annum on petrol of less than 80 octane value?

2. How much is spent in dollars per annum on films?

3. How much is spent in dollars per annum on tobacco?

4. What is the amount of royalties paid in dollars for petrol produced in the sterling area?

5. What is the amount paid by American interests in dollars for the purchase of petrol produced in the sterling area?

6. What is the estimated dollar content of the standard petrol ration for a car up to 9 h.p., and 13 h.p. respectively per annum?

7. How much petrol is now produced in refineries in this country per annum, and what is the extent of the increase in these amounts which can be expected for 1950 and 1951? and

8. What is the value for 1948 and 1949 respectively of equipment for the production of petrol made in this country and exported?]

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the length of my reply. As your Lordships will appreciate, I am replying to eight questions at the same time. In the twelve months ending June 30, 1949, the United Kingdom imported from dollar sources
1398
petrol of less than 80 octane to the value of 53,000,000 dollars at f.o.b. prices; but this does not take into account the dollar element in the costs of oil from what are called sterling sources. In the same period the United Kingdom paid 24,000,000 dollars on account of films, and 52,000,000 dollars on account of tobacco. Royalties are paid on crude oil, and not on petrol, and no dollar royalties are paid on crude oil obtained in the sterling area. Most of the so-called sterling oil is not, however, produced in the sterling area but in other countries, such as Venezuela and Persia. Royalty payments to such countries at present involve, directly or indirectly, a substantial dollar expenditure.
With regard to the fifth question, dollars paid for petrol produced in the sterling area or by British-controlled companies throughout the world are not recorded separately, but our estimate of the f.o.b. value of petrol sold by these companies to United States interests in 1948–49 is 13,000,000 dollars. It is not possible to calculate the dollar content of a particular petrol ration. Some is produced in this country; some of our imports are from dollar sources, and therefore cost us 100 per cent. dollars; and some of our imports are produced by British-controlled companies in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere where there are varying dollar elements of cost. Decision as to whether petrol shall be shipped to the United Kingdom from one producing region or another are determined mainly by commercial and geographic considerations. The size of the dollar element in petrol imported into this country from British controlled sources is, therefore, subject to considerable variation from time to time.
In answer to the last two points of the Question, the total production of petrol in the United Kingdom during the year 1948–49 was 1,128,000 tons. It is anticipated that production will have increased to 1,680,000 in 1950 and 2,220,000 tons in 1951. Equipment for the production of petrol is not separately distinguished in the trade accounts, and figures of exports are therefore not available. From figures released by the Oil Companies Materials Secretariat, it appears that the total value of export orders placed in the United Kingdom by the oil companies for materials and equipment for all purposes

1399
connected with the production, refining and distribution of all grades of oil has been as follows: for delivery in first half of 1948, £28,700,000; for delivery in second half of 1948, £32,400,000; for delivery in first half of 1949, £35,100,000.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I at once thank the noble Lord very much indeed for the answer to my Question? I apologise to your Lordships for the number of questions contained in the one. May I further ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the answer given in another place yesterday, from which it appears that no less than 39,775,000 gallons of motor spirit have been imported into this country from the Netherlands during this year and a further 28,793,000 gallons from France? Dividing those figures by 300, in order to reduce the gallons to tons, my elementary mathematics produce a figure of 228,560 tons. May I ask whether, in view of these figures, the Minister of Fuel and Power will be persuaded to look again at the possibility of maintaining the standard ration of petrol in this country, observing that the amount from the Netherlands and from France were not necessarily paid for in dollars?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, my attention had not been drawn to the facts given by the noble Earl, but I am certain that the Minister is fully aware of them and will have them in mind when deciding his future policy.

SLAUGHTER OF BIG GAME
2.40 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to Press reports of the wholesale slaughter of big game by untrained native hunters in Southern Rhodesia, and Tanganyika; whether it is true that this revolting practice has been authorised by the respective Governments with a view to the extinction of the tsetse fly; whether that pest cannot be controlled by more humane means, such as clearing the bush or some form
1400
of spraying; and whether in any case they will ensure that an immediate end is made to this indiscriminate killing—and maiming—by unskilled natives, and that the work of reducing numbers of wild animals, if considered essential, be entrusted to the white hunters and strictly confined to them or to men of similar skill and training.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, like my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I am answering a number of questions and I, like him, must therefore ask your indulgence for the length of my reply. The noble Lord will appreciate that, since Southern Rhodesia has self-government, it would be improper for me to offer any comments on the position in that Colony. I am glad to say that the implication in the noble Lord's Question, that the Government of Tanganyika have authorised the wholesale slaughter of big game is without foundation. The Tanganyika Game Ordinance of 1940 makes it illegal to hunt any but minor game of the antelope type, except under licence. Noble Lords will appreciate that in a territory so vast as Tanganyika, contravention of the law is bound to occur on a considerable scale; but the Tanganyika Government are preparing new legislation to tighten up control.
The tsetse fly is among the chief factors impeding the development of the nature resources of Tanganyika and the raising of the standard of living of its population, as its presence renders some two-thirds of the country uninhabitable by domestic livestock. Consequently every means of controlling the tsetse fly must be examined. The clearing of bush on a large scale has taken, and will continue to take place. Other anti-tsetse experiments being carried out in Tanganyika include the use of insecticides, both from the air and from the ground.
A controlled experiment is being conducted into the effects of keeping a comparatively small area of 560 square miles free of game other than small antelope and pig. This area contains the three most important species of tsetse flies in East Africa, and it is important, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, to ascertain the effects on them of eliminating the larger plains game. This work is being carried out, under the direction of

1401
scientific officers, by game scouts who are well trained and properly armed. The experiment is proceeding successfully.
I trust that the noble Lord will agree, in view of what I have said, that the strictures implied in his Question on the Government of Tanganyika are unjustified, and that his information was not as accurate as he accepted it to be.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and for some measure of reassurance which he has given me. I appreciate, of course, that these things are the responsibility of the Governments concerned. Before I brought up this Question I was a little more sure of my facts than appeared from the noble Earl's last remarks. All I am trying to ensure, since the wild game of Africa are one of the glories of the world's fauna, is that if it is necessary to destroy them in large numbers, they shall receive a merciful killing, and that the rules of the white hunter—that wounded and mutilated animals shall in all cases be followed and dispatched—shall be observed.
EARLE HOWE: Was any of this game flushed out of the ground-nuts area?

NATIONAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES (MEMBERSHIP) ORDER, 1949.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hall, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, November 29, last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Lord Kershaw.)
On Question, Motion, agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1947.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of
1402
section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Regulation seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Ordet Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947. praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which was continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order. 1948, and which would otherwise expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, be continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill. The scheme for the improvement of Parliament Square has a rather long and involved history which your Lordships may not desire me fully to recount on this occasion. Therefore, I will deal with it briefly. In 1931 the Westminster House Real Property Company, who were acquiring a lease of Nos. 14, 15 and 16, Great George Street, proposed to erect a tall office building there. Their plans were approved, but in 1935 the Middlesex County Council promoted a Bill for com-

1403
pulsory purchase of the site. May I, at the outset, say that every credit is due to the Middlesex County Council for their far-sighted, public-spirited action? I do not say that because I have been a member of the Middlesex County Council. I was not a member of the County Council at that time, but I respect the integrity and ability of those who took far-sighted and public-spirited action to purchase that site compulsorily. Some time later that proposal was dropped in favour of an agreed purchase.
A demand then arose that the Government should contribute to the cost of preserving the site as an open space. Meanwhile, the Minister of Transport had prepared a radical alteration of the layout of Parliament Square to facilitate the flow of traffic. This was adduced at that time as an additional reason for acquiring the site. In the closing days of 1938, the Cabinet agreed to a Government contribution of £100,000, and there the matter rested throughout the war years. After the war, negotiations were reopened by the Middlesex County Council, and offers of further contributions were made by the Westminster City Council the London County Council, the Pilgrim Trust and the Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The land was finally purchased early in 1948. The plan to which I have already referred was adopted as a basis and has since been considered in detail. It has the approval of the Ministry of Transport and the Metropolitan Police. I should add here that the Police felt that, unless this scheme could be carried out before the Festival of Britain, it would be difficult to hold the Festival on the South Bank site.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the legal position regarding the Square is also somewhat involved. With land so close to the Palace of Westminster and possessing so long a history, that is not difficult to understand. The land has been acquired for specific purposes over a very long period and, although the whole of it is now Crown property, certain obscurities in title and restrictions on use render this Bill almost essential. The Bill is not designed to authorise the scheme as a whole but is intended to remove any doubts about title to owner-
1404
ship and powers to carry out the scheme. The responsibility for the scheme is divided. The London County Council will be responsible for road works and the Ministry of Works for laying out and maintaining the two new garden enclosures. These works be carried out almost entirely under existing powers. The points covered in the Bill are the narrowing by a few feet of certain carriage ways, for which neither the London County Council nor the Ministry of Works have powers, and the extinguishing of certain rights of way. Authority is also sought to move statues and re-erect them, and to remove the Buxton Memorial Fountain.
During its passage through another place, the Bill received approval but was subjected to some criticism in regard to details, the most important being from Members speaking on behalf of Westminster City Council, insisting that the absence of pavements round the central island would be dangerous to pedestrians. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works readily agreed to consider this point, and since then consultations have taken place and agreement has been reached. The amended scheme provides for a pavement on the south and east sides of the new central garden. I may add that a plan of the amended proposals has been placed in the Library.
There was also some discussion in another place on the suitability of various statues for the site at the north-east corner of the Square. One suggestion is that the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion should be moved from Palace Yard to the Square and its place in the Yard be taken by the statue of the Burghers of Calais, at present in Victoria Tower Gardens. This suggestion will be discussed with the Royal Fine Art Commission, who have, I should mention, approved the scheme as a whole. As noble Lords will be aware, after the Second Reading in another place had been carried without a Division, the Middlesex County Council petitioned against the Bill to the Select Committee, asking that traffic should be kept at a greater distance from their Guildhall.
The Bill as it now stands consists of a preamble in which the scheme as a whole is outlined. Clause 1 provides for the incorporation of a portion of the carriageway of Great George Street in the new

1405
central garden, and widening of the pavement outside St. Margaret's Church. Clause 2 provides for the extinguishing of rights of way over the existing central carriageway and over those pavements which are to be incorporated in the new gardens. Clause 3 provides for the removal and re-erection of statues in Parliament: Square and the removal of the Buxton Memorial Fountain. It also seeks to clear up certain obscurities in land title. The Clause 4 refers to the Schedules which provide protection for the statutory undertakers and the British Transport Commission. These Schedules have been agreed with the parties concerned. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the expenses of the scheme, the short title, the interpretation of the Bill and protection rights of the Lord Great Chamberlain and other officers of State in connection with the closing of footways for ceremonial occasions.
My Lords, that is all I have to say in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, except this, if I may be so hold as to make to noble Lords who are interested in this Bill a suggestion which may facilitate the orderly conduct of our business. As noble Lords probably know, it has been decided that the Committee and remaining stages of this Bill shall be taken after the Second Reading. As noble Lords will also know, two main Amendments have been put down, one dealing with the position of the Middlesex County Council and the other, in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, dealing with the Buxton Memorial Fountain. I am entirely at the mercy of noble Lords, but it seems to me that it might be better that discussion on these two Amendments should stand over to the Committee stage—assuming the Bill is not opposed—which will be taken immediately after the Second Reading. I merely make that suggestion, with which noble Lords may agree or otherwise. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Morrison.)
2.56 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I quite agree with the concluding remarks of the noble Lord. Two specific points are raised, one of them being an Amendment in my name and the other in the narni! of my noble and learned friend
1406
Lord Simon. Our attitude on these Benches is much the same as that of our friends in the House of Commons—namely, to give general approval to this Bill, but to draw attention to some specific objections to its detail. That leads me to make this protest. Noble Lords may not know that the scheme, almost as it appears in the Bill, was agreed between the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council and the Commissioner of Police, as far back as May of this year; and it comes to this House at such a time in the Session—indeed, it did not come to the other place very much earlier —that there is little One to consider it. Your Lordships were asked last week to pass an alteration to the Standing Orders in respect of this Bill, limiting the time for petition against it.
All this is done on the assumed basis —because it needs an assumption that I personally do not think I can accept—that the traffic for the Festival of Britain will be completely disorganised unless there is some alteration to Parliament Square. The two parts of the Festival of Britain are on the south bank of the Thames, and communication between the two of them—we heard a great deal about it on the Second. Reading of the Festival of Britain Bill—is hoped to be mainly by water transport up and down the river. That was one of the reasons why Battersea Park was selected for the amusement park site. In any case, there are roads south of the river which afford better communication to get from one part of the Exhibition to another than do roads on the north. It is rather farfetched to say that the traffic arrangements for the Festival will be completely upset if this Bill does not pass into law this Session. I think the Government ought to have introduced the measure much earlier. I do not wish to raise the particular point about the Middlesex County Council now, because I shall do that when my Amendment is called. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be much better to confine the debate on that subject to that Amendment, and I have no doubt my noble and learned friend will agree that the debate on the Buxton Memorial Fountain should be kept to his Amendment and should not delay the Second Reading.
There is one item of news that the noble Lord has given to the House this

1407
afternoon—namely, that the equestrian statue that is to be erected in the middle of Parliament Square is to be the one we know quite well, that of Richard Coeur de Lion. There was some rumour that a new statue was going to be made; that at some future date perhaps we should see the Lord President of the Council sitting on a horse in the middle of Parliament Square—as my noble friend behind me suggests, "riding his high horse." I think we ought to protest against this somewhat "high horse" procedure of the Government bringing in this Bill so late in the Session, when agreement had been reached some time in May, and asking us to rush it through the House of Lords in a single afternoon. That course will be quite agreeable to us, I may add, if the noble Lord opposite and the Government will accept both my Amendment and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon.
3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will not be in too much of a hurry to decide the question of the equestrian statue. There are very few sites in London which are now suitable for the erection of statues of heroes of the future, or even of the present day, and there seems to be no need to move the statue of Richard Cœur de Lion. It is perfectly appropriate in its present position, and it would be extraordinarily out of place in a garden devoted to the commemoration of nineteenth-century Prime Ministers. If His Majesty's Government must have an equestrian statue in the Square, I suggest that they move there the only equestrian statue of a Prime Minister that exists in London—I refer, of course, to the statue of the Duke of Wellington. I would further beg His Majesty's Government in their gardening operations to preserve the dignity of Parliament Square. I understand that it is proposed to have some flower beds there. If that is so, let the gardening be kept as formal gardening. People do not go to Parliament Square in order to see quaintness or to delight in floral beauty; they go to be impressed by the majesty of the centre of the British Empire. Therefore, I hope the Office of Works will not give rein to a passion for rusticity which I have observed in some of their recent works, and I hope
1408
that in the Parliament Square of the future they will give us nothing which will be quite so offensive as that miserable little "pocketful of posies" which has stood there during the lifetime of the present Government.
3.3 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, as a Londoner I am much interested in this Bill, but I could not understand how it was that my noble friend Lord Llewellin, an ex-Minister of Transport, failed to see any connection between the traffic problem in Parliament Square and the Festival of Britain. Surely, the difficulties of London traffic in recent years have shown us how a traffic block starting at an isolated point anywhere can travel back in all directions and bring a great area of London almost to a standstill. The trouble is that this Exhibition is to be held in the centre of an over-trafficked city. As I said during the debate on the Second Reading of the Festival of Britain Act, I am extremely anxious about the traffic problem, which I do not think will be solved by the proposals which have been put forward up to the present time. The normal traffic problems, accentuated as they are by the difficulties arising from the emptying of such great termini as Waterloo, we already know. What it will be like when the Festival of Britain gets well under way, I cannot think.
I am certain that Parliament Square, amongst other places, will play its part in any scheme proposed. I would submit, however, with regard to this Square that what is suggested is merely tinkering with the problem. Your Lordships will be only too painfully familiar with the difficulties of getting access to the House of Commons in present traffic conditions. You come along Great George Street from St. James's Park, for example, and you are held up by a tremendous stream of traffic coming from Victoria Street and Millbank. In present conditions, an absolute standstill occurs at certain times of the day. If the increase in traffic which is anticipated as a consequence of the Festival of Britain actually takes place, I cannot see how traffic will get through London at all.
Many of your Lordships will be aware of the experience of other countries, such as France, and will know what has been done in Paris. In that city there are

1409
points of great traffic congestion, and they have dealt with the trouble by constructing tunnels. What especially complicates the problem in Parliament Square is traffic coming out of Whitehall and desiring to go straight across the Square to Milibank. In Paris, I submit, a problem of that kind would have been tackled by the construction of a tunnel starting somewhere in the middle of Whitehall, where the centre stream of traffic is going more or less southward. That tunnel would have to dive under the traffic coming from Victoria Street and George Street and would come up, presumably, in the vicinity of the entrance to the House of Lords. If the Government intend to deal properly with the traffic problem of Parliament Square, I do not think they can afford to ignore such a proposition. It is a method which has been found of great advantage in whatever country it has been tried. In Paris, as your Lordships; know, at the bottom of the Avenue Foch and at the bottom of the Avenue leading to the Bois, traffic tunnels now exist, and some of your Lordships will recollect the traffic jams that used to occur before those tunnels were built. They were exactly the same sort of jams as we shall experience. The present plan, so far as I am able to understand it, will not actually solve the traffic problem; that will still remain, and I believe that the resultant chaos which will he caused will certainly extend back to the south bank of the river. There is very great danger of traffic in this area being brought to an absolute stop unless something really drastic is done on the lines which I have ventured to suggest.
3.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I find myself drawn into this debate, against my previous intention, because of the surprise I received when Lord Morrison stated that it is proposed to place in the centre of Parliament Square, the heart of the British Commonwealth, so incongruous a statue as that of Richard Coeur de Lion. Nothing could be more out of tune—
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount to point out that I did not say "it was proposed." I simply said that the suggestion had been made. It is not the policy of the Ministry, for no such decision has yet been made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: if the noble Lord had added that the suggestion had been immediately stamped upon, I should not have felt it necessary to rise.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister one question. I have examined the plan which has been in our Library, and I should like to know whether Lord Morrison was correct in saying that the proposal was that this equestrian statue should be placed in the middle of the Square. I understood from the plan—I think a little inquiry will show that I am right—that it was suggested that it should be put in the north-east corner of the Square, looking down Whitehall. I share the views of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but I think we had better know where this hypothetical equestrian statue may appear.
3.9 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I must have expressed myself badly. I find on reference to my notes that I did not say it was proposed to place the statue in the middle of the Square. I said that one suggestion was that it should be moved from Palace Yard to the Square. What I was referring to—and perhaps it was my own fault for not making myself clear—was the fact that in the considerable discussion in another place a number of suggestions were made, that being one of them. I was endeavouring to convey to the House that that, along with any other suggestions, would be considered in due course by the Ministry and the Royal Fine Art Commission. May I thank noble Lords for having so readily accepted the suggestion I made? There is only one further point that I need make now, also for the purpose of getting the record correct. I hope that. I did not lead any noble Lord to think that, if this scheme wee not carried out, the Exhibition traffic would result in absolute confusion. What I said was that the Metropolitan Police were of the opinion that considerable traffic difficulties would arise if this scheme were not carried out before the Exhibition. With regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is always interesting on these matters, I would point out that there could not be a traffic tunnel under Parliament Square because the Metropolitan Railway already runs below the Square.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before we leave this matter, I have always understood—and I believe it to be true—that the reason the statue of Richard Cœur de Lion was placed where it is was that when the King was dining in Westminster Hall he received a message from the King of France which irritated him very much. He rose and said, "I will never turn my back upon France. I am going straight there." He had the window below which the statue now stands pulled down, and when he set out for France he rode through it. That is the reason why the statue is in that place.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, if the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion is moved from its present position to Parliament Square there is no possible place for it but in the centre of the Square, because the statue is out of proportion to any of the other statues. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that when the proposal was made the Government ought to have stamped on it. It would be most unsuitable that this one great statue should appear in the centre of Parliament Square, out of proportion to all the statues which are already there.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; reference to a Committee under Standing Order 121 negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair] Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
3.13 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on use of Canning enclosure
". No part of the Canning enclosure within a distance of 65 feet from the existing main entrance to the Middlesex Guildhall shall be used as a public carriageway."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, may I say a few words in regard to the part played in this scheme by the Middlesex County Council and also to recall what the noble Lord, Lord
1412
Morrison, said on Second Reading. Both the noble Lord and I happened to be members for Middlesex at the time when the County Council acted, and acted with great promptitude, in this matter.
In 1934 the London County Council had given planning permission for a large office building to be erected at the corner of the Canning enclosure, after an existing building had been pulled down, near the building of the Institute of Chartered Surveyors and opposite the Treasury buildings. Hearing of this scheme and being themselves the occupier of the Middlesex Guildhall and near neighbours, and also partly to preserve their own amenity (though I think more largely because they took a wide outlook on what should be the future of Parliament Square), the Middlesex County Council introduced a Private Bill to acquire the site. They obtained powers under that Bill, but found they did not have to effect a compulsory purchase, because they made an agreement with the owners of the site to buy them out. The Council trusted that they would persuade His Majesty's Government, the London County Council and other people interested in Parliament Square to come in with them in the general improvement of the Square. At the start they did not receive much encouragement. though oddly enough they received a grant £50,000 from the Pilgrim Trust! say "oddly enough" because though they are a proper and generous body, they are the most remotely concerned with Parliament Square. In the end a settlement was arrived at whereby the London County Council contributed £50,000; the Westminster City Council £45,000, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, £10,000. There was the £50,000 from the Pilgrim Trust; the Government contributed £145,000; and the Middlesex County Council contributed £100,000, also paying the interest on the loans on the remaining part of that money over the years in which they had to lay out the purchase price before the other contributions were made.
In 1936, having acquired this site, the Middlesex County Council got into touch with the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry at that time agreed a new plan which would meet all transport require-

