Lords Sitting of 8 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ADDRESS OF CONGRATULATION: HIS MAJESTY'S REPLY
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships that, in accordance with the order of the House of Tuesday. November 16 last, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and myself as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of your Lordships' House, waited upon His Majesty at Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon last, March 4, and presented to him your Lordships' Address congratulating His Majesty, Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, on the birth of a son to Her Royal Highness, The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.
  His Majesty, who was accompanied by Her Majesty the Queen, and Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Edinburgh, was graciously pleased to reply as follows:
  "I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the happy event of the birth of a son to my dear daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Edinburgh.
  You have frequently shown the affectionate interest which you take in all that concerns my family and myself, and we have been deeply moved by your congratulations on the birth of our grandson which has given so much pleasure throughout the Commonwealth."

  HURST PARK RACE COURSE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the enactments relating to patents and designs and to provide for an additional puisne Judge of the High Court; and to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  EIREANN CITIZENS IN GREAT BRITAIN
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: 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) Whether, after the Republic of Ireland Act passed by the Eire Legislature comes into force, citizens of Eire resident in Great Britain will be liable to National Service; (2) Whether they contemplate the introduction and passage of any legislation to deal with any aspect of the situation arising from the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act which has been passed by the Eire Legislature.]
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's Question, by virtue of Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act. 1948, the National Service Acts will continue, as now, to apply to citizens of Eire who are of military age and are ordinarily resident in Great Britain. In reply to the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of what legislation may be required to give effect to the policy enunciated in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on November 25 last.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask whether

  177
  attention is being paid to the letter which was published in The Times on February 28 from Serjeant Sullivan, who is widely regarded as a considerable authority on such matters? In that letter Serjeant Sullivan points out that, in his view, when the Republic of Eire comes into being, it must be regarded as a foreign State. He further points out that the phrase "citizens of Eire" in the British Nationality Act, which was passed by Parliament last July, must be interpreted as referring to persons who are under the allegiance to the Crown and within the Commonwealth. I do not ask, of course, that these views should be discussed now, but I wish to inquire whether serious consideration is being given to these views which obviously, if they are correct, though special to the case of Ireland, are of large importance.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that consideration is being given to that matter.

  DEATH SENTENCE ON GENERAL PIKA
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the sentence of death passed on the Czechoslovak General Pika on account of alleged sympathies and connections with the West, and whether any steps can be taken in the matter.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, General Pika has appealed against the death sentence and the House would not wish me to say anything which might prejudice the reconsideration of it. Though His Majesty's Government have no locus standi for taking any steps in the matter, as he is not a British subject, widespread sympathy is felt for a gallant officer who served Czechoslovakia and her Allies loyally during the war. I need hardly add that no reliance can be placed on any confessions he may be said to have made in regard to allegations regarding his contacts with British representatives. Any such contacts were limited to the
  178
  social relations which in most countries are normal between the Embassy of a friendly Government and high officials of the country concerned.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the war General Pika rendered such signal service to Russo-Czech relations that a number of high Soviet decorations were conferred upon him?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am well aware of the fact which has just been stated by the noble Lord.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, could not that outstanding example of Soviet gratitude be conveyed to some of the more distinguished fellow travellers here?

  JURIES BILL
  2.43 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships for the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not think I need take up a great deal of time, as the Bill, if not entirely uncontroversial, is at any rate like the curate's egg, uncontroversial in parts. There is no need for me to discuss the manifold merits of the jury system as developed in this country in connection with both criminal and civil trials. It has been called the palladium of British liberty. Although it may not be a perfect method of resolving disputes on questions of fact, it is in the opinion of many people as good a method as exists, and in addition it has psychological and political advantages which have long been realised by the great mass of the people. In these circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will agree that anything which can be done to improve and strengthen the system will be of advantage to the administration of justice.
  The Bill which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon is intended to have that effect. It has two main objectives; first, to enable payment to be made to jurors, and secondly, to abolish the system of special juries. I think it is only in respect of the latter part that there is any controversy about the merits of the Bill. The greater part of the Bill is taken up with the first of these two objectives, which I think will appeal to

  179
  noble Lords on both sides of the House. The position in respect of payment of jurors is broadly the same, whether the jurors are called to take part in a criminal case or in a civil case. In the case of jurors at criminal trials, whether at assizes or quarter sessions, no payment is made to jurors for travelling expenses, loss of earnings, subsistence or anything of the kind. A juror may be brought from a far part of the county and be kept at the court for several days entirely at his own expense. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a hardship, particularly at the present time when costs are so much higher than they were before the war.
  In the case of jurors at civil trials, the situation is much the same, although there is a small payment which is sanctioned by custom. In the Middle Ages it was called the "juryman's groat." In London, where expenses were higher, the custom grew up to pay the jurors as much as three groats, or one shilling, and this was the "juryman's shilling." At assizes they were paid two groats, and at some courts they were paid as low as half a groat—not a very munificent remuneration for a hard day's work in the administration of justice. It might well have been that in the Middle Ages that was better than nothing, but at the present time it amounts to very little indeed—hardly the price of a glass of beer. These hardships have been often pointed out in the past, but nothing has been done about them until the present Bill was introduced. The Government to which I have the honour to belong have decided that there are a number of anomalies which ought to be put right, and this is one of them. Your Lordships will agree that it is unfortunate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is particularly interested in this Bill, is unable to be here this afternoon to ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. It is one of a number of measures which he has sponsored and supported for redressing anomalies in the administration of the law of this country.
  The greater part of the Bill turns on Clause 1, which provides for payment to jurors in accordance with a prescribed scale that will be introduced by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Treasury, in respect of travelling and subsistence
  180
  allowances and compensation for loss of earnings. In respect of compensation for loss of earnings a ceiling is imposed in the proviso to the clause. Where the time lost is of not more than four hours' duration, the sum shall be no more than ten shillings, and where it is of more than four hours' duration the amount payable shall have a ceiling of twenty shillings. This scale is in accordance with the general practice which has been coming into existence.
  Under the Local Government Act, 1948, Section 112, similar allowances are payable to members of local authorities and the same scale of costs is payable to witnesses under the Witnesses' Allowances Order made under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908. As recently as August of last year, a new order was brought into force under which the scales have been revised and improved, and I understand that the regulations which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will introduce will be largely framed on the same basis as the order applying to witnesses. There will be a subsistence maximum of 5s. per day; the travelling, allowance will be the actual cost to which the juryman is put; and where the juryman is detained owing to the length of the case, and has to spend a night at the assize town, or wherever it may be, he will be given a night allowance, with a maximum of 20s.
  I feel that I should also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 1 (2), which is of some importance, because those of your Lordships—and I know there are many—who take part in the administration of justice, particularly at quarter sessions, will know that frequently juries are summoned without having, to take part in a case. Subsection (2) provides that in a case of that sort, where a juror is called to the court but is not required to serve, he will be deemed to have served and will be entitled to the payment just as much as if he had taken part in a case and had been a party to a verdict.
  The following sixteen clauses all establish machinery for putting Clause 1 into effect. I do not think I need ask your Lordships to look at them in detail. The general principle is that in criminal cases, where the county pays at present for the administration of the criminal law, the county shall pay for the jurors.

  181
  In using the expression "county" I include, of course, all relevant local authorities who are concerned. In cases of civil litigation, where the financial burden is shouldered by the Exchequer, the Exchequer will shoulder the burden of making these payments to jurors, except that the parties to the litigation will have to pay something towards it. I understand that arrangements already exist under which the Lord Chancellor, in the case of the High Court in consultation with the Judges, and in the county courts in consultation with the Treasury, may establish the fees which litigants themselves must pay. That will to some extent lighten the burden upon the Exchequer.
  There are a certain number of local courts of civil jurisdiction of high antiquity and very considerable authority—such as the Court of Passage at Liverpool, the Salford Hundred Court, and others—where the local authority will accept the responsibility of the financial burden imposed by the payment to the jurors. Some of your Lordships who are interested in the antiquarian side of this matter will perhaps be interested to look at Clause 14, which excludes certain types of jurors from the benefits conferred by this Bill. For example, antiquarian institutions such as the Great or Small Barmote Court, which sits in the Hundred of High Peak and is concerned with disputes about mineral rights, are excluded. There are other juries of the same kind which I believe occasionally sit, and the sitting is made an occasion for a certain amount of jollification, at which a good time is had by as many people as are able to gather together. We do not desire that those interesting survivals should be brought to an end but, also, we do not wish that they should come within the financial provisions made by this Bill.
  We then come to Clause 18, which with the following clauses is concerned with the abolition of the special jury. There is an important exception to this, in the case of special juries which are summoned in the City of London. They may continue to be used for the purpose of dealing with commercial problems. These special juries in the City of London have a very honourable history; indeed, as is known to some of your Lordships who have been much interested in our commercial law, they may claim to have taken a large part in the building up of the commercial law of this country in
  182
  the eighteenth century, under the presiding genius of Lord Mansfield, perhaps the greatest commercial lawyer this country has known. Since that time City of London special juries have not been used quite so much, and they are not commonly met with nowadays. There may from time to time, however, be a case in which the expert knowledge of such a jury would be of great assistance to the Judge who has charge of the commercial list in the High Court, and it is therefore proposed to maintain the existence of this special jury from the City of London. It has always been possible to transfer a case from one of the provincial centres of commerce to London, in order that advantage of this special jury may be taken by the litigants and the Judge, and this will continue to be the case.
  The history of the special jury is not very clear. One of the biggest lacunæ in the late Sir William Holdsworth's monumental History of English Law is in relation to the history of the special jury; so far as I have been able to discover, there is nothing in that great work about the special jury. It seems to have grown up in about the fifteenth century, just as a matter of practice, and from that time it has undoubtedly taken a great part in the administration of law, being used in a difficult type of case in which a man of substance and education could take a valuable part in the administration of justice.
  The qualifications to be a special juror at the present time are governed by the Jurors Act, 1870, and the main difference between the special jury and a common jury under that Act is merely a matter of wealth; indeed, it is little more than a question of whether a person lives in a larger house, because it is mainly a question of the rateable value of the house. A householder rated at £100 in a large town, or £50 in a small town, is qualified to be a special juror, while a householder rated at £30 in London and Middlesex, and £20 elsewhere, is qualified to be a common juror. There are various other qualifications for a special juror, such as if a man is entitled to be called "Esquire," or if he is a merchant or a banker, but I understand that in practice the special jury list is largely made up on the basis of rateable qualification. In the view of His Majesty's Government, this distinction is no longer justified. It

