Lords Sitting of 9 May 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD O'HAGAN on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Malmesbury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Read 2a.
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL
Read 2a.
TRENT RIVER BOARD BILL
Read 2a.
ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY"
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the following Question, of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether any further statement can now be made with regard to the submarine "Affray."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for putting the Question, as I have a statement to make. After it became clear that hope of saving life must be abandoned, a searching force, using the Asdic equipment, was formed to search on a 14-mile front along the probable course of the submarine. The search covers the area from just short of her diving position to the position where she expected to be the following morning—an area of 1,000 square miles. The search is complicated because the bed of the channel is littered with wrecks, and the Asdic echoes from them cannot easily be distinguished from
806
echoes from a submarine. More than seventy objects on the bottom have been pin-pointed, of which roughly one half have been eliminated, but the House will realise that identification is a slow process. Divers, who go down in doubtful cases, are hampered by tides and the weather. The contacts they have investigated so far have proved to be old wrecks of surface ships. A considerable searching force is at work, but it does not seem possible to cover the area thoroughly in much less than three weeks from now. The work of searching for her will be pressed on.
The "A" Class submarines have operated successfully, and without loss, for five years in all parts of the world. But as the reason for the loss of the "Affray" is still unknown, and as she is the first of her class to be lost, a full re-examination of the design and characteristics of the class has been made. As a result, I can assure your Lordships that vessels of the "A" Class are in every way satisfactory operational submarines, when on the surface, submerged or resting on the bottom. As regards escape, it is Admiralty policy to provide two methods, one through a small escape compartment situated just forward of the conning tower, which allows one or two men to escape at a time without flooding the main compartment. This is called a dry escape. The other method is through escape hatches which cannot be opened until inside and outside pressure is equalised by flooding the compartment in which they are fitted. "Affray" was fitted with both methods of escape. Investigation shows that if an "A" Class submarine is so severely damaged that two-thirds or more of the submarine becomes flooded with water, she may lie over on the bottom at an acute angle. With extensive flooding the number of survivors would in any case be small, but the chance of escape of any left alive would be made more hazardous by the flooding of a further compartment for the purpose of escape. Future drill for escape from "A" Class submarines will emphasise the importance of the dry-escape method which avoids additional flooding.
I should emphasise that the foregoing can have had no bearing on the accident to "Affray." Indeed, further

807
analysis and interrogation throw considerable doubt on whether any message or communication was received from "Affray," and the absence of marker buoys, oil, wreckage or survivors seems to indicate that major flooding took place at once and that all were lost. It has been decided to lift the temporary sea-going ban on "A" Class submarines fitted with the dry-escape equipment. Fitting of the remainder of the submarines in the class will be expedited and they will not be permitted to dive until this is done.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty for that full statement, and for the assurance of the complete re-testing and re-examination which have been made and which I am sure will inspire confidence.

PEERS' CHAMBER
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is unable to be in his place to-day, I have an announcement to make on our meetings after the Whitsuntide Recess. It is as follows. I am now able to inform the House that the work of restoring and re-seating our proper Chamber will be completed before the end of the Whitsun Recess. We shall, therefore, resume our Sittings in our proper chamber on Tuesday, May 29, at 2.30 p.m. Members of the House will, I am sure, also be interested to know that Committee Room "A" will have been re-furnished as a guest room for Peers and their guests, as recommended by the Offices Committee and approved by the House. This room will be available for use on Thursday, May 24.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the progress report, and to be assured that such complete arrangements have been made both for our work and for our play. I only trust that in the improvements which have been made the acoustics have been adequately attended to.

PICTURES FOR BRITISH EMBASSIES
2.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: 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 how many pictures have been sent for display in the official houses of British Ambassadors in foreign countries, as authorised under Section 1, subsection (1) (b) of the National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Act. 1935.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I am informed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Works that under Section 1 (1) (b) of the National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Act, 1935, eighty-one pictures belonging to the National Galleries have been sent to British Embassies.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply, but may I ask him this supplementary question—whether His Majesty's Government will consider the introduction of legislation this Session to extend Section 1 of the 1935 Act to cover the houses of Governors-General?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I see no objection whatever to extending the Act, but I cannot hold out any hope that it will be done this Session. The noble Earl will know the difficulty which we experienced some time ago in obtaining an agreement when we were dealing with the Tate Gallery Bill in 1947, and the British Museum Bill in 1949. Unanimous agreement among the trustees is a necessary preliminary, and without securing that we could not undertake to introduce legislation.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of that reply, I am not sure that I fully understand the position. Surely, legislation is a matter for Parliament, and not for the trustees. No doubt that point will be elaborated, as I understand that in any case legislation this Session is not possible. But does not that make it the more important that full use should be made of the existing legislation? Quite frankly, the distribution of eighty-one pictures among what must now

809
be almost eighty-one Embassies, each having considerable wall space, does not seem to be a very adequate use of an Act which was passed in 1935. In this Festival era could not the air of festivity be a little more widely extended to the walls of our Embassies?
LORD MAC DONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, as regards the trustees and legislation, I am advised that any legislation to amend the Act would have to be proposed by the trustees in unanimous agreement. As regards the lack of use of these facilities, the noble Viscount will remember that in 1949 an appeal was made in another place for the loan of pictures to the Government, particularly for use at Embassies overseas. The result has been very disappointing. This opportunity may be taken of reminding your Lordships generally that pictures lent in this way are treated with expert skill, and are sent only to suitable climates. They remain the property of the owners, and such loans can be made for a specific period of years.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that extremely understanding and sympathetic answer. May I also ask him to make sure that his answer finds its way to what-ever is the appropriate quarter? I should also like to ask this question. Is it not a fact that in many cases private owners have lent pictures? I remember, for instance, that when I was at the Embassy in Washington during the war, the only pictures there were those lent by Lord Lothian, when he was Ambassador, and those taken out by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, when he was Ambassador. Would it not be fitting that the appropriate authorities should not be behind private owners in their generosity?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I can give an undertaking that I will bring the matter to the notice of the appropriate authorities, but I do not think they have been much behind private owners.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, arising out of the question asked by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, do I understand that these eighty-one pictures come solely from the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, and that no account is taken of any picture which has been
810
either taken to a British Embassy by the reigning Ambassador or lent by some other donor?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am advised that the eighty-one pictures include those sent by the galleries named and by private owners.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, can the noble Lord reduce those figures further and exclude the number offered by private owners?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not without notice.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is exactly the question I have down on the Order Paper.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is it not a fact that there are a great many pictures in the basement of the Tate Gallery which for a long time have not seen the light of day? Could not better use be made of some of those?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is true.

PRICE OF HOUSE OF LORDS
HANSARD
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the price of Hansard of the House of Lords]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, as stated by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Written Answer in another place yesterday, the price of the daily issue of Hansard has been maintained at 6d. since 1923. With rising production costs, the loss in the financial year 1949–50 was approximately £45,000, taking into account all editions. Of this the House of Lords editions accounted for about £5,000. It has therefore been reluctantly decided to increase the price, in order to reduce the loss. The cost of the House of Lords editions will be raised from 6d. to 9d. for the daily part, and from

811
1s. to 1s. 6d. for the weekly edition. Proportionate increases will be made in the subscription rates. The new prices will take effect immediately after the Whitsun Recess.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether the loss is not partly accounted for by a very large, and desirable, free issue to Government Departments.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have not the details of the issue in question. I cannot believe that it is a very large proportion of the loss, but if the noble Lord will put down a Question, I can provide him with the details.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I ask whether the Commons issue has gone up by the same amount? Many of your Lordships will no doubt feel that our edition contains better material, but there is a great deal more volume in the daily parts of the Commons.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is something to be said for quality as against quantity. I think I am right in saying that the price of the daily issue of the House of Commons Hansard has been increased from 6d. to 9d., as has ours; but their weekly edition has been increased from 1s. 6d. to 2s. Therefore, in the latter some attention is paid to quantity and not to quality.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will examine the possibility of giving to those noble Lords who speak on any subject a rather larger free issue of the Hansard containing the particular debate. After one has made one's revisions there are few copies left, and often when one talks on a subject which is of great interest to many different people one is more or less under an obligation to pass round the appropriate copies of Hansard to a fairly large number of persons.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I will place that suggestion before my right honourable friend. So far as the noble Lord is concerned, I can see nothing against it, but I can envisage certain dangers. It might lead some noble Lords to take part in debates in order to benefit from the free issue.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, are well worth the money charged for them; and would it not be gladly subscribed by his correspondents?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sure that is absolutely true.

AIRDRIE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a, and passed.

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH (ROYAL (DICK) VETERINARY COLLEGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I do so with great pleasure because it enables me to pay tribute to what I consider the wonderful achievements of the National Health Service. I think it is not inappropriate that I should spend two or three minutes pointing out to your Lordships (and no doubt many of you are familiar with this fact) the tremendous changes which have been made in the medical services of this country by the organisation of the National Health Service, and the tremendous advantages which, as a result, are accruing to the population. Those of your Lordships who read the surveys of hospital regions which were made in the 'twenties, and which were detailed inspections of

