Lords Sitting of 19 January 1954

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

TRIBUTES TO LATE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before we proceed to the Business of the Day, there are some words which I should like to speak to your Lordships. The Parliamentary Recess which comes to an end to-day has been a very grievous one for your Lordships' House: we have lost many figures in all parts of the House whom we and the country can ill spare. It would be contrary to our usual custom for me to speak individually of some who are, nevertheless, very much in our minds, such as Lord Norwich and Lord Morrison, but there are two, Lord Simon and Lord Wavell, to whom the House will, I am sure, wish me to pay a special tribute.
There is, first, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, of whom I would speak, not as a lawyer—I am not competent to do that—but as a political figure. There is every reason why we should honour his memory here in this House, for he was Lord Chancellor in the great days of the war, and he has played a leading part in our affairs ever since. Lord Simon was, I imagine, a man of almost unrivalled political experience. In the space of his long political life he occupied, either in another place or here, all the greatest offices in the State with the exception of the Prime Ministership. He was, in turn, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Chancellor. That is a record that can rarely, if ever, have been equalled; and he owed that great career pre-eminently to his own outstanding abilities. One had oily to hear Lord Simon speak and expound a case to appreciate immediately how brilliant were
262
his intellectual attainments. The supreme skill with which his facts were marshalled, so that, if I may use such a phrase, they dripped out in a crystal clear argument, was a lesson to any aspiring speaker; and, what is extremely rare, these remarkable powers were equally effective in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. He was, of course, by training, an experienced lawyer. For that reason it was perhaps natural that his greatest successes were achieved in such positions as that of Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, rather than that of Foreign Secretary. But his intellectual distinction was apparent in all his work.
In politics Lord Simon was a life-long Liberal. During his hoer years it is true he worked closely with the Conservative Party, but (I think this will be generally agreed) that was only because he had formed the conclusion—it is not for me to say whether rightly or wrongly—that it was on close collaboration between Liberals and Conservatives that the best hope rested of preserving free institutions; and free institutions were to him more than anything else on earth. He never could have become a Conservative. Liberalism was his creed, and he never swerved from it. Now Lord Simon has left us. Those of us who lived with him and worked with him day by day in this House, which he came to love so deeply, will feel that a great figure has gone from amongst us. Those who, like myself, have received many kindnesses from him, will feel that they have suffered a more intimate loss. All of us, I know, will wish to express our most sincere sympathy with his family in their sorrow.
There is one other noble Lord of whom I would say a word to the House to-day. I refer to the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, who, as the House knows, was killed on Christmas Eve, gallantly leading his men against the Mau Mau in East Africa. If Lord Simon died full of years and achievement, Lord Wavell died young and rich in promise. The son of a man whose nobility of character and military genius had earned him the devoted affection of his fellow countrymen, one might have expected that the young Lord Wavell would have been overshadowed by his father's fame. But, my Lords, he never was overshadowed. He came to this House with an independence of mind and a freshness of outlook