  183
  may have been justified in the past, before education became widespread, but at the present time, when practically every citizen is reasonably well educated and at least sufficiently well to take part in the decision of an ordinary type of case which comes before a jury, it is felt that there is no longer any reason why the distinction should be maintained.
  Although it is possible to have a special jury in a criminal case, I understand that it is now over thirty years since a special jury has in fact been empanelled to decide a criminal case. Although in Scotland it is possible to have a special jury in a civil case, I understand that, for a very long time past, at any rate, no such special jury has in fact been empanelled. I rather expect that your Lordships will agree that, in these circumstances, the special jury has ceased to fulfil any useful purpose, but it is a fact that when this matter was discussed in another place a number of the Members there took a different view. At any rate, the view of His Majesty's Government is that there is no longer any valid case for continuing the existence of the special jury, and that is provided for in these clauses in the Bill.
  Part II of the Bill deals with Scotland, and the clauses there are drafted in order to bring about the same situation in Scotland as Part I of the Bill will bring about in this country. The Scottish system of law, as your Lordships know, is so different from that in this country that a special series of clauses are necessary. The main difference is that in Scotland the expense of the administration of criminal justice falls upon the Exchequer, and not upon the local authority as is the case here. I do not think I need draw your Lordships' attention to any of the details of the clauses in Part II. Part III is an enabling clause, which enables the Government of Northern Ireland to introduce legislation for the purpose of producing the result which Part I will produce in this country—in other words, to enable them to pay their jurors and to abolish the special jury. I think your Lordships will agree that, although the objects aimed at by this Bill are not of a very radical or fundamental character, nevertheless they will in fact lead to a substantial improvement in the jury system as used in this country and will, therefore, be to the advantage of the
  184
  administration of justice here. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chorley.)
  3.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken for giving us so clear an account of the contents of this Bill. While we join with him in deploring that the Lord Chancellor cannot be here, in which case he might, I suppose, have introduced the measure, I do not feel that the House has in the least suffered because on this occasion the noble Lord opposite has undertaken that duty. I think he is right in saying that in its main features the Bill will be generally approved but it is also right to say that it deals with a very important and, I may add, a very interesting subject. It is an attempt to improve our system of justice, and that is a matter which all serious citizens—and certainly all members of this House—will desire to consider carefully and fully.
  I agree with the noble Lord that there are really only two points of principle involved in the Bill, and, speaking for myself—and perhaps for many other noble Lords also—I am in agreement with the Government on both points. The first is whether we should revise and increase payment for jury service. I think we should. The second important question is whether special juries, as a separate class of jury tribunal, should be abolished with the exception of the special juries in the City of London. There again, my own judgment, based on what is a fairly long experience of jury cases, is that it is quite right now to abolish that distinction.
  May I just say a few words to the House on these two matters of principle?—because, of course, we shall discuss the details later in Committee. First, as to providing some sort of payment from public funds for jury service, I think that at present nothing is paid to a juryman who serves in a criminal court, with the great responsibility of deciding, according to the evidence and under the directions of the Judge, whether a man has or has not been proved guilty of a crime. Nothing at all is paid to such a juryman. This Bill, if I follow it correctly, will apply to the juryman in a criminal case what I think are, on the whole, very

  185
  necessary provisions. In proper instances, of course, there is a good deal to be said for the view that the duties and the responsibilities which citizens are called upon to discharge in a country like ours should be undertaken without payment. I certainly do not want to see everything which the good citizen does made the subject of remuneration. It should be part of our pride, as well as our tradition, that as citizens of this country we do our duty as well as we can, without thinking what we are to get for it. For example, the State does not remunerate electors for going to the polls, and it is to be hoped that other people do not remunerate them either. To take a still more obvious example, the State does not remunerate taxpayers because they pay their taxes; it would be a curious and circuitous process if it did.
  Those are duties and responsibilities which fall upon all of us, whereas this jury service—although it is a compulsory service—is an exceptional incident in the life of a citizen. It has to be discharged by a very small proportion of citizens who are qualified to render it, and I think that makes a great difference. The lot falls upon a selected few out of the Jury List, and these few are required to do a piece of work for the community as a whole, and in many cases this exceptional burden, this compulsory duty, does involve them in personal loss. That being so, I think it was quite right for our law to recognise (as it did in the old days, at any rate as regards cases in the civil courts as the Government have just reminded us) that a man who serves as a juror should be paid something. Without inquiring how it comes about that the value of money has so depreciated, I agree that in these days to pay one shilling to a common juryman (a shilling a day, I think it is) is really derisory. In the case of the special juryman, as many noble Lords will know, though I do not think the fact was mentioned in the speech to which we have just listened, he is entitled to be paid a guinea a day.
  LORD GODDARD: A case.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I did not mean a day. He is paid a guinea; but, oddly enough, however long the case goes on, the initial guinea is supposed to be enough. Some of us who practised at the Common Law Bar are not, unfamiliar with the long-drawn-out special jury case
  186
  in which, on the third or fourth day, before the proceedings are resumed the foreman of the jury delicately hints to the Judge that he and his comrades are feeling that the case is going on for a long time and are wondering whether it is not possible for some recognition to be made of that fact by some further payment. Then follows a process in which members of the Bar are careful not to take advantage of one another, because it may be that the litigant on one side has plenty of money, while the litigant on the other side has not; but at any rate, as a matter of arrangement between the parties, the special jurymen in a long case may in fact receive a guinea for each day. As I say, that is purely a matter of arrangement between the parties.
  It has always been recognised in civil cases, therefore, that the jury should be paid, but I do not think the existing arrangement is one which ought to stand. I am sure that the payment should be strictly limited, but there should be some better system of relieving the juryman from the special loss which he incurs. After all, the juryman is a citizen who has been chosen by lot to exercise a particular function on behalf of the public as a whole. Therefore, I am entirely in favour of the principle of Part I of the Bill, thought it will perhaps need to be examined in Committee with some little care; even now I see one or two points about which I should like to make inquiry at the proper time. I will add only this to what the noble Lord actually said in his short description, which I thought was otherwise quite accurate—namely, that the provision in the Bill is a provision for certain payments to be made in respect of jury service for each day that the juryman attends. I think I am right in saying that at present the payment which is made to a special or a common juryman is paid only if he actually goes into the box and takes the oath to serve in a case; that is to say, nothing is paid to the large number of people who are summoned to attend because they may be needed to take their places in the jury box in the course of the day.
  Now comes the other point which is more open to argument—though it is a matter on which I have a clear opinion. So far as I have any right to speak I think it is desirable (and I respectfully