1413
meats. It was then of help to the Middlesex County Council to get contributions from others who would be interested in Parliament Square, so they held on until May of this year when, at very short notice, the Council were invited to send a representative to a conference held at the Ministry of Works to meet representatives of the Ministry of Transport, the Commissioner of Police, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. When they got there the Council found that there was a more or less cut-and-dried scheme, although they were the only people who had made this scheme possible. I should like every noble Lord to get this into his mind: the present proposed alteration of Parliament Square would not have been possible if the Middlesex County Council had not bought the site and prevented the erection of that large office building. If the building had been erected, it would have been necessary to buy it, at a cost which would probably have run into £1,000,000, in order to make possible the present scheme of alteration. Therefore I should have thought that the Middlesex County Council should have been consulted at the very outset. They Were not consulted and, indeed, they have not been listened to at all.
When the Bill eventually came before Parliament the Middlesex County Council submitted a Petition against it. But the promoters of the Bill, rather cunningly, withdrew one clause which, in the opinion of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, was the only clause which gave a proper status to the Middlesex County Council. They were thereby deprived of their status and so precluded from putting their case in detail to the Select Committee. The Middlesex County Council are anxious for this scheme to go through, in broad outline. But the present scheme takes the new carriageway much nearer to the Middlesex Guildhall than the original scheme of 1936, and, in their view, much nearer than is necessary for the improvement of traffic conditions in Parliament Square. After May, they had talks with the Ministry of Transport, the Commissioner of Police, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. They were all prepared to accept the Middlesex County Council's idea of this road, although it is fair to say that the Com-
1414
missioner of Police preferred the scheme which is at present proposed by the Ministry of Works.
The Amendment which I am moving to-day has been put down in a great hurry, and if the wording is not right I would ask your Lordships to excuse any failings. I heard about this only on Friday. I wrote at once to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and I do not think he could have received my letter until Monday morning. What my Amendment suggests is that this road should be taken back another eight or ten feet from where it is now designed, to the line where it was acceptable to the Ministry of Transport in 1936, and that no pant of the main carriageway to the Middlesex Guildhall shall be used as a public carriage- way—I am not referring, of course, to what I believe is a private road which goes past the front of the Guildhall, giving access into the Guildhall itself. The Amendment refers only to the road carrying the main stream of traffic round that part of the Square.
I feel that this Amendment may be favourably received on several grounds. First, the Middlesex County Council made this scheme possible by putting up the money originally. If they had not done that, back in 1934 or 1935, the road could not be constructed as is now proposed. For that they are entitled to our gratitude, not only in words but also in deeds. Secondly, under the original scheme of 1936, this road was approved by the Ministry of Transport. There are no great objections to it at the moment, except that it is said that it would mean a new layout of the plat A third reason why I feel the Government should accept the Amendment, or give an undertaking for the road to be constructed further back (if the noble Lord could give that undertaking, I would withdraw my Amendment), is that it was in the power of the Middlesex County Council only yesterday to put down a Petition in your Lordships' House, along with that which they put down in the other place. Had they done that, then the ordinary Standing Orders of this House would have meant that there would obviously have to be some days for tie setting up of a Select Committee, and to enable the parties to prepare for it; and in that event this Bill could not possibly have got

1415
through your Lordships' House this Session.
In view of the reasonable attitude of the Middlesex County Council, starting in 1935 and extending right down to yesterday, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared either to accept my Amendment or to give an undertaking that this main carriageway will not come nearer than sixty-five feet to the main entrance of the Middlesex Guildhall. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: I was pleased to hear the last point mentioned by the noble Lord—namely, that the Middlesex County Council had deliberately refrained from putting in a Petition yesterday, which, as the noble Lord said, would have resulted in the Bill being lost so far as this Session is concerned. It is only a further example of what I referred to as the far-sightedness and public spiritedness of the Middlesex County Council, that while they are (if I may use the word) disgruntled at the present scheme, because of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, mentioned, they are still in favour of the scheme as a whole, and are prepared to give it their support. The noble Lord recalled the early history of the matter which, to my knowledge, as a Middlesex person who has done all his public work in the County of Middlesex, is absolutely correct. In the circumstances, it seemed strange to me—and probably it seemed strange to the noble Lord, as an exMiddlesex M.P.—that when a matter like this came before the other place no Middlesex Member of Parliament took part in the debate, with the exception, I think, of the Member for Twickenham, who did not refer to the position of Middlesex at all. If I may put it another way, no Middlesex Member of Parliament referred to the position of the Middlesex County Council in this connection. There might have been good reason for that, in that a Petition was about to be launched. Perhaps they held back in those circumstances. As the noble Lord has said, the Petition was dismissed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: For lack of status.
LORD MORRISON: Yes. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, that the Middlesex County Council have not been fully consulted throughout, all I can do (I have been away from my office for some time) is to express my deep regret that such a thing should have happened, although I have made inquiries and no one knows why any discontent should exist on that score. Certainly, no discourtesy was intended, and those who know the Ministry of Works will know perfectly well that, especially so far as important public bodies like the Middlesex County Council are concerned, the Ministry would not be guilty of discourtesy.
This is not a question of gratitude for what the Middlesex County Council have done—we have already expressed that. I propose to tell the Committee what will be the consequences of accepting this Amendment, and to let your Lordships decide.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It will be a free vote?
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment would make it quite impossible to carry out the scheme as at present planned. It is in effect a negation of the scheme as a whole, and cannot be accepted. The effect of building the road at a distance of sixty-five feet would be to destroy most, if not all, of the trees which it is proposed to retain. It would reduce the value from the point of view of traffic improvement, and would require new negotiations with the consultant architect, the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Metropolitan Police, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. From the point of view of time alone, it would be quite impossible to carry out these negotiations and still complete the improvements scheme before the Festival of Britain.
The effect of accepting the noble Lord's amendment would he to set back the western boundary of the new road by about nine feet. This would involve narrowing the road, or setting the whole road in its present alignment back nine feet, or re-aligning the road at an angle with the southern end nine feet farther east, the northern end remaining where it is. The first alternative—that is to say, the narrowing of the road—would

1417
be wholly unacceptable to the police and the Ministry of Transport on traffic grounds. The second alternative would bring the line of statues within seven feet of the kerb, and to set the statues farther to the east would bring them right under the trees. This would probably involve the complete redesigning of the Square. Added to this, the large tree at the southern end, which balances the corresponding tree on the opposite side of the road, and another large tree at the northern end, would have to be removed. The other trees would be brought within thirteen feet to seventeen feet of the road. The cutting of the tree roots which would result would seriously damage them and might even make them dangerous. The third course would also result in the loss of the tree at the southern end, and cause damage to the roots of the other trees. In addition, the Square would cease to be a rectangle and the western boundary would cease to be parallel to the paved path which is sited axially on the northern door of the Abbey, and as under the second alternative it would involve the redesigning of the Square.
The noble Lord has not mentioned the point that the Middlesex County Council have been pressing throughout—it was, I thought, one of their most important points—namely, the noise which would be caused. In that regard, I am advised that the acoustic experts who have examined this problem state the difference in the volume of sound between the entrance to the Guildhall and the present road on the one hand and the road in the new position on the other, would be only just perceptible. For those reasons, I must repeat that, as advised at present, I am not prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and the responsibility for doing so must rest with the House as a whole, with the consequence which will arise therefrom.
3.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose, we all want to reach a satisfactory solution to this problem, which is obviously a very complicated one. The noble Lord who has just spoken gave us a full account of the difficulties of almost any solution, and certainly of the solution which we have suggested. So far as I was concerned, he gave us almost too full an account, and I found myself utterly bewildered as to what from the
1418
point of view of the Ministry of Works, would be the effect of the proposal which we put forward.
LORD MORRISON: The complete redesigning of the whole scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He gave us an extremely interesting account of what the effect would be, but it was impossible, without a detailed map in one's hand, to visualise the tenor of his argument. The point which surprises me, and which I think must have struck other noble Lords listening to this debate, is this: Why is it vital to have this alteration made for the Festival of Britain? London has gone on a very long time without it, and the Festival of Britain—although we all hope it will he an immense success—is not going to make that astonishing difference which makes this alteration essential at the present moment. If I may say so, I feel that the Government are to blame in having brought this question up at such a very late moment. My noble friend Lord Llewellin told the House this aftrnoon—and it was not denied by the Minister—that the decision between the police, the Ministry and everybody else was taken as far back as May, at, a time when we were occupied, in my view far too much, with the nationalisation of steel Surely one day might have been allotted by the Government to enable Parliament to understand what was their intention in regard to this particular scheme.
I would suggest that if there are these difficulties, it would be far better to delay this Bill—I know we have given it a Second Reading—in order that the Government may consider further whether it is vital to have this carried out before the Festival of Britain. My inclination would be to advise my noble friend Lord Llewellin to press his Amendment, not with a view necessarily to having it in the Bill as a permanency, but to create a situation in which the Government will have to think again. The London County Council, who after all have a considerable say in this matter, are deeply worried about the matter, and if this Amendment were passed and we could have further negotiations to see whether some solution acceptable to all parties could be found something would be gained. If it turns cut that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with immediately, then I would suggest that it

1419
would be better to postpone it and try to arrive at a proper solution.
This is a redesigning of what is really the hub of the Empire. It is an important matter, and I do not like, as I am sure other noble Lords do not like, its being hustled through. Therefore, I suggest that your Lordships should pass this Amendment, and then, if the Government think that it is quite impracticable, they should discuss with the other bodies concerned some alternative solution which would be satisfactory to everybody. If they cannot find that solution, then I suggest it is better to postpone the matter until we can give ourselves time to look at something which, after all, we hope will last for a great many years.
LORD MORRISON: May I add a word, to tell the noble Marquess that only yesterday a discussion of some length took place between representatives of the Middlesex County Council and my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, and no agreement was reached at that discussion. I have no authority at all to accept this Amendment, for the reasons which I have given to the House. They may be complicated, but I would sum them up in two sentences: first, it means the complete redesigning of the whole scheme, and, secondly—the reason I gave on Second Reading —the police feel that unless the scheme can be carried out before the Festival of Britain it will be very difficult to hold the Festival on the South Bank site. For those reasons, I have no power to accept the Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, mentioned that it would make a complete redesigning of the scheme necessary, but I am given to understand—and I believe my information is correct—that the Middlesex County Council's engineering adviser is definitely of the opinion that if my noble friend's Amendment were passed it would have little effect on the plans already prepared, and would cause very little delay. It seems to me that there is a definite conflict of practical views on this, which gives all the more justification for the matter to be reconsidered later.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord mentioned a conference which took place yesterday. Can he tell the
1420
House whether at that conference the Middlesex County Council representatives conceded the position which the noble Lord has outlined to-day: the absolute impossibility of their point of view being met without a re-designing of the whole scheme. Did the Middlesex County Council concede that yesterday or did they not?
LORD MORRISON: Nobody conceded anything.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But did the Middlesex County Council agree that the whole scheme needed redesigning in the way the noble Lord has outlined to-day?
LORD MORRISON: No; there was no agreement on the part of the Middlesex County Council. But I am not representing the Middlesex County Council, and it is for them to say what their attitude is on that point. I believe that if their idea were adopted some trees would have to be sacrificed; but I do not want to commit myself.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not feel at all satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said. In regard to these trees I am told that the position is that, until the digging of the foundations of the new road is begun, nobody knows what roots of what trees are likely to be found, and what trees may ultimately have to come down. It is a pity that the Committee cannot see this plan which I have in my hand. The present scheme, which means going back only sixty-six feet, makes the road go only about four feet nearer to these trees. That is far enough away from the trees, and it would not be necessary to take down a single extra tree by altering the plan in that regard. It is news to me that the statues were to be placed on that particular side of the trees. That would mean that these statues, representing former Prime Ministers, would be turning their backs on the House in which their subjects were great orators. I should have thought that that was wrong, and that the statues ought to be on the other side of the Square, facing the Houses of Parliament. I think the noble Lord's explanation is highly unsatisfactory, and I ask the House to support me in this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Reading, M.

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Templewood, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Llewellin, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E.

Luke, L.

Howe, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Lindsay, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Milverton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Monson, L.

Munster, E.

Blackford, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Perth, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Newall, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Broughshane, L.

OHagan, L.

Carrington, L.

Polwarth, L.

Allenby, V.

Charnwood, L.

Rochdale, L. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Cherwell, L.

Rockley, L.

Hailsham, V.

De L'IsIe and Dudley, L.

Schuster, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Marchwood, V.

Derwent, L.

Waleran, L.

Mersey, V,

Gifford, L,

Webb-Johnson, L.

Monsell, V.

Hampton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Simon, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Calverley, L.

Marley, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Crook, L.

Mottistone, L.

Darwen, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Hall, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Holden, L.

Rea, L.

Amwell, L.

Kershaw, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Badeley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3:
Supplementary provisions as respects the new gardens
3. —(1) The Minister may remove the memorial fountain near the north-east corner of the Canning enclosure and any of the statues in the existing garden in the centre of Parliament Square or in the Canning enclosure, and shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him either in the new central garden or in the new west garden.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) after "by him" to insert" of the memorial fountain if removed."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I rise to move an Amendment which is down on the Marshalled List in the names, not only of myself but also of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, so that I may fairly claim that this Amendment has prominent support from all sections of the House. Clause 3 of the Bill is a clause which makes a remarkable distinction. It begins
1422
by authorising the Minister of Works, in carrying out this important scheme in Parliament Square, to
"remove the memorial Fountain … and any of the statues."
It then goes on to say that the Minister
"shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him either in the new central garden or in the new west garden."
Your Lordships, therefore, see that in fact, whether or not it was intended, the clause draws a distinction. Whereas we are invited to say by Statute that the Minister must put back into Parliament Square the statues the position of which may be shifted, as regards this Memorial Fountain, about which I shall say more in a moment, we are invited to give the Minister the right to remove it, and Parliament is not expected to include in the Bill any provision or direction of any kind as to what he is to do with it. I do not suspect the Minister of intending to sell it as rubbish. No doubt, what is contemplated is an executive act by which this memorial shall be put somewhere else. Where, according to this Bill, is not for Parliament to decide. We

1423
are to leave the whole thing to the discretion of the Minister.
I think that is a significant and, as it seems to me, a very unfortunate way in which to word the clause. Therefore, the noble Lords who have been moving in this matter—and I believe I am largely supported by other noble Lords—desire to insert in Clause 3 words which will require the Minister to deal with this Memorial Fountain as the statues are dealt with—that is to say, if its position be moved. In point of fact I think it will be agreed that it ought to be moved because, if the roadways are to be improved it is necessary to round off the corner where it now stands, and therefore it would have to he shifted. But the important questions for your Lordships—and I deem them very important—are these: First, is it right that we should leave in the hands of the Minister and his officials the destiny of this Memorial Fountain? Secondly, is it not rather the duty of Parliament itself to take the decision as to whether or not it should be replaced in Parliament Square? I must be forgiven if I spend a few minutes in reminding your Lordships what this Memorial Fountain represents. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill earlier this afternoon described it as the Buxton Memorial Fountain. It does sometimes go by that name, but in fact it is the memorial put up in Parliament Square to the efforts and the ultimate success of a body of British statesmen who at length succeeded in carrying an Act of Parliament which abolished slavery under the British flag. As such, it appears to me to be exactly the sort of memorial which ought to be found in Parliament Square—the place which, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said just now, is really for this purpose the hub of the Empire.
I hope I shall be forgiven if I remind your Lordships for a few minutes of the outline of a piece of history. I would fain believe that the language of Clause 3 may be due to an oversight on the part of those who drafted it. If it is not, I am afraid I must say that I feel that those who are responsible for its present form have completely overlooked the pre-eminent importance of the Parliamentary efforts which this monu
1424
ment records. Wilberforce and his colleague Clarkson carried on a campaign against the slave trade, in the face of the bitterest opposition, for a whole generation. At length, the abolition of the slave trade was carried in the year 1807. From that time forward, slave trading was a crime. But that Act did not in the least release the hundreds of thousands of slaves claimed to be the property of their masters in various British Colonies, and from 1807 until 1833 the campaign was carried on to establish what I see in a letter printed in The Times to-day is called "the first and greatest of human rights"—namely, that in the British Empire, under the British Crown, slavery, the ownership of one man as a piece of property by another, cannot and shall not exist.
Nobody who has the slightest regard to our historical traditions and to the great achievements of our British Parliament ought ever to forget the magnificence and the effect of that sustained effort It was most bitterly opposed, Parliament after Parliament, Session after Session, year after year. Wilberforce, who had been the principal author of the Act of 1807 which abolished the slave trade, fell ill. He actually retired because of ill-health in 1825, and when he did so he handed over the second part of his work—the greater part, the final part, the part which meant the abolition of slavery in British Colonies—to his colleague, Sir Thomas Powell Buxton. But he was not the only person who carried on the campaign. I have recently re-read a few of Buxton's speeches, and they are a magnificent example of sustained argument. He was assisted by people like Lord Brougham and Mr. Clarkson. He was backed by Denman, an ancestor of one of my noble friends here: by Lushington, who was in his day a very famous Member of Parliament and a great international lawyer and by Mackintosh, who did so much to reform our institutions in many directions.
At length, after the carriage of the first Reform Bill, in the year 1833, the Statute abolishing slavery was carried through both Houses of Parliament. At midnight on July 31, 1834, 800,000 slaves, who until that moment were lawfully owned by other people in the territories over which the Sovereign presided, were freed. Beyond all question, that is one