813
the conditions of hospitals in those times, will recall the very different picture given by the health service of that time compared with the present service. For example, in the South-West region—the centre of which was Bristol, and which included the counties of the West—the only hospital with individual specialist services was one hospital in Bristol itself; and one other hospital had partial specialist service. I remember this very vividly, because when I was in another place I took the opportunity of bringing the matter forward in order that the need of great changes might be impressed on the Members of that other place. Those changes have now been brought into effect, and the result is that we have in this country a National Health Service unexampled anywhere in the world.
It is true that it has been necessary for the Government—because of the calls of National Defence, with which I think everyone in this House concurs—to fix a ceiling of £400,000,000 for expenditure on the National Health Service. I would remind the House that that is £7,000,000 more than it was last year. It has also been essential, because of the needs of National Defence, to make certain economies in the Health Service, as in other services, in order to bring our Budget within workable limits. That means that economies have to be made in order to make it possible for the National Health Service to contribute a quota to the needs of national defence. It has, regrettably, been found that the only way to enable expansion to continue in other directions is by shifting some of the expense to the patients. All other alternatives were explored and reviewed, and, of course, economies are always being made. In any case, every possible economy in the next two years will be needed. The reductions already made in hospital estimates are imposing severe difficulties on many hospital authorities, and we can well use for their benefit—especially in the many out-of-date institutions—all savings we can make. In selecting the services for which charges are to be made, the Government tried to choose the field where charges would obviously do least harm, and they chose the field of spectacles and dentures, because to a large extent they affect people who are well in health and able to make their own way and, therefore, able to make a con-
814
tribution as opposed to those who are sick and unable to do so.
I should like to remind the House that although it is true that 60 per cent. of the total expenses of the dental service was for dentures, 15 per cent. of the patients were children, and that this was almost entirely conservative dentistry. There is evidence, of which I know myself, that the charges for spectacles and dentures will slow up the rate of replacement, and make people more careful and less liable to lose their spectacles. Charges for appliances under the National Health Service are not new: I wish to emphasise that point. It is suggested that these charges are a departure from the principle of the National Health Service Act, and that no charges should be made. But charges have been made for appliances, some since the inception of the Service. The Government already have power to charge for medicines. That power has not been used, but charges are made for other things.
The Bill also makes provision—and this is a very important point—not only for charges on dentures and on spectacles, but also for an extension of the service in the way of providing for the treatment of respiratory tuberculosis—for which, unfortunately, there is a deficiency of accommodation in this country—by enabling patients suffering from that complaint to be treated in countries abroad. The first country to be dealt with is Switzerland, where the treatment has been developed over a period of many years and is very good. It is not better than the treatment here, but they have what we lack in this country: the extra beds which are necessary for the patients who cannot be treated as quickly as the medical practitioners in this country would like them to be treated. This clause is restricted to respiratory tuberculosis for the simple reason that respiratory tuberculosis is the most dangerous form of the disease. It is infectious and spreads tuberculosis, whereas bone tuberculosis and other forms do not; they can be treated in this country more easily, and with less danger to the general population, than can respiratory tuberculosis.
Those of your Lordships who have consulted the Bill will know that Clause 1 deals specifically with the charges to be made for dentures and spectacles to be supplied, both by hospitals and under the

815
family practitioner service, and the amount corresponds roughly to half the cost to the Exchequer of supplying the appliances, including, in the case of spectacles, the cost of sight testing. No charge, however, is to be made to any in-patient. In the hospital services the charge will be made to out-patients when the article is supplied. In the family practitioner services the charge will be made by the dentist or optician, whose remuneration from the executive Council will be reduced by an equal amount. That is a simple and straightforward way of collecting the charge. Apart from the provision for in-patients, there will be no exemptions to the charges. Anyone who cannot afford to pay them without hardship will, however, be entitled to apply to the National Assistance Board for help.
The charges will apply to all cases where the examination or testing of sight leading to the supply of dentures or glasses under the Hospital Service takes place after the date on which Regulations to be made under the Bill come into force. In the case of the family practitioner services, the charges will apply where the contract or arrangement with the dentist or the sight test, in the case of spectacles, takes place on or after that date. Replacements of dentures or spectacles which are lost or broken owing to carelessness will continue to be dealt with in the family practitioner services, under Section 44 of the principal Act, and the corresponding provisions in the hospital service will also continue.
Clause 2 provides that the charges may be reduced by Order in Council, subject to an affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament, but there will be no power to make increased charges. Increased charges would need an additional Act of Parliament. Clause 3 contains provisions empowering the Ministers to make arrangements for the treatment of respiratory diseases abroad, in the first place in Switzerland, but also in other places. Clause 4 extends the powers of the National Assistance Board to enable assistance to be given to those who are unable to pay the charges without hardship. The restriction by which the Board were precluded from granting assistance in respect of any medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental requirements is waived in respect of charges to
816
be made under the Bill. The Board are also specifically enabled to assist people engaged in full-time work, whom they are otherwise precluded from helping. These are concessions which, in my view, go to the limit of fairness, and make quite sure that no hardship will be imposed on those who get spectacles or dentures. Clause 5 was inserted as a Government Amendment in another place to meet strongly expressed arguments that the power to charge ought not to continue indefinitely. The clause provides that the charges will come to an end by April 1, 1954, unless extended by Order in Council, following an Address in both Houses of Parliament. In my view this Bill is necessary. It fulfils a very useful purpose and, I believe, will contribute substantially to the national health. For this reason I commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Haden-Guest.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure it will be the wish of your Lordships on all sides that we should congratulate the noble Lord who has just moved the Second Reading of this Bill on what is, I understand, the first occasion on which he has stood at the Box for the purpose of introducing a Government measure. The noble Lord started his speech by paying some tribute to the great achievements of the National Health Scheme. I should like to echo his words and, at the same time, remind him that we can all share in the satisfaction and reward that come from that good piece of legislative work, for the National Health Scheme was born of the National Health Service White Paper of 1944 isued by the Coalition Government.
The Bill which he has moved divides itself into two parts. One part— provision for treatment overseas for respiratory tuberculosis—I am sure is welcomed by all who have knowledge of this dreadful scourge of humanity. This matter in the past year has been pressed persistently upon His Majesty's Government by Opposition Members in another place, and it is therefore only right that there should be a feeling of satisfaction on this side, as well as on the Government Benches, that this provision has now been introduced. As regards the other part

817
of the Bill, providing for charges to be made for spectacles and teeth, I understand that it is the wish of the Government that the Bill should pass through all its stages forthwith, because since advance notice of these charges has been given there has been a great rush for spectacles and teeth, and this is causing a great burden on the Exchequer. There is a sort of "festival of spectacles and teeth" going on at present, and the sooner this Bill is passed, the more quickly will that be regulated.
Our support of the National Health Ser-vice does not bind us, any more than it binds members of the Labour Party, to support a "free-for-all" scheme. In the view of the Government the cost is rising beyond the nation's ability to carry it. It is perhaps worth while to consider for a few moments what the bill for the National Health Service has been. For the first twelve months it was running at the rate of £273,000,000 a year. In the next twelve months, to March, 1950, the bill was £358,000,000—a rise of £85,000,000. For the third year, to March, 1951, the bill was £393,000,000 a year, a rise of £35,000,000. This is contrary to the assurance of the late Minister of Health, Mr. Bevan, that after the initial making good was completed the costs would start to drop.
The Government, through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have now had to announce that the ceiling must be £400,000,000, and that by imposing these proposed charges the total bill will be kept approximately within this sum. But if £400,000,000 is to be the ceiling, and if the administration of the scheme continues as at present, I believe that the Government may find themselves in a difficulty within twelve months from now. If there is to be a ceiling, that ceiling must be related to our productivity, otherwise the country will not be able to carry the tremendous weight of the scheme. There will have to be economies in the administration. We all know there is a great amount of waste going on. Mr. Herbert Morrison recently made in another place the suggestion that it would be a good thing if every three or four years nationalised industries were, so to speak, reviewed by Parliament, and possibly by some outside surveying point. If that is right for nationalised industries, I wonder whether it would not be a good
818
thing to consider something of the same sort for the National Health scheme, to see whether there could not be, from independent, outside and authoritative men's brains, suggestions for improvements and economies in the administration. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite will take note of that particular suggestion which I make with all humility.
For myself, I cannot see that any sacred principle, either of Socialism or of any other "ism," is violated by this charge for teeth and spectacles. The opposite view to that was put by a member of the Socialist Party in another place when he said:
"Enshrined in the Act is the cardinal Socialist principle: 'To each according to his need'."
Those were his words. Surely, if that is a sacred principle, it implies a means test to determine what is the need of each person, and I thought that the means test was one of the things to which the Party opposite were very much opposed. The Bill says that in certain cases benefits may continue free, and that in others the people must pay part of the benefit obtained. It seems to me that the only question is: At what stage should the charge commence? The Government have laid down in this Bill at what stage that charge should commence, and we on this side of the House do not quarrel with the Government decision on that particular point. I wonder how Mr. Bevan and those who follow him manage to defend heavy taxation on all members of the community, the better off and the poorer, in order that the comparatively well-off people—and the only class of people now comparatively well-off are the heads of the national corporations— may obtain free teeth and spectacles. It seems to me a somewhat inconsistent viewpoint. It is peculiar politics, a sort of Alice in Wonderland economics, to increase still further, as they would do, the burden on the poor in order to allow the better-off section to have a free issue of things for which they can well afford to pay in part, if not in whole. We on this side of the House have no delight at these charges, but we consider them necessary at the, present time and we shall not oppose them.
I have listened to distinguished members of the Government, noble Lords and noble and learned Lords, moving the Second Reading of a considerable number

819
of Bills. It seems to me that there is a certain technique which the Government spokesman adopts. He starts off in one of two ways. Either he describes the Bill in terms of restraint but of definite approval, or he describes the Bill as regrettable: he says that it is not a very good Bill, that he hopes he will never have to introduce such a Bill again but that, nevertheless, the Bill is necessary in the circumstances. It is not the second technique which we have heard to-day. It is usually followed by an exposition backed by supporting statistics of formidable kinds; and, finally, all Ministers, using both methods, always ask for the full support of the House in commending the Bill to them. I feel that I cannot conclude without conforming to this particular pattern of Government procedure. Let me say at once that we accept the Bill as a regrettable necessity, brought about by a too hurried introduction of the full scheme before the professions, the hospitals and the institutions were administratively ready to undertake the full burden.
As regards the statistics, let me say this. Seven and a half million sets of dentures have been supplied, and—again to conform with this need for making the statistics formidable—a short calculation will show that, on the basis of three meals a day for 365 days of the year, National Health teeth are chewing 7,515,000,000 meals a year. As regards the statistics on spectacles, 22,000,000 pairs of spectacles have been supplied, which is almost equal to one pair for every two persons of the population. If you take a pair of spectacles, you will find that they have roughly eighteen inches of frame, so these 22,000,000 pairs of spectacles are absorbing no less than 6,250 miles of spectacle frame material, which I think it may interest your Lordships to know, is approximately the same distance as from London to Wadi-Halfa and back. Finally, if I cannot enthusiastically support the Bill, because I feel that the causes which have made it necessary might have been to some ex-tent avoided, we accept the Bill, and we shall not hinder its passage through your Lordships' House to-day.
3.18 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining with the noble
820
Lord who has just sat down in congratulating the noble Lord opposite on moving the Second Reading of this Bill in such an excellent and explicit way. We have to welcome this Bill with mixed feelings. One of the features about Clause 3 is that it provides treatment abroad for people suffering from respiratory tuberculosis. That seems to me an entirely admirable provision, which I feel sure will cause great pleasure to every-one. If we can say one rather unpleasant thing about it, it is: why was not such a provision brought in a long time ago? Anyhow, it is here now, and we are very pleased to welcome it.
My second point is rather sad, because one cannot help feeling sorry that it has proved necessary temporarily to depart from what was a fine principle in the National Health Service Act. I think we have to agree that some such move is probably necessary at the present time, in view of the commitments which our country has to face. One of the things that worried us until the Bill came along was that, if some charge were not made for something, the general standard of the Service might deteriorate; we felt that we might be left with a second-rate Service, rather than a nearly first-rate Service, with a charge for one or two little things. I am not sure why spectacles and dentures were chosen as the appliances to be charged for, but one reason may be that they were the appliances where a good deal of extravagance could be indulged in. In just the same way that there is a very great incentive to work if people are paid something, it is a great encouragement to economy if some small charge, no matter what size it is, has to be paid for the things which one needs. I feel that the fact that the National Health Service can be said to be in a financial danger is not due to the Service itself, but rather is it due to the extravagant way in which certain of these facilities have been taken and used, both by the patients and by the hospitals. With those few words, I should like to add my welcome to the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.21 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, like my distinguished colleague who has just sat down, I rise to support this Bill, and I join with him in congratulating the noble Lord (a distinguished member of my profession) who moved the Second