  187
  commend this view to other noble Lords) to get rid of the distinction which now exists—the distinction between a common jury, which is composed of members who are householders resident in premises of the net annual value of £30—or £20 in the country—and a special jury, which is composed of members, broadly speaking, who are the occupiers of premises worth at least £100 a year in London or certain big towns (certainly in London and Middlesex, anyway) or at least £50 elsewhere. Whatever was the case long ago, that, in my view, is a distinction which clearly cannot be justified to-day. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, without being autobiographical, that in my experience a common jury is often quite as intelligent as a special jury. Certainly, we cannot grade intelligence at this time of day by inquiring what is the annual value of the premises occupied by the individual; that is manifestly a perfectly archaic and ridiculous method of grading intelligence. It may have been different in the old days. After all, in the old days, I suppose, the poorer class of the population in many instances could not read; newspapers were so expensive that the poorest people never bought one; and the circumstances generally were so different that possibly this kind of distinction was valid. But I am quite clear that to keep up such a distinction now is unjustified; and, what is more, it is really to misunderstand the way in which every juryman, of any class, goes about his business.
  I hope I shall not be thought to be wandering from the point if I say that I altogether deny that every kind of jury is actuated by what some people call "class consciousness" or "class prejudice." I would assure your Lordships, with complete candour, that that is not the experience of those who have a great deal to do face to face with juries in the jury box. The juryman, of course, has his own mental or political attitude, as has everybody else, and no doubt his view and his judgment may be coloured by that attitude. But I do not think any advocate who has had long experience of presenting cases to a jury has any doubt that when the jury have sworn that they will listen to the evidence and, as it is said, "a true verdict make," they endeavour honestly, under the guidance and authority of a wise judge, to act with the
  188
  intention and desire of arriving at a just conclusion.
  The notion of plaintiffs who have felt aggrieved about having lost their case before a special jury, that they would have won it before a common jury, is nonsense. The individual citizen sitting in the jury box is, I am sure, only trying to do his best. He listens attentively—though he sits on a very uncomfortable seat and is inadequately provided with the materials for noting what is going on. He attends closely to the learned judge and is, quite rightly, largely helped as to his ultimate judgment by the way in which the judge reminds him of the facts and points out their relevance and importance. Whether the jury be a common jury or a special jury. I feel certain that such bodies, as a whole, regard themselves as a tribunal which is helping to arrive at the truth and to administer justice.
  It may be true that sometimes a citizen in the jury box has some prejudices, but—speaking of course with very great respect—is it quite certain that a learned judge never has prejudices? I do not think so. One of the great advantages of the jury system, as I have seen it, is that where you are relying upon a judge alone, if he has an idiosyncrasy or a "kink" in some direction, a mere human failing such as we all may develop—well, you have to rely upon one man; whereas the fact that you have a number of citizens on a jury—twelve citizens in the High Court or in a criminal trial and, what is very rare nowadays, a smaller number in a county court—has the result that it tends to cancel out or to mellow the isolated extreme view which perhaps one man would form.
  Most of us who watch these things know that one of the duties of an advocate is not only to listen to the court and to make his speech but to watch the jury. There was one occasion, I remember, when a good junior said, "The red-faced man in the back row does not believe this witness." That is the sort of junior you want if you are going to carry on your work as an advocate successfully. I am quite convinced that this is the true view of our system in this country, and that is the reason why we follow a practice here which to lawyers in some other countries is most extraordinary. I have often taken a barrister

  189
  or a lawyer from the United States round our courts. The thing that astounds him is that one does not hear anybody challenge the jury, whereas in some parts of the United States there appears to be quite an elaborate inquiry first as to whether an individual citizen, if he is put in the box, is a person who, because of his ancestry, his opinions, his previous knowledge or his relations, is likely to do justice. We never do it in this country.
  I have only once seen a juryman challenged in a court. It was in a criminal ease at Bristol. I was not conducting the case, but I was there. Evidently the accused had told his solicitor or counsel that there was a particular man sitting in the jury box about to be sworn whom he regarded as his mortal enemy. I recollect very well how, before the jury was sworn, the associate said to the prisoner, in the language of the court, "Prisoner, these are the names of the jurymen who shall try you. If you object to them, or to any of them, before they are sworn, when they take the Book and before they are sworn, you shall be heard." The Testament went round and, when a certain individual in the back row took it, counsel said, "I object." Thereupon the associate said to the man, "Get out of the box." The man took the Testament he flung it down on the ledge of the desk—and one could see that the prisoner was right! That is the only instance that I have ever known where there has been a challenge of the jury, whereas in some countries, and indeed I believe in the friendly country of Holland across the Channel, these things happen much more frequently. The explanation is that in this Island we have found that a juryman's sense of duty, and his willingness to listen to a fair argument, fairly presented, together with the help he receives from the judge to weigh up the evidence, leads, on balance, to very just results. It is quite wrong to suppose that there is any class privilege about it.
  I have ventured to reinforce my observations on this point by bringing to your Lordships' House the very sprightly autobiography recently published about a friend of many of us, Sir Patrick Hastings. If I may be allowed, I should like to read one paragraph from his book. I hope I shall not be suspected thereby
  190
  of corruptly attempting to promote the further sale of this book! This is what he says—I agree with him:
  "The jury-box, which is their temporary home, contains twelve members of the most rational and sober-minded nation in the world. Their one desire is to see that justice, as they understand it, shall be done between two people who have placed themselves unreservedly in their hands. They are ignorant of law, but in their united wisdom they ale fully acquainted with the dangers and tribulations of ordinary human life. They are patient and generous to the advocates who appear before them, but are properly intolerant of anything which they think is in the nature of a trick. They will listen at any length to common sense, but become restless under verbosity; they become irritated by an ill-timed jest, and above all they detest the slightest attempt to bully either a witness or themselves. But as a tribunal for dispensing justice they are absolutely without equal."
  This very experienced advocate goes on:
  "During all the years that I have practised before them I hardly remember a single instance in which they were wrong in the decision which they gave. They have often been against me, and upon those occasions I have been properly annoyed, but upon thinking the case over, as I always did, in the end I have come to the conclusion that they were right. Their verdict may not have been strictly in accordance with that which we know as the law of evidence, but according to the law of justice and common sense there was no fault to be found with the decision at which they arrived. I am satisfied that in the end twelve ordinary English men and women sitting together form the best tribunal that civilisation has yet devised, and any legislator who seeks to curtail the activities of juries does a great disservice to the nation."
  I must say that that expresses the view which I have been led to form.
  Now, lest I should irritate by my verbosity, I will sit down, observing only that as things are to-day we employ juries in only a comparatively restricted field of litigation. They were much more widely employed when I was young. The change was due to the First World War. Then, on the grounds of saving man-power, new rules were made, and to-day a jury is employed in only a limited number of classes of litigation, where there is alleged fraud, libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction or breach of promise. But we need not go into the details—at least, I need not. As I said in my first sentence, I feel that the two main purposes of this Bill are entirely right, and I congratulate the Government on having found the occasion and the means of bringing it forward.
  3.29 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I certainly do not propose to destroy the harmony which has hitherto prevailed in relation to this Bill. It may be that those of us who have at times practised before juries have not been as fully informed as we might have been as to the exact process by which twelve good men (or women) and true were ultimately shepherded into a portion of the court which it was not at first sight easy to distinguish from the dock. Nor have we always been entirely instructed as to the system by which they were remunerated. But now, in my judgment, the moment has come when such remuneration as they have hitherto received falls to be revised, and when the provisions of this Bill in general should usefully be put into force.
  I confess that I am a little startled at the number of clauses which are necessary in this Bill in order to put into operation what one would think at first hand was the not very complex operation of paying jurors for their service. In the interests of complete justice, it may be necessary to administer some sort of means test as to how much jurymen are to receive for a particular service, but from the point of view of simplification I cannot help thinking that there may be something to be said for adopting a system more in the nature of a flat rate of payment, although I agree as to the subsistence and journey money. We may perhaps have something to say on those points on the Committee stage.
  In these days, opportunities for voluntary service are being considerably curtailed and one might think that a chance not only to accept responsibility but to discharge a privilege by joining in the administration of justice was one which would be beneficial to the citizen. But, at the same time, when we are talking about voluntary service upon a jury, we have to remember that it was voluntary only in the sense of being so underpaid as practically not to be paid at all; voluntary, in the sense that the man had come forward and volunteered to go and sit in the jury box, it certainly was not.
  On the other aspect, I confess to no indignation or lamentation at the departure of the special jury. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said, there were times when special juries were very commonly resorted
  192
  to; but those times are long past—and rightly so. It seems a little ludicrous to preserve nowadays the question as to whether a person shall be a special or a common juror, in days when most of the people who used to inhabit the larger houses are living either in their own or some one else's garage or gardener's cottage. But the illogical aspect of the special jury system which impresses itself upon me is that where a man suffers injury to his body, his case can be tried by a common jury, but if he suffers injury to his reputation he can, if he wishes, import a special jury. What is the difference between the two?
  Again, and more important, a man may be tried by a common jury for libel or for fraud in the criminal aspects of those matters, and the result of that trial may well be that he goes to prison for a protracted span of time. A common jury is good enough to send him to prison, but apparently not good enough to decide whether he shall pay monetary compensation for the fact that he has defamed somebody, or damages in cases of fraud. That distinction between the criminal and the civil sphere of common and special juries seems to be so illogical that, for that reason alone, I should be prepared to see the departure of the special jury.
  It may be that there is a feeling abroad in some sections of the community to-day that a special jury is animated by political considerations, by some form of class prejudice. I believe that accusation to be unwarranted. At the same time, however, if it exists, and if the retention of a special jury is not essential to the maintenance of our judicial system, then I would rather eradicate even an unreal grievance than see the whole administration of justice possibly suffer from the existence of that view in a matter which was not fundamental to the system's efficiency. My Lords, for those reasons we desire to support this Bill and to say that on the two main principles which it sets out to establish, we are in agreement with the Government; and we congratulate them on the steps that they have taken to make these two changes in the administration of justice.
  3.35 p.m.
  LORD GODDARD: My Lords, may I say just a few words in support of this Bill? For many years I have thought