1425
of the greatest Parliamentary events in the whole of our history. This monument in Parliament Square records it. And now we are asked to accept Clause 3 which, as it stands, says: "If you want to remove the statue of Sir Robert Peel or of Mr. Disraeli you must put it back in the Square. But if it is a question of this monument to the statesmen who for so long struggled to abolish slavery in the British Commonwealth, well, we will leave it to the Minister of Works to remove it and to decide what is to be done with it."
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I venture to put this side of the argument in two quotations. The historian Lecky, who was a fairly cool judge of cur historic affairs, has written of the story of Parliament's abolition of slavery, that it may be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous acts recorded in the history of nations. In that connection I would remind the Committee that Parliament, in order to carry through the release of these slaves, voted a sum of no less than £20,000,000, found by the British taxpayer, in order to compensate existing slave-owners. It was the most wonderful, the most disinterested and virtuous act that you can imagine, for £20,000,000 at that time was one-third of the whole of the national revenue.
I venture to offer one other quotation, and then I will not further embroider the theme, which I must confess moves me as I think it ought to move everybody who is sincerely interested in the development of Human Rights. The other quotation is from a Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, the father of the present Earl. Lord Rosebery wrote:
"This country, when it stands before history, will stand when all else has passed away, not by her fleets and her armies and her corn coerce, but by the heroic, self-denying exertions which she has made to put down this iniquitous slave traffic."
Are we in this House really going to say: "Let us leave it to the Minister of Works to remove this monument. We are not concerned in our Act of Parliament with what he does with it"? That appears to me, especially in contrast with the reference to the statues, to be a monstrous proposal. Therefore, I submit to the Committee (and shall be very willing to accept their decision) that we ought to require that this monument
1426
should be, perhaps not in the same place, but somewhere, restored to Parliament Square.
I am authorised by my noble friend, Lord Hailey, who is detained elsewhere, but may get here before this debate finishes, with his quite exceptional knowledge of Africa and of the tribes of Africa—and the Committee know that in the last few years he has devoted himself to a study of the subject—to say that he cannot exaggerate the importance which he attaches to securing that here, in the huh of the Empire, we do retain a monument so significant in the history of the influence of our Parliament on the natives of Africa. I venture to think that it would be very odd if we, by Statute, should require the statue of Abraham Lincoln to be preserved in Parliament Square, but should be indifferent to Parliament giving directions as to this monument to a far greater, because a far earlier, achievement, thirty years before, in the face of every sort of resistance and obstacle. Wilberforce was the abolitionist of the slave trade. Buxton and his friends were the emancipators who succeeded in 1833.
I know that what I am saying now is felt by many members of the House, one of whom has written to me regretting very much that he cannot be here to-day —namely, Viscount Cecil. For many years he took a very important part at Geneva in endeavouring to get rid of the remains of slavery in this world. He writes to me to say how warmly he supports this proposal, to which indeed he has put his name, and how he wishes he could come and speak in the debate this afternoon. I must say that I think those who are prepared to accept this clause as it stands, with this comparatively casual treatment of this monument as compared with the treatment of these statues, show a very poor sense of the importance of our Parliamentary history. When, as many of your Lordships do from time to time, I take visitors from abroad or from the Commonwealth round our precincts, I do not want to feel that they can go there and admire the statue of Mr. Abraham Lincoln, the emancipator of the slaves in the United States, and that we have said to the Minister of Works, "As for this other monument of British emancipators, you may deal with it as you and your advisers think fit."
I cannot see the slightest indication that His Majesty's Government have ever considered this matter from what I may call the historic point of view. I have no doubt they have had opinions that are critical of the æsthetic merits of this fountain. On that matter opinions will differ. In fact, I notice that in the House of Commons opinions did differ. One, I think well-instructed, member of the Labour Party expressed an emphatic view that it was a good example of a particular style of architecture, and another Member used equally positive language the other way. But I would just make this observation, without claiming to be an authority on such matters, though I take a great interest in them. This particular fountain —as is stated in the letter from Lord Macmillan which appears in The Times this morning—is an example of what is sometimes called "Victorian Gothic." If you want another one, go to Oxford and look at the Museum there which was built under the inspiration of Ruskin, and which some people criticise very severely whilst others admire it. If I may say so respectfully, do not let us be too sure that we who live now, even the Fine Art Commission, necessarily express the last word in taste in matters of art.
I would remind your Lordships that the early English style and the Decorated style which are so splendidly exemplified in our old cathedrals were called "Gothic" styles, and when that epithet was introduced, it implied that it was barbaric. Where is the man of culture who will not say to-day that he greatly admires the Gothic style—the style of Salisbury Cathedral—and that he thinks it attractive. "Gothic" was the adjective first attached to that kind or style of architecture, in derision. It meant that it was a barbaric style, just as the adjective gothique in French to-day means barbarous and uncultivated—and just as we used to call the Germans "Huns." So, judgments change, and while I am not claiming more for this memorial than many people think it deserves, I submit that in the circumstances the historical aspects of this question are far more important that any judgment anyone may form now on æsthetic grounds.
What is proposed to be done? My noble friend, Lord Morrison, who is always so reasonable in these matters, tells me there is only the intention to put
1428
this memorial up somewhere else. I submit to the Committee that that is really not good enough. The question is: Is not this a matter for Parliament to decide? We are going to decide about the putting up of the statues in Parliament Square. Are we justified in saying that even the most accomplished of Ministers —I shall say nothing reflecting upon Mr. Key's historical appreciations—and his officials should be left to decide what should be done? I do not think that they should. Therefore my proposal is that we should insert this Amendment in the Bill. It seems to me to be utterly wrong that Parliament should leave the destiny of this memorial in the hands of a departmental Minister. It ought to be decided by Parliament. So far as I can see, there is no reason why it should not be dealt with in the same way as the statues of London. If there is any other suggestion, I shall be glad to hear it. I urge upon the Committee that it is wrong for us to leave the destiny of this particular memorial to the discretion, subject to the advice which is received by him, of the Minister of Works, whoever he may be.
I am the last to wish to quarrel about this business, and I add only this. I feel warmly about this question, as I know many others do. If it is thought that there is some other place close by which could equally well be used, I submit to the Committee that the decision ought not to be the decision of the Minister. It ought to be the decision of Parliament, and I should be quite willing to see added to my Amendment words like these:
"provided that if another site for the memorial fountain is agreed by Resolution of each House of Parliament within the next three months the memorial fountain should be re-erected on such site."
My point is that this question should be decided by Parliament. I think that we tend in these days rather too much to get into the habit of thinking: "Oh, leave it to the Minister. The Executive will decide this. Parliament need not do more than give him discretion." I am not prepared to do that in this case. I hope that there will be other noble Lords who will join me and support this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("by him") insert ("and the memorial fountain if removed").—(Viscount Simon.)
4.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think we owe a debt to the noble and learned Viscount who has just moved this Amendment, for I have some suspicion that had it not been for his vigilance the Bill might have gone through in the form in which it has been presented to the Committee. That, I think, in the opinion of many of your Lordships would have been extremely regrettable. From the aesthetic point of view, we may not all be struck with admiration for this particular memorial, but that is not the beginning and end of the matter. It may well be that if in place of a derided piece of Victoria masonry there were put there the latest creation of a sculptor of to-day that, in its turn, might not receive universal admiration, either from your Lordships or from the populace at large. When the Government propose—as it is proposed in this Bill—to replace in position statues which are to be moved, I wonder whether they are being put back on the instructions of the Royal Fine Art Commission because of their intrinsic beauty or because of their historical interest. But if it he, as I fear, having gazed upon them, largely for their historical interest, I can see little distinction in principle between them and the fountain which it is now proposed to cast into oblivion.
We have no indication where, if anywhere, it is proposed to re-erect this fountain. I submit, following the noble and learned Viscount, that the place for a memorial which commemorates so notable a chapter in the history of this country ought not to be left to the sole discretion of a Minister and ought not to be far removed from the precincts of Parliament. At this moment we, like people in many other countries of the world, and indeed those in the United Nations, are much concerned with a Charter of Human Rights. There can be no greater starting point for the assertion of the principle of human rights than the record of the work which was achieved by Buxton and his colleagues, whose memory is marked by this fountain which it is proposed to remove to some unknown destination. I hope the Minister will tell your Lordships that he is prepared to accept the learned and noble Viscount's Amendment; and if he is not prepared to take that course I hope the Committee will consider very carefully what action they propose to take upon his refusal.
4.19 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I wish strongly to support the opinions which have been expressed with such force and such feeling by the noble and learned Viscount. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess who has just spoken that we owe a great debt to the noble and learned Viscount for having perceived this matter which, but for his vigilance, might easily have gone unnoticed. I can only think that it is by an oversight that specific provision for this memorial has not been included in Clause 3 of the Bill. Really, if it were not an oversight it would indicate an ignorance of history and an insensitivity to history which I should be sorry to ascribe to anyone. We have many statues in London, many of them of mediocre men, and in one instance, of a rather vicious man, and I think we should take care before we erect any more statues. According to my reading of history, Richard Cœur de Lion was a thoroughly bad King. It. was said of him that he never lost a battle and never won a campaign, and I think he was absent from this country for all but a few weeks of his reign. I heard far more about Richard Cur de Lion while in Cyprus than I have ever heard about him in this country. This memorial is not a statue. It is a memorial fountain which commemorates a noble deed, the reversal of a system which was very negation of humanity. It is associated with the name of a great man, the name of Fowell Buxton, and with the names of the Gurneys, the Hoares, the Barclays—names which have always been honourably associated with philanthrophy and with the ideals of re form and humanity. It seems to me an extraordinary instance of our apathy to the part we have played in these questions that this Bill should provide specifically for the re-siting of the statue of Lincoln and forget the man whose act preceded the action of Lincoln.
Something has been said about the artistic merits or demerits of this memorial. I trust that this fountain will not he merely removed to a site in Parliament Square. I hope something may be done to set it off and give it more importance than it has to-day. Perhaps a screen could be placed behind it; perhaps an architect could be consulted about how to set it off. When we reflect on the tortures which the slaves suffered from thirst during their passage from

1431
Africa and the torments of thirst they suffered on the plantations in their slavery, I think we would agree that there could be no more appropriate memorial to the act of Fowell Buxton than the erection of a fountain of running water. I trust that this memorial will find its appropriate place in Parliament Square in memory of a great deed of statesmanship and of a great man.
4.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: I rise to my feet not because there is anything special to be said on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, though I might say that we are fully alive to the immensity of the moral achievement which is commemorated by this fountain. Nor have I anything to add to what has been said so eloquently by the three noble Lords who have spoken. I venture to speak because, with one other in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Templewood, I have a family concern in this question. I cannot keep silent here, because I am a great-grandson of Elizabeth Fry and therefore mixed up with that clan of Buxtons and Barclays and Hoares and Gurneys to which kind reference has already been made. Families and relatives have a natural dislike to having their tombstones and memorials moved about hither and thither. I have had no opportunity to consult large numbers of the clan who live in East Anglia, and other parts of the country, and indeed, all over the world, but I feel sure they will agree with me that nothing could be less desirable or more untimely and unsuitable than to move this monument. I am sure I am speaking for all of them when I say that we should intensely dislike the idea of this interesting and highly significant memorial being carted off to some obscure spot in this Metropolis. I speak for these family reasons only, and I do not attempt to add anything. I hope that the Amendment will be passed.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the Amendment. I should also like to point out that if the Committee pass it, it will have a marked effect on Clause 3 because it will mean that the whole layout of the statuary in Parliament Square
1432
as now planned will have to be replanned. I personally should welcome that—for one reason. It occurred to me during the Second Reading, and it strikes me even more forcibly now, having listened to the speeches just made, that we have to decide first, what is to be the nature of the equestrian statue, which will be the most important statue in the square. We must first decide whether it should be, for instance, Richard Coeur de Lion, or as my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh suggested, the Duke of Wellington or anybody else. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for explaining to the House why Richard Cœur de Lion was placed here, and obviously he should stay. I was always struck by the fact that the only statues in the immediate curtilage of the Houses of Parliament were those of Oliver Cromwell, who spent the whole of his time trying to abolish Parliament, and of Richard Coeur de Lion, who spent the whole of his time trying to avoid summoning Parliament. Suppose that it is to be the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion. Obviously, for an equestrian statue of that size the layout of the other statues, garden and paths would have to be different, from that required for, say, the statue of the Duke of Wellington. Or suppose that a new statue were proposed —for instance, that of the same size as George III in Cockspur Street—that again, would throw out the whole balance of the Square. Until the Royal Fine Art Commission have decided what is suitable, it will be extremely difficult to plan where the fountain and other statues should be. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to encourage the Fine Art Commission to think this matter out quickly and carefully.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Like the noble Lord, Lord Winster, I have served as a proconsul in a distant province of the British Empire. I can imagine nothing that would more profoundly shock the people of all classes and all political Parties in the Dominion of New Zealand than if Clause 3 of this Bill were allowed to stand as it is. There is no country in the whole world where the people glory in the freedom of the human race to such an extent as they do in New Zealand. They have put their own native people in a position of equality with the

1433
white man to a greater degree and in a more emphatic sense than any other people in the world. I am certain that if, after this discussion, it were to go out that the memorial to Fowell Buxton, one of the great English champions of freedom, was to he removed from the place where alone it ought to be, in the precincts of this Parliament, it would shock the whole of that nation which is so loyal to the British Constitution and for whom we have such a profound regard.
4.30 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: At the risk of losing some of the friends I have in this House, I want to begin by saying that never in the short period during which I have been a member of your Lordships' House have I heard a case so over-stated as this has been to-day. Noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently have a good case, but there is no reason for over-stating it. What is the picture now in the minds of noble Lords who have not partaken in this debate? It is a picture of the abolition of slavery: of a great debate having taken place in the Houses of Parliament, with a resolution moved that a public statue be erected in Parliament Square to the people who were concerned in that abolition, and now many years afterwards a dastardly Government coming along and suggesting the upsetting of that position.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MORRISON: But what are the facts? I have spent a good deal of time on this question. I have even taken the trouble to go through correspondence that passed during the first ten years. I am going to read to your Lordships the letter which initiated this matter. It did not come from any persons we are now hailing as people to whom the country has been paying tribute even since for abolishing slavery. It came from a body called The Metropolitan Free Drinking Fountains Association. A gentleman called Mr. Wakefield, who was probably the Secretary of that Association, wrote a letter on November 16, 1859. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pictured a great event, one of the greatest in the history of the world, taking place on July 3, 1834. It was some time after that, in 1859, that this gentleman wrote a letter
1434
to the Commissioner of Works of that time. The letter says:
"Sir,
I beg to request on behalf of this Association "—
that is, The Metropolitan Free Drinking Fountains Association—
"the liberty of erecting a costly and handsome fountain in Palace Yard, or some other site contiguous thereto, over which I am informed you have jurisdiction.
The Association will feel much obliged if you will see the propriety of permitting the erection of a drinking fountain in this instance. There are few localities more in need of a fountain and few sites more adapted to one."
Here is an extract which shows that even in those days a class war existed:
"Though it may be difficult for the rich to fully appreciate the extremity of the want which these fountains supply, and the great boon they confer on the poor, yet the Association beg to refer to any of the fountains which they have erected in the leading thoroughfares as evidence of the extent to which these fountains are used by the poor. Awaiting the favour of an early reply, I have the honour to be, Sir.
Your obedient servant,
E. T. Wakefield."
That is the first announcement. As your Lordships will now see, instead of there being a great debate and decision by Parliament to erect a memorial—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Nobody said there was.
LORD MORRISON: I am saying that that is the impression created.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No, not at all.
LORD MORRISON: As I say, I have been through the correspondence that passed during the first ten years (all the correspondence is still in existence), and in that correspondence there is no mention made of the abolition of the slave trade. I mention that to bring us back to a sense of proportiom of what we are discussing.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Was the monument erected before it was known that it was to be a memorial to the abolitionists?
LORD MORRISON: I have been unable to find out from the correspondence whether it was known what inscription would appear on the fountain beforehand. Nor have I been able to ascertain

1435
whether there was any great ceremonial opening of the fountain. I do know there was some ceremony several years later. The inscription that is on the fountain now is not the same as was originally there, although it may be that the inscription did not last and was repeated in a new form later on.
I want to deal with this question, first from the æSthetic, secondly from the utilitarian (it is a drinking fountain, and it was obviously intended for that purpose), and thirdly from the historical point of view. With regard to the historical point of view, the noble and learned Viscount referred to speeches made in the House of Commons on this point. One of them I thought was a particularly well-informed speech by a Labour Member in favour of the retention of the fountain. The other speech was delivered by a Conservative Member who was formerly a mayor of Westminster and who certainly ought to know something about it. The Labour Member described the fountain as:
"a structure which is of the quintessence of Victorian design, which fits admirably into its surroundings and is extremely representative of its time."
The Conservative Member for Twickenham, the ex-mayor of Westminster, expressed entire satisfaction that the Bill makes
"no provision at all for the re-erection of the Buxton Memorial Fountain which has no artistic merit whatever. I am very glad it is to he removed from the square. I hope it will be destroyed unless somebody comes forward with an offer to take it away and re-erect it somewhere else."
I merely mention those two speeches to show that opinion is not unanimous from the esthetic point of view. I would say that the fountain—perhaps the majority of your Lordships would agree with this —can he described as a piece of distinctive architecture.
This new plan for the Square is not merely the result of traffic experts' designs for the roadway, with the intervening space filled with grass and pavements; it is, in fact, a piece of design executed by an eminent architect, which has been approved by the Fine Art Commission and the architectural profession generally. To place anywhere in this design a monument so architecturally distinctive as the Buxton Fountain would be to ruin completely the whole of the
1436
present scheme. A special setting would have to be created for it, and, in fact, a new scheme designed. The urgency of the reconstruction of the Square has already been stressed, and no revised scheme could be produced in time for the Festival of Britain in 1951. It is going to be rather difficult now, in any case, to complete the scheme by that time.
I have already read the letter which initiated this scheme. In defiance of the strong language used in another place by an ex-mayor of Westminster, I can state, quite definitely, that it is not, and never has been, the policy of the Ministry of Works to destroy this monument, or even to remove it from what has been described by a gentleman in The Times this morning as
"the symbolic heart of the Empire."
That is a specific and clear statement. Whatever its origin, if noble Lords insist that the fountain is of great historical importance—as they have done, and which I have suggested is doubtful—I am prepared to meet them and put forward two alternative proposals for the new siting of the fountain, both of which appear to me to meet the original request of the Association. The first is that the fountain might be re-erected in Victoria Tower Gardens. A new power house is now being built at the end of your Lordships' House, and when the Victoria Tower Gardens are cleared up there will be room for the fountain there. I suggest that, from the point of view of utility alone, apart from anything else, this would he a very suitable place. Those of your Lordships who have been about this neighbourhood for a good time will have seen the thousands of children who come down to see the Houses of Parliament, and will have been alarmed at the danger to these children in crossing one of the busiest thoroughfares in London, in order to get to a fountain. If the fountain were re-erected in Victoria Tower Gardens, they would be able to keep on the same side of the road.
LORD WINSTER: Has the London County Council been consulted about the proposal to re-erect the monument in Victoria Tower Gardens? Surely it would be within the discretion of the London County Council whether that might be done or not.
LORD MORRISON: I was putting forward two suggestions, and then I was going to say that both of them would be subject to the consent of the parties concerned, and also of the Fine Art Commission. The second suggestion I was going to make is that it should be re-erected on the north-east corner of St. Margaret's Churchyard, which may be said to be actually in Parliament Square. As I have already said, the first of these sites appears to have the practical advantage that it can be reached by school children visiting the Houses of Parliament without crossing the road, and is in surroundings where children might eat the lunches which they usually bring with them.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to be clear whether the noble Lord has the authority to make this particular proposal, which I understand is for a site immediately in front of St. Margaret's Church I am not clear whether he is simply throwing it out as a possibility, or whether he has the authority of those concerned.
LORD MORRISON: If I had not the authority, I would not put it forward. I am authorised by the Minister himself to put forward these two alternative suggestions, subject to both being submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission. They have been consulted at every stage, and I think the majority of your Lordships' House would desire that they should be consulted. Subject, therefore, to consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Ministry are prepared to agree that this statue should be re-erected either in the Victoria Tower Gardens or in the north-east corner of St. Margaret's Churchyard, which would be more suitable than the Square. It has to be removed from where it is because the new road is going right through where it stands.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As my noble friend Lord Simon suggested, as these alternatives are now thrown at us, Parliament should approve the site. I think the fountain is revoltingly ugly, and I should not like to see it in front of a church. If we have to preserve historic continuity, surely we should have some chance of looking at the site. That would be met if there were an Amendment that Parliament was to approve where the fountain was to go.
LORD MORRISON: My difficulty is that the noble Viscount is so quick, and I am so slow. I was about to say that the reason why I put forward these two suggestions—and here perhaps I misled the noble Lord, Lord Winster—was that both these sites are Crown properties. But in the event of the Royal Fine Art Commission agreeing with the Ministry, the Minister would then come before Parliament and seek the consent of Parliament to either of these positions A difficulty emerges here, Which I think the noble Viscount will see at once. Obviously before this can be done there will be a General Election and a new Government. Therefore, it is difficult for the Minister or for me, in my present capacity, to commit a Minister of Works of a new Government I do not know how to get over that difficulty, but I am prepared to give the definite assurance that so far as the Ministry of Works are concerned—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would not a possible way out be to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment? It would then be in the Bill and, in the event of any Government wishing to set up this monument in any area outside Parliament Square, it would be dependent upon a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It would bind any Minister of any Government after a General Election. That seems to me to be the simplest way out; and since the Minister of Works and the Government, if they are returned at the General Election, are prepared in any case to consult Parliament I cannot see that they can have any objection to it.
LORD MORRISON: It is difficult to deal with this kind of matter on the spur of the moment, and the only suggestion I can make—perhaps the noble Viscount may be willing to think it over—is that we postpone the Report stage of the Bill in order that the best way may be found of doing what the noble Viscount is putting forward. Perhaps he will inform me whether it is his intention to insist that the fountain should be erected in that particular Square or whether it should be erected in what is described as "the symbolic heart of the Empire."
VISCOUNT SIMON: I would like to make it plain to the noble Lord and to the Committee what I suggest. The

1439
Amendment which I, together with other noble Lords, put down provides that this memorial shall be re-erected in Parliament Square. I appreciate that the suggestion may be made that it should be put in some adjoining area. Therefore, I am quite prepared to move my Amendment with the additional words I read out in my, speech:
"Provided that if another site for the Memorial Fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament within the next three months the Memorial Fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
I am saying that only because I understand that the Festival of Britain requires it to be done rapidly. If it is four months, I am willing to agree. I cannot agree that it is necessary within the next forty-eight hours.
LORD MORRISON: I think we could accept the Amendment if the noble and learned Viscount would delete "within the next three months."
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interpose again, but I think I am invited to do so. My idea was that the position in which this memorial was to be put should be decided by Parliament, and not by a departmental Minister. That is my respectful submission. If it be the case that there is a better place than what is known as Parliament Square in which to place the fountain, I am not saying that that is not possible. But I respectfully submit to the Minister and to the Committee that we ought to say that if it is not to be put in Parliament Square then it ought to be put in a place which is in accordance with a Resolution of each House of Parliament. The only reason I inserted the words "within the next three months" was because I understood this was regarded as pressing, and I did not want to hold up anything. But in any event I cannot believe that the re-erection of this memorial is going to take place in the next three months.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would read his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am proposing that we should amend line 31 by adding these words:
"Provided that if another site for the Memorial Fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament within the
1440
next three months the Memorial Fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
The effect of that would be that if the Minister of Works moves the present position of the memorial—which I know will probably have to be done for traffic reasons—Parliament itself would provide in this section that it should be re-erected either in the new Central Garden or the new West Garden. It seems to me that the position at present is that, as far as the statues are concerned, Parliament decides, and that as far as the fountain is concerned the Minister of Works is to decide.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Could we have the words of the Amendment read, set out as the noble Viscount is moving it?
VISCOUNT SIMON: If the suggestion which I respectfully make commended itself to the House the wording would be this:
"The Minister may remove the Memorial Fountain near the north-east corner of the Canning enclosure and any of the statues in the existing garden in the centre of Parliament Square or in the Canning enclosure, and shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him, and the Memorial Fountain if removed, either in the new central garden or in the new west garden: provided that if another site for the Memorial Fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament"—
I said "within the next three months"—
"the Memorial Fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Could not the noble and learned Viscount leave out the words "in the next three months"? I am willing to accept the Amendment if the noble and learned Viscount will omit the words "within the next three months" but he repeated them just now.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am quite willing to do that, and I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I now beg to move to insert the proviso which we have been discussing.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("garden") insert ("provided that if another site for the memorial fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament the memorial fountain shall be re-erected on such site").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say one or two words—first, to thank Lord Morrison and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the very reasonable way in which they have met my suggestions and, secondly, to add a little to the history of the fountain. I am surprised that the noble Lord had not been better briefed. If he will look in the Dictionary of National Biography he will find that Mr. Charles Buxton, who was a well-known M.P., was a son of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton the emancipator.
The Dictionary of National Biography says:
"He was the architect of his own beautiful seat … He gained, a prize of £100 in the competitive designs for the Government Offices in 1856.… He was an admirer of Gothic architecture for modern buildings and he designed the fountain near Westminster Abbey built by himself in 1863 as a memorial to his father's anti-slavery labours."
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
4.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Authorisation of works, etc.
4.—(1) The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity in the gardens, and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act, if
1442
executed or carried on by the County Council, the Company or any person authorised in that behalf by either of them, shall be deemed to be authorised by this Act notwithstanding that it would otherwise be actionable on the ground of nuisance.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "shall" to insert:
"during the continuance of the Festival of Britain and no longer."
The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment can be stated quite shortly. Clause 4 takes away from anybody, in particular those who live in the vicinity of Battersea Park, the power to bring an action or injunction on the grounds of nuisance in respect of anything carried on during the Festival of Britain. We discussed this matter on Second Reading, and it was quite rightly thought that so that the Company or the County Council should not be embarrassed by having actions or injunctions brought against them, the remedy was to see that no injunction was brought by anybody during the period of the Festival of Britain. But under Clause 3, the County Council are given the right to carry on these works and to maintain these buildings after the time when the Festival of Britain has ceased.
The point that I am dealing with was raised in another place. I think it would be right if I were to quote, as I am entitled to with a Minister present in this House, the words that the Minister of Transport, Mr. Barnes, used when this matter was raised there. He said:
"I understand that Clause 4 does not carry through this power with regard to a permanent nuisance. It is confined to the period of the Festival. I recognise, however, that it is a valid point, although no one has contemplated that it should continue after the period of the Festival. I recognise also that within the powers of Clause 3 the London County Council has the right of retaining certain buildings, and if the nuisance should be directed to anything of that kind then the matter is one which should be looked into I can assure the honourable and learned Member that between now and the Bill reaching another place it will be further examined."
That shows that the Government wish to preclude the right of an injunction only during the period of the Festival of Britain, and that the view of the Minister of Transport at that stage was that Clause 4 did not extend beyond that