263
that was all his own and which, I know, deeply impressed us all in every part of the House. His speeches were always thoughtful and always original; and they were inspired by that sense of complete devotion to the service of his country with which we were so familiar in his father and which is to be found, I think, above all, in the old military families of this country. He had already in him, I firmly believe, the seeds of future greatness, and we are all the poorer for his death. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to his mother and his family, whose sorrow we share.
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that all my colleagues on this side of the House desire to be associated completely with the eloquent tributes which the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, has just uttered. So far as Lord Simon is concerned, my own learned Leader, but for his absence in South Africa, would have been by far the most appropriate person to speak of his great career, especially as a lawyer. However, I had the advantage of knowing Lord Simon for some thirty years. Like the noble Marquess, I can speak more of matters other than the law, except to say this: that when I was in trade I had experience of Lord Simon as a preeminent consulting counsel. He acted in that capacity in many matters with which I was connected: and in this field he had no real equal. It is true, of course, to say that, not only in law but in everything else he touched, he was the type of man who earned the admiration of everyone—he was so eminent.
Of course, one often disagreed with him. Few political characters of recent days and generations have been so much the centre of controversy as was Lord Simon in some of the things for which he was responsible. But none can deny his public spirit, and none can deny the great gifts which he brought to everything that required his attention. The Leader of the House has already spoken in feeling terms of the range of his work in the political sphere. From the way in which my colleagues in my Party used to talk, not only here but in another place and in the public at large, I know that they regarded him as exhibiting a certain coldness in
264
his expositions of particular subjects. I must say, however, from my own personal experience of him, that behind all that apparent coldness was one of the most human and feeling personalities it would be possible to meet. For example, that beautiful little book, Portrait of my Mother, which no doubt most of us have read, surely was an indication of the real individuality, which was expressing itself in such human and emotional terms.
I should like to mention one other personal experience which I am sure will be fresh in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton. I do not remember any great, outstanding financial reforms in Lord Simon's service at the Exchequer, but, as one who had to take joint responsibility in the war afterwards, I know that we owed an enormous debt to Lord Simon for the stimulation he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave to the building up of war food stocks. Some of his operations, in which I and colleagues of mine in other sections of the trade had some share, made all the difference to the subsequent operations of the Food Ministry in enabling us to face our great tasks in the war. In spite of the controversies which arose during his lifetime, I join with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in paying my tribute and the tribute of my Party to a great figure, for whom we shall find it exceedingly difficult to provide an adequate successor. I would add just one personal note, and that is that my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who had a long personal friendship with Lord Simon, desired to come and pay a personal tribute to him to-day, but he is kept away by a temporary indisposition and by a family bereavement.
I am glad that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House decided to include in his presentation to the House the name of the late Lord Wavell, who passed away on Christmas Eve. I agree with everything the noble Marquess said about him. It was, not my privilege to know Lord Wavell for so long as some of your Lordships, but I met him first during my visit to India in 1946 as a member of the Cabinet Delegation responsible for drawing up the Statement of May 16. From then onwards I met him frequently from time to time. We watched with some interest and almost some anxiety what would happen when he entered this House. I am sure the noble Marquess the

265
Leader of the House is right in his appraisement of him. Those of us who are interested in progress in certain directions will never forget his remarkable thought, first for the education and secondly for the welfare of the Army; bat in his speeches and in his studies he never hesitated to take a wide view of the general good of the nation. We mourn his departure at such an early age, although I do not believe that either he or his father would have wished a more noble end than the one which fate brought to him. I associate myself and my colleagues with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in offering our deepest sympathy to his mother, to whom he had been such a comfort and support since the passing of his distinguished father.
I am grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for including, despite the usual practice, a brief reference to other Peers who have passed away, and I should like to crave the indulgence of the House for perhaps breaking a tradition by saying a few words about the death of our dear friend on this side of the House, Lord Morrison. He was a unique personality. He was an Aberdonian, and sometimes that led to all sorts of comments; but Lord Morrison was certainly not lacking in humour. He was a great colleague, because he could speak to us on anything, even when reproving us, with great good humour. It made him a very popular man. He had, great ability acquired originally from his scholastic career, and he gave himself to the people. He gave himself to the movement with which I have associated myself all my life, the Co-operative movement. He was one of four members of the movement who were elected with me to the House of Commons in 1922; and we have worked together ever since. His services to the State were given in a particular degree in his later life. Certainly when he came into this House in 1945 he soon became a valuable Member, and I do not think that any Scot would complain of the way in which Scottish affairs were handled whilst he spoke for the Scottish Office in this House. Nor do I think any technician would hesitate to pay some tribute to him for his handling of Ministry of Works interests. I would also pay a tribute to the great success which he achieved in avoiding difficulties during the war by promoting the campaign for the avoidance of food wastage,
266
and for the widespread development of alternative animal feeding-stuffs, for which he was largely personally responsible. He was a great public servant and a lovable colleague, and I should like to send our deepest sympathy to his widow and family.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches would wish to join in the tributes which have just been paid by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to two of our Members—Lord Wavell, whom, in accordance with our custom, we would commemorate as having fallen in action, and Lord Simon. When one who is full of years passes away, we think, "Well, that is in the nature of things"—and so it is; and it must be so accepted. But when one is suddenly killed in the prime of life, then that is a very great grief and sorrow. Lord Wavell was an exceptional man. He had wide cultural interests, whilst being a very gallant soldier. He was of an original cast of mind and had much charm of mariner, and many of us thought he would have a great future in your Lordships' House. Well, that cannot be.
As to Lord Simon, those of us who are accustomed to take an active part in the proceedings here will miss him greatly, He often intervened: the last Motion that we debated before this Christmas Recess was on his initiation, and dealt with an important matter in our judicial system. Fie had been in public life, well known, for nearly fifty years; and, as the noble Marquess said, he had filled many high offices of the State—almost all of them, except the Premiership. He had been Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and he was the only man in the long political history of this country to have held both the great Chancellorships, as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons and Chancellor on the Woolsack in your Lordships' House. His deepest and most abiding interest was in the law. He was endowed by nature with a most remarkable memory, and he had great powers of exposition against a background of scholarly distinction. It is no wonder that he should have very early achieved pre-eminence at the Bar.
When he went to India as Chairman of the Statutory Commission in 1927, on