  193
  that special juries might well be abolished. As your Lordships know, with one or two minor exceptions, special juries are concerned only with civil cases, and now that juries in civil cases have almost entirely disappeared it is very rare indeed to have them. And that is just the time, I suppose, for this Bill to be introduced. I doubt whether there are now one hundred cases in a year tried by jury—either special or common. Everybody seems to be content to leave the case to a judge. Only the other day, I had a special jury in my court to try a case which I should have thought was essentially one for a jury, but both parties begged me to discharge the jury and to try it myself. I have often wondered whether the lip service that we all pay to the great palladium of British justice, the jury, is well justified, because it is a fact that many criminals want to be tried by the magistrate and not by a jury if they can possibly persuade the magistrate to take that course; and the same applies nowadays very much to civil cases.
  To pretend that special juries favour one section of the community more than another is, I believe, a complete libel upon them, and it would be just as sensible—or senseless—to say that common juries favour the other. As a matter of fact, when I was called to the Bar (in the same year as the noble Viscount: I regret to say fifty years ago), I was told by one of the old "warriors," who in those days knew a great deal about juries, "My boy, if you are for the plaintiff and have a rocky case, ask for a common jury. If you have a good case, and want heavier damages, ask for a special jury." But I have found that even that was not true. If one goes into the history of special juries, one finds they were set up originally for one purpose—and one purpose only.
  The first special jury that was ever sworn in England was sworn in the year 1645, and it was then formed by the court on the application of both parties. It was a dispute between two merchants and they both asked that a jury of merchants should be empanelled to try the case. For many years that was the only ground upon which one would have a special jury. I am glad that that sort of right has been preserved in this Bill, because I think that where commercial cases are to be tried in the City of
  194
  London it is a good thing to have a jury of merchants. In 1730, an Act was passed which enabled a court to order special juries; but even then their use was infrequent—until, of course, there came Lord Mansfield, who somehow or other managed to have established a body of special jurors which was known as "Lord Mansfield's special jurors." He used to ask them to dinner and it was considered a great compliment to be one of Lord Mansfield's special jurors. In Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices he says that when he first attended at Westminster Hall he used to see sitting there a man called Edmund Vaux, who always wore a cocked hat, who had been one of Lord Mansfield's special jurors, was intensely proud of it, and was looked upon in the City as second only in authority to the Chief Justice.
  Then, of course, there came the Act of George IV, in 1820, which fixed the qualification for special jurors. In those days, no doubt, the qualification to be assessed to the relief of the poor at £100 a year was a very considerable one. With the changes in values, that qualification has really disappeared; and now every small shopkeeper, every publican, every boarding-house keeper—all estimable persons no doubt, and all good jurors—is qualified to be a special juror, whereas the civil servant, the professional clerk, the accountants' clerk, and people like that, who are probably much more able, or just as able, to weigh up evidence, are rated only as common jurors. I defy anyone going into a court to-day to look at the jury and say whether it is a common jury or a special jury court. I think it is high time this difference was abolished. With the jurors one has now, with their greater degree of education, we can safely take all our juries from the same panel, except that I believe it is a good thing to keep the special jury for the City of London commercial cases.
  With regard to the payment of juries, I think that is a reform which is long overdue. I do not wish to add anything to what has been said except this. I would ask His Majesty's Government to remember that these changes which look so innocuous and so easy often cause a good deal of difficulty in the machinery which has to work to them, and it is quite clear to my mind that a very con

  195
  siderable burden will be placed on the office of the clerk of assize. It will be essential that the number of circuit officers, which on all circuits is now three, should be increased to at least four. Indeed, in some places it may have to be increased to five. It must be remembered that by Statute no fewer than forty-eight jurors have to be summoned every day. Those forty-eight have to get their expenses passed, they have to draw their subsistence allowance, they have, if necessary, to show that they have had to stay the night, and so forth. All this means that a very considerable amount of work will have to be done. I am sorry to say that, in my humble opinion, the department from which these officers are recruited, the Crown Office and Associates Department, is very much understaffed. I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will bear in mind the representations which are being made to the Treasury for an increase in the number in that department, and that they may be induced to make the regulations for the recruitment of persons to that department a little more elastic. The new staff have got to be trained, and trained quickly, and unless there is to be a breakdown at the assizes, we shall want really good assistants in the offices of the clerks of assize. That is all I have to say by way of criticism of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
  3.44 p.m.
  LORD DU PARCQ: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words in support of what has been said. I entirely agree that this Bill deserves support. I wish to say a word on one subject, though I must not dwell upon it for it would be wrong to do so. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said something about the employment of juries. He said truly that juries are nowadays comparatively rarely employed in civil actions. I hope (it may be a hope that is not likely to be realised) that we may reach a time when they will be more frequently employed. I am bound to say that as the result of my own experience as a judge trying cases with juries—it extended over only six years, I am afraid—I have never felt such complete satisfaction with the result of cases which I have heard as when I had the assistance of a jury. Sometimes
  196
  I have had a doubt as to the wisdom of my own decisions on questions of fact, but I do not think I have ever had a doubt as to the decision arrived at, when I have summed up a case, by a jury.
  I well remember that distinguished judge, who was one of the finest specimens of a judge one could ever wish to meet, Lord Justice Bankes, telling me that in his experience he had sometimes thought a jury wrong, but on reflection afterwards had come to the conclusion that it was the jury who were right and he who was wrong. Not only did he tell me that was his own experience, but he said that much the same thing had been told him by a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Sterndale, who is, perhaps, better remembered by many as Lord Justice Pickford. Those were two great judges and they both held the view that you could not have a better or fairer trial than a trial with a jury. Of course, it is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has so amusingly said, that many people who are charged with criminal offences prefer to be dealt with by the magistrates. Great as is my respect for magistrates, certain as I am that people get a fair trial from them, it has to be remembered that, usually, people tried by them are likely to get a lighter sentence. The matter is disposed of quickly, and, as a rule, the sentence is less.
  No matter should be considered of more importance than this question of juries. I will say one word about their expenses. I entirely agree with what has been said already to the effect that it is not desirable that everyone who undertakes service for his country should feel that he has a right to payment. I was a party to the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace. That Commission reported unanimously—for on this point they were entirely unanimous—that, apart from payment of out of pocket expenses and matters of that kind, there should be no remuneration for justices of the peace. The juryman is in a very different position. I suppose it must be twenty years or more ago when I was told this by the clerk of assize of the Western circuit of that day. We were at Winchester, and I was then at the Bar. There was a rather long case in progress and the clerk of assize

  197
  told me that when the court rose a jury, man came to him and said: "What am I to do? I live in the Isle of Wight. The judge has said that we are to sit to 10.15. I cannot possibly be here in time to-morrow. I cannot get a boat to take me home to-night or one to bring me back here in time." The clerk said: "You must stay in Winchester." To that the juryman replied, "Where am I to stay?" The clerk replied: "You must go to an hotel or a boardinghouse." "But," said the juror, "I have no money." And he literally had not got any money, and he could not get any in the ordinary way. He had no money to pay for his bed and breakfast in Winchester. The clerk of assize eventually gave it to him out of his own pocket without any hope of ever recovering a penny from any fund.
  I was at once made aware of what perhaps I had not fully realised before—that this was a monstrous imposition to put upon members of the public, willing to do their duty but unable to provide the money for their expenses, for their meals and so forth, when away from their homes. And one need not think about it very long in order to realise that a man is not likely to be at his best if he is wondering all the time he is in the jury box what is happening to his little shop, or what his employer will say to him, or how he is going to find the money necessary to enable him to get home, or how he is going to find the money for some other purpose. It is high time that this change was introduced. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, that the machinery will need to be looked at. It may be much too difficult as it stands, but in principle, I hope your Lordships will all support this measure.
  My experience of special juries was much the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. I do not think I was told that if I had a bad case I should ask to have a common jury—I agree with the noble and learned Lord that if I had been, it would have been very bad advice—but I was told that if heavy damages were required, it was a good thing to have a special jury. Time after time I was asked by clients who were claiming damages whether there ought to be a special jury, and in cases where the claim was for heavy damages, I always asked for a special
  198
  jury. By heavy damages I mean something running into thousands of pounds. Juries were not so liberal in those days as they are now; an award of £1,000 was regarded as a heavy one when I was first at the Bar. The idea of asking for a special jury was that it was composed of wealthy people who had more money and thought naturally in higher figures. In one part of the country a common jury who gave some young woman an award of £100 felt that they were endowing her for life; that it was a magnificent sum and that she was sure to find a good husband and be set up for life. That did not apply to a jury in London. They thought in much higher figures and had very different standards. Things have changed now, as my noble friends have remarked. We cannot judge the education or affluence of a man by the rateable value of his house. He may be so fortunate as to have a house protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts, or he may not.
  I remember my first case in the High-Court, as all noble Lords who have been at the Bar will remember theirs. An action was brought against an hotel keeper for supplying oysters which unfortunately caused typhoid fever. We had a special jury. I remember one old hand at the Bar saying, "Be careful. You are having a special jury. The way the under-sheriff collects them is to draw first from one district and then from another. I believe you will find that all your jurors are from Bloomsbury. They will all be hotel keepers and boarding house keepers. You will not have a ghost of a chance!" I do not remember whether they were, but the case was quite successful. If there were hotel keepers on the jury, they were not prejudiced.
  Those juries will go, and a good thing too; but it is important that we should not think of the special jury as of a rather wealthy and prejudiced class, and of a common jury as of a poorer class, with possibly prejudices in the opposite direction. I am rather sorry that the term "common jury" has been retained. If we are going to keep by way of a special jury only the City of London special jury, then why not call it the "City of London Jury" and the others "juries." There is, of course, nothing derogatory in being called "common," because the word is contained in titles