1443
period. The view I take of the wording of Clause 4—
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity in the gardens, and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act"—
those works will be the ones that will be authorised under this Act—
"if executed or carried on by the County Council, the Company or any person authorised in that behalf by either of them, shall be deemed to be authorised by this Act notwithstanding that it would otherwise be actionable on the ground of nuisance"—
is that it means "in perpetuity." In the case of any nuisance arising from any works started under this Act, in perpetuity, the person suffering from that nuisance, or thinking that he suffers from that nuisance, shall he precluded from seeking the remedy of an injunction in the courts, even if the works are carried on by the County Council after the Festival of Britain ceases. That is the construction I place upon the language of Clause 4. If that is so, then it goes beyond what I believe the Government wish to do. My Amendment is put down to show that we only wish to preclude a man from an injunction during the time of the Festival of Britain, and no longer. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, after ("shall") insert ("during the continuance of the Festival of Britain and no longer").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: The account which the noble Lord has given of what happened and the reply of the Minister of Transport in another place is perfectly correct. The Minister did promise to consider it, and that consideration has taken place. As a result, I may save the time of the House, as we have a great deal more Business to get through to-day, if I tell your Lordships that I am authorised to say that, while the Government agree that something further is needed to clarify the position, they are not satisfied with the words of the noble Lord's Amendment. Would the noble Lord be willing to withdraw it and put down these words:
"Page 3, line 41, leave out 'in the gardens,' and insert 'for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day'"?
The clause would then read:
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day …"
1444
I am advised that that legally would make perfectly clear what the noble Lord wishes to carry out.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord opposite has no doubt put forward words which he thinks will achieve our joint purpose, but surely they ought to be:
"for the purposes of the Festival of Britain"
instead of
"for the purposes of the gardens."
I do not know what that means. Would it not be more appropriate to have
"for the purposes of the Festival of Britain before the appointed day"?
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord could not have that because, as I understand it, it is proposed to have a separate date for the closing, of the South Bank site. A month later the gardens will close. They will go on for a month after.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not mind that. I am sure the words are offered in all good faith by the noble Lord, but I am amazed at the drafting, if I may say so with great respect. If one considers this wording:
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day, and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act."
one regards it as indicating a fellow going out with a spade and digging up the beds.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The word "gardens" is defined, but I am still not clear.
LORD MORRISON: That is at page 7.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I see that Clause 11 says:
"'the gardens' means festival gardens provided or to be provided on lands enclosed or to be enclosed by virtue of subsection (1) of section one of this Act."
Perhaps that does make it a little clearer. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, wishes to address the Committee. While he is doing so, I will sit down and consider these words.
LORD LLOYD: I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, a question. If I have it right, the clause would read:
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day.…"

1445
Would that not exclude the following words:
"and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act …"?
The restaint against injunctions would still apply to other works. I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord's Amendment would cover that point as well.
LORD MORRISON: Yes, I think it would.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am afraid that I am still at a loss on this matter. The point of my noble friend's Amendment, as I understand it, is that if we go back to Clause 3 we find
"If it appears to the County Council that it is desirable that any buildings or works erected … for the purposes of the gardens"—
then they agree with the company as to the payment and so on. Then in Clause 4, it seems to me, if these works are made permanent action in regard to a nuisance would be permanently removed. I do not think that is covered by the wording suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD MORRISON: I think the position is that another place was quite agreed in principle that it would be intolerable if it were possible to obtain an injunction while the Exhibition or gardens were being prepared because it would stop the whole work; it would be equally intolerable if it were possible to obtain an injunction during the Exhibition because it would stop the Exhibition. But immediately the Exhibition is over it ought not to be possible for anybody to continue to create a nuisance without there being an opportunity to object. That is the position. For instance, according to this Amendment as I am advised, if the London County Council were to take over some of the entertainment at the end and continue to use the loudspeakers, action would then lie against the London County Council for the use of these loudspeakers and for creating a nuisance; and they could not claim that they were exempt.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In faith and hope I will accept the words that the noble Lord proposes. I am certain the Government mean to put in the right words and mean the right thing. I should
1446
have thought it difficult to conceive that using a loudspeaker was "for the purposes of" any gardens. Be that as it may, I think the Government have tried to meet me, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will withdraw this Amendment, but I must say I would much sooner that he proposed these other words than that I should adopt them as my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the Amendment with the new words.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("in the gardens") and insert ("for the put Poses of the gardens before the appointed day ").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Application of provisions of 12 and 13 Geo. 6. c. 26]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LLOYD: I would like to raise two points on the question of traffic in Chelsea during the Festival, because there is anxiety felt that the inevitably greatly enhanced traffic there as a result of these gardens will lead to considerable inconvenience to local residents. I am sure His Majesty's Government have that in mind and that they are examining the whole of the traffic and transport situation round these gardens to see that it flows as smoothly as possible, and that the ordinary people who work in Chelsea will be able to get to their work without too great inconvenience. There is bound to be some problem because King's Road, which is the main artery in Chelsea, is extremely narrow. If you try to double the amount of traffic travelling down that road there will be very serious traffic congestion. I raise those points because of anxiety that has been expressed to me in Chelsea, and if the noble Lord can give me some assurance that this will be fully looked into I think it would be much appreciated by the residents in Chelsea generally.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord and I have been in correspondence over this, and I am glad to be able to give him some further information on the points which he has raised with regard to the two questions of traffic problems and car parking. The Festival of Britain

1447
Office will maintain the closest consultation with the Railway Executive and the London Transport Executive with a view to ensuring minimum interference with normal travel. The time of opening in the morning will be so arranged as to avoid any clash with morning "peak" travel. Special attractions will be designed in the afternoons with the object of delaying the departure of visitors from the gardens until after the normal evening "peak" has passed. Sloane Square station is being reconstructed; the Ministry of Transport are arranging for additional new omnibuses to be available to augment existing road services and to provide some special services to relieve the strain on the normal routes. The Railway Executive are planning special excursions and improved services to stations near to Battersea Park. Some minor road works will be carried out to improve the means of access. The Commissioner of Police has said that he will do all in his power to discourage indiscriminate parking. He can be successful in this respect only if there are adequate authorised parking places to which motorists can be directed. In this connection, the Commissioner attaches the highest importance to the car park to be provided in Battersea Park; without this facility he considered it impossible to achieve the object set. I hope that will assure the noble Lord.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that full assurance. I am sure that it will meet the points raised by the people whose anxieties I have represented this afternoon.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions as to river traffic]:
5.16 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "in the byelaws, and in particular" and to insert:
"by or under the byelaws, and in particular byelaws under this subsection may make, or authorise the making of, provision as respects all or any such persons or vessels—
(a) for restricting the provision of passenger services to the provision thereof by persons authorised in that behalf."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to allow authorisation of operators of vessels, and the fixing of time-tables and any changes thereof, to
1448
be made readily as and when necessary, otherwise than by formal bylaws. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("in the byelaws, and in particular") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next three Amendments are consequential on the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out from ("of") to ("or") in line 14, and insert ("specified descriptions")
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("such") and insert ("specified")
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("as may be so specified ")
—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grants towards providing additional landing stages]:
LORD MORRISON: There are four Amendments to Clause 8 and they all run together. Their purpose is to enable the Hammersmith Metropolitan Borough Council to contribute towards the cost of constructing, maintaining and operating a landing stage at Hammersmith. At present they have no powers which would enable them to do this. The Council are desirous of having these powers and it is understood that they will in due course be seeking permanent powers in the normal way through a London County Council (General Powers) Bill. This process could not, however, be completed in time to permit of the landing stage being constructed in time for the Festival. This Amendment was discussed and agreed with the Port of London Authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("make") insert ("and a metropolitan borough council may make,")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("or a metropolitan borough council")
Page 6, line 43, after ("constructing") insert ("(including, in the case of grants by a metropolitan borough council, expenses so incurred in maintaining and operating)")
Page 6, line 45, at end insert ("; and a metropolitan borough council may borrow for the purposes of this, section ").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL
5.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope that your Lordships have found the drafting of this Bill simple. I confess that a great deal of trouble has been taken about the drafting, and I think it illustrates the saying which I have often heard, that it takes much longer to draft a thing simply than it does to draft it in a complex form. I think I can claim that the drafting of this Bill is simple and that everyone can understand it.
The Bill arises, of course, out of the decision of India which was dealt with at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I would like, by way of introduction, just to remind your Lordships of part of the Resolution at that conference:
"The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that, under the new Constitution which is about to be adopted, India shall become a sovereign independent republic.
The Government of India have, however, declared and affirmed India's desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, and her acceptance of the King as a symbol of the free association of its independent, free nations and, as such, the head of the Commonwealth.
The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the bases of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognise India's continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration."
1450
The Commonwealth can never claim, I think, to have been a wholly logical association of States. But the hallmark of the Commonwealth which has distinguished it from any other association of States in the history of the world is that there is and always has been complete freedom extending to all its members. It is idle to pretend that some of us do not regret the formation of an Indian Republic. Yet we all recognise India's right to work out her own salvation on whatever lines seem to her best to accord with her history and her traditions and hopes for the future.
The new Constitution is to come into force in January, and I have had to consider the legal implications which are involved. I had thought what clear and satisfactory answers I could give to some of the questions which might be put to me. What, for instance, it might be said, would be the position of Lord Sinha, whom we all rejoice to have amongst us as a member of this House; what would be the position of Sir Madhavan Nair, who for so many years has given us most valuable assistance in ihe Privy Council? Again, what would be the position of all those people who, with the necessary technical qualifications and degrees, are carrying on their professions in this country? What would be the position in regard to Customs and Preferences between the two countries, and complicated questions relating to British ships and the like? To all those questions it would have been very difficult to accord clear and convincing answers. We might have found ourselves involved in a series of debates in which we were dealing with comparatively small, trumpery points which might have given rise to some irritation, when really we are here dealing with something which is fundamentally big and, I hope, not to be disturbed by those small considerations. It was to clear away those difficulties that the present Bill has been introduced.
I should make it clear to your Lordships that I regard it as almost certain that in the future India will pass her own legislation dealing with citizenship. I fully contemplate that when she does pass that legislation, it will be necessary for us in our turn to look at ours and, perhaps, produce legislation of our own arising out of her legislation. These matters are for the future, but, for the

1451
present, I think we are plainly right in asserting by this Bill that, notwithstanding the change due to the formation of a Republic, the legal position will be preserved in relation to India and in relation to persons and things belonging to or connected with India. This Bill, when it passes into law, will enact that everything in law is to remain as it would have been if the change had not been made. So it treats this change as being a matter of form rather than a matter of substance. It is very satisfactory to me to be able to record that this Bill received unanimous support and welcome in another place. I feel sure that your Lordships, too, will give it a welcome, for I am certain that whatever hankerings after the past or misgivings for the future we may have, we are united in wishing India and the peoples of India happiness and prosperity for the future. We hope they may be able to pursue a path which shows toleration of their varying peoples, and which respects the dignity of the individual and the rights of nations.
I must say that from the survey I have had of the proposed Constitution I think there is very much to applaud in that work, which, of course, is a matter entirely for India. I am sure I am speaking for all your Lordships when I say that our old association with India and old memories of difficulties met and overcome together make us all the more anxious to do everything we can to ensure that the future of India and of her governors is a happy and prosperous one. I believe that by passing this Bill and removing a small technical difficulty which might otherwise arise at the present time, we are doing the right and wise thing. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.30 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition to state the view of those who sit on these Benches in regard to this Bill. Its purpose has been clearly explained by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and the Bill itself is a model of simplicity. Its shortness is no measure of its importance. It is of fundamental importance to ourselves and to all the other members of
1452
the Commonwealth. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, it had an unopposed passage in another place, and I hope the same attitude will be adopted in this House.
The decision taken in April last by all the members of the Commonwealth to accept India's proposal that she should become a Republic and yet remain a full member of the Commonwealth was an important and far-reaching decision. I should not be honest if I did not confess that the proposal to become a Republic filled my mind with anxiety, and I think that is true of others who sit on these Benches. Frankly, I should have been happier if India had felt able to take the more orthodox path, like other members of the Commonwealth, including the two Asiatic Dominions of Pakistan and Ceylon, and remain a Dominion within the Commonwealth. That is a relationship with which we are familiar and a state of affairs which we understand, and not unnaturally there was some uneasiness in our minds at the thought of a step into the unknown. But the British Commonwealth has never been afraid of a step into the unknown. Its strength is in its adaptability to changing world conditions, and when all the free sister nations of the Commonwealth met in April last and agreed to this proposal it was a notable achievement. It was especially notable that this agreement should have been obtained in a world where discord is the rule. It gives one faith in the future of our great family of nations. It is our duty now to take the practical steps which follow this decision and I believe we should take them in good will, whatever our anxieties have been, as an earnest of our desire that relations between India and the rest of the Commonwealth should continue to be close and happy.
The Bill confers considerable benefits upon India—make no mistake about it, there are considerable benefits—in the retention of full membership of the Commonwealth. They include the trade preferences between India and ourselves, and the provisions of our law respecting Indians and Indian property in this country. It also confers rights upon Indians in the Colonies and protectorates and United Kingdom trust territories, subject, of course, to the existing rights of the Colonial Legislatures. That is one

1453
side of the picture. On the other side, apart from reciprocal provisions in India, let us acknowledge the great benefit which we and the sister nations of the Commonwealth retain by the continuance of India in our fellowship. One has only to look farther east at China, where the spread of doctrines at variance with the conceptions of our free nation is taking place, to realise that India, if in close and happy association with the rest of the Commonwealth, can make a great contribution to the stability of the Commonwealth and to the peace of the world.
I have heard that there are certain anxieties about points arising from this Bill. It has been put to me that there is some uncertainty about the nationality of persons born in India of British parents. As I read the Bill, it has no effect on that at all, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will refer to that in his reply. Another anxiety that has been expressed is that the Bill gives wide powers to His Majesty's Government to act by Orders in Council. At times Parliament have been hesitant and suspicious about the wide use of Orders in Council, but I note that in another place the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations gave a pledge, to which I attach importance. The Secretary of State said:
"On any matter of controversial or substantial importance we shall not seek to act under Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, that is, by Order in Council. I give the House that pledge."
So that if there are matters of controversy or importance in regard to citizenship and so on, Orders in Council will not be used, but Parliament will be consulted in the normal way.
As the noble and learned Viscount has said, there is one thing of prime importance in this agreement—namely, that India agrees to accept His Majesty the King as the symbol of the free association of the members of our family. As such he is head of the Commonwealth. And it was the Leader of the Opposition in another place who said that he conceived that the very great significance and value of our monarchy seemed thereby to be enhanced. I trust that this mutual bond may yet prove to be the strongest of all, and that India in future may grow to have that feeling of affection which is, I think, the strongest emotion in all our hearts here, and which I believe sustains and strengthens the free people of the
1454
Commonwealth more than any other factor. Such is my earnest wish.
The Constitution which India has framed as a result of three years of hard work in her Constituent Assembly is of the greatest interest not only to this country but to all the Dominions. It is entirely for India to frame, and the request I am now going to make is in no sense any infringement of that sovereign right, but rather that we should have complete information. I hope it can be arranged that when the Constitution is framed, it can be published in the form of a White Paper or made available in some way to Parliament, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say in his reply if that can be done. It is not only of interest to ourselves but also to other members of the Commonwealth.
In passing, I note with interest, from what I have seen of the Constitution, that the framework of the much-maligned 1935 Government of India Act has been fairly extensively used, and perhaps those who toiled over this Act and tried to work it, both in this country and in India, may take a little solace from that. The most significant thing in all this is the foundation of India's desire to stay in the Commonwealth, which I believe is good feeling towards this country. There are many manifestations that that good feeling is alive and growing. I will not weary your Lordship with this, though I could readily give a number of examples. Technical advisers are being asked to go out to India. Business men are expanding their business in a good atmosphere. The Indian Navy is commanded by a flag officer who is a distinguished British Admiral well known to your Lordships. Bankers and business men have recently visited India and have been well received and their advice sought. If your Lordships will forgive me one, personal illustration, I should like to tell you that the other day I received a report of the Scots Kirk in Bombay—a church which I used to attend when I was there—and whose congregation had its fair share of hard-headed business men and bankers. That congregation is increasing in numbers. Its minister reports with pride that it has gone up in numbers in the last year and is larger than it was before the war.

1455
Your Lordships may say that these are straws, but straws show the way the wind blows, and, with encouragement, it should blow fair. We must do our best to give help and encouragement to India in all our actions. It would be right and proper to say that this atmosphere of good will is also evident in the sister Dominion of Pakistan. When India was divided, part of the great work of the British in past years in the sub-continent fell to Pakistan, and it is true to say that in that country there has been good feeling towards us, too. We must in all our dealings be most careful to show impartiality, and as between these two countries to do our best to help them equally with their problems. In that way we can help them to get on with each other. As was said in another place, complications may arise in the future working of this Bill, perhaps in relation to future legislation in India regarding citizenship. But if we have a sure foundation of good will and good understanding we should not fear this. We can make a contribution to-day by our attitude towards this Bill. It is quite true that good will alone is not enough: there must be acts, there must be agreements and there must be the visible ties which bind nations together. But all that is of no worth at all unless there is the foundation of proper understanding. Let us make our contribution to that to-day by giving no grudging passage to this Bill.
5.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the adoption by India of the particular course which is reflected in this Bill has obviously set a considerable problem from the legislative and legal point of view. We welcome the solution which is contained in this Bill, and in particular the effect it will have in preserving in this House and on these Benches the noble Lord, Lord Sinha, whose value has already been proved to your Lordships' House. For the rest, we fervently trust that the new order which is signalised by the Bill will bring to India prosperity, progress and peace. During the past thirty years a multiplicity of proposals for the future constitutional status of India have been advanced—some tentatively proffered, and others vigorously pressed. As so often happens, when the
1456
time for decision comes all those suggestions go by the board in face of a further novel suggestion which up to that moment had been scarcely either contemplated or canvassed. It is now in the shape of a Bill on its unimpeded way towards the Statute Book, by the common and ready consent of us all; and it is surely yet one further testimony, if such were needed, of the supreme fact that the Commonwealth is not a manufactured article but an organic growth.
If we may to-day, for one moment, look backward, it will not be for the purpose of reviving obsolete conflicts or rekindling spent passions, but only to accentuate by contrast our gratification at the settlement of differences that once seemed so formidable and so obdurate. If the dead past is to bury its dead, let us at least make it a selective burial, and let us not inter in oblivion the devoted public services, the close personal friendships and the simple and selfless loyalties which have given life and warmth to the story of Britain in India. Those memories must live on into the future, to be the background for what we all hope may be the bright years ahead.
5.46 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, this is a most felicitous occasion. I have the greatest pleasure in associating myself with the speeches of the three noble Lords who have so far contributed to this debate. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the drafting of this Bill, is to be congratulated upon the extreme simplicity with which he has dealt with this complex and difficult matter. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, who has spoken for the Opposition, if he will allow me to say so, played a distinguished part in serving under two Governments in this country and a Government in India—I think this must almost be a record for service—first of all as a distinguished Governor of Bombay, and then on the many occasions when he deputised in Delhi for the Viceroy. I speak with knowledge when I say that on all those occasions he was most helpful to the promotion of good feeling. This was proved by the remarkable fact that he was invited by the Indians to remain Governor in Bombay after the British had left. Finally, the noble Marquess who speaks from the