267
account of the long absence which that necessitated he retired from the Bar, and left to successors what was undoubtedly the leading practice there. I remember that someone aptly said, quoting the famous lines of Tennyson, slightly adapted:
"And there will be no moaning at the Bar When I put out to sea."
His legal professional connections and his connection with Oxford gave him, I think, more satisfaction than any others. He was resident Fellow of All Souls for fifty-six years, and he appreciated the honour conferred upon him in being appointed High Steward of the University of Oxford.
For myself, I enjoyed his friendship for more than sixty years. In my last year at Oxford he came up as a freshman, and for a long period we were colleagues in Liberal political activities. It was only the other day that he recalled that his first speech at a public meeting was made on a village green in Oxfordshire at the General Election of 1895, when he was speaking in my support in my first Parliamentary candidature. We were colleagues in the House of Commons and in the Asquith Government; but during the confused period in the 1930's both the Liberal Party and the Labour Party were deeply divided and our paths diverged. Happily, in the full spirit of British political traditions, differences over public policy, if they are honestly entertained, do not impair private friendships. I am happy to say that it was so in our case. He was a man of very great abilities, freely devoted from early youth to late old age to the service of the community and the State.
2.58 p.m.
LORD PORTER: My Lords, may I be permitted to add just a few words about Lord Simon, as one who has been associated with him since the time when he became the Lord Chancellor and as one concerned with the legal matters of this House? Noble Lords have spoken of him both in his personal capacity and in his capacity as a politician: I want to confine myself to speaking of him in his capacity as a lawyer. Reference has been made to his surprising ability of exposition. That ability he carried with him into all the matters of law with which he was concerned, and so far as is
268
humanly possible he always left the subject of his speeches absolutely clear and their meaning unmistakable. But more than that: his care in penetrating into the intricacies of the matter under discussion and his courtesy and consideration for his colleagues and the advocates who appeared before him will not readily be forgotten.
Most of all, however, I should like to put on record the assistance which he gave in matters of law not only when he was seated on the Woolsack but after he had ceased to be Lord Chancellor. After his retirement, and well after his seventieth year, he gave constant assistance wherever his help was needed. Indeed, from time to time and frequently of late it has been possible to grapple with judicial business before the House and in the Privy Council only by calling upon the noble and learned Viscount to join those sitting in one or other body. In such an emergency, Lord Simon would always, if he could, often at short notice and sometimes under great difficulty, be ready to take part in the work to be done. As late as the latter part of last Term, I remember he came in to take the place of one of our members who was indisposed. He never spared himself from the moment he became a Member of the House until his death. Whatever debt an ex-Lord Chancellor may feel that he has incurred to help in judicial work, Lord Simon paid it in full, and far beyond even the most stringent obligations which anyone could suppose him to owe. If the duty of a judge is to make certain that he has followed and appreciated an argument, given it due weight and felicitously expressed the reasons for his decision, Lord Simon will stand high in the ranks of those who sit to clarify the law.
3.1 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, for over thirty years I had the honour to be intimately connected politically with my noble friend Lord Simon. There were times when we did not see eye to eye, but that never made the slightest difference to our friendship. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to give the House my appreciation of him as I found him during those years. He was undoubtedly dominated by his conscientious beliefs, to the extent even of resigning office and jeopardising his political