  199
  of great dignity—I am sure that the Common Serjeant is extremely proud of his title. What I am anxious about is not a matter of mere name, but a matter of substance. I am anxious to see in every jury box people representing different classes of the community. I should like to see an occasional banker and merchant as well as men who keep small shops and men who work in the country on the farm and in town in the factory. I am anxious to have intelligent householders of every sort. Because the vast majority of them are intelligent, and, what is even more to the point, they are not only fair-minded but are also extremely conscientious. Those of us who have summed-up to a jury and observed their bearing during a case, know that the only moments when they are distressed is when they are not certain they are appreciating what is being said. They attend and listen carefully, and to say that there is any prejudice on the part of a jury, is, except in the rarest instances, in my opinion mere calumny. I think it only right that I should say so. I am very glad to be able to join in the chorus of approval of the principles of this measure.
  3.56 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I need hardly say that I am exceedingly gratified at the response which has come from noble Lords in all parts of the House to this Bill. It has in fact turned out to be uncontroversial, and apart from matters of detail, on which noble Lords have very properly entered caveats, the whole reception of the Bill has been as friendly as one could have desired. Noble Lords having great experience and the highest distinction in both the practice and administration of the Law have joined in paying tribute to the value of the jury system. With only a very small experience, although possibly I may be the only one among noble Lords taking part in this discussion who has served on a special jury—and that was indeed a valuable experience and certainly increased my respect for the institution of the jury—I am glad to be able to add my tribute to those of the noble Lords.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords, have expressed the very emphatic opinion that juries are not class-conscious. In support of that view, the noble Marquess, Lord
  200
  Reading, made what I thought was an important point when he said that there was a view abroad—how widely it goes it is possibly difficult to estimate—that juries were class-conscious, and that one of the valuable results of the passing of this Bill will be to remove that impression, because, as was said by a late member of your Lordships' House, it is not only necessary that justice should be done but just as necessary that it should appear to be done. In some very interesting reminiscences, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out that the system of challenge has disappeared from our courts. That is a comparatively recent development. Until quite recently the special jury used to be subject to a system of what was called "striking," before any question of challenging an individual juror arose. Some forty-eight jurors were selected and each side was allowed to have so many struck out.
  Your Lordships may be interested in a short passage from a most valuable book by Dr. Jackson, of the Cambridge University Law School, called The Machinery of Justice in England, I am sure it is familiar to many of your Lordships. He describes a case decided before the First World War, and in that description this system of "striking a jury" is illustrated. Dr. Jackson writes:
  "Mr. Lygon, M.P. (Conservative), brought a libel action against Mr. Green (Liberal) and a newspaper owned by Mr. Winfrey, M.P. (Liberal). Mr. Lygon had said that he was against feeding school children out of the rates and he was cited as being against feeding school children, the words 'out of the rates' being omitted, so that a fearsome innuendo arose. The Master ordered a special jury to be struck. The venue was Northamptonshire, so the sheriff of that county sent the special jury list to his London asent before whom the parties appeared and balloted for forty-eight names. Another appointment, a day later, was made for 'striking.' The plaintiff's solicitor at once set off for Northampton, followed by the defendant's solicitor, to find out the politics of the panel. The result showed thirty-five Conservatives and thirteen Liberals. The next day with 'unerring accuracy' the plaintiff struck out twelve of the thirteen Liberals, whilst the defendant said he objected to the twelve 'most violent Tories.' That left twenty-three Conservatives and one Liberal. At the assizes the one Liberal got in on the ballot, and because he was a 'quiet, unobtrusive Liberal … we got him foreman of the jury, and he brought down the verdict from £500 to £100 by sticking out'."
  That shows how the special jury system might have worked a long time ago in the case of a political libel action.

  201
  The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, complained of what he considered to be a superabundance of clauses in the Bill. That is due to the fact that there are a considerable number of different types of juries, each of which has to be dealt with; indeed, the arrangements in the counties are often complicated by the fact that some counties are divided up into ridings and other smaller areas, and in some of these counties the administration of justice is based on this type of division. All those matters have to be dealt with in the machinery clauses of the Bill. The noble Marquess also felt that it would be better to have a flat rate. Obviously there is a good deal to be said for that, but it is felt that the system introduced in this Bill should follow that established in connection with witnesses. If that were not done, a juryman might possibly have a grievance that a witness was being treated better than he was, and vice versa. In connection with witnesses, under the order to which I directed your Lordships' attention, this system has in fact been in use for many years, and has been revised and brought up to date as recently as August of last year. On the whole, therefore, it seems advisable that the matter should be dealt with in the same way in this Bill.
  I was delighted to be given historical information by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in regard to the date of 1645, which I had not myself been able to find. I understood that the special jury came into existence before that date. I am glad to be reminded of the interesting fact about Mr. special juryman Vaux, who was one of Lord Mansfield's jurors. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice also, very properly, drew attention to the difficulties which might be caused on circuit and in the Crown Office by this problem of having to pay a substantial number of jurors. I am glad to be able to tell him that the Government already have in mind some strengthening of the staffs of clerks of assize. I think I can safely give the noble and learned Lord an assurance that the other matters to which he drew attention will be carefully considered.
  I was very glad indeed to hear the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq. I entirely agree with him that we have gone rather too far in giving up the use of the jury in
  202
  civil cases. The beginning of that was the First World War, to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, drew attention. But it was rapidly accelerated as recently as the 'thirties; and another stage was reached during the recent war. We never seem to get back to the earlier position which existed before such wars. With the noble and learned Lord, I hope that it may be possible to revive the use of the jury in a substantial number of civil cases. Certainly in running-down cases, where often the jurors include a number of motorists, the jury is in my experience a good tribunal for dealing with the problems that arise.
  The case of the special jury awarding heavier damages than the common jury is, I agree, a very cogent argument why the special jury should be abolished. Surely it is altogether wrong that the compensation which a man may receive for injury to his body or to his reputation should depend on the accident of whether his advisers decide that he should have a special rather than a common jury. That seems to me to be an overwhelming argument in favour of abolishing the special jury. I again thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for the friendly way in which they have received this Bill, and for the cogent arguments they have advanced as to why it should receive a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4.6 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reacting read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, this Bill contains only three clauses, and is the smallest Scottish Bill which it has yet fallen to my lot to introduce in your Lordships' House. The object of the Bill is to enable a tenant of shop premises in Scotland who is threatened with eviction to apply to the sheriff to have his tenancy extended for a period of not more than one year at a time. The Bill, which gives effect to the main recommendations contained

  203
  in the Reports of two Committees of Inquiry, is a temporary measure, and will expire on December, 31, 1950.
  As a result of the shortage of shop premises since the war, and the high market value of heritable property generally in Scotland, the problem of shop tenure has given rise to many complaints. In order to meet the growing volume of representations the late Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Westwood, appointed on March 28, 1947, a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. T. M. Taylor, K.C., to investigate the position in which tenants of shops in Scotland were placed at the termination of their tenancies. The Committee, in their Report, published in December, 1947, did not find sufficient evidence to justify immediate legislative action, but recommended that the position should be kept under review, lest it should deteriorate, and suggested the lines which legislation should follow if such a course became necessary.
  In view of the serious situation which arose at the May term last year, the Secretary of State invited the co-operation of local authorities in considering cases where the threatened eviction of shopkeepers appeared to justify the requisitioning of their premises under Defence Regulation 51. Requisitioning powers could, however, be exercised only where necessary to maintain essential supplies and services, and could not cover many cases of individual hardship among the 450 cases of threatened eviction submitted by local authorities. Requisitioning undoubtedly had a steadying effect last year, but it is not a solution of the recurring problem of shop tenure in Scotland.
  In November last, the Secretary of State, jointly with the President of the Board of Trade, reconvened the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. H. W. Guthrie, K.C. (now Lord Guthrie), and the Committee were asked to report as a matter of urgency whether, in the light of recent experiences, any modification of the conclusions recorded in their previous Report with regard to shop premises in Scotland was called for. The Committee examined in detail the results of the requisitioning procedure last year, and in their Interim Report they say that it is
  204
  "impossible to escape the conclusion that the figure of 450 cases of threatened eviction, when compared with 150 cases considered in our original inquiry … represents a substantial proportionate deterioration."
  The Committee, realising that the majority of tenancies expire annually at the May term, also considered that
  "it is most undesirable that particular shopkeepers should be penalised because of the expiration of their tenancies at a particular time."
  The Committee came to the conclusion that it was right "to offer some temporary protection to tenants" until their whole inquiry could be completed. The Committee therefore suggested that the original recommendation of the Taylor Committee should be put into effect immediately, with the modification that the sheriff should be able to grant renewals of tenancy for a maximum period of only one year at a time.
  The Government have accepted the substance of the Guthrie Committee's recommendations, and effect is given to them in the present Bill. A tenant of shop premises in Scotland may in terms of this Bill, apply to the sheriff for a renewal of his tenancy within a period of twenty-one days after the service of the notice to quit or of the passing of the Bill, whichever date is the later. The sheriff may renew the tenancy, for a maximum period of one year at a time, on such terms and conditions as he thinks reasonable. If the Bill becomes law before the May term—and it is the sincere hope of the Government that its passage into law will not be delayed—the effect of this provision will be to enable any tenant who receives a notice to quit operative at the May term to apply to the sheriff for a renewal of his tenancy. The Bill is designed, in the words of the Guthrie Committee's Report,
  "to provide an equitable solution to the problem of conflicting interests of owners and occupiers."
  In fairness to both landlord and tenant the sheriff is empowered, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable, to dismiss the application; and in certain specified circumstances it is provided that he should not grant a renewal of the tenancy. These circumstances are, briefly, if the sheriff is satisfied that the tenant is in breach of any condition of his tenancy; that he is bankrupt; that the landlord has offered to sell the premises to the tenant at a price to be fixed, failing agreement, by an arbiter agreed on by the parties or