1457
Liberal Benches, the son of a distinguished Viceroy, has put into beautiful, crystal language the feelings of this people towards India.
I want to congratulate India upon the outcome of her deliberations. When the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, speaks with some pride of those vestiges of the 1935 Act which find a place in the Constitution as now decided in India, I, too, would like to express my pride in that it was the Constituent Assembly, set up in the first instance by the Cabinet Mission, which drafted this Constitution. I sympathise with and fully appreciate the feeling which has been expressed, I think by all three speakers who preceded me, with regard to the decision of India to be a Republic rather than to remain a Dominion in the precise position of our other Dominions. But I understand also how difficult it would have been for that great people of some 300,000,000 souls to have taken any other course than that which they have taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, correctly said, the important thing, after all, is that India has elected to remain within the Commonwealth. That is a tremendous fact, of great benefit, as I believe, to India herself, and of great benefit to this country and to the rest of the Commonwealth. If India had decided otherwise our Commonwealth would have been cut in two geographically. As it is, we remain the largest population of any bloc in the world to-day.
I cannot help looking back to the days when I was sitting on the Bench below, acting as Secretary of State. The anxiety which exercised us all was expressed from time to time by noble Lords in all parts of 'the House—anxiety that this new approach to India might not work out to a successful, lasting good. I shared that anxiety, and perhaps I felt it even more fully than those who expressed it. But I had to remain almost dumb, because I could not respond fully to the number of questions which were asked. It was a most dangerous time, when a misspoken word might have upset the whole chance of a successful issue of the difficulties which beset us. But I feel myself, and from what has been said in this House and in another place I gather that others share my feeling, that the outcome has exceeded anything which could possibly have been hoped for. In those days we did not
1458
know whether there would be civil strife in India, or whether there might be bloodshed in the relations between India and this country. We have reached a successful conclusion of which all those who have had any part in it can be justly proud, and which I believe is going to be of great benefit, net only to ourselves and India, but to the world as a whole. As the Lord Chancellor has said, there may be some further points which will hereafter come before the British Parliament, as a result of some future action taken in India. But this step we are taking to-day takes account of the main change which has been brought about by the decisions of the Constituent Assembly. It provides a lasting solution upon which history will accord, its verdict of admiration and respect.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is little for me to say in reply. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, referred to the distinguished part which the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has himself played in bringing about that happy relationship which, fortunately, does prevail to-day. I should like to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is himself entitled to a large share of the credit for the happy relationship which now exists, because the people he met when he was out there trusted him and knew that he had a single-minded desire to try and bring about a satisfactory relationship. When I have said all that and I have paid all these tributes, I am, bound to say, since I myself was present on many occasions at this Commonwealth conference, that I think there are two men to whom the credit for the very sensible arrangement we made should be given. Those two men are Pandit Nehru on the one hand, and Clement Attlee on the other. It was an exceedingly difficult position with which we were faced and there were all sorts of technical difficulties which might have been raised against the solution to which we came. These two men, by a process of tolerance, give-and-take, and determination to solve difficulties, managed to surmount all those difficulties and bring about the happy state of affairs which is enshrined in this Bill. Pandit Nehru is faced with an immensely difficult task. I myself believe that the success of that task is of vital importance,

1459
not only to India but to the world, and this discussion in this House to-day may be taken as showing that all Parties in this country, no matter what their political differences may be, wish India well in solving the problems which lie ahead.
One or two questions were asked with which I can deal very briefly. So far as any question of nationality is concerned, it is not affected by this Bill. The whole point of the Bill is that the law remains exactly as it is, notwithstanding the decision of India to became a Republic. With regard to Orders in Council, I will repeat the assurance which was given before. The only Order in Council I have in mind at the present time is one of no moment at all, dealing with a matter of superannuation, or something of that sort. It is for matters of that kind that this machinery will be used. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, made an interesting suggestion about a White Paper setting out the Indian Constitution when it is finally passed. I am sure it is all to the good that all of us here should have ample opportunity of seeing what has been enacted. Whether a White Paper is necessary, I rather doubt. I think we should be able to obtain a sufficient number of copies of the new Constitution to put in the library. But I certainly think it entirely to the good that members of both Houses should have an opportunity of seeing what has been enacted, and if it is necessary to take any specific steps to that end I will see that those steps are taken. I am most grateful to your Lordships for the way in which you have accepted this Bill and for the way in which you have assisted in the send-off of the new Republic.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
5.58 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL
5.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Collection, realisation and distribution of German enemy property
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, an Order in Council under this section may make provision as to the following matters:
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder, and the administrator shall comply with any such direction.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"(h) the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of claims disallowed by the administrator or questions as to the amount of claims or objections to claims admitted by the administrator or to the inclusion of property as German enemy property with such limitations as may be thought fit as to the minimum amount involved in the appeal being sufficient to justify the same."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is not of an epoch-making character, because it only seeks to make clear that the Orders in Council, under which this Bill has effect, shall include provision for the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of claims disallowed or questions as to amount, and other matters of that sort. Your Lordships observe that it is purely permissive, and that the Government are entitled to set about the making of these Orders in Council in such a way as they think fit, subject to the control of Parliament. The reason I attribute great importance to the establishment of a tribunal will appear if your Lordships

1461
will allow me, in the space of perhaps not more than rive minutes, to explain what this Bill is about and the great difficulties that will be experienced in carrying it into effect.
The Bill deals with the effect which has been produced by the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1939, Section 7, which came into force two days after the outbreak of war. In that Act provision was made for the collection and custody of enemy property—which was elaborately described in the Act. It will be observed that the footing on which the Government could make such a Bill effective was that it dealt with property which was within British jurisdiction. The Bill does not express in so many words the fact that it is only enemy property in England, but that follows from the fact—as your Lordships can see if you look at Section 14—that the Bill is rigidly confined to the powers which His Majesty's Government have to deal with the matter by Orders in Council. The position, therefore, is that Section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Act provided for the collection of money and property of all kinds which belonged to the enemy (that is to say, at the time of the coming into force of the Act. Germans) which was therefore property which in the event of war—which had in fact taken place—it was possible for the Government to con-trot with a view to preventing the payment of money to enemies and, in some instances, perhaps, of preserving, in contemplation of a future peace.
The Act provided that such property should be passed on by the Board of Trade to custodians of enemy property for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, and to require the handing over of that enemy property to these custodians. That Act resulted in the appointment of custodians and, though it seems not quite so long to me, it is ten years since the Act was passed. The war has been fought, and the next event—which gave rise to the Bill now before your Lordships—vas that the war was won; and there is now probably a vast amount of property belonging to enemies which has been collected by the various custodians and which now falls for distribution. The Bill before your Lordships, therefore, provides for the appointment of an administrator who is to distribute the property collected by the
1462
custodians and certain other property which, for some special reason, he has not been able to recover. The fund amounts, I understand, to something between £100,000,000 and £120,000,000.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Fifteen million pounds available and 120,000,300 claims.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am sorry. For a moment the figures slipped my mind—but they have been properly stated by my noble friend. Those sums have to be distributed, either to the Government in case of a Government claim (and it is suggested that the Government will claim between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000) or to resident British subjects or British subjects who are carrying on business in Britain, or companies or corporations (I am stating it very briefly) who are carrying on business in this country. What the Bill seeks to do here, therefore, is to make provision for tae distribution from a large pool of many millions of pounds belonging or which had belonged to Germans and which had been seized by this country. There would be a large number of British subjects or companies who are here for the purpose of carrying on business—and that would be in addition to Government claims. Those being the circumstances, I am concerned only to give your Lordships my view as to the great complexity and difficulty of the task which lies before the Government.
It is proposed that this task should be accomplished—and I think it is not an unreasonable suggestion—by Orders in Council and provision is made for a large number of matters which are set out in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill before your Lordships. Provision is made for the appointment by the Board of Trade of an administrator and for the conferring of powers on him; for the transfer to him of enemy property in this country which is in the hands of custodians; for the manner and time in which claims in respect of the German enemy debts (as they are called) are to be made; and for the furnishing and verification of information in connection with such claims including the production of books, proof of the claims, distribution of the proceeds, charging of fees, and so forth—I need not trouble your Lordships with details of the disposal of the sums.
I remember quite well the method adopted in similar circumstances for the

1463
distribution of enemy property in this country after the 1914–18 war. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon also will remember the method by which that was carried out, as will the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will probably know of people who, not perhaps wholly without remuneration, were employed as counsel in these matters. There were a great number of such cases, and they involved great complexity and difficulty. The same thing was done, for instance, in France, and I remember that great interest was displayed all over Europe in the way in which the Governments which were distributing the pool of enemy property in their country carried out the work—first, claiming the right amounts and not claiming things to which they were not entitled, and secondly, distributing the pool on equal and fair terms in accordance with the legal rights of the parties, among the people who were nationals of the country where the distribution was being, made. With all respect to the noble Lord opposite, although I know, from reading, his speeches, that he has taken a great interest in and much care over this matter, I cannot help thinking that up to the present time he has not fully appreciated the enormous complexity of the work which is occasioned in ascertaining the amount and distributing it. Whether or not the noble Lord accepts the Amendment, he, or some person who may occupy his position in the future, will be bound to make provision for legal determinations of the more important questions that will arise.
I will not detain your Lordships by telling you of the various cases in which the body or the person or the civil servants employed in the matter will be bound according to law to determine the question which will arise. I have jotted down these cases which, as any lawyer knows, are among those which will have to be decided under Clause 1 of this Bill or under the Orders in Council which will be made thereunder. Of course, this question is not limited to debts. This is not a case of distributing the proceeds of sale of goods sold and delivered. It is not that. It is any kind of liability. There will be questions of partnerships which came to an end at the beginning of the war ten years ago, and which have been
1464
awaiting final liquidation by some method which can be adopted in order to ascertain how much is due to the English partners. There will be cases under leases. Anybody who has been a lawyer for any length of time will realise the tremendous questions of difficulty that will there arise. Skilled people will have to be employed to interpret the meaning of the various covenants for the upkeep of properties, repairs, papering and all the rest of it. Somebody will have to do that in practically every case of lease, in order to ascertain how much is due, we will say, to the English landlord who has received nothing for ten years.
Then there are cases of agencies where there has been an Englishman employed as an agent for a German person or firm. Money will be due to him. How are you going to work out that? You will have to look at books of sales and purchases over a number of years. Then there is every possible kind of fraud. Anybody who has been engaged in the law knows very well that cases of fraud take a long time to determine. They depend so much upon the truth of the witnesses and upon what confidence is to be placed in their words. All that has to be done by somebody. There are also cases of executors or administrators in this country where there is something payable to an Englishman under a will. Very often it depends upon the true construction of the will. There is a case, about which I had intended to say something if the hour had not been so late, where three times the construction of a particular will has had to go to the House of Lords. In cases of this kind, where these great difficulties arise, it is absolutely necessary to have the question properly determined. Unless you have some such device as I suggest for your employment, you will not be able to get an answer to your question—"To whom?," "How much is payable to an Englishman?" or "From whom is it due?"—I am stating this shortly.
Finally, there are the many cases of trusts. They are difficult and complex cases. Those things cannot be determined by a layman. A great many of the claims and questions that arise under Clause 1 of the Bill are small and easily determined, as I readily agree. As regards those, it would be perfectly easy by Order in Council to make arrangements to the effect that, unless they involved a sum

1465
exceeding a certain amount, they should be determined, without appeal or question, by any person appointed by the Minister. I agree to that because, if the sum is small, it is never worth appealing on. Much time would be saved by appointing a respectable civil servant who knows something about business to determine what should be paid, how much was due and questions of that sort. But there will be cases where the law is concerned, and where it is absolutely necessary to have somebody with experience of the trying of cases, of how to keep people to the point, of how to ensure that the evidence given is admissible and relevant to the questions involved. They will not only give much more satisfaction, they will do the work much more quickly and I am convinced that sooner or later it will be found necessary to adopt some such method as I suggest. Otherwise, you will find hopeless confusion and the greatest dissatisfaction among the people who have a claim to share in the pool, because it will be said that any civil servants who may be employed are making a guess, instead of deciding the matter rightly. Accordingly, there will be no satisfaction in the country. This is one of those cases where it is absolutely essential that the method adopted by the Government in distributing this large sum should be recognised by the country as being just and fair as between the various parties entitled. If the Government do not adopt such a method they will be making a terrible mistake, and they will practically never, certainly in the lifetime of any of us here, get any finality.
There is one other point which I had intended to mention—namely, the so-called option to claim against specific funds. We are told that it is an option that will be allowed only on giving up any right to share in the general pool. I have not put down an Amendment with regard to that matter, but I think one of my noble friends will deal with it. I should like to say, however, that the Order in Council will have to be drawn with the greatest care, because the option to claim against specific funds is apparently one which is purely arbitrary. It does not relate to people who have a legal claim against those funds. So far as I understand it, I do not think it means people who have a charge: I think it is intended to mean—and this is as far as I
1466
can learn from what has been said—people who prima facie would be paid out of specific funds which would have been available but for the war—out of such things as Austrian and perhaps German loans—and limited to those things, and to nothing else.
With regard to those, I give a warning that, unless the phrase is very clearly defined, nobody will agree as to what it means, and there will be a great deal of heart-burning, because people will think they are entitled to al option, whereas, as I understand it, the option will be available in only a few cases, and the great bulk of the claimants will have a share in the pool. I do not think I need read again the whole of the Amendment proposed. As I have said, it is only in the nature of a suggestion for the Government. I am not wedded to my form of words. It may be that something a great deal better can be produced; and of course, if the Government say they will bear it in mind and use some such device as I have suggested, I shall be content, and at this hour of the evening I would not for a moment suggest pressing the matter to a Division. I beg to trove.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have listened with very great interest to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I think I can satisfy him that he is suffering under considerable misapprehension—and not only the noble and learned Viscount but a whole host of other people outside your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount said that this Amendment seeks to set up a tribunal—
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: No. This Amendment does not seek to do anything except give power to the Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It seeks to give power to set up a tribunal to deal with certain specific things. That is all. The Government's case against setting up this tribunal was stated in general terms upon Second Reading. We hope that the Orders in Council will be so specific as to leave little room for some of the apprehensions that have been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. I will deal seriatim with the Amendment and with what it proposes—

1467
namely, that the following matters shall be subject to appeal to the tribunal: (a) claims disallowed by the administrator; (b) questions as to the amounts of claims; (c) objections to claims admitted by the administrator; and (d) objections to the inclusion of property as German enemy property. Perhaps the point which is worrying the minds of noble Lords opposite is in regard to the function of this administrator. He is to administer the fund or pool under Orders in Council which will, as we all hope, be specific. In that, noble Lords must accept some responsibility, as these Orders in Council may be considered by the House, as they will be subject to negative Resolution. If one does not work, the Government may substitute it by another.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: We cannot amend them. If one could amend an Order in Council by Resolution in Parliament it would be all right; but one cannot.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The Order in Council can be negatived and another put in its place. That is what we hope to do, and we hope that we shall have considerable help from noble Lords in relation to Orders in Council. We are not going to pass one blanket Order in Council telling the administrator to get on with the job. The Orders are going to be in some detail, and the decision as to the ranking of a debt will not be made by the administrator. He will be given a document by which he will be bound. His duty will be to admit claims which comply with the conditions laid down and to reject the others. The noble and learned Viscount has brought in the proceedings after the last war. He rather alluded to them as the "good old days," when he and other noble and learned Lords had very nice remunerations.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I assume you mean the First World War.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I always call the earlier war "the last war," and this war "the recent war." I mean the 1914–1918 war. But the two cases are in no way similar. As I pointed out on Second Reading, under the procedure after the 1914–1918 war the proceedings before the arbitral tribunals were interpartes. The tribunals were set up for the full and final settlement of debts
1468
in the distribution of German enemy assets among nationals of the belligerents. It was only right that there should then be a judicial arbitral tribunal, because, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, that tribunal stood above the courts of law of this country. But here the circumstances are entirely different, as I hope to convince the noble and learned Viscount. Here we are dealing with a specific sum of money which has accrued to His Majesty's Government by the arrangements at Potsdam and the Paris Agreement as the British Government's share of reparations, with which sum the British Government can do just as it pleases.
The Bill does not, by any means, provide for the full and complete settlement of German enemy debts. All that it does is to provide for the distribution of a limited sum of money made available by His Majesty's Government to certain claimants who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Order in Council. The administrator's decision will not be binding on the parties, and any creditor whose claim is rejected will still retain his rights against the debtor, just as the debtor will not be prejudiced by the fact that a claim has been admitted by the administrator. It will not affect any action which they like to take in law.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really do not understand that. There is a fund which has to be ascertained and collected. It is ultimately like a fund of money; it is in a pool. Hundreds of people have a claim against the pool. Each one who gets more than he is properly entitled to diminishes the amount that other people may get. If many people are given more than they are entitled to, it means that many other people will get less than they are entitled to. So they are vitally interested in being given a right amount.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are not entitled to anything at the present moment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: They will be entitled to something under this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are entitled only to something which is set out by the Orders in Council as to the classes and the amounts. No one has any right whatsoever to this money

1469
at the present moment, except His Majesty's Government. Rights will be conferred by the Orders in Council. I am now dealing only with the point as to determination of rights, and I am saying that this Bill does not pretend in any way to settle debts as between debtor and creditor. Nothing in the Bill alters the position vis-à-vis the one or the other. This is the method which His Majesty's Government have adopted to give some relief to those who they think should have a share of these German reparations. Let me explain further that under the Bill the administrator has the duty of distributing moneys to pre-war creditors of Germany—moneys which are, or will be, in the hands of His Majesty's Government. The administrator has not to discharge liabilities of German debtors. All he is concerned with, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is bringing some relief to United Kingdom creditors of Germany. That, I should have thought, is plain enough. I, at least, understand it, so I am certain that the noble and learned Viscount does.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask a question at this point? The administrator has to ascertain the manner and time in which claims in respect of enemy debts are to be put forward and determine whether the claim is established. Is it not his duty to ascertain what is due to each of the claimants? It is true that the pool will not be enough to pay all the creditors. I do not want to be offensive if I can help it, but it is clear in my opinion that, according to this measure, it is the administrator's duty to ascertain the amount of the claims and to have them proved, in order that no one shall get a bigger share than that to which he is entitled.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That will be largely for the Orders in Council to determine. This is not a judicial court and the principles that will be enforced will be far less exacting than must be the case under a judicial court such as the noble and learned Viscount mentioned.
Perhaps I can now proceed to the next matter which the Amendment proposes should be open to appeal—questions as to the amount of claims. I do not quite see what is meant by this—perhaps the
1470
noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. It may be that his proposal is designed to deal with cases where a claimant asks for, say, £100, and the administrator is prepared to admit a claim for only, say, £75. If it is the intention to submit questions of this kind to the tribunal it can mean only one of two things. Either the administrator is regarded as standing in the shoes of the debtor or the appeal tribunal will themselves re-investigate the whole case if there is an appeal. Whatever dispute there may be as to the amount of debt lies between debtor and creditor. The administrator is not to be in the position of being or representing the debtor. He will decide on the information and evidence submitted to him. I think the tribunal cannot work over every case afresh.
The third matter, in this part of the Amendment is "objections to claims admitted by the administrator." The question may have arisen in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount: What is the position of His Majesty's Government? Are they going to claim priority for any claim they make against this fund? I would like to assure noble Lords that His Majesty's Government will be treated, when the machinery established by the Bill is in operation, in exactly the same way as everyone else. There is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to claim or to expect to receive preferential treatment, either as to the amount payable or as to the time by which payment is to be made.
On the question of a general appeal, does the noble and learned Viscount argue that Mr. Brown who may or may not be a creditor, who may or may not have had his claim allowed, can appeal against the administrator's award to a Mr. Smith? Is it suggested that if the noble and learned Viscount is a successful applicant for a share in the pool, then I, who am quite outside and have no interest whatsoever, have a right to lodge an appeal against the noble and learned Viscount's getting a share at all? That is what the Amendment says. Surely, that cannot be meant. No one can be given that right.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not like to interrupt again. I will say something about that later on.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As between classes of claimants there is no person or body of persons who can be given rights in their appeal. The classes of claim will be laid down in the Order and no person would be clothed with powers to represent other classes whom he may imagine are prejudiced.
The last cause for appeal in this Amendment relates to the treatment of some piece of property as German enemy property. This presumably means that the appeal tribunal are expected to decide whether or not property in the administrator's hands comes within the definition of German enemy property contained in Clause 8. It is possible that this is the matter which is worrying the noble and learned Viscount. Money and property which are not within the terms of the definition are completely outside the operation of the Bill. If it is claimed on behalf of an owner that his property is not covered by the definition and his claim for release is refused, the owner has an undoubted right to sue the administrator in the courts and so to have the matter decided. I cannot think that it is preferable to insert a tribunal between a claimant and the courts, because no decision which the tribunal could arrive at would overrule the decision of the courts or his right to go to the courts.
Finally, the noble Viscount's Amendment seeks to say that only those who have a claim above a certain amount shall be allowed to appeal. I appreciate that the intention, as the noble Viscount has said, is to reduce the number of appeals, but I would suggest that it is against the principles of justice and equity that claimants for a large amount, who are likely to be wealthy men or companies, should have a course open to them not allowed to persons with smaller claims, which might presuppose that they are less wealthy.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is done every day in the courts.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think noble Lords in this House would not like to support that.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount is being courteous to me. As he said originally, I am trying to handle
1472
a matter of some complexity. There is nothing in this Bill which can prevent any kind of body being set up for any of the purposes which the noble Viscount wants. If the worst fears of the noble Viscount are realised, though the Government do not think they will be, and there are cases in which the Government think justice will not be done unless the administrator's decision is confirmed by some tribunal or in some other appropriate way, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a tribunal being set up; and it is the Government's intention, if such a difficulty arises, to see that something is done to meet that case. We resist this Amendment because we think that the setting up of a tribunal should not be obligatory, for the reasons I have outlined.
6.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I can assure the noble Lord that the few words I will say will be said with perfect courtesy to him. I am acutely conscious of the fact that he has devoted himself to the study of a complex question and has done his utmost to advise us by his explanation. All who hear him or read what he has said will be glad to hear the decision announced that there is to be no claim of Crown priority in this case. I understand that one claim which may arise is from the guarantee given some time ago to the Austrian Loan, amounting, I believe, to £4,000,000. If this were proceeded with on the basis that the Crown helps itself to its own debt before anybody else gets anything, that would seriously interfere with the prospects of private claimants. But I gather that nothing of the sort is to be claimed. In the same way, there may be a problem of German debtors who may be liable to past income tax. There again, if that were granted in priority to private claims, it would seriously interfere with the prospect of private individuals—I think I understand rightly, from the noble Lord's indication of assent, that I am correctly stating what he informed us to be the decision of the Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Precisely.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I say it with complete courtesy; I rather doubt whether the noble Lord has appreciated what really is the main point involved