821
Reading. It is naturally a source of satisfaction to me that there should be a Fellow and a Member of my College entitled to sit on the Front Bench—I am not committing myself as to whether it should be the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, but certainly on the Front Bench. I give my support to this Bill, not only because of the immediate need for it, which seems to me an unfortunate thing, but because I have always thought the first part of the Bill was desirable. Unless there is some charge, even if it is only a token charge, for medicines and appliances, there will not only be what has been called a grave extravagance, where there is criticism of the rearmament programme, but there will be wanton waste.
We know from long experience that there will always be waste if people get something for nothing; and proper care will not be taken of appliances so received. It is, I think, unfortunate that appliances should be obtainable without charge if the individuals have the means to contribute towards that charge. It has been the universal experience of hospitals and doctors from generation to generation that they must make some token charge if, for instance, in a minor matter like the care of a medicine bottle, precautions are to be exercised. In the old days, unless the hospital;, which were dispensing freely and without charge to anyone, asked for a penny on the bottle, the bottle was never brought back. It was hung up on a string and then the wicked boys of the family threw stones at it. It was no hardship to the individual patient that he had to contribute. Moreover, unless there is some contribution in regard to medicines as well as appliances, people will become medicine-minded—asking for another bottle of medicine and expecting always to get it; and again there will be wanton waste. I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, into statistics, nor will I try to ascertain how much string it takes to reach from St. Paul's to Moscow. I would, however, remind noble Lords that it is very difficult for a doctor to refuse another prescription. If a patient says that he feels that only by another bottle will his cure be completed, the doctor may not be convinced, but it is not easy for him to refuse it. If, however, the patient had to pay a token
822
fee, the demand would not then be so insistent.
There is one point with which I should like the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading to deal, and that is the reason for subsection (2) of Clause 1. It seems to me to put forward a curious criterion. What is the reason for selecting an in-patient of a hospital for a free issue, when his need may be much less than that of an out-patient? In fact, to-day the in-patients of a hospital are often of a higher income group than the out-patients. The universal application of the National Health Services Act has thrown open the doors of the hospitals to all, whatever their income may be; whereas in the old days a patient, to obtain admission to the hospital, had to satisfy the authorities that he could not afford to provide for his treatment out-side. Now the weekly wage-earner is in competition for his hospital bed with many who can quite well afford to provide the treatment for themselves. Why should this particular class, which may include many who are well able to pay for their appliances, be selected for a free issue? I am not intending to move any Amendment at any stage on that particular point, because I realise the importance of this Bill, whatever imperfections I may think it contains. This Bill has to reach the Statute Book as promptly as possible. However, I should think that the proper policy would be to give freely to those who need it. That, of course, would again be exposed to attack by the slogan of "No means test." But noble Lords have to submit to the most meticulous means test ever devised by man, and it is to be further strictly tightened by proposals in the present Finance Bill. We are supposed to accept the idea that there should be no means test for the man who wants to take something out of the "kitty," while there is the most meticulous means test for the privilege of being allowed, or rather compelled, to put something in.
One other reflection passes through my mind, and that is in regard to visitors. Why should these appliances be provided to visitors to this country? It is a great pleasure to noble Lords to entertain visitors from other countries in your Lordships' convenient premises. It is all very well to invite two distinguished visitors from the United States to lunch, as

823
I have done to-day, but I do not expect to have to provide them with dentures to eat the lunch and with spectacles to see what is on the menu. I should have thought there was a possible line of economy there. I agree with the argument that the introduction of charges may lead to a more reasonable use of the Health Service, but to build up statements that this represents a complete disintegration of the social legislation is just absurd. The situation is made difficult at the moment by the fact that the former Minister of Health is obviously trying to secure the leadership of the Conservative Party—and with the worst brand of conservatism. He has devised a service, and now he says, "Noli me tangere; ipse dixit"—"I have created this thing; leave it alone. I am a last-ditch man. Nobody must touch this. The status quo is what I stand for." If that is not ultra conservatism, I must leave the Cross Benches and try to find out on which side of the House I should sit.
3.29 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations which have come from all sides of the House to my noble friend on his maiden speech from the Front Bench. Unfortunately, I feel compelled also to condole with him, for I am quite unable to join in this happy agape of agreement which your Lordships are enjoying this afternoon—I say "agreement," but the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, was, I thought, perhaps a little out of tune in his enthusiasm. The other speakers have all regretted the necessity which has arisen; whilst recognising it. I, myself, rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, who introduced the Bill did not choose the second technique which was spoken of by Lord Balfour of Inchrye and say that the Bill was a thoroughly bad and beastly Bill which could not be avoided and, there-lore, we had better take our medicine and make the best of it. Frankly, that is the most charitable feeling that I, personally, can have towards the Bill. I am one of those who believe that in this Bill there has been a serious loss, or rather a sacrifice, of principle. It is for that reason that I condole with the noble Lord who has introduced it. Probably he has been somewhat consoled by the provision
824
for special foreign treatment for some cases of tuberculosis, but I cannot believe that he feels any more enthusiasm than I do for the introduction of charges in respect of dentures and glasses, for the noble Lord, like myself, must have declared from many Socialist platforms that a free health service was an essential part of the Socialist attitude towards the happiness and good health of our people.
That is the principle which is sacrificed. It may be that it is only slightly sacrificed, and it may be that, as the result of sacrificing it, certain abuses will be avoided. But I take leave to doubt somewhat the extent of those abuses. I have never had it made completely clear to me of exactly what they consist. It is said there is carelessness in the use of glasses. That some carelessness does exist is, no doubt, true; but I doubt very much if it is extremely extensive. I have a pair of glasses, and I am at pains not to break them, because if I do so I am then at a great disadvantage for a considerable period afterwards. Those who obtain their glasses through the Health Service must, presumably, be under the same disadvantage. Moreover, I do not think that many people can go casually to the dentist and have all their teeth out for the joy of having a denture fitted. It is true that all of us who have had toothache have thought, from time to time, that we should like to be rid of our own teeth and have no more pain, but by the time we have had the one offending tooth treated, that view fades away. So, as I say, I am doubtful of the extent of the abuses. If abuses exist, I suggest that it is the business of the Department to find methods of com-bating them without a complete sacrifice of principle.
This is a very sad occasion for those who feel as I do—and I know I am far from being alone in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and I think also the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, mentioned the ceiling of expenditure which has been set on the Health Service. All expenses, all prices, are rising at the present time, and as Lord Balfour of Inchrye said—and I agree—in a year's time those expenses will presumably have gone up still further, which means that the ceiling will have become more inadequate. Where are we to go from there? What is to be

825
the next victim of this cheese-paring system? I do not know. But the principle has now been abandoned and there can, it seems to me, be no consistent limit if the ceiling is set at £400,000,000. If the service for which the £400,000,000 is to be paid is to become increasingly expensive, then, clearly to the charges for dentures and spectacles we shall have to add charges in respect of artificial limbs, hearing aids and so on. There can, it seems to me, be no end to this. I am therefore very deeply alarmed.
It has been said that this is a necessary economy in this time of stringency and of vast expenditure on armaments. I feel that that is a contention which cannot be taken seriously. The total Budget expenditure this year is in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000,000. The economies to be made—these contemptible economies on dentures and spectacles—are to amount, in the present year, to £13,000,000 and to £25,000,000 in a whole year. I really cannot think that that is a serious contribution to our rearmament. I say emphatically that I cannot accept that point of view. I know that when one is making economies, every economy that is made is resisted by someone, and often the reason, or, at any rate, one of the grounds on which it is resisted, is that it is so small. Really, what are we doing on this occasion? What we are doing is taking a very small amount for our rearmament programme. And from whom are we taking it? We are taking it from those who are less blessed than some others in either teeth, or sight. This is, in effect, a special tax on those to whom fortune has been less kind than it has been to others. In that sense, I cannot believe that any of your Lordships really welcome this measure. It has been described in another place as a "mean, cruel little Bill." Those are hard words. I do not believe that any of my colleagues on the Front Bench are either mean or cruel. My knowledge of those whom I know well leads me to believe exactly the opposite. I therefore would extend my condolences to them on the necessity which they are under of supporting this mean Bill.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the House will, I think, have been greatly
826
interested in the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord. Lord Faringdon. He has shown that by his eloquence, as well as by his principles, he is qualifying for a post in an alternative Government which, no doubt, will take the place of the present admirable representatives on that Front Bench—after a pretty long interval. I am not concerned to defend the Government, or to take part in a "civil war," but in the speeches to which we have listened reference has been made to expense and a great deal of waste and extravagance, and if the noble Lord's principles were carried out, then indeed the Welfare State would be in danger. In fact, it would be completely undermined. After all, what did the noble Lord say? He said, in effect: "A mere economy of £25,000,000! What is the good of £25,000,000?" If that is the way in which economies are regarded I am not surprised that the total Budget Estimates go up year by year until they touch over £4,000,000,000. Before the "noble Lord comes to occupy—if he ever does—an important administrative post in whatever Government he may be offered one—and I say this without any Party rancour—I trust that he will begin to learn the first element of sound administration. Whether you are a Socialist, a Liberal or a Conservative, it is economy in administration; and the spirit which finds expression in such remarks as: "What is £25,000,000? That is not worth taking," is going to damn all administration and make any Welfare State or any other sort of State quite impossible.
After all, what is this principle of the free service? There is no difference between us as to the value of the Health Service. The whole of the structure was largely worked out by us when we were together, and, whatever Government had come in, a National Health Service would have been introduced. But we have to maintain it, and it is absurd to talk about it as a free service. It is not a free service in the loose way in which the noble Lord has been talking about it. It has to be paid for in contributions by the contributors to National Insurance, the workers and employers, and by a large Exchequer contribution, which comes out of taxation, and that to-day means very largely out of indirect taxation upon the same people who are contributors to the Service. The noble Lord will better further the interests of the National Health Ser-