269
career. I have lost someone whom it will be difficult, if not impossible, to replace—indeed, I feel, as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has said, that the House has lost one who contributed constructively to our debates and who was always willing and wise in counsel. He was intensely loyal to what Liberalism meant to him and as he understood it. He thought the great Liberal contributions of the past had become the commonly accepted heritage of the British people and, therefore, that Party strife of the old traditional kind was no longer necessary.
I know that he did many a kindness for which he would have disliked publicity. He never courted publicity, although no one appreciated spontaneous praise more than he did. I feel so glad that the honour done him, at the dinner given by the Bench and Bar and also, in a more humble way, at the dinner I arranged for his Party colleagues to meet him, had taken place on his reaching his eightieth year. As I know, he very much appreciated the regard and affection shown him on these occasions. At times, he appeared to be cold and detached, particularly when he was concentrating on some serious problem which occupied his mind; yet those of us who knew him well found hidden away there a very warm heart which his natural shyness prevented him from showing, sometimes making him seem hard. Many of the faults that were laid at his door were, I have felt, undeserved. He was prominent in office in very dangerous and difficult days. I think I am right in saying that he was the only man who twice occupied Cabinet responsibility for directing the nation's course on the outbreak of a war—in 1914 as Home Secretary, and again a quarter of a century later, in September, 1939, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to ally myself with the expressions of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in my deepest and most sincere sympathy with his family.
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, as one having no connection with any organised Party or group, I would crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while I pay my tribute to an old and highly valued colleague and friend. Much has been said, wisely and
270
well, here and elsewhere, about Lord Simon's supreme intellectual equipment. For my part, I would add only this: that throughout a long association what seemed to me most remarkable and most endearing was Lord Simon's willingness, and indeed eagernesss, at all times to put his incomparable gifts and his vast knowledge quite unobtrusively at the service of any colleague less richly endowed. This House and the nation have indeed suffered an irreparable loss.
3.6 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I also would ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes. I am glad that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has mentioned the young Earl Wavell. His father, who was a friend of mine, introduced me to him, as well as to his mother, and when, in the course of time, the young Lord Wavell came to be a member of this House, I saw him and talked to him often, because we had kindred minds on some subjects.
I also ask your Lordships' indulgence while I, speaking as a layman, add my poor words of appreciation of Lord Simon. I knew him when he was Attorney-General, and I was privileged to stand by him on more than one occasion in speaking on matters in which both of us believed. I remember him in the First World War as Home Secretary when he resigned on a matter of conscience, and it appeared that he had committed what we sometimes term "political suicide." But that did not happen. When he became Home Secretary in the National Government, I had duties to perform in another place and I used to visit especially young men who were in prison. I found one young fellow, an undergraduate, who had been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. I hope your Lordships will bear with me because, being a Member in another place, I was able to go to Sir John Simon (as he then was) and tell him the circumstances. He personally inquired into the whole matter. He got a distinguished member of the Church, a Bishop, to visit the boy in prison, as I had done, and then he came to me and said, "I am going to recommend the remittance of his sentence if he can go back to the university. Can that be managed?" I saw there the human side I of a great character.

271
Some people said that he was cold; some of us thought that he was a bit shy and diffident. On another occasion, when invited to visit a great school to make a speech, he came down in his gown as an Honorary Doctor of Civil Law of Oxford, a gown which he treasured to the day of his death. He took on the atmosphere of the occasion and was quite full of what we call boyish spirit. Those boys saw another side of him. Some of them, when they became old boys, only a year ago entertained him as their guest at a dinner in this Palace of St. Stephen. That was a side of the man that I treasure. On one occasion he told me, "I should like you to visit the finest school in the British Isles." I said "What school is that?" He said, "Fettes." Some of your Lordships know the school. I said that I would go if I was invited. Of course, I had the time of my life when visiting that college. That is by the way, but there was the pride of this man. He won a scholarship because, as he told those boys quite publicly, "During the course of his life my father never had more than £150 per year."
That is the man that I honour. He had a great passion for personal liberty. One of his last speeches in this House before Christmas had something to do with that subject. On another occasion, some twenty-two years ago—it was in 1932—the cricket team composed of Members of this House and another place held a dinner, and Lord Simon was entrusted with the toast to "Cricket." He described cricket as a symbol of the British way of life in a manner such as I had never heard before. I know that one of your Lordships had that part of the speech printed and circulated. Lord Simon said that the spirit of Britain could be seen on the cricket fields of our villages and small towns.
So, my Lords, as a layman I deplore the passing of Lord Simon. To me he was a very Gamaliel, so far as his knowledge and his outlook upon law were concerned. As one who has known his wife for thirty-five years, I would add my tribute to this now lonely figure towards whom, until a few weeks ago, Lord Simon was proud to act the knightly courtier, when he took her through the Lobby in order to give her a cup of tea. That is the secret of John Simon. You
272
always respected him, even if you did not know him; but the nearer you got to him the more that respect was enlarged into affection. I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to me.
3.15 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I crave a moment to say a word about Lord Simon, for forty-eight years ago almost to this very day he and I were elected Members of the House of Commons—he for Walthamstow and I for Rochester. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House referred to those of us who have received personal kindness at the hands of Lord Simon; I am one. From those early days he never ceased to be helpful. In the 1914–18 war he and I were in the tiny minority that conscientiously fought against conscription although we both volunteered, and right down the years since, although we have drifted apart politically, he to the Right and I to the Left, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House has just said, that did not interfere with our personal relationship. I just want to sound that one note in his memory. So calm, so constant, was his rectitude, that by its loss alone we know his worth.
3.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, to the moving and sincere tributes on Lord Simon's life and work must be added a few words from this Bench. Before I add them, however, I hope I may be allowed to express with very real humility and earnestness my deep apologies to the House in that I was not here earlier, as I should have been, to read Prayers. It was a neglect of duty and a discourtesy to this House for which I sincerely apologise.
I can add no word to the tribute to the great work, legal and political, of Lord Simon, but it does seem right to add a word as from this Bench on Lord Simon's personal character, and therefore the position that he held in the estimation of the people of this country, not so much for what he did as for what he was. It is well known that he was what is now becoming increasingly uncommon in our public life—a great reader and student of the classics. All his life he read and loved Latin literature, and for my part I always had a feeling that in his personal appearance there was