1473
here, however it is decided. I understand, and he has stated most clearly, that the administrator is to distribute the pool among the pre-war creditors of Germany. I understand that in the Order in Council we shall find that different claimants are divided into classes which will be devised. I do not think the noble Lord has followed that there may be a dispute whether a person is or is not a pre-war creditor, and if that dispute arises in a case involving a substantial sum of money, the practical question is whether the administrator should say, "I do not regard you as a pre-war creditor and I will not include you," or should say, "I am going to treat you as a pre-war creditor and that is all there is about it." That is the nature of the difficulty. I understand the noble Lord to say that the Government will take care to divide people into classes and to deal with the matter within those classes. My point, however (I think the noble Lord will follow me, and I speak with complete moderation), is that the question is likely to arise whether a particular case falls within a certain class or not. He will say that the administrator would decide that. The whole question is: is that in the circumstances right?
The reason why I have referred to the First World War is that then it was found difficult to decide in some cases whether it was a case of German property within the meaning of the arrangement, whether it was a case of pre-war creditor or not, or whether the case fell within a class. Therefore, the question is—and the noble Lord will see that it is a proper question to raise—whether that should be decided administratively by the administrator, who no doubt will do his best and will be very skilled, or whether it is a case where there ought to be some opportunity of an appeal to a tribunal which, of course, has no interest at all except to decide the case rightly and where neither the claims of the Government nor those of any other class matter at all. I can understand the argument that because there will be many cases, and the amounts involved will be small, this is unnecessarily elaborate. Speaking for myself, would listen to that argument with attention and I hope without prejudice. But it is not the case that what is proposed by the noble Lord in his speech solves those questions, because it leaves the
1474
administrator to decide. It is to be decided administratively and not by any judicial process.
There are only two other observations I venture to make. The noble Lord started by saying, and it rather shocked me, that after all this was very good of the Government, because all this money really belongs to the Government, and it is nothing except their excessive kindness of heart which makes them propose that people who are pre-war creditors should get some of it. I say it rather shocked me for this reason: for hundreds of years past it has never been any part of international law that because we go to war with a country the victorious Power seizes for itself the private property of citizens of the enemy country. That has not been the practice of civilised nations according to international law for hundreds of years. It is permitted to seize property at sea; and that raises the question about prize money. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will agree at once that you will not find in any international law book that the ancient and barbaric practice of seizing people's private property and putting it into the pockets of victorious Governments on land is a thing which people would foster at the present day. So I do not think it is quite the case that this all belongs to the Government and that they are now being so benevolent in arranging for its distribution.
The other point is this. The noble Lord says—and he may be right—that what my noble and learned friend is pressing is already in the Bill. If it is in the Bill already, is it not rather a pity to make such a song and dance about the proposal? It does not appear to be so very foolish, so wicked, confusing or discourteous, if it is already in the Bill. I do not know whether the right view is that it is in the Bill; I would pay great attention to what the Lord Chancellor said about that if he thought it right to speak.
I would say, finally, that what is here proposed is not, as I think the noble Lord by mistake observed, that something obligatory is being put on the administrator; there is nothing obligatory about it at all. The Amendment is providing merely that those who draw up the Order in Council shall have power to provide for an appeal tribunal in such cases as the

1475
Order in Council thinks it well to leave open to them. That is not putting any obligation on anybody; it is only making plain that we desire, subject to what the Government think is a fair provision to make, that in the more important cases there should be clearly power to make an Order in Council which contains those provisions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will appreciate that I am pointing out where I felt the argument he has addressed to your Lordships is a little deficient; and I am not without hopes that even now those on the Government Bench might feel it is reasonable to include this as one of the matters which might be provided for in the Order in Council which the Government will draft.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I reply to the noble and learned Viscount straightway? I am fully conscious of what he has said. It is because of these difficulties that the proposal was put forward, and is going to be carried out, of forming an advisory committee of all the different classes of creditors. We want them to agree upon a number of things and make a scheme of distribution which we hope will smooth out many of the difficulties. But I must repeat that we are in no way settling German debts. This money which is being distributed will have no effect upon the legal position of the debtors or the creditors. If I may put it in non-legal language, I would say that if someone gets a payment out of this pool, that will not affect his legal right at some future date, if he thinks proper, to sue for the whole amount of his debt. That is the advice I have received.
VISCOUNT SIMON: He can be paid the sum twice over in full?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not saying what view the court will take of it, but this Bill does not alter his legal status. The noble and learned Viscount will appreciate that in these cases I have the best legal advice that is open to me. As the noble and learned Viscount quite rightly said, if after we have done everything possible—having had the advisory committee advise us on the preparation of these Orders in Council, and they having been accepted by Parliament—we then find there are some particularly difficult cases, we shall
1476
see that something is done. It may be that we shall appoint as an arbitrator a judge learned in that particular type of case. But the decision will have to rest with the administrator, subject to whatever appeal we shall adopt. In the circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, particularly at this late hour, but, with great respect, I really begin to think that the noble Lord does not understand the point. The advisory committee is not going to decide whether a big claim is the claim of a pre-war creditor or not; it has absolutely nothing to do with the advisory committee. The advisory committee, I gather, is to give advice—though, of course, you do not promise to follow it—as to how you shall draw up your Order in Council. But that is a wholly different question from that on which I was speaking. Your advisory committee will not in the least help you to decide whether a particular body is or is not a pre-war creditor; it will not in the least help you to decide whether this is, or is not, in the proper sense, German property, because that depends on a particular case. That the advisory committee will tell you how they think the Order in Council should be drawn up has nothing in the world to do with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this matter to see whether I can help at all. I think my noble friend Lord Lucas is quite right in saying that this bears no analogy to what happened after what he called "the last war." Technically he is right in calling it "the last war," because the present war is still on. Therefore, the last war was the 1914–18 war. That is what we mean. Then it was a very different proposition. You had to establish your right against a German debtor, and the obligation imposed by the Peace Treaty upon the German State was to guarantee the amount clue from the debtor—you had a proceeding as between debtor and creditor, and all the rest of it. This is a very different proposition. Here we have a sum of money (we have not seized it; the Potsdam Agreement provided for the award to this Government of German ex-enemy property here) and we are distributing a pool of money. Obviously we are entitled to distribute it

1477
in any way we think right, so long as we do it on fair lines. I agree, of course, that in order to distribute a sum of money you have to ascertain what is the basis upon which you are going to distribute it. In short, you have to pay dividends; and you cannot pay a dividend unless you know the amount on which you are paying the dividend. The dividend is not likely to be very much. I gather that the sum is of the order of £15,000,000 and the estimate of the claims which we have at present is of the order of £120,000,000. Therefore, I suspect the dividend will be something like 10 per cent., or perhaps a little more. When we come to promulgate our Orders in Council, we shall, of course, consider whether we ought to pay that dividend on a flat rate, or whether we should prefer the small man and pay rather less to the big man, or vice versa. All that is for the Orders in Council to provide. I agree that the amount has to be assessed in order that the dividend may be fixed.
It would be possible, of course, to have a tribunal. But the disadvantage of a tribunal is that a good deal of money would probably be eaten up in determining all these questions, and certainly a great deal of time would be taken up by it. We came to the conclusion—and this is the real objection to accepting the Amendment—that, in the circumstances, having this comparatively small sum of money to distribute and it being important that we should distribute it with promptitude, we had better do it administratively, and not have a tribunal. If we had a tribunal, it could be argued that there ought to be an appeal from the tribunal and there might be an appeal up to the highest court, which would expend a great deal of time. On balance, we came to the conclusion that it was better simply to have it done administratively, in order to distribute to these people that which we had.
I may point out that so far as what is German enemy property is concerned, I think people could go to the courts, because the administrator has jurisdiction to deal only with what is ex-enemy property. If he was dealing with something else, he might be brought before the court. He has no jurisdiction in regard to that matter, but only with regard to amount, admission of claims and that sort of thing. I agree that the
1478
problem is: is it better to do this under what is obviously a quicker and cheaper method, or is it better to try to mix that method with a tribunal, at any rate in some of the cases, bearing in mind always that if you have the tribunal hanging over you it does delay to some extent the final payment? Of course, there could be an interim dividend. We came to the conclusion that the better way of doing it was on an administrative basis. Therefore, I feel that, were we to accept this Amendment, it might be thought that we were resigning from the position which we had adopted, and which we stated quite categorically in another place—that we are contemplating doing this by administrative methods. You may say "cheap and nasty." Well, if you get a competent person to do it, I do not know that he will not arrive at substantial justice.
My noble friend Lord Lucas is quite right when he says that what will happen as between debtor and creditor will depend upon the terms of the Peace Treaty. Supposing one of these people did receive, say, 10 per cent. Unless something is written into the Peace Treaty to prevent his recovering his debt in full from the debtor, it would not be a discharge of any part of the debt. In all probability there will be some provision saying that he cannot get the money twice over. If anybody has a claim rejected on these administrative grounds, he is not precluded from all his remedies. He would thereafter be able—perhaps when the Peace Treaty is ultimately signed—to bring his claim against the debtor and get his claim in full, on the hypothesis that he had been paid nothing. That is the short point, and I do not think my noble friend Lord Lucas meant to say anything contrary to that—I did not understand him to say so. But we believe that it is better to do it in this way. Incidentally, I should have thought that there was power to do this under Clause 1 (2) (d), where you will see that the Order in Council may make provision as to the
"determination, as respects any such claim, of the question whether the claim is established for the purposes of the Order and of the amount of the claim."
I should have thought that under that clause we would be entitled to set up the machinery for determination—namely, a

1479
tribunal. Therefore, with the greatest respect to everybody, and with the most complete courtesy to everybody, I think we are arguing about very little in this case. I do not want to accept the Amendment, because I do not want to lead people to suppose that we are going to try to combine any sort of judicial process when, for reasons which I have given, we think it better to do this by administrative means, by an experienced administrator.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise first for the purpose of saying that I do not think I said anything in my opening speech which should offend the noble Lord opposite.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Nothing whatsoever.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: He accused me of lack of courtesy, but I must say I thought that after he had begun by telling me that I and others who took this view entirely misunderstood the Bill before us—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive my interrupting? In the interests of accuracy, I would point out that I said "suffered under some misapprehension," which is a vastly different thing.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: When the noble Lord looks at his speech he will find that he started by brushing away my opinion as if it was nothing at all. I thought that even if I was not justified in resenting it, it did open to me the ordinary cut and thrust of debate. As he did not think I understood the Bill, I thought I was justified in saying that the boot was really on the other leg. However, there it is, and I am extremely sorry that we have had any heat displayed over this point which, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor says, is a very small one.
In the course of my speech, I said that we certainly did not propose to divide upon this Amendment. I was pressing it simply for the consideration of the Government. As I have indicated already, I have a strong belief, which I still maintain, that something of the sort will be necessary. I thought all along that it could possibly be done under
1480
Clause 1 (4), but I was also anxious to find out the Government's view. It may be right, but they rather surprise me at the view they take of this Bill. I did not think that the Government were proceeding on the footing that the property of German enemies in this country was property in which they had forfeited all their rights, and that the Government could take it over. I am talking of civilian property. The view of international lawyers is that conquest in a war does not entitle you to the property of civilians. In Clause 1 it says that:
"His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the collection and realisation of German enemy property and for the distribution of the proceeds."
Now, to whom?—
"to persons who establish claims in respect of German enemy debts."
Is it to be said that the Government can do what they like with it? The Bill certainly does not authorise that. The Bill suggests the distribution among people who are British subjects or companies resident here, who establish claims on enemy debts which the Government have never declared to be their property. That they have a right to distribute in the circumstances is a very different thing, but as I understand this Bill they are not entitled to a single sixpence. In subsection (2) (c) I find that the administrator is to ascertain the
"manner and time in which claims in respect of German enemy debts are to be put forward, and the furnishing and verification of information in connection with any such claims, including the production of books and documents;
(d) The determination, as respects any such claim of the question whether"—
mark these words—
"the claim is established for the purposes of the Order and of the amount of the claim."
Like others, I make mistakes, and I have often made them in my lifetime, but I am a little surprised to find that the true construction of this—notwithstanding the words to which I have referred—is that the administrator has not to ascertain the amounts of the claims. I quite agree with a great deal my noble friend opposite has said with regard to this sort of claim, and it is true that it may be a claim to recover only 10 per cent. But there may be people, as, for example, the beneficiary in the case to which I

1481
referred, who are entitled to a claim against enemy property of £500,000, and those persons may be met by the Ministry saying: "Well, we think your claim is bad, because this Will is illegal or there is a clause in it which deprives you from having a penny." It would appear very singular to me if the Government intended that man to be finally defeated because the administrator, who before had never tried a case in his life or never had to construe a Will, should be entitled to say, "On my reading of the Act, you are not entitled to anything." Does that not seem rather strange?
I can understand that if the advice Given to my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is right, these people are not entitled to anything, and that anything they do get is ex gratia. If that is the position, I fully understand the view he has put before us. Had I known his view I should have been able to understand something which, when he was speaking, I did not understand. Therefore I content myself with saying that I now follow a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. I hope this Bill will be a success, and that people who are going to have a claim under it will feel that they are being treated with justice. At the same time, I cannot feel it is right if the settlement of these claims—which may in some cases be a matter of life or death to the claimant—is left to be determined by someone who is not a lawyer at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to add to subsection (6):
"and in giving such direction the Board of Trade shall have special regard to cases in which the circumstances are such as to make it unreasonable or unfair to deprive the person above referred to of such property or to treat the property as affected with the consequences otherwise attaching to German enemy property."
The noble Marquess said: I can put quite briefly what I have in mind. On the Second Reading I raised the question of the various people who might on any view of fairness of the situation be entitled to special treatment in the way of exgratia payment. What is puzzling me a little—and this is why I put down what is admittedly an exploratory Amendment, in the sense that I want
1482
information—is, what is the position when there will be an Act of Parliament regulating the matter? Does the situation obtain after that Act comes into force? In other words can you, somewhat airily, under various agreements made in Paris, Brussels and other places, over the past years, say you are going to give ex-gratia payments to certain types of people if you have no power in the Bill which entitles you to deal with the matter in that way? I shall be glad to hear something on that point from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said words. —(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad that the noble Marquess said that this is only an exploratory Amendment. I was hoping, when I said I should have to resist it, that he would not take that as an indication that I was in any way unsympathetic. I think we on this side of the House expressed our sympathy with what the noble Marquess seeks to do when this matter was discussed on Second Reading. Therefore I hope the noble Marquess will not charge me with being unsympathetic. If the noble Marquess will look at Clause 1, subsection (6) I think he will see the answer. The subsection runs as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled.…"
That gives the same power under this Bill as exists at the present time. The rules governing the treatment will be the same rules as heretofore. I hope that perhaps the treatment will be even more generous than in the past. There is a further point which I should like to mention. Twenty million dollars, of which our share was over 5,000,000, have already been paid under the Paris agreement—that is, the agreement between the eighteen countries—in respect of the alleviation of distress of victims of Nazi oppression. So I do not think that anybody—least of all, I am sure, the noble Marquess—would charge this country with not having done what it can. I hope that in view of what I have said

1483
as to where the power lies, the noble Marquess will withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As I said, my Amendment was an exploratory one. I think the noble Lord has carried it a little further, but I do not propose to take any further action except to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"() Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to, or was held or managed on behalf of, a German company, and it appears to the Board of Trade that the company was on the said day controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United Kingdom company, the Board may treat that property for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, to such extent as the Board think fit having regard to the extent of the interest of the United Kingdom company in the German company, as property to which the United Kingdom company would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder.
In this subsection, the expression 'German company' means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, Germany, and the expression 'United Kingdom company' means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment which I foreshadowed on the Second Reading. Noble Lords will remember that I said we were very impressed with some of the contentions put forward then, that to treat as German enemy property the property of German companies wholly or partly owned by British companies was inequitable, contrary to the theory that the burden of reparations ought to fall on German and not on Allied nationals, and likely to jeopardise the recognition of the principle that a British controlling interest of a foreign company should be safeguarded. This Amendment is put down to rectify that position. We agree with the arguments referring to capital assets and the Government view is that this Amendment should be applied only to capital assets. I cannot agree that the same case has been made out for trade debts, but I do not want to argue that to-night. The Amendment itself refers to "any German enemy property." It does not discriminate in terms between the capital assets of a
1484
German company and its trade debts. Under its terms the Board of Trade would have sufficient powers to enable a direction to the administrator to be appropriately confined in any particular case, if necessary, or to direct the release of the lot. I think this is one of the cases on which we should invite and receive the advice of the advisory committee. I hope that this explanation will satisfy your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sure we shall be glad to add this to the Bill. If your Lordships will turn to page 7, line 32, of the Bill you will find that the word "property" in the Bill means:
"…any money, any negotiable instrument, debt or other chose in action,…"
Therefore, as the noble Lord's Amendment stands, "property" does include debts. But I should like to ask whether it is thought proper to have these matters decided by a Department, with a large discretion, and to give them power to act like a character in the Bible who found himself in some doubt as to what the amount should be and said:
"…sit down quickly, and write fifty."
The other point that occurs to me is that the argument which the noble Lord used earlier—that it was not needed because subsection (6) of Clause 1 covered the case—would, I should have thought, equally apply to the present Amendment. That does not mean that I am not pleased to see it in the Bill because anything which is definitely stated in the Bill is an advantage all round.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have put down a Manuscript Amendment dealing with a point that I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill—that is, the question of the position of British women who become German by their marriage and subsequently regain their British nationality. I do not want to go into this question at any length. I have given the noble Lord opposite full particulars of the case which came to my notice. Briefly, it was this. A certain Englishwoman had married a German before the First World War. At the conclusion of the Second World War, she

1485
was still German and she had a certain amount of money which was paid to her regularly by trustees in England. That money naturally ceased at the beginning of the Second World War. The income was paid to the Custodian of Enemy Property and she has received nothing since. Since then, this woman has become a British subject by re-naturalisation, and yet has not yet received any sum from the Custodian of Enemy Property, although she has in her possession a certificate of re-naturalisation. That is the general position which seems to me to bear hardly on the woman in question. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment in the hope of elucidating some information from the noble Lord which will clear up a case which appears to me to need a solution.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert:
("() Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to an individual born in British territory who became a German national by marriage, but who has become a British subject by renaturalisation, the Board of Trade shall give a direction to the Administrator requiring him to transfer to such individual any of his property which would otherwise be treated as German enemy property."—(Earl of Munster.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for giving me prior notice of this Amendment, which he did with his usual courtesy. I can give him a short and (I hope) a satisfactory answer. Dealing with the particular case which he has cited as an example of what the Amendment is intended to cover, it appears that this woman had been living in Germany from the date he mentioned, from the First World War, and that she recently had acquired British nationality. If she does one thing now, it will conform with the Rules of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, which cover this particular point—that is, take up her residence in the country of the nationality she now desires to have. She has to-day a dual nationality—a German nationality by her marriage and a British nationality by her altered status under the Act. These Rules apply to the assets of any individual of German nationality. Rule 6 (g) (3) refers to a person
"who has left Germany (or if he has not left Germany at the final accounting under the Paris Agreement, it is proved that he intends
1486
to leave Germany within a reasonable time thereafter) to establish his permanent residence in that I.A.R.A. country."
So that, if this woman establishes her permanent address in this country, we shall be only too ready to release her property, but we cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment because it contravenes our obligation under the Paris Agreement, which prevents us from returning German enemy property to German ownership and control. The reacquisition of British nationality does not divest people of their German nationality which they acquired by reason of their marriage to German nationals. Under the Act, the master nationality of these particular persons is the nationality of the country where they decide to take up their permanent residence. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not quite clear as to the condition that the noble Lord is seeking to impose. Taking the particular case raised by the noble Earl is he saying that this lady can receive her money only if she lives in this country for the rest of her life? Because that seems to me imposing rather a strange penalty upon somebody. If the noble Lord had said something about a qualifying period I could understand it, but her receipt of this money must be coterminous with her residence in this country. That seems to be taking the matter very far. Under the exchange control, I can understand his saying that she cannot go to a hard-currency country, but to say that she must stay indefinitely in this country is rather a startling proposition.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Marquess is a learned lawyer. I am not. How to construe "permanent residence" and whether it means having an address or a property in this country, the noble Marquess would know better than I. But the Rule says:
"establish his permanent residence in that I.A.R.A. country."
That is the Rule to which we are adhering. I speak with reserve on the subject, but whatever advice I may receive on this point, I should not think it would be so harshly interpreted as the noble Marquess has suggested—that nobody could ever leave this country, even for a holiday or for a tour round the world for twelve months.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not querying "for a holiday," but the fact that it has to be her place of residence for the rest of her life.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think that is what it means. That is what it says.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Or when she is dead.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think that is very hard.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord said that his reply to my Amendment would be short. It has been short, but it has not been satisfactory. When is this poor lady going to receive any income at all? Although she has now become a British subject, she is to receive none of the income which was due to her and was paid to her regularly up to the outbreak of this last war until she takes up permanent residence in this country. When is the income going to be paid to her? Will it begin from the day that she sets foot in this country and can prove a permanent residence? Will she get the income for the last two or three years when she was a British subject? I think that we might have a little further explanation of this. The noble Lord said that she had to take up permanent residence. Did I understand him to say in one of the I.A.R.A. countries?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No; in the I.A.R.A. country where she desires to have that nationality.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: So she takes up residence in this country as a British subject, but is prohibited from going to live in any other portion of the British Empire or Commonwealth. Is that the proposal? It seems to me to be a most fantastic arrangement. I would like some further explanation before I withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can give the noble Earl no further information on this point. I have done my best to acquire information during the course of the last four or five hours, but I did not have notice of this Manuscript Amendment until I came into the House this afternoon. Between then and the time of the opening of these proceedings I do not think I have done too badly.
1488
If the noble Earl wants any further information perhaps he would apply to the Board of Trade. They can then say when the payments will be made. It may be that the Custodian has had this income or the proceeds of any investment from which it is derived since the 1914–18 war, I have a note here which I am sorry to say I cannot read. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can assist me. I can only tell the noble Earl that if he or this lady will go to the Board of Trade, the latter will be only too willing to help by giving any information they can. I cannot go any further than that. Those are the I.A.R.A. Rules to which I am bound, and by which we agreed with eighteen other nations at Paris to be bound. The legal and literal interpretation of "permanent residence" I do not know. I think the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the only permanent residence she could possibly have—namely, when she is dead.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That was a joke.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I took it as being a joke and I am repeating it as such, because I do not know what is the definition. I should have thought that "permanent residence" meant that she had an address here. I hesitate to put the words into the noble and learned Viscount's mind, but it may be satisfactory if she has a permanent residence sufficient to qualify her to pay income tax. I suppose she could then, so long as she had this residence here, be free to roam the world at her leisure and pleasure. I cannot think of anything else.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Lord is getting into rather deep water if he propounds from the Government Bench the proposition that nobody pays income tax in this country unless he has permanent residence. I think he will find some trouble arising from that, because that is not the case. People who reside here much less permanently find themselves caught with income tax, even if they cone here for only six months. Anyway, we had better not go into all that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, that if a British wife who has resumed British nationality comes home,