827
vice, which we have every intention of maintaining, and maintaining efficient and intact in the truest sense of the word, by not girding at what in these days are necessary economies, which, carefully ad-ministered, will make the burden much less onerous on the people who are served than either extra taxation or extra contributions. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to defend the Government against their own—should I call them?—supporters in the way I have been doing, but I care too much about this Service, its maintenance and its efficiency to let pass unanswered the kind of speech which is going to make this Service quite impossible.
3.41 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but since my noble friend Lord Faringdon made his speech, although he was alone on this side of the House in taking the line he did, I would now say that he is speaking for a large volume of opinion in the country, in your Lordships' House and in another place. There are a great many of us who, as a matter of principle, sincerely regret this breach in the policy of a free health service. When the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, takes it upon himself to belabour my noble friend, I feel it necessary to intervene. When the noble Viscount talks about loving the Health Service, I am reminded of the walrus and the carpenter before they devoured the oysters. Our whole case is that this is only a beginning. If a Conservative Government unfortunately and miserably took office, this is a precedent which could be followed almost ad infinitum. I shall not delay your Lordships. I wish only to say that my noble friend is not alone, and I am grateful to him for the courageous stand he has taken.
3.42 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken for their kind references to myself. I agree that there is a case for investigating economy in administration, in management and costing generally. That is in course of being done; but though economies are to be made in that direction, they could not have contributed to the present Budget. That is one reason why provision for making these charges
828
which could be levied now had to be chosen, and not something that would bear fruit in the future. I thought that when my noble friend was talking about the yards and miles of spectacle material, he had the Festival spirit in him. I hope he will continue it at the Festival on the South Bank. My noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson, whom I also thank for his kind reference to myself, regretted the charges. But, of course, there have been charges since the beginning. This charge is a small one, and will not fall on anyone out of work or sick who cannot pay it. In the present state of full employment, I do not regard it as a serious burden on anyone. I think this matter has been exaggerated, and I do not feel that I stand here, or ought to be standing here, in a white sheet. I think it is a reasonable charge to be made in the present circumstances. There is an old proverb—and it is a good one—that a man must cut his coat according to his cloth.
With regard to the second point raised by my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson, this applies only to patients who are in hospital. Patients who are under treatment in hospital are not necessarily surgical cases, or patients in hospital for a short time. They include, for example, mental patients and other classes of patient whom it would be impracticable to charge, as I think my noble friend will agree on reflection when he sees the complete list. I do not think that I need further extend my reply. On the whole, the House agrees with the Bill. There have been expressions of regret. But I do not feel that when I stood up on the street corner as a Socialist with the noble Lord (or did we stand together?), and he and I made speeches to the general public—consisting of two men and a small boy—we were expressing views in contradiction to those which we are expressing at the present time. This is a great Service. In helping to back up the National Defence, we are performing a service to the National Health Service, an essential service to the nation and I think that needs no apology.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.2
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE CORONATION STONE
3.46 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA rose to call attention to the historical associations of the Coronation Stone, to make a suggestion as to its disposal; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, in these days of the dangerous present and of the forbidding future, I delay the House for a few moments in speaking about the past. To-day I have the privilege of being able to speak about a curious object —a stone; a stone of a strange shape, twenty-six inches by sixteen inches by ten-and-a-half inches; not a very valuable stone, made of what is called calcareous sandstone, to be found in most places in the world. It is the Stone of Destiny. Anybody might say at once, "Why speak about a stone because it is old? Are not all stones old?" Of course, that is true. But this one is so wrapped up with history and ceremonial and prophecy that it stands as something unique in the world.
Scientists tell us that our earth has been existing for 2,000,000,000 years. What is interesting is how short a time in our history there has been any real record of that history. If we go back more than 2,000 or 3,000 years, we cannot get anything reliable about the history of man. I know that in these times it is very fashionable to decry any old documents or any legends of the past, and even the Bible is looked upon as something quite imaginary. It is so easy to decry the evidences of the past. But I take my stand by the author of a book called Thoughts and Adventures. In that book there is an essay on Moses. The author of the book, oddly enough, is Mr. Winston Churchill. I should like to quote some words from his essay on Moses. They are as follows:
"We believe that the most scientific view, the most up-to-date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible story literally. … We may be sure that all these things happened just as they were set down according to the Holy Writ. We may believe that they happened to people not very different from ourselves, and that the impressions those people received were faith-fully recorded, and have been transmitted across the centuries with far more accuracy than many of the telegraphed accounts we read of the goings-on of to-day. … Let the men of science and of learning expand their knowledge and probe with their researches every detail of the records which have been
830
preserved to us from these dim ages. All they will do is to fortify the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths which have lighted so far the pilgrimage of man."
Of course, that is in reference to the Bible. Just as we must pay our respects to what is in the Bible, there are other records which we must not entirely despise, or think imaginary.
All dates before Christ are very difficult to determine. The calendar was very odd, and the Bible is no great help on dates. But, so far as I can imagine, it must have been about 1900 B.C.—nearly 4,000 years ago—that Jacob, afterwards to be called Israel, had his great dream. He had this Stone as the pillow upon which he slept when he had the dream; and in the dream he received from Jehovah a promise that his descendants would be a great people and populate the whole world, and that all the nations of the world would thereby be blessed. Jacob was so impressed that he turned the Stone on end and anointed it, saying; "This Stone which I have set up for a pillow shall be God's House." And that Stone became for them an enduring witness of the great divine promise, and on his deathbed Jacob instructed Joseph to guard it well.
That Stone was looked upon as sacred by the Israelites, and was their greatest possession. Through all the wilderness and the wanderings it was taken with them. You can see on it to-day how it has been worn by the many journeys that it took on those days. At long last it found its true home in Jerusalem, in the Temple, alongside the Ark of the Covenant. Those two things were to the Israelites the two most sacred things in the world. All the Kings of the Royal House of David were crowned upon the Stone, until we come to the last King of Judea, Hezekiah. Hezekiah's history concerns us a little—for this reason. He conspired with the Egyptians to overcome Nebuchadnezzar. They were defeated, and Hezekiah was brought up before Nebuchadnezzar; both his sons were killed before him, and he had his eyes put out. That was meant to be the end of the Royal House of David. Well, Jeremiah, a prophet of those days, had always prophesied disaster for Judea if the policy of Hezekiah was continued.
It is very odd that, when one looks in the Bible and sees a catalogue of the

831
remarkable things that were taken from the Temple and Jerusalem, there is no mention of what must have been the most valuable thing of all—namely, the Ark of the Covenant. I can quite see that Nebuchadnezzar, not knowing the history, did not think the Stone valuable; but he must have thought that the Ark of the Covenant was valuable. The Ark of the Covenant disappeared. It was obviously taken by somebody who had, first of all, a privileged position, such as Jeremiah had, and was hidden away. Whether it is hidden to-day in Palestine, or whether he took it with him and it is buried to-day on the hill of Tara, nobody knows. But it was certainly taken by Jeremiah, who also took the Stone. He left Palestine and went into Egypt, and he took with him the two daughters of Hezekiah, Tamar and Scota—and this is a most important point. Jeremiah dwelt in Egypt for some time, and then there is evidence to show that he went as far west as he could, and stopped on the way in Spain, where the younger daughter, Scota, was married. But he ended up in Ireland with the elder daughter, Tamar, and she was married to the King of Ireland of the day.
It is interesting to notice in Irish records how Jeremiah was proclaimed on arrival as the great prophet, known in Irish language as Ollam Fodla; and wrapped up with the great prophet are all the stories and legends: the "Stone wonderful" as it was referred to—"lia fail." As I have said, Princess Tamar married the King of Ireland. The King's name was Hereman, and the date was 600 B.C. All the Kings of Ireland from that date were crowned upon the Stone on Tara Hill for a thousand years, and it was not until later, in the fifth century, that Fergus, who was King of Ireland, moved into Scotland. Whether he conquered it, or just occupied it, I cannot find out, but he became the first King of Argyll. Knowing the value of having respect, and desiring to be crowned King of Scotland upon that Stone, he sent for it from Ireland, and brought it from Tara to a place called Dunstaffnage, which was his capital. There he was crowned upon it, and became King Fergus the Great.
So it went on; and in the reign of Conran, in 563 A.D., he, being the third King of Argyll, at the request of St. Colomba sent the Stone to the island
832
which was then called Hy, and is now known as Iona. St. Colomba took a very prominent part in the early development of Christianity, and the island of Iona is always remembered and held sacred through the activities of St. Colomba in those days. Colomba died with his head upon the Stone. It remained there for 300 years. The Kings of Argyll were crowned on it until we come to MacAlpin, who became King of Scotland in the ninth century. He moved his capital from Perth, and the Stone was taken from Iona to Scone. It was therefore in Scotland for no fewer than 700 years. Finally, we come to what we might call modern days—that is, Edward I, 1296. He took the Stone to London. After the Battle of Bannockburn it should have been restored to Scotland. Whether it was in the Treaty or not is a little difficult to say, but certainly all the other regalia was restored to Scotland, though the Stone remained in England. It was not until James VI became King of England that, so to speak, it found its rightful place.
I want your Lordships to notice that in the Coronation Service no mention is ever made of the King of England: it is always to the King of Great Britain and Ireland. It is of no interest to anybody to be crowned upon this Stone unless whoever is crowned is a descendant of David, and the Kings of Scotland claim to be descended—and rightly, I maintain —from the royal line of the House of David. I draw the attention of those of your Lordships who are interested to the very mystical ceremony of the Coronation, so very analogous to the ancient Israel's coronation. I just want to put those years, in their right order: 1,300 years with Israel; 1,000 years at Tara; 900 years in Scotland, and 600 years here. Your Lordships will admit that it is a Stone with a tremendous history.
Now we come to the present day. I do not want noble Lords in this debate to talk about the recent incident of theft and sacrilege. That undoubtedly shocked many people. But when people hold fanatical views their actions can be explained, if not forgiven, and I ask your Lordships this question: If that Stone had remained in Scotland, do you think there would have been a raid by English people to get it back to England? This is a sacred Stone, and it interests us so