  205
  appointed by a sheriff; that the landlord has offered the tenant reasonable alternative accommodation, or that the tenant has himself given notice to quit and in consequence the landlord has made other arrangements and would be seriously prejudice if he could not obtain possession of the premises. It is further provided that a renewal shall not be granted if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by a renewal of the tenancy than by a refusal so to order. This omnibus provision will enable the sheriff to deal with the wide variety of competing claims which may arise.
  As a large number of applications may be made to the sheriff about the time of the May term, the sheriff is given power in Clause 1 (5) to make an interim order continuing a tenancy up to three months until he is able to dispose of the application. Under Clause 1 (6), shopkeepers whose premises have been requisitioned by the Secretary of State under Defence Regulation 51 will be deemed to be tenants who have received notices to quit at the May term, and so will be able to seek a renewal of their tenancy under the Bill. Applications will be dealt with in the sheriff court under the small debt procedure, which is both cheap and expeditious, and to avoid protracted litigation the sheriff's decision will not be subject to review. The proposals will, in terms of Clause 2, apply equally to shop premises owned or occupied by the Crown or by Government Departments.
  My Lords, this short but useful measure, the life of which is limited to the period ending on December 31, 1950, has been generally welcomed in another place, and its speedy passage to the Statute Book will meet with great acceptance in Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  4.16 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I rise to give a welcome to this small but important Scottish Bill—but a qualified welcome, for reasons which I shall explain. I welcome it because it is designed to end an abuse, but the abuse itself should be examined. The abuse has grown up because a small minority of unprincipled persons have been speculating in property
  206
  —particularly in property which includes shops—and this has brought undeniable hardship to a number of small shopkeepers. I suggest to your Lordships that, in the righteous indignation that we feel against such unsocial and unprincipled people, we should not condemn the majority of decent people who treat their tenants fairly, whether on this side of the Border or on the other side. The Report to which the noble Lord has referred brings the matter out in its proper perspective. There were 4.50 applications for action by the Secretary of State. Of these 450 applications, the Secretary of State rejected 20. He followed up 200 cases and used his requisitioning power in about 50 of them. But, of course, the fact that he was prepared to use it had an important effect upon the others. Therefore, although there is here a serious and troublesome evil, one must view it in its proper relationship to the great majority of people who have decent dealings with each other in our country of Scotland.
  I welcome this Bill, also, on another ground. I think it is right that the Secretary of State should now cease to use his requisitioning powers to combat this evil. That he did so was a matter of necessity, and it was used with good effect, but it is using a very heavy engine for a purpose for which it was not really designed. The Secretary of State for Scotland has wisely decided to terminate the use of these powers and to seek legislation. The use of requisitioning had certain disadvantages, because it cut across contracts and it was not possible to take into account the question of individual hardship. This Bill places the sheriff in Scotland in a position of great importance as an adjudicator. We will not quarrel with this, for we have confidence in the ability of our sheriffs to make wise decisions. I think, however, your Lordships should note the very important functions delegated to them.
  So much for the welcome; now for the qualifications. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to adopt the whole terms of the Guthrie Committee Report. Your Lordships will be aware that in paragraph 19 of the Report of Lord Guthrie's Committee it was recommended that the sheriff should not grant the application of the tenant if any of seven conditions was proved to exist. The Government have accepted four of

  207
  these conditions, but not the other three. The three which the Government have not accepted are as follows: first, that the premises are required for the occupation of the landlord himself, or his son or daughter if over eighteen years of age, either to open up a new business or to extend an existing business; secondly, that the premises are required for the purposes of a scheme of re-development which might involve demolition, alteration or reconstruction; and thirdly, that if, for other reasons, continued occupation by the tenant was not consistent with good estate management, it should not be granted.
  Particularly as regards the first kind of case, I feel some regret that the Government have not adopted the view of the Committee, and I propose at a later stage to return to this point and try, with the help of my friends, to devise an Amendment which may meet the difficulty expressed by the Secretary of State in Committee. In the Scottish Grand Committee the Secretary of State pointed out that if the first condition were included—that is, the one about a landlord requiring the premises for himself or his son or daughter—the sheriff would have no option but to make an order for possession, and then an unscrupulous man might recover possession and sell or re-let at a profit shortly afterwards. He did not see a way round that difficulty. The Secretary of State thought that the point was better covered by the provision in the Bill regarding hardship. I believe it would be possible to devise an Amendment which would safeguard the position by using something like the form of words which has been a part of all Rent Restrictions Acts up to date. That is to say, the paragraph concerned might be limited to the case of a landlord who reasonably required the property and, I suggest, it might be limited to landlords who have purchased before the commencement of the Act. I hope to return at a later stage to this point and see whether any Amendment can be devised which would meet the valid objections of the Government.
  Then, as regards the other recommendation about alterations and demolitions for re-development schemes, I feel that this should be included, and I believe we can devise an Amendment to provide
  208
  that the landlord should re-acquire possession if, in the sheriff's view, the scheme of reconstruction could be carried out only by the giving up of possession by the tenant, and that such re-development was essential. These may seem to be points of detail, but I feel they are points of principle. In combating one evil let us be sure we do not create another; and though the Bill as at present drafted contains provisions against hardship, I should feel much happier if the recommendations of both the Taylor Committee and the Guthrie Committee had been accepted. After all, those two Committees were presided over by most eminent and unbiased men, Mr. Taylor and Lord Guthrie, and they included representatives of important interests who could not be in any way regarded as biased on one side or the other. They gave the matter very careful consideration; and I do not yet feel that the Government have quite satisfactorily explained their reluctance to adopt fully all the provisions which the Committees recommended.
  This Bill is a temporary measure, based on an interim report, and I presume it will be followed by more permanent legislation in the course of time. So far as it goes, and subject to the observations I have made, I welcome it. But it would be wrong to suppose that Scotland or the United Kingdom or, in fact, the world in general is made up entirely of knaves and fools. There are still some honest people about, and the law of contract between two willing parties should not be unduly hampered. We should not assume that no one is fit to sign a contract with his neighbour. We shall, therefore, watch the working of this Bill closely when it becomes law. For my part, and I am speaking for my friends also, we shall do our best to facilitate the Secretary of State's desire that it shall be on the Statute Book if possible by the May term.
  4.25 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I support what the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has said regarding this Bill? Like him, I welcome the Bill. It is the result of very careful consideration by Lord Guthrie's Committee, and, so far as one can judge from their Report, they have examined the matter from every point of view and have come to good conclusions on all of them. Now the Government