1489
and acquires permanent residence in any one of the Dominions, she is treated exactly in the same way as if she acquired permanent residence here?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I apologise for pressing this question so hard, but it seemed to be a question requiring some explanation. I apologise to the Committee for delaying them and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
("The Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 is hereby repealed and any Order-in-Council made under it is cancelled and no charge imposed or purported or sought to be imposed by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 or by any Order made thereunder upon any property rights or interests belonging to German nationals within the meaning of such an Act or Order and not already enforced shall, after the commencement of this Act, be enforced or have any effect.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: I will not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes. My attention was called to a recent decision by a Chancery Judge in the construction and application of a will which certainly seemed to have a very serious result, though I am not saying he was not right. If I understood it rightly, he determined that a will could not be construed in accordance with what undoubtedly was intended by the testator, so that an interest which had now sprung up could be satisfied, because that interest was not free to be disposed of as long as the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, and Orders in Council made under it, remained the law. The year 1919 is now a long way off and I had rather supposed, perhaps wrongly, that the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, had worked itself out by this time. If it has not, it would be interesting to know how much longer it is expected to go on, because the people who were disappointed in their application felt that it was rather hard that they should be caught at present by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, and any Order in Council made thereunder. I merely mention this point, and formally move the Amend-
1490
ment. I will not press it. I merely ask for information, and I am sure that the explanation which the noble Lord furnishes will be as satisfactory as all the others that he has given us to-day.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So far as the noble and learned Viscount is concerned, my reply is going to be even more satisfactory than he could ever hope for. We are going to express to the noble and learned Viscount our grateful thanks for having drawn attention to something that does need rectifying. We think he has performed a public service in putting this Amendment down. That, I feel, is an opening which he at least will appreciate. But if the noble and learned Viscount looks at his Amendment, he will see that it sweeps in a lot of things which I feel sure he would not wish to be swept in. Therefore, I am going to give him an undertaking, that in view of what he has said, the Law Officers of the Crown and other interested parties will look into this matter. It will be thoroughly studied with a view to proceeding somewhat upon the lines which the noble and learned Viscount wishes. Similar Acts and orders are in existence with regard to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, and any general review of the situation will deal with those cases at the same time. Again, I express gratitude on behalf of the Government to the noble and learned Viscount, and I feel sure he will be satisfied with that assurance and will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I cannot do more than express my extreme gratification. I tentatively dangled this fly on the water without much expectation, but I seem to have caught something. I hope that something will be done in addition to the pleasant observations just made by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [interpretation]:
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in the definition of "German enemy property" immediately before the words "belonged

1491
to" to insert "beneficially." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is only a drafting Amendment. I think by construction the sentence probably means "beneficially." As a matter of fact, at page 6, line 28, the draftsman has put in the words "beneficial ownership." In both cases the more accurate term should be put in when it is meant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 43, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("beneficially").—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment. I have studied this matter carefully, and I can give the reasons for not accepting the Amendment lengthily or shortly. I know the Committee would like them shortly. May I put them in three very short sentences? The Amendment would have the effect of preventing such property being treated as German enemy property for the purposes of the Bill but it would do nothing to free it from the restrictions of trading with the enemy legislation. That is our first objection. Our second objection is that, as drafted, the Amendment could not be made to work. It would place on the administrator the onus of deciding whether or not property was beneficially owned by Germans or by other people. The initiative must come from persons interested in the property. Finally, the problem of the disposal of property which is nominally German, beneficially non-German, is, in any event, one which can be satisfactorily settled only by administrative action on a case by case basis. In view of those considerations, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will not press it. I beg leave it withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but there are certain points which I wish to raise upon Clause 8. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas will, I hope, forgive me when I say that, when all is said and done, this Bill has been rushed through your Lordships' House. There are a large number
1492
of highly technical and difficult questions on which we should like further explanation. I need not enumerate them all. I will mention only two which come up on Clause 8. The first concerns external loans—the Young loan, the Dawes loan and the Austrian loan. Are they included? Then what is the position with regard to bearer bonds of German and industrial commercial concerns, which are not covered in this clause? Another point on which I ask for information is the question of proving the ownership of bearer bonds. It seems to me that with these going back, as they do, over a period of ten years, it may be an immensely difficult and complicated task. I regret that it was not possible in the very short time available to put other Amendments down to deal with these two specific matters. If it is not worrying the noble Lord too much, I shall be very grateful if he can explain these matters quite briefly, or say something which will enlighten me on those particular points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Earl will look at Clause 8 (1) (a) he will see that these matters are covered there. It says that the obligation must be an obligation to any of the following persons:
"….

(iv) His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

(v) any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom;

(vi) any body of persons (whether corporate or unincorporate) which on that day was a body incorporated or constituted under the laws in force in the United Kingdom."

Debts in such cases are included there. It also covers the bonds which the noble Earl mentioned—there are the non-Reich bonds such as for example, the City of Hamburg Bonds. They are included there. If the bonds were held upon September 3, 1939, by (1) His Majesty's Government or, (2) British subjects or British-protected persons resident or carrying on business in the United Kingdom or (3) United Kingdom companies or concerns, again they are included. The noble Earl asked me how we were going to recognise them. That is a matter which presents some difficulty. We are going to ask the advice of the advisory committee. There are various channels through which in-

1493
quiries may be made. We may ask whether the bonds satisfied the exchange control procedure, for example. If we cannot get the information from bank records, there may be one or two other sources of information that will help us to give reasonable assurance that they can all be identified and the matter put on a proper basis. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), the Amendment reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill No. 45]
In the Title, line 6, leave out ("in Scotland")
In the Title, line 10, after ("institutions") insert ("in Scotland")
In the Title, line 11, leave out ("in Scotland") and insert ("to make certain consequential amendments to the Criminal Justice Act, 1948").
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Probation orders relating to persons residing in England
("(1) Where the court by which a probation order is made under section two of this Act is satisfied that the offender resides or will reside in England, subsection 12) of the said section shall not apply to the order, but the order shall contain a requirement that he be under the supervision of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division in which the offender resides or will reside; and that division shall be named in the order.
(2) Where a probation order has been made under section two of this Act and the court in Scotland by which the order was made or the appropriate court is satisfied that the probationer proposes to reside or is residing in England, the power of that court to amend the order under the Second Schedule to this Act shall include power to omit therefrom the name of the probation officer named therein and to insert the provisions required by subsection (1) of this section; and the court may so amend the order without summoning the probationer and without his consent.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the fore going provisions of this Part of this Act an order as made or amended under this section shall not require the offender to reside in any institution, or to submit to treatment for his mental condition, but without prejudice to any power of a court in England to impose any such requirements under the next following subsection.
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) of section four and subsection (1) of section five of this Act shall not apply to any order made or amended under this section; but subject as hereinafter provided the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (except section eight of that Act) shall apply to the order as if it were a probation order made under section three of that Act:
Provided that in the application to any such order of section six of the said Act (which relates to breach of a requirement of a probation order) paragraph (a) of subsection (2), paragraph (a) of subsection (3) and paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of that section shall not apply, and paragraph (b) of subsection (3) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of that section shall have effect as if for references therein to a court of assize or quarter sessions and the court of assize or quarter sessions there were substituted references to a court in Scotland and to the court in Scotland by which the probation order was made or amended under this section.
(5) If it appears on information to a justice acting for the petty sessional division or place for which the supervising court (as defined in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948) acts that a person in whose case a probation order has been made or amended under this section has been convicted by a court in any part of Great Britain of an offence committed during the period specified in the order, he may issue a summons requiring that person to appear, at the place and time specified therein, before the court in Scotland by which the probation order was made or, if the information is in writing and on oath, may issue a warrant for his arrest, directing that person to be brought before the last-mentioned court.
(6) If a warrant for the arrest of a probationer issued under section six of this Act by a court is executed in England, and the probationer cannot forthwith be brought before that court. the warrant shall have effect as if it directed him to be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction for the place where he is arrested; and the court of summary jurisdiction shall commit him to custody or release him on bail (with or without sureties) until he can be brought or appear before the court in Scotland.
(7) The court by which a probation order is made or amended in accordance with the provisions of this section shall send three copies of the order to the clerk to the justices for the petty sessional division named therein, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to the court acting for that petty sessional division.
(8) Where a probation order which is amended under subsection (2) of this section is an order to which the provisions of this Act apply by virtue of section nine of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which relates to probation orders under that Act relating to persons residing in Scotland), then, notwithstanding anything in that section or this section, the order shall, as from the date of the amendment, have effect in all respects as if it were an order made under section three of that Act in the case of a person residing in England.")
Clause 10, page 9, line 42, after ("functions") insert ("remuneration").
Clause 20, page 14, line 13, after ("released") insert ("in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act")
Clause 20, page 14, line 32, after ("released") insert ("in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act ")
Clause 20, page 14, line 35, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions that an offence is punishable on indictment in England with imprisonment for a term of two years or more shall be sufficient evidence of the matter so certified.")
Clause 20, page 14, line 38, leave out ("on licence")
after ("with") insert ("rules made under subsection (6) of section forty-nine of this Act or")
Clause 20, page 14, line 41, leave out ("section forty-nine of this Act") and insert ("that section").
Clause 22, page 16, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) Where a sheriff is satisfied on the evidence of two registered medical practitioners approved for the purpose by the General Board of Control for Scotland that a person detained under an order made under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection is in a state threatening danger to the lieges or offensive to public decency and cannot be suitably cared for in a mental hospital the sheriff shall make an order that he be removed to and received and detained in such State Mental Hospital as may be named in the order, and the first-mentioned order shall cease to have effect.")
page 17, line 1, after ("subsection") insert ("or under the last foregoing subsection").
Clause 23, page 17, line 33, after ("court") insert ("of Justiciary").
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Change in procedure in the case of mental defectives undergoing imprisonment, &c.
("The following section shall be substituted for section ten of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913—
'(10) Where a sheriff on an application by the Secretary of State is satisfied on the evidence of two registered medical practitioners one of whom shall be a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the General Board of Control for Scotland that a person who is detained (otherwise than while awaiting trial or sentence or under civil process) in a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1926, apply, or in a remand home, or in a school approved under section eighty-three of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in a State Mental Hospital, is a defective, the sheriff may make an order

(a) that he be transferred therefrom and sent to such institution for defectives as may be named in the order; or

(b) that he be placed under guardianship;

and any order so made shall have the like effect as a judicial order under this Act.'")
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction and procedure in respect of certain indictable offences committed abroad
("(1) Any British subject who in a country outside the United Kingdom does any act or makes any omission which if done or made in Scotland would constitute the crime of murder or of culpable homicide shall be guilty of the same crime and subject to the same punishment as if the act or omission had been done or made in Scotland.
(2) Any British subject employed under His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the service of the Crown who, in a foreign country, when acting or purporting to act in the course of his employment, does any act or makes any omission which if done or made in Scotland would constitute an offence punishable on indictment shall be guilty of the same offence, and subject to the same punishment, as if the act or omission had been done or made in Scotland.
(3) A person may he proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished for an offence under this section in any county or place in Scotland in which he is apprehended or is in custody as if the offence had been committed in that county or place; and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place.")
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
Payment by instalments of fines imposed on conviction on indictment
("(1) Where a court imposes a fine on a person convicted on indictment, the court may, either at the same or at any subsequent time, order payment of the fine by instalments of such amounts, and at such times, as it may

1497
think fit, and where any instalment is not paid at the time so ordered, that person shall be liable to imprisonment for such period as bears to the period specified in default of payment of the fine the same proportion, as nearly as may be, as the sum of the unpaid instalments bears to the total amount of the fine.
(2) Where in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection a person is imprisoned in default of payment of any instalment of a fine, and there is paid to the governor of the prison in which the said person is imprisoned a sum in part satisfaction of the sum of the unpaid instalments of the said fine, the term of imprisonment of the said person shall be reduced by a number of days bearing as nearly as possible the same proportion to the total number of days for which he was sentenced as the sum so paid bears to the sum for which he is liable.
(3) Where a court has imposed a fine on a person convicted on indictment and has ordered payment of the fine by instalments in accordance with the terms of subsection (1) of this section, the court may at any time before imprisonment has followed on the sentence, without requiring the attendance of the accused, reduce the amount, or allow further time for the payment, of any instalment (whether the time for payment thereof has or has not expired), or order payment of the fine, so far as unpaid, by instalments of smaller amounts or at longer intervals than originally ordered.
(4) The High Court of Justiciary may by Act of Adjournal regulate the procedure to be followed in cases arising under this section.")
Clause 35, page 24, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("under") and insert—
("Any conviction which is admitted in evidence by the court.")
Clause 36, page 25, line 20, leave out subsection (6), and insert— ("(6) Nothing contained in section twenty-eight or twenty-nine of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, shall require a plea tendered by or on behalf of a company to be signed.")
Clause 38, page 26, line 30, leave out ("by") and insert ("purporting to be signed by or on behalf of")
Clause 42, page 27, line 34, at end insert—
("(6) Nothing herein contained shall prevent evidence of previous convictions being led in any case where such evidence is competent in support of a substantive charge.")
Clause 49, page 31, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) Rules made under this section may provide for the appointment of a convenient prison or prisons—

(a) in which prisoners are to he confined before and during trial, or at either of such times;

(b) in which particular classes of prisoners may be confined;

(c) in which civil prisoners may be confined during the period of their imprisonment.")

page 32, line 15, leave out ("on licence")
Clause 49, page 32, line 16, leave out ("or detained in a Borstal institution") and insert (", corrective training, preventive detention, or Borstal training")
Clause 53, page 34, line 8, leave out from ("to") to end of line 10, and insert ("compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine")
Clause 57, page 35, line 44, after ("place") insert ("in Great Britain")
line 45, after ("detained") insert ("in Scotland")
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Removal of prisoners &c., to and from England and from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands
("(1) The Secretary of State may, on the application of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention or Borstal training, order his removal to a prison or Borstal institution in England; and any person so removed may be detained, released, recalled and otherwise dealt with as if he had been sentenced by a court in England and as if his sentence were one which could be imposed by such a court.
(2) Any person sentenced, under the law for the time being in force, by any court in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to penal servitude, imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention, detention in a Borstal institution, Borstal training or detention in a detention centre may, if the Secretary of State so orders, be removed to a prison, Borstal institution or detention centre, as the case may be, in Scotland.
(3) Any person ordered to be removed under the last foregoing subsection, and any person sentenced by a court in England who, under any enactment extending to England, is ordered to be removed to a prison or Borstal institution in Scotland, may be detained, released, recalled and otherwise dealt with as if his sentence had been passed by a court in Scotland and as if his sentence were one which could be imposed by such a court:
Provided that—

(a) where a person so removed was undergoing or liable to undergo a term of penal servitude, he shall, be treated as if that term were a term of imprisonment;

(b) where a person so removed was sentenced to detention in a Borstal institution he shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to Borstal training under this Act.

(4) Any person removed under this section from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to a prison or Borstal institution in Scotland may, on his release under the provisions of the Fourth or Fifth Schedule to this Act or under section fifty-two of this Act, as the case may be, be placed under supervision in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, as the case may be, and those provisions (including the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act), shall apply to him therein; and if any person so released is recalled under the provisions aforesaid, he may, if in the Isle of Man or the

1499
Channel Islands, be arrested without warrant and removed to Scotland for the purpose of being taken to a prison or Borstal institution as the case may be.
(5) The provisions of the Schedule (Provisions relating to persons in England after discharge from prisons, &c., in Scotland) to this Act shall have effect in relation to persons for the time being in England who have been discharged from prisons and other institutions in Scotland (including persons who, before being so discharged, had been removed to such institutions under any enactment extending to England).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person sentenced to death by a court in England or in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands who has been pardoned by His Majesty on condition that he serves a term of penal servitude or imprisonment shall be deemed to have been sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment by that court.")
Clause 59, page 37, line 2, after ("place,") insert ("in Great Britain")
Clause 59, page 37, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of a state mental patient or a relation of the patient, order the patient's removal from a mental hospital in Scotland to a mental hospital in England; and any patient so removed shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had been sentenced or ordered to be detained or otherwise committed to custody, as the case may be, by a court in England.")
Clause 60, page 38, line 23, after ("warrant") insert ("in any part of Great Britain")
Clause 59, page 37, line 39, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of this section a person who, after being temporarily released in pursuance of rules made under subsection (6) of section forty-nine of this Act, is at large at any time during the period for which he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large if the period for which he was temporarily released has expired or if an order recalling him has been made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the rules.")
Clause 67, page 43, line 5, after ("1937.") insert ("or under section thirty-eight of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946")
Clause 67, page 43, page 44, line 3, leave out ("(2) and (4)") and insert ("(3) and (5)")
Clause 70, page 47, line 42, after ("Act") insert ("(including any sums so received under arrangements made with respect to the cost of removing and maintaining persons removed from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands to institutions in Scotland under section (Removal of prisoners, etc., to and from England and from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands) of this Act)")
Clause 73, page 50, line 8, at end insert—
("(7) References in the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, to a general or special rule shall be construed as references to a rule made under section forty-nine of this Act.")
Clause 74, page 50 line 10, after ("and") insert ("save as otherwise expressly provided")
Second Schedule, page 51, line 30, leave out from beginning, to end of line 32, and insert—
("1. A probation order may on the application of the probation officer or of the probationer be discharged—

(a) by the appropriate court, or

(b) if no appropriate court has been named in the original or in any amending order, by the court which made the order.")

Clause 74, page 53, line 13, after ("institution") insert ("or place")
Clause 74, page 54, line 6, after ("institution") insert ("or place")
Third Schedule, page 56, line 9, after ("committee") insert ("under the Local Government Act, 1948, or")
Fourth Schedule, page 58, line 14, after ("sentenced") insert ("by a court in any part of Great Britain")
Sixth Schedule, page 60, line 24, after ("be") insert ("sufficient")
Clause 74, line 31, after ("be") insert ("sufficient")
Clause 74, line 38, after ("be") insert ("sufficient")
Seventh Schedule, page 62, line 6, after ("convictions") insert ("applying to you")
line 21, at end insert ("applying to you")
After the Eighth Schedule insert the following new Schedule:
("PROVISIONS RELATING TO PERSONS IN ENGLAND AFTER DISCHARGE FROM PRISONS, ETC., IN SCOTLAND

1. Where any person serving a term of imprisonment for life has been released on licence under subsection (1) of section fifty-three of this Act, he may be recalled under subsection (2) of that section notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such persons, while in England, the said subsection (2) shall extend to England accordingly.

2. Where any person sentenced to Borstal training under this Act, or who is required by virtue of any enactment to be treated as if he had been so sentenced, is released from a Borstal institution, he shall continue to be under supervision, and may be recalled, in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that Schedule (other than paragraph 1 thereof) shall extend to England accordingly.

3. Where any person sentenced under this Act to corrective training or preventive detention or required by virtue of section (Removal of prisoners etc., to and from England and from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands) of this Act to be treated as if he had been so sentenced, is released on licence under paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, any requirements of the licence shall continue in force, and he may be recalled under the said

1501
Fifth Schedule, notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that Schedule (except paragraph 1 thereof) shall extend to England accordingly.

4. Where any person serving a sentence of imprisonment is released on licence under subsection (2) of section fifty-two of this Act, he shall continue to be under supervision, and may be recalled, in accordance with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that Schedule shall extend to England accordingly.

5. Where, under section twenty-one of this Act, any person convicted of an offence is ordered to be subject to the provisions of that section, he shall remain so subject notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that section and of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall extend to England accordingly.")

Ninth Schedule, page 64, line 1, leave out ("any court") and insert ("a court in any part of Great Britain")
Ninth Schedule, page 64, line 4, after ("granted") insert ("in any part of Great Britain")
Ninth Schedule, page 64, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) In the case of a person who is deemed by virtue of the last foregoing sub-paragraph to have been released on licence under section fifty-three of this Act, the Secretary of Stale may, without recalling him to prison, substitute for the licence granted under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, a licence under the said section fifty-three.")
Tenth Schedule, page 66, line 22, at end insert—
("The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877 40 & 41 Viet. c. 53
In section twenty-eight the words from 'may from time to time' to 'convicted criminal prisoners, and' shall cease to have effect.
Sections thirty-seven, forty-eight to fifty and fifty-two shall be omitted.
In section seventy-one for the definition of the expression 'burgh' the following definition shall be substituted 'Burgh shall have the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.'")
Page 67, line 18, leave out from ("five") to end of line 30, and insert ("for the words from '(a) under an order' to `inebriate reformatory' there shall be substituted the words under an order made by the sheriff

(a) on a petition presented under this Act (hereinafter referred to as a judicial order); or

(b) in pursuance of section ten of this Act in the case of a defective detained in a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1926, apply, or in a remand home, or in a school approved under section eighty-three of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in a State Mental Hospital.'")