833
little that not one Bishop sits upon the Episcopal Benches while we talk about one of the most sacred parts of our Coronation Service. I am Irish with English blood. I am not in any way connected with Scotland; nor have I anything to do with Scotland. And therefore I can speak entirely independently of what one might call racial prejudice. Of the Scots I have very definite opinions. I look upon them as one of the most remarkable and virile races of the world. They have an intense native patriotism. In their view, Scotland is the only country in the world; and yet, unlike so many other people who indulge in very strong national patriotism, their patriotism does not, as it does so frequently elsewhere, show itself in any warlike hate, which is the danger of tremendous national patriotism. I must say that I find this trait wholly admirable. Sometimes I wish we in England had some of that pride in ourselves in the present, such reverence of our past and such confidence in the future as is possessed by the Scots.
They claim that this Stone was taken from them and that they have a grievance. Of course, one can invent other grievances. If Ireland were a loyal subject to His Majesty, there would be a very strong case indeed for taking the Stone back to Ireland, where it had been for a thousand years. And when we think to-day of the new Israel, struggling bravely to make a new kingdom in the land where such wonderful things happened in the past, they also, if they had a King descended from the Royal House, might make a claim to have the Stone returned to them of right. Anyhow, to-day there is no King of Ireland and there is no King of Judah, so those particular claims do not arise. But were the claim to arise from Israel, I do not think anybody could resist it, because the prophecy is that it should be returned there some day. Some people say: "If you send it to Scotland it will encourage Scottish nationalism." My Lords, Scottish nationalism exists to-day; and since when has Scottish nationalism been anything but a help to Great Britain? It is 500 years since the Scots were in any way anti-British. I take the view that this realm is not England and Scotland, but Great Britain; and I speak with the double claim of having, so to speak, the wish for the Stone to be in England and a wish for it to be in Ireland. After a
834
great deal of consideration I myself take the view—because its connection with Tara is something very dear to me—that it should go back to Scotland to-day. There it would be guarded well. I do not think for one moment that a Coronation Service should take place anywhere but in the Abbey. There can be only one Coronation—in the centre of the Empire. The idea of having two or three Coronations in different countries is absurd. But were the Stone to be in Scotland it could easily be brought up with, I am sure, the consent of all Scotland, to any Coronation, which I hope will be many, many years ahead. I think some arrangement of that sort could be agreed upon.
Some people think that we should be parted from the Stone if it went to Scotland. Why should we be parted from it? It is part of Great Britain, and I ask this about Scotland: Are they to be deprived of all the pageantry of their old great Kingdom? Everything has shifted down to London, and nothing much is left with them. This amalgamation with us has meant for them that all the traditions of Kingship and their past have dis-appeared, and I think that is hard. From the point of view of nationalism, I feel that it would be a gesture to show that it is not a question of England and Scotland, but of Great Britain alone. I hope that noble Lords who speak in this debate will look upon the matter objectively, and will not relate any decision as to the future of this Stone to any of the immediate past happenings. I feel that that would be a great mistake. I would conclude by asking the Government, in their wisdom, to make a decision upon this point; and I would entreat them, because I am sure it is the right thing to do, to send the Stone and the Chair to a place in Scotland where it will be loved, reverenced and guarded by His Majesty's most loyal and devoted Northern subjects. I beg to move for Papers.
4.10 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, if I have managed to hear my noble friend Lord Brabazon correctly, I rejoice to think that my views are very much the same as his. We are very fortunate at the present time in having a Union, a United Kingdom, and if there is anything in the word "union" we

835
should be able to discuss this question quietly and calmly. I can quite understand that the English people are anxious to retain any historical relics belonging to their country. The Scottish people are similarly anxious to retain any relics belonging to theirs. I think the greatest disaster would be for any one country to try to make a "corner," or a sort of monopoly, in historical relics. That would be disastrous. We have, as I say, a Union, and we have often found that union means sharing: there cannot be unilateral arrangements on such matters as this; what applies to one country should apply to the other, too.
What is the history of this Stone of Scone, or Stone of Destiny, as it is some-times called? Very few people really know what its history is. There are Urge numbers of professors of history at different universities, many writers of history all over the country, and all kinds of experts, self-appointed and otherwise, all wrangling at the present time about the history of the Stone. Some say it was Jacob's pillow; others say it never was. Some people say it was an Irish stone; others say it never was. Some say the Kings of Scotland were crowned upon it; but I have never heard of any Scottish king who was crowned on this Stone or, indeed, on any other stone. There is a sort of mist about its past and no one seems to have the correct facts about its history. It is enough to realise that for about 600 years the Stone has been in England. But it is sufficient for us to know that it has come to be looked upon as a sort of palladium that ensures that wherever the Stone of Destiny is found a Scottish race shall reign. That is the myth that has been associated with it for 600 years. Since there is this Union of the English and the Scottish people, since the English people have kept it for 600 years, why should not we in Scotland keep it for the next 600 years? Union, as I say, means sharing, and I think the Stone should be returned to the North.
As to the exact place for its keeping, I would point out that in England it has, of course, been in the keeping of the. Church of England, in the National Church of Westminster Abbey. If we had it in Scotland why should it not be in the care of our Scottish National Church, in the same way, its resting place
836
being in Edinburgh? We shall be having a meeting of the Scottish Church Assembly within the next three days. I, as a member of that Assembly, know that the question of the Stone is coming up for discussion almost at once. It will come before what is called the greatest and most important committee in our Assembly, which is the Committee of Church and Nation. 1 cannot, of course, tell your Lordships what their deliverance or decision will be; but I am fairly sure that the Committee of Church and Nation will suggest to the Assembly that they should put forward an offer to take over the custody of the Stone, for keeping in St. Giles's in Edinburgh.
I hope that English people will not brush this matter aside and regard it as of no importance. I would remind your Lordships that the Church Assembly is the representative gathering of the Scottish Church. It is the largest gathering of our churchmen, who hold their religious opinions as firmly as do the English people. If English people attempted to brush this matter aside there would be a great deal of trouble. Therefore, I ask all English people to give such an offer as I have suggested, if it comes, the serious, earnest and grave consideration to which it is entitled. I would remind your Lordships that His Majesty's Government is represented in the Assembly by the Lord High Commissioner, who is a member of your Lordships' House—I am speaking of the noble Viscount, Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope. There are many other important persons on this Committee, and they are not likely to put forward anything flippant or jocular. What they suggest will be serious, and should receive careful consideration.
Apart from these considerations, there are some people who say that the Stone is a symbol of the Union, and as such it must be underneath the Coronation Chair. Speaking as a Covenanter—I was the first Covenanter to sign in Edinburgh, and over 2,000,000 people have signed since— I can say that we recognise it to be a symbol. But what a dull symbol it is lying underneath the Chair, year in and year out! Nobody seems to know or care about it. It could be made so much better and so much more real a symbol. I say that this Stone should go back to Scotland. I have no doubt that when a

837
Coronation occurred there would be keepers appointed to bring the Stone down to Westminster and put it under the Chair. Then, just before the Coronation took place, one of the first ceremonies would be that the keepers would go down the aisle of the Abbey in full public view and inspect the Chair, see that it was in order and the Stone in its place, and then return and report to the Earl Marshal that all was in order. This would take its place as a proper function at the Coronation. It would be only a small ceremony, but it would mean a great deal. It would signify the Union of Scotland and England in the crowning of their joint Sovereign, and it would let everyone know that Scotland and England were cooperating in the crowning. That would go a long way to please everybody and to stop all the wrangling that is now going on.
I have only one other comment to make. The question of the Stone has caused a good many things to be said and done which are regrettable and which everybody wishes had never been said or done. But your Lordships must remember that this act was not done by the people of Scotland; it was done by what The Times calls the "Scottish Patriots," another body altogether. They are what we call the extremists. There are very few people in Scotland who wish to seek a breaking of the Union; nobody but the extremists wants to annul the Union or anything of that sort. We all know that every great political movement, every great Party movement, is bothered with extremists. Extremists are a thorn in their flesh. When I stood for an Election, I knew how the Tariff Reformers were thorns in the flesh of poor Mr. Balfour and the Conservative Party generally. The Labour Party to-day have their extremists, their Communists. They are the thorns in their flesh. And so it was with other Governments. We have had our thorns. They were people who said and did all the things that are so disliked. All I can say is that the sooner we get our differences about this Stone settled, the better, because the longer the wrangling about the Stone goes on, the more harm will be done to all the good feeling that has existed between the English people and the Scottish people until to-day. We must get this matter settled as soon as we can. I cannot see why
838
there should be any difference, if the old saying is right that,
"Where'er the Stone of Destiny is found, a Scottish race shall rub."
We have in our midst a most charming and delightful Heir Presumptive to the Throne, with Scottish blood coursing through her veins. Why go on wrangling about the Stone? We shall be pleased to see this question settled.
14.23 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, if I may intervene for a few moments only, I should like, first of all, to make it plain that I am giving my personal opinion about this matter and not trying to represent the views of the Conservative Party. Indeed, our discussion has not run on: Party lines at all. I am sure your Lordships will agree that our House has been enriched by the two delightful speeches we have heard this afternoon, the historical survey by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his conclusions, with all of which I agree, except on one point to which I shall come in a moment, and the speech of the noble Duke breathing patriotic fire, using "patriotism" in its widest sense.
I want to begin by saying that I feel strongly that the question of the disposal of the Stone of Destiny should not be linked with that of Home Rule for Scotland. The proposals for a separate Parliament in Edinburgh and a new Constitution require separate consideration. The disposal of the Stone may be governed by sentiment and historical association, but the other question must be settled otherwise. It is one which must be tried by three tests, as I believe: What is best for Scotland? What is best for the United Kingdom? What is best for the Commonwealth and Empire as a whole? All that requires hard thinking, not overlaid by too much sentiment. There is no doubt—and here may I touch on a subject which is perhaps a little controversial—about the view that over-centralisation has recently stimulated the demand for a further devolution. One has only to live in Scotland as much as I do to realise that. When this further devolution comes to be examined, it must be examined carefully from every point of view—from the administrative point of view and from the financial point of view, which, quite properly, is always present in the minds of all Scotsmen. It must