  209
  apparently have arrived at the conclusion that, whilst nearly all the recommendations in that Report ought to be adopted and have been adopted, there are three to be omitted—for what reason one cannot quite understand. Lord Clydesmuir has just referred to these particular recommendations seriatim and has explained why in his opinion they should be included; and I wish to support his contention. I cannot for the life of me see why, if a landlord has a son or daughter of adult age whom he wishes to succeed in the occupancy of his own property, for the purpose for which that property was designed and used in the past, that son or daughter should not be allowed to do so. Neither does Lord Guthrie, and he recommends that that provision should be included.
  From the point of view of equity, we know that in these days property is not regarded with the same degree of sanctity as it was in the past; things are done to-day which many of us would prefer not to see done. At the same time, in a small measure of this kind, which everybody agrees should be passed, why omit something which must be regarded as a matter of equity? I hope that the Government will listen to what Lord Clydesmuir has said with regard to that point and also to what he said with regard to the second point, which dealt with schemes of re-development involving demolition, alteration or reconstruction. Here again, it might be very necessary to take those steps for reasons which would be obvious to all of us; and yet the landlord may be deprived of the ability to do so, and, in being so deprived, he may also be deprived of future profit. I do not like to use the word "profit" because everybody on the Government Benches dislikes it so much; but after all, this future profit is a fair claim and a fair process; it may happen some day that the noble Lord opposite will buy a house and sell it at a profit, and feel very pleased that he has done so. But it is, of course, important to prevent anything being done which would not be fair. That was the view of Lord Guthrie and his Committee.
  Now we come to the third point, which is:
  "If, for other reasons, continued occupation by the tenant would not be consistent with good estate management."
  That is a perfectly clear request or
  210
  demand to make. In the Government's own legislation with regard to farming, for instance, a farmer or a landlord may occupy land but if, in the opinion of the Government, the work done on it is not consistent with good farming or good management, he is liable to be deprived of his farm and his property; it may be taken from him and handed over to someone else to farm and to manage. This is indeed a similar case. The landlord may say, and rightly say, that the occupation of the tenant would not be consistent with good estate management. Here again Lord Guthrie and his Committee have recommended that that provision should be included. I hope that, when my noble friend puts down his Amendments, on Committee stage of the Bill, as he has stated he will, the Government will be able to see their way to accept Lord Guthrie's recommendations in toto and not only in part.
  4.33 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I see no reason to be dissatisfied with the qualified welcome that this small Bill has received. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, that it affects only a small number of people. Certainly there is a danger, if one is not careful, that the general public will get the idea that the great majority ate doing these wicked things. As some of us know, if it were not for small minorities of wicked people, many laws would not need to be passed at all. That is the case here. I also agree with the noble Lord that the method adopted in this Bill is better than requisitioning. I can claim no special legal knowledge, but it is a little hard to see how it is possible for a local authority as a permanent policy to requisition shop premises merely on the ground that the landlord is seeking possession of the property It seems to me that the only reason why the local authority could requisition shop premises on a permanent basis would be that the supplies to the people who live in the locality were put in danger. Therefore, we are agreed that this is a better policy than requisitioning.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, takes up largely the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir. They have both given notice that they propose to try to devise Amendments. I welcome that, and say that the resources of the

  211
  Scottish Department are at their disposal for consultation because, in a Bill of this sort, if we can secure agreement readily it is far better than fighting it out and one side or the other carrying it by a majority. This Bill went through all its stages in another place without a Division. I am quite sure that we shall emulate them in that respect. I would point out to both noble Lords that, with regard to premises required for a landlord, or for his son or daughter, it was not thought there would be a right to evict the tenant in every case. Under the Bill, the sheriff can decide whether or not to evict the tenant. The test which the sheriff will have to apply is the test of hardship—which is the greater hardship. However, I do not want to go into that now; your Lordships have further business to do. Already, we have made a "gentlemen's agreement" that we will get together and try to devise Amendments which will be satisfactory to all.
  I would like to conclude by saying that I give a qualified welcome to the discussion, not only the discussion that has taken place but the discussion that will take place on the next stage. The qualification is on one point—namely, that everybody who can move in Scotland may move on a particular day, a custom which is unknown in England. That is the critical point of this Bill. Everybody who can possibly move, and who wants to move, will move on May 28. Therefore, it is essential that all those who welcome this Bill should help to see that it is put on the Statute Book as long before May 28 as possible. With that qualification, I hope that we shall be able to satisfy Scotland.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  RETURN OF H.M.S. "ROYAL SOVEREIGN"
  LORD AILWYN LORD AILWYN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any comments to make on the circumstances surrounding the handing back of the battleship "Royal Sovereign" by the Soviet authorities to the Royal Navy. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper, the story can be unfolded in a few words. In the for
  212
  mulation of my Question and in the presentation of the facts which I believe to be accurate, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if I mince no words. The time has passed, it seems to me, for being mealy-mouthed in matters affecting the dignity of this country. If I do not pull my punches, it is because I can no longer witness without protest the spectacle of other nations rocking on their heels at our discomfiture. I am asking His Majesty's Government whether they have any comments to make on the strange happenings at Rosyth early in February. Your Lordships will recall that the battleship "Royal Sovereign," together with certain other naval vessels, was loaned by this country to the Soviet Union in 1944. The "Royal Sovereign" was due to be handed back to the Royal Navy during a five-day period, January 19 to 24. All arrangements were made for her reception off May Island at the entrance to the Firth of Forth on whichever of these five days she reached the rendezvous.
  The subsequent history is as follows. The five days go by, and she fails to put in an appearance. So far as I am aware, there was a complete absence of explanations, apologies or regrets. Fresh arrangements are made and, after what one can only assume must have been a maximum of inconvenience to our own naval authorities, in due course she arrives on February 4. The Russians steam her up to Rosyth. She fails to fire any salute on arrival, an infringement of immemorial custom and usage amounting, I submit, to a grave discourtesy. If I am told that she was unable to fire the recognised 21-gun salute owing to the fact that her saluting guns had been removed, I have no doubt that your Lordships will judge of the validity or otherwise of such an explanation. In that case it would be pertinent to ask whether the Russians asked permission to be excused from observing this time-honoured international courtesy.
  While the ship is in port the Russian officers and ship's company are offered traditional British hospitality. They refuse, on the plea of pressure of work, the invitations extended to them by the British Council and by various Scottish official and public bodies. We learn from the Press, however, that they are able to accept and to partake in full measure of large scale entertainment by

  213
  the Scottish U.S.S.R. Society. The day arrives for the final handing over of the ship. The Russian Commodore refuses permission to the Press to go on board to witness the ceremony. The British Admiral who goes on board to receive the ship back makes a civil and friendly speech which is interpreted to the Russians—he wishes them bon voyage on their return journey. Does the Russian Commodore respond? Does he thank the British Admiral for his good wishes? Does he acknowledge the hospitality which has been offered to him? Does he tender the thanks of his country for the loan of "Royal Sovereign" and for the other British vessels? He remains completely silent.
  Let me interject here, that I do not necessarily condemn the Russian Commodore personally for this boorishness. It may well be that he was acting under orders. There is, in my experience, an almost universal comradeship between sailors and navies of all nations, and I would hesitate to believe that such an affront and such ill-mannered behaviour were an expression of the Russian Commodore's own personal feelings. The melancholy fact remains that what could, and should, have been a memorable, pleasant, colourful and perhaps even an historic occasion, became a sombre, colourless event of shabbiness and gloom. The transfer was effected in sullen silence. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that the official designation for this operation—or "code term" is, I fancy, the term applicable—was "Operation Happy Return." My Lords, a friend writes:
  "I thought before this that we had touched bottom, but I was wrong. In truth all nations must now realise that the way to get your way with the British is to kick them in the face."
  Those are strong words, but are they altogether unjustified? When von Ribbentrop gave His Majesty The King a Nazi salute the nation was not slow to voice its disapproval and disgust. When the Russians give us no salute at all, shall Parliament and His Majesty's Government be dumb? Shall the voice of the nation be stilled? I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I appreciate that much interest was taken by the public, and by some
  214
  members of your Lordships' House, in the return of the warships which were loaned under conditions which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, and which are well known to your Lordships. The noble Lord said he would not mince his words. I think, however, that there is some misunderstanding as to the exact position, and in the course of the very short time that I propose to speak, I will endeavour to give the facts as they were reported to the Admiralty by a very efficient naval officer acting in a liaison rôle between the Admiralty and the Russian Commodore concerned.
  It is true that the original plan for the return of the "Royal Sovereign" to this country contemplated that she would reach Rosyth between January 19 and 24. The understanding between the U.S.S.R. and this country, however, was that the battleship "Royal Sovereign" and the Italian battleship, which was to be transferred from Italy to Russia, should arrive simultaneously at their respective ports of delivery. Delays in the Mediterranean, of which we were well aware, in connection with the Italian battleship, necessitated adjustment of the "Royal Sovereign's" original programme, and it was agreed between the British and Soviet Governments that the "Royal Sovereign" should sail for this country on January 27. The ship adhered to this revised programme, arriving at Rosyth on February 4, at the prearranged hour. So the noble Lord need have no apprehension in regard to the delivery of this battleship in accordance with the arrangement which was made, negotiated in the first instance by the Four-Power Committee which was sitting, and agreed to between the Governments of the two countries. Indeed, these facts were announced by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in another place on January 26, when it was made known that the delay would occur. In view of the explanation that I have given of the reason for the delay in the sailing of His Majesty's ship "Royal Sovereign" I do not think any question of an explanation or apology from the U.S.S.R. authorities arises.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, emphasised the importance of saluting. I agree that it is essential that foreign warships visiting this country, or British warships visiting other countries, should