After the Amendment last inserted, insert—
("In section seventeen, in subsection (1), the words 'or the Secretary for Scotland,' shall be omitted:
In section thirty-three, in subsection (2), the words from 'or, to the end of the sub-section shall be omitted:
In section thirty-four, for subsection (2), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(2) Where the order is made in pursuance of section ten of this Act

(a) if the order is in respect of a person detained in a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1926, apply, or in a remand home, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in a State Mental Hospital that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing section be presumed to have resided in the place where the offence was, or was alleged to have been, committed, unless it be proved that he resided in some other place;

(b) if the order is in respect of a person in a school approved under section eighty-three of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing section be deemed to have resided in the place (if any) determined to have been his place of residence for the purposes of his committal to such school.'")

Leave out lines 31 to 46.
Page 71, line 38, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice Act, 1948. 11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 58
For section nine there shall be substituted the following section—
'Probation orders relating to persons residing in Scotland.
9.—(1) Where the court by which a probation order is made under section three of this Act is satisfied that the offender resides or will reside in Scotland, subsection (2) of that section shall not apply to the order, but the order shall specify as the appropriate court for the purposes of this section a court of summary jurisdiction (which in the case of an offender convicted on indictment, shall be the sheriff court) having jurisdiction in the place in Scotland in which the offender resides or will reside.
(2) Where a probation order has been made under section three of this Act and the supervising court is satisfied that the probationer proposes to reside or is residing in Scotland, the power of that court to amend the order under the First Schedule to this Act shall include power to amend it by substituting for the provisions required by subsection (2) of the said section three the provisions required by subsection (1) of this section; and the court may so amend the order without summoning the probationer and without his consent.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, an order as made or amended under this section shall not require the offender to reside in any institution, or to submit to treatment for his mental condition, but without prejudice to any power of a court in Scotland to impose any such requirement under the next following subsection.
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) of section five and subsections (1) and (2) of section six of this Act shall not apply to any order made or amended under this section; but the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949 (except paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section five and section six of that Act), shall apply to the order as if it were a probation order made under section two of that Act and as if the court specified in the order as the appropriate court had been named as such under subsection (2) of that section.
(5) If in the case of a probation order made or amended under this section the appropriate court (as defined by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949) is satisfied that the probationer has failed to comply with any requirement of the probation order, the court may, instead of dealing with him in any manner authorised by the said Act, commit him to custody or release him on bail until he can be brought or appear before the court in England by which the probation order was made, and, if it so commits him or releases him on bail.—

(a) the court shall send to the said court in England a certificate certifying that the probationer has failed to comply with such of the requirements of the probation order as may he specified in the certificate, together with such other particulars of the case as may be desirable;

(b) that court shall have the same powers as if the probationer had been brought or appeared before it in pursuance of a warrant or summons issued under subsection (1) of section six of this Act;

and a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the appropriate court shall be admissible as evidence of the failure before the court which made the probation order.
(6) In relation to a probation order made or amended under this section, the appropriate court (as defined by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949) shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of subsection (1) of section eight of this Act; and paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (3) of that section shall not apply to any summons or warrant issued under that section by that court.
(7) The court by which a probation order is made or amended under this section shall send three copies of the order as made or amended to the clerk of the court specified in the order as the appropriate court, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to that court; and subsection (6) of section three of this Act, or paragraph 6 of the First Schedule to this Act, as the case may be, shall not apply to any such order.
(8) Where a probation order which is amended under subsection (2) of this section is an order to which the provisions of this Act apply by virtue of section seven of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949 (which relates to probation orders under that Act relating to persons residing in England), then, notwithstanding anything in that section or this section, the order shall, as from the date of the amendment, have effect in all respects as if it were an order made under section two of that Act in the case of a person residing in Scotland, and as if the court specified as the appropriate court in the order as so amended had been named as such under subsection (2) of the said section two.'")
Page 71, column 2, after the Amendment last inserted, insert—
("In section twenty-three, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-section—
'(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of section twenty-one of this Act a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Lord Advocate that an offence is punishable on indictment in Scotland with imprisonment for a term of two years or more shall be evidence of the matter so certified.'")
Page 71, column 2, after the Amendment last inserted, insert—
("At the end of section fifty-two there shall be added the following subsection—
'(5) Rules made under this section may provide for the temporary release of persons serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention, or Borstal training.'
In section fifty-seven, in subsection (1), for the words from 'subject to such conditions' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.'
In section sixty-one, in subsection (5), for the words from 'The provisions of Part I' to 'that Schedule' there shall be substituted 'The provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act.'
At the end of section sixty-five there shall be added the following subsection—
'(4) For the purposes of this section a person who, after being temporarily released in pursuance of rules made under subsection (5) of section fifty-two of this Act, is at large at any time during the period for which he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence shall be deemed to he unlawfully at large if the period for which he was temporarily released has expired or if an order recalling him has been made by the Prison Commissioners in pursuance of the rules.'
In the Eighth Schedule, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1, there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
`(2A) In the case of a person who is deemed by virtue of the last foregoing subparagraph to have been released on licence under section fifty-seven of this Act, the Secretary of State may, without recalling him

1505
to prison, substitute for the licence granted under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, a licence under the said section fifty-seven.'")
Eleventh Schedule, page 72, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 21 to end of line 23, and insert—
("Section six.
In section ten, the words 'and enforcement of hard labour.'
Sections fourteen, fifteen, twenty-seven.
In section twenty-eight, the words from 'may from time to time' to convicted criminal prisoners, and.'
Sections twenty-nine, thirty-seven, forty-four to fifty, fifty-two, fifty-eight and sixty-four.")
Page 75, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section ten")
Page 75, line 15, column 3, leave out from ("(4)") to end of line 17, and insert ("section eighty-one so far as it relates to sections ten and seventy-one")
line 17, column 3, after the words last inserted, insert ("Part I of the Seventh Schedule.")
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. In doing so may I say briefly that many of these Amendments, including four of the six new clauses and Schedules, introduce into the Bill provisions applying beyond Scotland. These machinery provisions deal with the position of Scottish probationers who move to England and English probationers who come to live in Scotland. They provide for the movement of prisoners and State mental patients between Scotland and other parts of Great Britain; enable the Secretary of State to require prisoners discharged in Scotland to report to the police in England, if they go to live there; and authorise the trial in Scotland of persons charged with certain indictable offences committed in foreign countries. The remaining Amendments introduce a number of improvements of detail into the Bill. I can assure the House that no point of controversy arises. I will be guided by the wishes of the House as to whether I may be permitted to move the Amendments clause by clause or en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Morrison.)
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, may I say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, that we agree with all the Amendments?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill 179 as first printed fog the House of Commons]
Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out front beginning to ("and") and insert ("each area as hereinafter defined")
Clause 2, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
("(4) In this section the expression "area" means a hospital area:
Provided that the Secretary of State may by order direct that an area consisting of two or more hospital areas shall be an area for the purposes of this section.").
Clause 7, page 5, line 25 leave out from ("consider") to end of line, and insert ("all such matters and report upon them")
Clause 7, page 5, line 26, leave out third ("the") and insert ("any such").
Clause 14, page 9, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Clause 14, page 9, line 26, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Clause 14, page 9, line 26, leave out ("respectively").
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
Penalisation of acts falsely implying inclusion in the list
(". Any person who, not being a person whose name is included in the list, takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that his name is so included shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first conviction ten pounds, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, fifty pounds.").
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Membership of the Council, etc., not to involve Parliamentary disqualification
(". A member of the Council, the Assistant Nurses Committee, the Mental Nurses Committee, a regional nurse-training committee or a sub-committee of a regional nurse-training committee shall not, by reason of his membership, be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting and voting, as a Member of the House of Commons.")
Clause 19, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
("' chief male nurse' means a male nurse in charge of the male nurses employed in a mental hospital")
Clause 19, page 11, line 6, at end insert—
("' prescribed' means prescribed by rules made by the Council under this Act")
First Schedule, page 12, line 45, leave out ("and")
page 13, line 4, at end insert ("and
(e) a person or persons with financial experience.")
Clause 19, page 10, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that the members first appointed under sub-paragraph (b) or sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall hold office for a term of three years")
Second Schedule, page 14, line 26, after ("payments") insert ("as may be specified in the order")
Clause 19, page 10, line 32, leave out from first ("be") to end of line 33.
Third Schedule, page 16, line 6, leave out from ("a") to ("such") in line 7, and insert ("chief male nurse of")
Clause 19, page 10, line 19, at end insert—
("Provided that

(i) a member of the committee appointed by the Council shall cease to hold office as such member if he ceases to be a member of the Council; and

(ii) the members of the committee first appointed by the Secretary of State shall hold office for a term of three years.")

Clause 19, page 10, line 22, leave out ("be filled")
Clause 19, page 10, line 23, after ("State") insert ("be filled by a person appointed")
Clause 19, page 10, line 24, after ("case") insert ("shall be filled by a person appointed")
Fourth Schedule, page 17, line 7, column 3, leave out from ("from") to ("referred") in line 8, and insert ("the date of the first coming into operation of such rules as are")
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in moving that this House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments may I say that the statement which I made just now concerning the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill applies equally to the Nurses (Scotland) Bill? No point of controversy arises. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Morrison.)
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, I can say that we have no objection to any of the Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL
7.52 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments, and of Commons Amendments proposed in lieu of certain other of the Lords Amendments.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 124]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 3, page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 28 and insert—
("Subject to the following provisions of this section, any consent required by this section for the making of an adoption order may be given either before or after an application has been made for the order; but the consent of the mother of the infant shall be of no effect for the purposes of this section if given earlier than six weeks after the birth of the infant.
(3) Any consent given for the purposes of an application for an adoption order may be given (subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified therein with respect to the religious persuasion in which the infant is to be brought up) in respect of any order which may be made in pursuance of the application, and shall be valid notwithstanding that the identity of the applicant is not specified in the consent or known to the consenting party; and where a consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn")
Clause 19, page 10, line 30, leave out ("the last foregoing section") and insert ("this section")
line 31, at end insert—
("(4) Provision shall be made by rules under section eight of the principal Act for securing that any consent given by the mother of the infant for the purposes of this section otherwise than before the court which makes an adoption order shall be given in writing, in such form as may be prescribed by the rules, and signed, upon the date upon which it purports to be given, in the presence of a justice of the peace.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments but propose the following Amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof:
Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The consent of any person to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of an application may be given (either unconditionally or subject to conditions with respect to the religious persuasion in which the infant is to be brought up) without knowing the identity of the applicant for the order; and where consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn on the ground only that he does not know the identity of the applicant, his consent shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be unreasonably withheld.
(3) Where any person whose consent to the making of an adoption order is required by this section does not attend in the proceedings for the purpose of giving it, a document signifying his consent to the making of such an order shall, if the person in whose favour the order is to be made is named or otherwise described in the document, be admissible as evidence of that consent, whether the document is executed before or after the commencement of the proceedings; and where any such document is attested by a justice of the peace (or, if executed outside the United Kingdom, by a person of any such class as may be prescribed by rules made under the principal Act), the document shall be admissible as aforesaid without further proof of the signature of the person by whom it is executed:
Provided that a document signifying the consent of the mother of an infant shall not be admissible as aforesaid unless—

(a) the infant is at least six weeks old on the date of the execution of the document; and

(b) the document is attested on that date by a justice of the peace or, as the case may be, by a person of a class prescribed as aforesaid.

(4) While an application for an adoption order in respect of an infant is pending in any court, any parent or guardian of the infant who has signified his consent to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of the application shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to remove the infant from the care and possession of the applicant; and in considering whether to grant or refuse such leave the court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section a document purporting to be attested as mentioned in that subsection shall be deemed to be so attested, and to be executed and attested on the date and at the place specified therein, unless the contrary is proved.")
Page 9, line, 19, leave out front ("infant") to end of line 22 and insert—
("In subsection (2), after the word 'person' where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'other than the consent of an infant'; and in subsection (3), for the words `admissible as evidence' there shall be substituted the words `sufficient evidence' and for the words 'admissible as aforesaid' the words 'sufficient evidence as aforesaid.'")

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 14, page 9, line 22, at end insert ("and in subsection (4) for any reference to rules there shall be substituted a reference to an Act of Sederunt, and any reference to a justice of the peace shall include a reference to the sheriff")
The Commons agree to the above Amendment, but propose the following Amendment thereto—
In line 1 of the Lords Amendment, leave out ("and in subsection (4)").
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I can dispose of what remains in this matter in a few minutes. Although the Commons Amendments in lieu of certain Amendments made in this House occupy more than two pages of print, they are, with one exception, nothing more than a recasting of what this House has already inserted in the Bill, and I have no doubt that the recasting is an improvement. As I took charge of the Bill in this House, it is enough for me to say that I hope your Lordships will accept the improved version, which no doubt has been drawn up with great care and skill and is much better than we were able to do in our amateur way in your Lordships' House.
There is one change, however, which is a change of substance. It is to be found on page 2 of the list of Commons Amendments. The proposed new subsection (4) provides that:
While an application for an adoption order in respect of an infant is pending in any court, any parent or guardian of the infant who has signified his consent to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of the application shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to remove the infant from the care and possession of the applicant; and in considering whet her to grant or refuse such leave the court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant.
That change is an attempt to find a compromise between two views, each of which have been followed by argument. For myself, and I think for all interested in the Bill, I am prepared to accept this proposal, and I would urge your Lordships to do the like. The effect of it is this. Thanks to this Bill, which I think is a great improvement on the present law, the mother of a child is not to be regarded as having indicated her consent to the child being adopted by others unless at least six weeks have elapsed since the birth of the child and unless, when she signs the document, it is attested by a justice of the peace and it is done in a proper form and at a

1511
proper date. That is a great reform. I am glad that this House was able to make it and that another place has accepted it.
But there is a difficulty of which we have all been conscious. Cases may arise where, after people adopting a child take the child into their custody, the mother withdraws the indication of her consent. The child itself may suffer. Subsection (4) proposes that if the mother has executed a document such as I have described, and if the people who have in mind to adopt the child have started proceedings to get an adoption order, then, though they will still remain free to reject the child until the adoption order is made, the mother shall not be free to claim to remove the infant in the interval before the court decides whether to make an adoption order; provided, however, that when the order is considered by the court the mother may come and there satisfy them that she wishes for good reasons to withdraw her child.
I think that is a reasonable arrangement to make, subject to one point, which I make to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who has taken a great interest in this Bill, as I have. I can imagine a case in which this new provision might work unfairly unless care is taken. It would work unfairly if the people who have taken over the child and have it in their custody, and before the three months are up, which must elapse before they can get an adoption order, made an application for an adoption order merely to stop the mother from asking for the child back, without any intention on their own part really to get an adoption order. Therefore I would be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would tell us whether he will accept this view. It would be intolerable if would-be adopters, by merely applying for an order and then not proceeding with the application, used subsection (4) to produce a situation in which the mother of a child was barred from getting, her child back without leave of the court, while the adopters remained free to change their mind. I feel sure it is not the intention to let that happen.
I accept that it is better for that situation to be met by rule rather than by
1512
any provision in the Statute, and I therefore shall be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount can give me an assurance that where an application for an adoption order has been made under subsection (4) the rules will be such as will secure that it is brought on for hearing without delay, once the three months probationary period has expired; and that, if those who have made an application for an adoption order do not pursue that application with reasonable promptitude—I understand there may be reasons why the court should adjourn the hearing for a time—subsection (4) shall not be allowed to give the would-be adopter freedom for an indefinite time to reject the child, though they have stopped the mother from claiming that the child should be returned to her. I believe that new rules will have to be made in any case for juvenile courts, for county courts and for the High Court. I recognise that in some of these cases the first thing that happens after an application has been filed is that a guardian is appointed ad litem.
I am anxious for an assurance that in drawing up new rules, care will be taken to secure that the proceedings thus started will be carried through with reasonable promptitude. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount wishes that to be done. Existing rules, both for the magistrates' court and the county court, might be said already to make a provision of this kind, though, as I have said, I think there will have to be new rules. I doubt whether there is at present any such provision in the High Court, because, generally speaking, if you start proceedings in the High Court you do not find that those proceedings are cancelled or struck out save on the application of the defendant, who goes to the court and says: "Here is this Writ hanging about; no one is taking any further steps, and I ask that it should be struck out." In cases like these we are dealing mostly with poor people and often mothers—sometimes illegitimate mothers, though not always—and it is not practicable to say that they may go to the court if they like. Therefore, I would like the Lord Chancellor to tell me—as I think he will be glad to do—in proper terms, that he will see to it that under the Bill (which I am glad is now to become an Act) this particular loophole will be stopped, in order that we

1513
may carry through this new and greatly improved procedure without doing an injustice to anybody.
I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons Amendments which are before us—that applies to all of them—but I hope that before the Question is put my noble and learned friend will be able to give me the assurance for which I ask.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Simon.)
8.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to express the great reluctance with which I accept the new subsection (4). When the Bill left this House it was a completely balanced Bill. We protected equally the rights of the natural parent and the adopted parent. We ensured that the rights of the natural parent were not diminished up to the moment when the Adoption Order was finally made by the court. We then transferred those rights as completely as we could to the adopted parent. We now have an Amendment which diminishes the rights of the natural parent to change her mind with regard to the document which she has signed. If it was found necessary—I know there has been much pressure brought upon the Government on this matter—so to diminish the rights of the natural parent, I consider that there should also have been some diminution of the rights of the adopting parents to change their minds. I am well aware that grave harm is sometimes wrought to a child who is taken by adopting parents into their home and, being of an age to understand what is happening, gives to those would-be adopters love and confidence, and then (as happened in a case of which I have heard) the child, having been kept with the would-be adopters for a period of some weeks, is sent back because they say they do not like the child. I trust that not many years will pass before more comprehensive legislation on the whole subject of adoption will be promoted, and that what I have said will then receive consideration.
8.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise not to enter into the slight element of controversy which has just been voiced, or to express an opinion on it, but only to answer the question raised
1514
by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. As I understand him, he wants some assurance that when an application for an adoption order has been made, steps will be taken to see that it is brought on for hearing without delay once the three months' probationary period has expired and that unless this is done the application shall be struck out. I may say at once that I entirely agree with him that it would be intolerable for would-be adopters, by simply applying for an order and then not proceeding with their application, to use the machinery of sub-section (4) to produce a situation in which the mother would be barred from getting her child back without the leave of the court, while the adopters themselves remained free to change their minds for an unnecessarily long time. As the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, it is the fact that only in the county courts and in the magistrates' courts is there no possibility of an application being left on the file without it coming up for hearing at any early date. So far as the magistrates' courts are concerned—after all, it is there that four out of every five adoption cases are dealt with—the Rules already provide that as soon as the guardian ad litem has been appointed, a time for hearing is to he fixed, and the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts apply as if the proceedings were by way of complaint and summons. The effect of this is that if at the time fixed by the court for the hearing of the application the applicants do not wish to proceed and can show no reasonable ground for an adjournment, the court will automatically dismiss the application. The position is substantially the same in the county court.
I feel that we must leave a discretion in the courts to decide whether an application is being prosecuted with reasonable promptitude, and that it would be quite impracticable to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the date on which an application had to be heard and determined. Obviously, the nature of the inquiries to be made differs from case to case, and some cases may involve a little more delay than others. I feel that the noble and learned Viscount may rest assured that all the courts are well aware of the need for avoiding any delay in the hearing of these applications. I agree with him that new Rules will have

1515
to be made for the juvenile courts and the county courts and also, I think, for the High Court. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that, when these Rules are made, the points he has raised will be carefully considered with a view to ensuring that it is not possible for would-be adopters to delay the hearing of their application. I hope that will satisfy the noble and learned Viscount and put his mind at rest on this problem.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thank the Lord Chancellor very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REORGANISATION AREAS MEASURE, 1944 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1949
8.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, at this late hour I can say what needs to be said in very abbreviated form. This amending Measure was passed by the Church Assembly without a division, and it has received the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure which it amends was an emergency Measure passed in 1934, not to deal with a permanent piece of church machinery, but to provide for areas where the distribution of population had been altered, owing either to war damage or to planning schemes. In such case obviously there had to be revision of parochial areas. Provision had to be made for redistribution of benefice incomes where parish boundaries were changed, and also for demolition, disposal or restriction of church property.
In order to do this with as little delay as possible, it was obviously desirable to restrict vested interests during the interim period. It was, therefore, provided that in such cases the benefice might be kept vacant for three years without the patron's right of appointment lapsing. This is the point. Experience has proved that these rearrangements cannot always be carried through in three
1516
years, as the complicated machinery for making schemes takes time. Moreover, in some cases it is impossible for church authorities to plan until the civil authorities make up their minds about their planning schemes. Therefore, this amending Measure simply proposes to extend the period during which a benefice in a reorganisation area may be kept vacant until the date when the original Measure ceases to operate—namely, March 31, 1954. I add only that the rights of patrons continue to be secured against lapse, and they have the right, as before, to be consulted by the Bishop when he makes temporary appointments for the interim period. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTION COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
REGISTERED DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
VEHICLES EXCISE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to and consequential Amendments made to the Bill, the said consequential Amendments to be printed.

RIVER GREAT OUSE (FLOOD PROTECTION) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.