839
be examined closely. I will not follow this point further except to say that I should be sorry to see anything done hastily which would lessen the share of responsibility which Scotland now has for the government of the Realm as a whole, or the influence which she seeks to exert in matters affecting the British Commonwealth.
I now turn to the Stone. It is my personal belief and conviction that very many people in Scotland deplored the breaking and entering of Westminster Abbey. They were genuinely grieved about it, and were anxious and worried while the Stone was missing. That the great Shrine of the Abbey, the nation's Shrine, associated for centuries with our worship, with our joys and with our sorrows, a resting place of many of our greatest men, should be broken into was a matter of sadness and shame. I should have thought that even the most ardent Nationalist student would have thought twice before breaking open the resting place of David Livingstone, for example, and causing damage in the Abbey and damage to the Stone itself. That is my personal view. But, when I have said that, let there be no doubt that there is widespread interest in Scotland as to the future disposal of the Stone.
I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, into his earlier historical sketch, but, although the noble Duke said the point is disputed, it is certainly a matter of general acceptance that during the last 1,200 years the Scottish Kings were first crowned on it; then it was removed to England and the Kings of England were crowned on it; then, after the Union of the Crowns, the Scottish King, in the person of the King of the United Realm, was crowned on it— and long may that continue! I genuinely believe that a large majority of the people in Scotland would like to see the Stone returned to Scotland, and would like to see it rest in Scotland, on the clear understanding that it is to be brought to Westminster for Coronation ceremonies. I recognise that a decision to take that course is rendered difficult because of the violence of the act which has taken place. As a Scot, may I say that my experience is that the people of England do not react very kindly to acts of violence. It awakens a strength and a stubbornness, so I feel that the decision that the Stone
840
should go to Scotland is rendered difficult, though not impossible. Time is a healer, and if the question is considered calmly and unhurriedly, perhaps such a course may be recommended.
May I indulge a personal view (it may not be shared by anybody else) that the Stone should be taken to Edinburgh and laid in St. Margaret's Chapel, high up in Edinburgh Castle?
LORD CALVERLEY: Hear, hear!
LORD CLYDESMUIR: St. Margaret's Chapel is the oldest building in Edinburgh. It is a lovely little church, built for a Queen and a Saint, and is nearly as old as the Abbey itself. Within the Castle Guard is surely a safe resting place for the Stone. If it could be brought there, and if there could be a clear under-standing that it would be carried, with pomp and circumstance, every piper in the garrison piping it out of Edinburgh, to Westminster for Coronation ceremonies, I believe that the majority of the people in Scotland would rejoice. I hope and believe that that rejoicing would extend South of the Border, too, because there never was a time when we should be more united in heart and in sentiment; and this is a matter of sentiment. The one point on which I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is this: I doubt whether the Chair should go to Scotland too.
LORD CALVERLEY: Hear, hear!
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I think the Chair might be regarded as an object of English veneration, and should remain at Westminster. Subject to that point, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. In our debate this afternoon, we are trying to view this question objectively, with no desire to stir up trouble but rather with a desire once and for all to bury an old hatchet.
4.30 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, not only for introducing this Motion, which is of great importance, as I shall presently try to explain, but for the very dignified way, if he will allow me to use that term, in which he presented the history of this famous symbol. I hope that before we conclude this debate there will be

841
no voice of, I do not say derision, but of what I may call higher criticism about the history of this Stone. As the noble Duke reminded your Lordships, it is a matter of debate among historians and scholars; but a sacred symbol is made sacred because people believe it to be sacred, and an historical object is made historical because people believe it to be historic.
It may be said that this Stone is only a symbol; but it is symbols of this kind in the world, and not only amongst the British race (using the term in its widest sense), which stir men to great deeds, which rouse the finer feelings in them and for which, in certain circumstances, men are prepared to die. Flags, certain national songs and anthems, the sacred tree of Guernica, and symbols like this, about which there may be doubts as to the historic accuracy of their past, about which many legends may have grown up, are nevertheless believed in and revered by vast numbers of men, and that is a sentiment that we cannot afford to ignore.
I approach this matter with considerable neutrality, by reason of the fact that my forbears lost their lands in Scotland because they were some 400 years before their time in supporting the English Imperial connection. We believed that it would be better for Scotland to be ruled in one Realm with England. We were premature in our belief and we suffered accordingly. Therefore, as I say, I can view Scottish nationalism from a completely objective standpoint. But of its strength I have no doubt whatever, and I have enough knowledge of Scotland and the Scottish people to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, on that subject. You will find this feeling strongest amongst the Scots who have been abroad, sometimes for several generations. You see the flame of Scottish nationalism burning most fiercely in the Middle Western cities of the United States on St. Andrew's Night, and in South Africa and the Argentine at some Scottish Society meeting, or at some Clan Society meeting in Canada. There, I think you will find the feeling is more powerful even than in Scotland itself. There are many Scots who will join in the doubts and agnosticisms of what I called just now the higher criticism about
842
the origin of the Stone. Nevertheless, I believe that in their hearts the great bulk of the Scottish people would be glad to see some such solution adopted as was recommended by the three noble Lords who have so far spoken.
There is even a doubt to-day not only about the history of the Stone but also whether this was the original Stone upon which the Kings of Scotland were crowned. I suggest that after the passage of centuries these things are of no great importance. I repeat, that it is what people believe to be of historical or sentimental importance that matters. Some time ago in your Lordships' House we had a debate on the Holy Places in Jerusalem, and there was a great deal of feeling about their future and their guardianship in the new realm of Israel. I regret to say that one of my noble friends on this side of the House threw doubt on the authenticity of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. I daresay you can get some German scholar to make out a tremendous case that the Saviour was not born in Bethlehem, and even that there was not a Crucifixion. What is important is that people believe these places are holy; and in the case of the Stone of Destiny what is important is that people believe the story which was related with great skill and erudition by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who introduced this Motion.
Now, what have we to do? In this connection I congratulate the Government, at any rate upon one thing. I think the decision not to prosecute these young hotheads who committed the grievous act of sacrilege in Westminster Abbey was a wise one. I think it was higher wisdom. We would only have stirred up a great deal of ill-feeling and have made martyrs of them. Theirs was a very rash action. I believe that all respectable opinion on both sides of the Border and amongst Scots abroad has wholeheartedly condemned it. I hope also that the Government will follow that up, when they consider this question, by not taking into account that act of sacrilege, which was best punished by its universal condemnation.
Next, what has to be done in the future? I agree with the suggestion made by the three noble Lords who have already spoken. It would really cost the English nothing at all. It does not mean

843
a great deal to them. Until this act took place, the majority of English people knew very little about the Stone. It would cost the English nothing to allow this Stone to go north of the Border. But once it is north of the Border, its actual resting place is surely a matter for the Scots to decide themselves. I do not know whether Lord Clydesmuir's suggestion is a good one or not, but I do not like the idea of its being brought south again for a Coronation, and then returned to Scotland. I do not like that idea at all. I think that once there, it should stay there. But there are those who believe that it is an essential part of the Coronation of the Kings of Britain that the Stone should be used, because many people believe that it really is a Stone of Destiny and that the legends of Jacob are perfectly true. I am the last to doubt them. I am very cautious indeed of ever doubting popular legends and traditions. The longer I study these things, the more cautious I become.
How do we get over that difficulty? Once the matter is canvassed, debated and discussed, many of the English will say, "Oh yes, but we want our Monarch crowned on that Stone." Here I speak for myself—I am open to correction. I am not trying to lay down the law at all, but I cannot see any deep objection to a double Coronation. I believe there is much to be said for the historic Coronation in Westminster Abbey and also a second Coronation in Scotland of the King as King of Scotland. It is a delicate question. It is a dynastic and constitutional question of great importance, and can be decided only after very careful consideration and consultation. Obviously it is no Party question at all.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Does the noble Lord realise that if more than one Coronation took place here, Canada, Australia and New Zealand might also seek a Coronation? I think it would be better if we stuck to one.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, I have thought of that as well, but I think the historic case for two Coronations, one in England and one in Scotland, is overwhelming, and I do not think there would be any serious attempt by our great Dominions overseas to secure another Coronation. I have thought of that
844
objection. It is of course a valid one, but I believe it can be overcome and that with proper handling there would not be that demand from the Dominions. After all, the Dominions are increasing in number —there are a great many of them. I put this view forward simply as one that is worthy of consideration, and because I believe that if this were done it would give the greatest possible satisfaction in Scotland. But, whatever solution is reached, I hope that no English Peer will treat this matter—I am sure none of your Lordships intends to do so—with any lack of seriousness. I can assure your Lordships from my own personal knowledge that what Lord Clydesmuir has said about feeling in Scotland and what we have heard from the noble Duke is by no means exaggerated. Great harm can be done by brushing lightly aside the deeprooted hereditary sentiments of Scotsmen with regard to the Stone of Destiny.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I personally feel deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for raising this matter to-day. He treated us to a most interesting historic survey. Anything he says is always likely to be most interesting and original, and I thought his speech this afternoon was even more interesting than usual. He does not seem to have met with complete agreement from his noble Scottish friends as to the accuracy of his deductions. I myself thought he was a little bit shaky as Jeremiah was moving westwards. I should like to believe that everything he said was accurate, because it was so exceedingly attractive. As this Motion has been moved by an Irishman, perhaps I may occupy a few minutes in making one or two remarks among so many Lords who bear noble Scottish names, because I myself am half Scottish. The Scottish half of me is in full agreement with everything which has fallen from the lips of noble Lords who have so far spoken as to the best and most desirable final destiny of the Stone of Scone. I am in favour of its going back to Scotland, but exactly where it should finally rest seems to me to be a matter which might well be left to the Scots themselves.
But the English half of me is interested in the reasons which led to this debate. We should not have had this debate if there had not been an outrage upon the