  215
  pay due regard and respect to the country, concerned on the occasion of their visit. But the difficulty, which was made known to us, in relation to this matter was that the "Royal Sovereign" carried no saluting guns, these having been removed when she was modernised for war service before being transferred to the Soviet Government in 1944. The firing of salutes would therefore have had to be carried out from 4-inch guns, a most unusual arrangement which would have involved the preparation of special charges for saluting purposes. The British naval authorities had the matter explained to them, and fully understood the situation; and from the information which I received there is no question of there having been a studied affront by the Russians. Such an affront would be completely out of keeping with the manner in which the Russian Commodore and the crews discharged all their other traditional courtesies. Indeed, it may be said that the Russian Commodore was punctilious in the discharge of all the courtesy calls and visits, both on naval authorities and on civic authorities, which are traditional when the warships of one country visit another. The extent to which the commanding officer of a visiting ship accepts additional hospitality is a matter entirely for his discretion—whatever the country to which he may belong—and I have no desire to seem to criticise such refusals as the Commodore may have felt himself compelled to make.
  I may say that many of the offers of country tours and hospitality, and so on, made by British official bodies were for periods within the working hours in the ship (and the crew of the ship was, of course, an ad hoc body) whereas the invitation of the Scottish U.S.S.R. Society, which was accepted, was outside those hours. I know that reference has been made to the fact that the Lord Provost of Edinburgh paid his call upon the Commodore of the ship before the Commodore paid his respects to the Lord Provost. These visits were arranged between the Lord Provost and the Commodore of the ship, who met at the international Rugby football match and agreed to reverse the order of their calls. So there was no question of any discourtesy there.
  216
  With regard to facilities for the Press, the Russian Commodore indicated that his regulations allowed him no latitude at all in this respect on board a Russian warship. His refusal to give permission to our Press-men was, therefore, in accordance with his orders, and it is not seemly to criticise a commanding officer for carrying out his instructions. As the ship was still under the Russian flag until the transfer had been completed, the Soviet usage—which I understand applies to all Russian ships—was naturally the correct procedure so far as the Russians were concerned. But as soon as White Ensign was hoisted the "Royal Sovereign" again became a British ship, and the Press-men were admitted in accordance with the British custom.
  On the question of speeches, which was raised by the noble Lord, I should explain that the Russian Commodore excused himself from making a speech in response to that of the British Admiral on the ground that such pronouncements were not customary in the Soviet Navy. May I say that from the friendly and appreciative expressions which the Commodore used in his conversations with the British Admiral, and from the signals which he exchanged with that officer before returning to his country, I am convinced that the fact that he did not make a public speech is to be attributed to the different customs in the navies of the two countries?
  On the final point, I need say no more than that the loan of the "Royal Sovereign" and other British warships to the Soviet Authorities was made under conditions well known to your Lordships, and at one of the most crucial periods of the war, in the interests of the successful prosecution of the war, and was thus to the advantage of both countries. I would add that, from the reports which have been made to me, I take the view that, as between the navies of the two countries, the outcome of the re-transfer of the "Royal Sovereign" and other ships may reasonably be pronounced a distinct success. And if the public of this country will appreciate the difference in methods and system as between this country and Russia, I am convinced that they will understand what the situation was. I can say that as between the British naval officers and the Russian

  217
  naval officers—and, indeed, as between other ranks as well—the atmosphere throughout was amicable, and on parting was most cordial. I look forward to similar experiences to that of the relationship established between the crews of the two navies, when other ships which were lent to Russia return to this country in the course of the coming few months.

  PAINTING OF CANAL BARGES
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD had given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the policy of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive in regard to the painting of canal barges. The noble Lord said: My Lords, notwithstanding the promise given by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor went on leave the other day, that noble Lords on these Benches would be of good behaviour, I give your Lordships fair warning that I intended to indulge in a "barging match this afternoon. My interest in small craft dates back to the time when I was first put in charge of a naval picket boat, at the age of seventeen. What did I do? I promptly spent most of my 1s. 9d. a day pay in making the boat what the Navy calls "tiddley"—that is to say, I spent it on special enamel and varnish and generally on making the craft what I thought to be absolutely first class. The Navy has always smiled on the nautical habit of making boats and fittings generally "tiddley," but apparently the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive take the opposite view.
  As many noble Lords are doubtless aware, this point has been emphasised in recent correspondence in the Press. The distinctive bright colouring of canal boats and the system of decorating them in accordance with what are really very lovely colour schemes—particularly what one knows as the "Rose and Castle" scheme of painting—has continued from the earliest days of canals. And I am told—though I do not vouch for this—that it is really the only surviving genuine folk art, and that the painting is now done by a very small number of craftsmen. Under the Transport Act, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive have become the owners of a very large num
  218
  ber of canal boats. And what have they done? They have rapidly and universally painted these boats in a standard pattern of blue and yellow. I think, personally, that this livery is dreary and hideous, whereas the former colouring was always the gayest to be found anywhere.
  On the question of utility, I would point out that blue is one of the most perishable of colours. It is very easily affected by the elements, as anyone who has tried to paint blue the outside of any buildings well knows. But, above all, the crews of these canal boats loathe the very sight of this new colour scheme. I am sure I should be called to order if I repeated some of the language with which they have condemned it. These people are not just crews. The barges are their homes, in which they live year in and year out. They take a pride in them just as much as a cottager takes a pride in his garden. One canal boatman used these rather poetic words to a friend of mine, "We have never had gardens but we still have our roses."
  Subsequent to this correspondence in the Press, there was a statement from the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I hope the noble Lord when he replies will not give the same answer as was given in that statement, because I regard it as completely unsatisfactory. It was entirely negative. It merely said that the Executive had no intention of suppressing the art but showed quite clearly that they had no intention of encouraging it. What a golden opportunity—perhaps I should have said, rosy opportunity—they have missed! Surely the State should be a model employer and a trustee for such a unique tradition of beauty. I think they should give encouragement to what looks like becoming a lost art. They should also assist the training of new craftsmen to carry it on. We on these Benches do not like these nationalised industries. We say they tend to become soulless, and in this particular instance, how right we are! I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I am sure the House was interested in the way in which the noble Lord put his Question. I am not quite sure whether he got "tiddley," or whether it was the barges, but he has been quite lively this after

  219
  noon! I think possibly he will find he is a little mistaken, and has been exaggerating a little in saying that this art has disappeared altogether. I think he will find that the Government are trying to encourage it.
  The policy of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive on this matter has been the subject of a Press notice issued by the British Transport Commission, and of a public statement by the Chairman of the Commission, copies of which I am sending to the noble Lord. These make it clear that the Executive have no intention of suppressing the decorative painting of the small proportion of long-distance canal boats which they own. There is no question of substituting numbers for the names borne by the craft, as has been alleged. Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission, speaking at the annual luncheon of the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association in London on Wednesday, March 2, said:
  "I would like to take this opportunity of making it absolutely clear that the British Transport Commission, and their Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, have no intention whatsoever of discouraging or vandalising in any way this pleasing art for the sake of imposing a standard livery. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to have the two things—the gay decoration of cabin doors, buckets and similar equipment, together with our 'house colours' of blue and yellow along the sides of the boats and where the name of the boat and that of the owners are painted. The general effect of the 'house colours' is, I think, bright and attractive. When our boats come in for repairs and repainting, the traditional 'fancy work' on cabin doors, water-cans and so on will be preserved.
  "It is a pity but it is true that the practice of decorating narrow boats in these traditional designs has been declining for many years and the number of painters skilled in this art are very few. Although we only own about 10 per cent. of the narrow boats, and a great many of these are not decorated in the old style, we shall take the greatest care of them, bearing in mind that they are also the homes of our employees."
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, I should like to add a sentence or two. I think the noble Lord's reply is unsatisfactory. He said that the British Transport Commission were not going to discourage this art. I think it is up to the Government and the British Transport Commission to go a great deal
  220
  further than "not discouraging." They should positively encourage. Some time ago it was suggested in a certain organ of the Press that we should have a Ministry of Pleasure. I think it would be a very good thing if we had such a Ministry to encourage gaiety and colour and frolic, and to supervise such depressing activities as those upon which the Canal and Inland Waterways Executive are apparently embarking. They are going to allow the buckets and the doors to be painted as individual taste pleases, but as for the rest it must have these "house colours" of blue and yellow—
  LORD SHEPHERD: Blue and gold.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Well then, gold; but gold usually fades into yellow, and then we have the good Tory colours going up and down the canals of Britain. We are not complaining, but we think there may be some question about the temptation in this new form of "old school tie." I think the Government should definitely encourage individualism in every possible direction—individual enterprise, individual forms of gaiety and amusement. Here is something which is only small, but it is symptomatic of this dull, dreary uniformity which seems to be descending upon the country at the present time. The noble Lord has spoken about wishing to have a brighter Britain. The Festival of Britain will take place in 1951, and I think he has lost a chance of making it a jolly good show. Instead, it will be uniform and drab, with everybody doing exactly what he is told by the Socialist Government—or perhaps there will be a Tory Government in 1951, in which case we shall do very much better. We have had a depressing reply from the noble Lord, because he has allowed himself to be subjected to that miserable uniformity which is the curse of to-day.
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I do not think I should allow the noble Lord's remarks to pass unanswered. My reply indicated that we were trying to rescue this art from oblivion and to arrest what has been going on for a long time—the disappearance of this art. I think that the painting of canal boats in the Tory colours is undesirable—perhaps there is no difficulty between us on that point!—and I only hope that the encouragement which

  221
  the Government are giving to this art will relieve us by the sight of more artistic efforts. I think we have successfully risen to the occasion.

  CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS
  The LORD SPEAKER on behalf of the LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN):
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General: Received and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on February 8 last discharged, and Bill committed.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
  Rural District of Bullingdon:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) ORDER, 1949
  Order, dated March 4, 1949, made by the Board of Trade, under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945: Laid before
  222
  the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949
  Order, dated March 4, 1949, made by the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  CHURCH DIGNITARIES (RETIREMENT) MEASURE, 1949
  Text of the Measures: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), together with Reports from the Ecclesiastical Committee, and to be printed.