845
Stone. What gave rise to the outrage? The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lords, Lord Clydesmuir and Lord Strabolgi, all touched on that point, but they talked a lot (this was particularly so in the case of the noble Duke) about Scottish national feeling. Well, of course, Scots have always had a very strong national feeling—all over the world we have been bothered by their bagpipes and things—and we respect them for it. But, surely, we are here faced with something much different from that. This is, surely, a demand for local government, for self-government for Scotland. That was the underlying reason for the movement for Scottish Nationalism; that is the propaganda which is put forward by those who are behind what has happened in connection with the Stone. The noble Duke says that they are only extremists. That may well be so; but extremists are the spearhead of movements, and are apt in the end to achieve the objects for which they strive. For instance, the ladies who in my young days went about smashing pictures in the National Gallery, breaking shop windows in Kensington High Street, burning country houses and generally giving us a great deal of trouble, were the forerunners of a movement which eventually resulted in women getting the vote. I will not make any further comment on the exploit of the young men who were concerned in this episode of the Stone except to say this—that everyone in authority seems to have united in helping them by giving them the utmost possible publicity.
There seems to be a very definite feeling in Scotland in favour of some form of self-government. There is, apparently, widespread dissatisfaction in Scotland concerning the way in which Scottish affairs are administered from Whitehall, and there appears to be a strong demand that the present system should be altered. I think we ought not to close our eyes to that demand, and that while there is plenty of time we should set about ascertaining the depth of grievance, and how it can be remedied. So far as I know, no authoritative body of Scotsmen has ever come forward to give us information on this subject. I am told that a Committee is sitting, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Catto, inquiring into the matter. Whether that be true or not I do not know, but any-
846
how no publicity is given to that. Committee. We know nothing of their proceedings or of any evidence that has been given before them. I understand that a demand has been put forward for a Royal Commission to inquire into this whole subject. It seems to me that that would be a very sensible course to take. If that were done we should get wide terms of reference, evidence could be called from all sides and a definite conclusion could be reached upon which the Parliament of Great Britain could judge. I think it is only right that the request which I have mentioned should be acceded to, and if it is acceded to, I feel that some good may come out of this deplorable episode in Westminster Abbey. Apart from that, further good will come if the Stone of Scone reaches a destiny which is accept-able to people in all parts of the country.
4.48 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I intervene in this debate as a parochial Englishman. I had the privilege of spending some time in Edinburgh, attending the proceedings of a Royal Commission and listening to evidence, and what struck me particularly—and here I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—was the underlying sense of grievance felt by responsible Scotsmen. Clearly, they deemed that they should have wider scope to develop their government and also their psychology. As an Englishman, I try to put aside all thoughts of the ballyhoo that has been aroused because of what these young and enthusiastic scamps have done. I put all that behind me, and I seek to do what I can to help to remove the sense of grievance which obviously exists amongst those who, like the noble Duke and the Covenanters generally, so strongly desire the return of the Stone.
As an Englishman I have to acknowledge that we were simply receivers of the Stone, and that, so far as I can make out, it really belongs to Scotland. Therefore I suggest that the Lord President of the Council, if he has this job entrusted to him, or possibly the Privy Council, should decree that the Stone shall remain in Scotland. I thought the suggestion with regard to St. Margaret's Chapel was a very fine one. I have been in that chapel, and the atmosphere impressed me immensely. If the Stone cannot be placed in St. Margaret's Chapel, perhaps it might

847
be put in Holyrood Palace. There is there a Chair of State which is occupied by the Sovereign yearly. Let the Scots have the Stone, which they believe to be a Stone of Destiny. If they believe that, it will mean that they will no longer rule England from the high offices of State and municipal administration, and perhaps Englishman may have some measure of Home Rule.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that the Stone be kept in Holyrood Palace. Does he mean in the chapel in Holyrood Palace?
LORD CALVERLEY: I do not know the geography of the Palace. I want the Scots to have the Stone back. I want them to be greater partners of England in the future. The Scots have made a great contribution in the Union with us Englishmen. It is because we Yorkshire-men have a lot of Scottish blood in our veins that Yorkshire is the greatest county in the kingdom. But that is all by the way. My slogan is: the Stone should go back to Scotland. It should go either to Holyroodhouse or to St. Giles' Cathedral.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as one of the few Scotsmen taking part in this debate, I find myself asking whether it ought to take place at all. I understand that His Majesty the King is Visitor of Westminster Abbey and this matter concerns him; and if so, it does not concern us. So many of your Lordships have expressed opinions that perhaps, as I differ from nearly all those who have spoken, I may be allowed to express what I feel about it. I do not know whether I represent many Scotsmen, but I know that I represent some.
In one aspect the Stone is a trophy of war. It is a symbol of England's pride in the fact that, 650 years ago, King Edward I, with the enormous resources of England, succeeded in taking and holding down more than half of Scotland. As a Scot, I am not in the least ashamed of that. I am proud of the fact that after some time we, with our small resources, succeeded in driving him out again. I agree that it may not have been for the best interests of both countries that that happened, but far Scot-land it was a fine achievement. England's
848
pride in so near a success only enhances the pride I feel in having beaten her, on that occasion at least, in a fair field. Those in Scotland who are really anxious to get the Stone back must have in their hearts some slight feeling of shame, which I do not in the least share, that England had been so near success in the past.
Trophies of war are not like plunder. I think the rule was laid down some years before the commencement of our era by that great man, Julius Cæsar. When he saw his own sword, captured from him, in a temple of the Gauls, and his friends suggested that he should take it away again, Cæsar refused. "No; it is dedicated," he said. By that word he prevented them from trying to take the trophy away. I should be very sorry if my country showed less greatness of mind and heart than did Julius Cæsar. The value of the Stone in legend and in history is that it is supposed to be essential, for a King of Scotland to have a fortunate reign, that he should be crowned on the Stone. It is a curious thing that after the Stone went to England the characters of the Kings of Scotland show up very well beside the personal characters of the Kings of England; and the Kings of England show up very well beside the normal generations of men. Yet it so happens that, until the Union of the Crowns, the Kings of Scotland were uniformly unfortunate in their reigns. Their best efforts were nearly always frustrated, and it was only with great difficulty and a great deal of suffering that Scotland managed to proceed along normal lines of development. For that reason I am not willing that the Kings of Scotland should dispense with this seat at their Coronation, and I should be sorry to see the Stone go back to Scotland. I have not yet acquired such confidence in British Transport to feel certain that it would always go up and down again without incident. I should rather keep it where it can perform the national function which it is supposed to perform.
There is another reason why I do not want the Stone to go back to Scotland. I do not like the way in which this demonstration of national feeling came about. I do not think that the people who took the Stone were thief-hearted, if I may express it in that way. I think it was just a youthful escapade. But we cannot watch all our national monuments; we cannot always keep a guard

849
on them. It must have been very much easier to take the Stone away from Westminster Abbey than it would have been, for example, to take away the statue from Piccadilly Circus. The taking of the Stone was not really a wonderful achievement. I wish the people concerned had thought of that for a moment. When the three silver arrows were stolen from Holyroodhouse, angry letters were written to the newspapers saying that the people who stole the Stone could not possibly have been the people who stole the Arrows, because the second was an act of theft and the first was not. I cannot see that argument. I think it was an unfortunate thing to have happened. Had I done such a thing, I should have been happier in my own heart about the act if I had stood out and said, "I did it," and let what was to come, come. But we know that the people who took the Stone did not show themselves until they had the assurances given in another place that they would not be prosecuted. I think that must show them clearly how unfortunate the whole episode was. That is another reason why I do not wish the Stone to go back to Scotland. It cast a blight and shadow on the strong movement which exists in Scotland for some form of Home Rule.
I am going to ask your Lordships' attention while I give the real reasons for that. One point, which I have often raised in your Lordships' House, is that the way in which Scottish legislation is made is not fair to Scotland. It may take place by joint Bill or by successive Bills, and in both cases the procedure is wrong, as I will show your Lordships. In the first case, there might be an English Bill. When I get up and say that such a provision is all right for England but will not do in Scotland, I am told that I am out of order in discussing that point, and that there is to be a Scottish Bill. But later, when we have a Scottish Bill, and I raise my point, I am told that I cannot take that point, because it has all been settled; we have to follow the lines of the English Bill. Sometimes, when we have Bills for both countries, sufficient thought is not given to how they will affect Scotland.
I will give an example. In the 'thirties there was a Bill promoted jointly by the Ministries of Education and Labour. When the Bill was going through the
850
House, I said: "That clause will not do for Scotland. You will have to enlarge it, or amend it to suit both countries." I was told that that could not be considered, and the Bill went through. I took it up with the Ministry of Labour, who had to deal with it in Scotland, and had long talks with them. I told them to make their own inquiries to see if I was telling the truth. Eventually they had to do by regulation what should have been done in the Bill. On the other hand, you have the case where there are two Bills. Take the Transport Bill: because of the English Bill we had the same twenty-five miles' radius for private transport in Scotland as in England. The effect of that has been peculiar in Scotland. There are very few towns in Scotland and they are nearly all county towns. Some of the counties in Scotland are very large, and, as a result, frequently two-thirds or nearly three-quarters of a Scottish county is cut off from its county town and in transport is from three to sixteen days away, owing to the fact that everything is done by national transport.
There is another matter on which this strong demand for Home Rule in Scotland is founded. We have a competent and able office in Scotland, which is the Scottish Office. I should like to ask whether the members of the Scottish Office are more loyal to the Civil Service and to the Treasury, as loyal as every other civil servant in all the other branches of administration, or whether their loyalty to Scotland comes first. I shall be told that loyalty to Scotland and loyalty to the Administration are the same thing, because, of course, "Mother knows best." But that is not the case, and the two are sometimes in discord. I would remind your Lordships of a Bill which was radically altered in your Lordships' House a short time ago and which was designed, I believe, in the Treasury, to save a few hundred pounds in a year. When it came to your Lordships' House, the Scottish representatives on our Front Bench and the Scottish Peers in this House objected to the Bill and said that it must be changed. We went to see the Lord Advocate, I think, and were told that the Bill would not be changed. We persisted in our opposition, and members of the Scottish Office came down from Scotland and talked to us to convince us that we were wrong. None the less, we

851
persisted in our opposition and the Government sent the Bill to a Special Committee; and I believe that in that Special Committee the evidence on which the Bill was altered was the evidence of the very people who tried to persuade us that the first form of the Bill was correct.
It ought not to be possible for people to be subjected to conflicting loyalties of that kind. I am not for a moment saying anything against those who had to deal with the matter; in each case they were performing their proper duty. In the first place, they were trying to persuade us that the official policy was correct, and, in the second, they were giving evidence on a matter on which their own personal opinion had to be given. Those are real and solid reasons for some change in the law. I should be very sorry if that necessity were obscured for a moment by anything that recalled this unfortunate episode. For that reason, also, my feeling is that the Stone should be left where it is, at any rate for the moment.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, may I ask when the Royal Com-mission to which the noble Lord alluded is going to report? They have been appointed ten times, and have met seven times, and nothing has yet happened. Royal Commissions are often a convenient way of getting over nasty questions.
5.7 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON: My Lords, I rise as a Scotsman to thank Lord Brabazon for the very able support he has given to the proposal for the Stone of Scone to be returned to Scotland, and to be brought back for use in Westminster Abbey when required on great State occasions. Unlike the last speaker, I am sure that that is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, and, I believe, the great majority of the people of England, too. I doubt whether outside Scotland the deep feeling on this matter is fully appreciated. It did not just arise over the recent incidents about the Stone. For hundreds of years Scotsmen have resented the presence of that Stone in Westminster Abbey. It may be the result of our Scottish system of education. I remember as a boy that our history lessons consisted almost entirely of Scottish history, much of which was taken up with the efforts of the Scottish
852
people to maintain their independence against English aggression. I well remember, too, as a boy, learning the lines referred to by the noble Duke of Montrose:
"Unless the fates should faithless prove,
And prophet's voice be vain,
Where'er this sacred Stone is found
The Scottish race shall reign."
But the Scottish race does not reign in London. We used to have the consolation in days gone by that Scotsmen held most of the big positions here in England. In pre-war days you generally found that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Archbishop of Canterbury was a Scotsman. One of the wonders to me is that the last two Labour Governments have done so remarkably well with hardly a Scotsman in the Cabinet. The Scots are no longer the dominant people in England; it is the Welsh who are now the dominant race.
I would heartily support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I think that the Stone might very well be kept in the chapel, or somewhere in Holy-rood Palace, be brought out and used on ceremonial occasions, like other parts of the Royal Regalia, and put back when finished with. I hope that this solution will be acceptable to the authorities. There are no two nations in the world such true and close friends as the Scots and the English. It would, indeed, be a gracious and friendly act if the authorities concerned would arrange for this proposal to be adopted, and I believe it would make for an even happier and more united Kingdom.
5.9 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this debate opened on a very high note indeed, as those of us who spent some years in the House of Commons when the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was a Member would expect. He impressed many of us in those days with his originality on all questions. The noble Lord took us far back into history. It is not my intention to go so far back; indeed, I question whether it is necessary to do so at all at this moment. There have been many historical references, most of them in agreement though some were contradictory, but certainly sufficient to justify this debate to-day. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that there are associations with

853
this Stone of Destiny, as it is called, historical, ceremonial and prophetical, which justify your Lordships in spending an hour or two dealing with it. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. Ancient history may be interesting, but I do not think it wise that we should altogether disregard recent history, because recent history must have some influence on our minds. I have no intention of spending any time upon the incident referred to in rather strong terms by some noble Lords. We may forget it; but in any event I hope that we shall not let the incident influence our decision as to what should be done with this Stone now. Not the least interesting feature of the debate was the fact that we have had the voice of Ireland, the voice of Scotland, the voice of England, and we are now to have, to some extent, the voice of Wales. I wondered sometimes whether the fact that my last connection with Scotland was my great grandfather, and that I myself was born in Wales, justified my intervention in this debate at all, but I think we had better know what is passing through the mind of Wales on the question of this Stone.
We are told not to disregard what Scotland is thinking, and to be sure to remember what England is thinking. The mover also told us that although he was not born in Ireland, he is of Irish descent. He did associate that with some English blood, and I thought I noticed more of the English than the Irish blood in the presentation of his case. Stones have played a great part in history. I cannot think of any nation in which stones have not played a part. I think the noble Lord's reference to Jacob's dream was a good indication that the Stone played a very noble part indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, had some doubts as to Lord Brabazon's reference to Jeremiah, but I do not want to deal with that aspect of the matter. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, emphasised the political aspect rather too much. He seemed to decide that this was an occasion when he could get off his chest something he had wanted to say for a long while. I know that our rules in this House are very elastic—
LORD SALTOUN: I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord, because he did not interrupt me, but I believe that the recent theft of the Stone has some-
854
thing to do with the demand for Home Rule for Scotland and shows where the real roots of that demand originate.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I do not think the theft has anything to do with it, and the noble Lord spent a good deal of time telling us about this, that and the other Bill which were unrelated to this debate. The Welsh interest is a political interest, too. I have no intention of dealing with that Welsh interest. The Government do not look upon this Stone as something upon which they are going to pronounce having regard to the strong desire in Scotland for Home Rule. I do not think the history of the Stone at the moment is very important. I have read through the history of the Stone, and I am pleased to have done so. I think it was the noble? Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who told us that there were historiographers in Scotland and in England who gave us a full story of it. I have one here and it would take the best part of half-an-hour to read it to your Lordships. It is called The Stone of Destiny or Coronation Stone by Doctor Henry Meikle. His history differs from the history given to-day, but not in sufficient detail for me to spend any time on it.
I think the interest of your Lordships' House to-day rests upon the question: What do the Government intend to do with this Stone now? That is all that matters. I think the best thing I can do is to read a carefully prepared note on this question, so that there will be no misunderstanding. I noted down the opinions of noble Lords who spoke to-day, and I noticed that there were seven for Scotland—the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was inclined to halve his "vote," and I will make it seven and a half for Scotland and only one against. It is a remarkable thing to see such unanimity in your Lordships' House, and I am quite sure that it will not go disregarded by the Government. But here is what the Government feel about the matter at the moment—I will read as slowly as I can what they have to say. It will no doubt be the general wish that the Stone should continue to be used at future Coronations of British Kings and Queens in the same way as it has been used in the past. Whether any alteration should be made in the arrangements for the custody between Coronations is a

855
matter on which there is, no doubt, room for argument. But noble Lords will doubtless agree that the arrangements for the custody of the Stone ought not to be altered (if indeed they ought to be altered at all) without the fullest consideration and without taking into account all points of view. His Majesty's Government are certainly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for initiating an interesting discussion on this question and thus pro-viding an opportunity of hearing some expressions of opinion with regard to it.
I know the noble Lord will not expect me at this moment to make any definite answer as to his suggestion. What I do assure him and other noble Lords is that the matter is receiving consideration. Many suggestions have been and are being made—more than have been made in this House—as to its disposal. All those suggestions are under consideration, and I can give this definite promise: that the Government will consider every suggestion made to-day and, in due course, will come to a final decision. But they are most anxious—and this needs emphasising—that the recent incident should not affect any decision made. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will feel satisfied. He has had his debate and, if I may say so, his own contribution was a masterpiece; and I am certain that it will be helpful to the Government in making up their minds as to the future of this Stone.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord speaks of a decision by the Government which is, of course, the usual way of dealing with a matter of this kind. I presume that the widest possible consultations will take place with authoritative bodies in Scotland and with the other political Parties in this country.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In reply to that question, I think that such consultations are now taking place, and that the Joint Assembly of the Church of Scotland is taking part in them.
5.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I rise not to continue the debate but to add, in a few sentences, my own opinion in con-sequence of what the noble Lord has just said on behalf of the Government. I do not think any of us will quarrel with the
856
fact that the Government are not giving a definite decision to-day as to the advice to be tendered to His Majesty in this matter, either positive or negative. It is right that they should take into account all that has been said in this House to-day, and then deliberate and give a reply. But since they attach importance to the opinion of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to say, on behalf of most of my noble friends on these Benches, that we concur in the view expressed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and ex-pressed almost identically by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, which is in effect that the Stone should be deposited in Scotland, but that it should be brought to England for Coronation ceremonies. It should be brought to England, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose suggested, with due reverence and ceremony, in view of the traditions that have attached to it for so many centuries.
I rejoiced to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said on behalf of the Government: that they would not be influenced, and hoped the House would not be influenced, one way or the other, by the recent incident—as in the case of the Suffragettes, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. I remember that period very well and very painfully. The Government of that day and the public, I think, were influenced rather against the cause of women's suffrage than in favour of it by the outrages committed. I think the common feeling has been one of revulsion and protest against what has happened; but that ought not to lead to a decision which would not give first place to the essential merits of the case.
By the terms of the Motion that has been moved, this has not been a debate on the principle or the practicability of Scottish self-government; but I feel that the House ought not to delay long before it does discuss Scottish self-government. Some of us who have been thinking of putting down a Motion on the subject have been waiting because of the deliberations of the Royal Commission on English and Scottish economics and finance. We are awaiting the Report of that Commission, and I should like to ask the noble Lord on the Government Bench whether, before we rise this afternoon, he can answer the question put by the Duke of Montrose as to the date on which that Report may be expected.

857
If it is likely to be long delayed, it may be necessary for this House to discuss Scottish self-government without waiting for the Report. On the other hand, it would obviously be desirable that the Report should be issued first, so that we may have before the House the facts which have been gathered together by the Royal Commission, together with their recommendations, before we discuss the subject at large.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am not able to give a definite date, but meetings are taking place frequently, and it is expected that the Report will not be long delayed.
5.22 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am too old a hand in both Houses to have expected to be given a decision to-day. But the noble Lord opposite will have seen that the general feeling in the House this afternoon has been remarkable. I hope that that will impress His Majesty's Government. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past five o'clock.