273
something very close to what we picture as the typical Roman statesman. I thought then, and I think now, that Lord Simon might be described as the Cato of this age and country. There were two great qualities the Roman citizens admired more than any other in their public men —the qualities that they called gravitas and pietas. Those surely were great characteristics of Lord Simon. By "gravitas" I mean his fundamental conviction of the need to maintain the highest possible principles in our public life. He stood for that, and he spurred other men to understand and emulate. His great sense of personal responsibility in whatever position he occupied and whatever work he had to do at the time, his insistence on the same qualities in other people—these were things that counted amongst his generation.
His pietas meant that other fundamental respect that he had—the respect that men ought to have one to the other and that all men ought to have to God. That, again, was one of the qualities that seemed to me to come out in all his public work. These were great qualities of spirit, and it was, perhaps, the alliance of them with his superb gifts of intellect and ability that gives the measure of the loss that this country has sustained in his passing.
3.20 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, may I add from these Benches a short tribute to my noble friend Lord Wavell. He always sat here, and we knew him well and looked forward often to hearing him. I had the pleasure of having known him intimately since he was sixteen years of age. We were old comrades in arms, and I was looking forward to joining him in the next few weeks in Kenya, and to serving again with him. If I were asked to describe Lord Wavell's most outstanding characteristics, I should say that they were these. First, he was the most unselfish and generous of men whom I have ever met. His time was never his own, but was consecrated to the needs of his friends, who were drawn from a wider circle and were spread over a larger area than is usual, especially in the case of one of his age. Secondly, his great love in soldiering was his interest in his men. That is a quality, I am glad to say, which is not rare in the British Army, but it came to full flower in him. The greatest reward, I feel, which we could have
274
wished for his illustrious father was to have had a son such as he proved to be.
3.21 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to take up a few minutes of your Lordships' time in order to pay a tribute, in the first place, to Lord Geddes, who died during the Recess. Lord Geddes' work for the nation needs no commendation from me, and the wider aspects of it, of course, are known to many of your Lordships much better than to myself. But I did have the great privilege of working with him as one of his deputies for a time during the war, when he bore the great burden of being a Regional Commissioner for Civil Defence. Many great Englishmen carried these heavy burdens during the war years, but I think no one stood out more magnificently for the work which he did—work carried through under very great personal difficulties—than Lord Geddes, first as Regional Commissioner in the South-Eastern Region, and afterwards for a time in the North-West. When the history of that period comes to be studied by the historians, I am sure that his work will stand very high.
I should also like, for a minute, to add my tribute, as, I think, the only teacher of law in your Lordships' House, to what has already been said about Lord Simon. He was, of course, in his early days a teacher of law also, though that was long before my own time. I have heard so much said about the brilliance of his work in that regard that I should like to have it mentioned in your Lordships' House. He continued to take a very great interest in the work of the law schools of the Universities, and from time to time he unstintingly placed his services at their disposal. In a wider way, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, has pointed out, his contributions to the law were not only contributions of practical importance but contributions of the kind which illuminate the law, and which provide the best material on which teachers of the law can work. I suppose that he was among the most versatile men of his time, but though he passed from the teaching of the law into spheres of activity in which his services to the community were much more outstanding, I am sure that among members of his profession his services as a teacher will long

275
be remembered, if only because some of his students have taken their places among the most distinguished lawyers of our time.
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, a few days ago, when this House was sitting as the final Court of Appeal, I paid my tribute to the great lawyer who has passed away. To-day, I will add only a few words, choosing from the many aspects of his long life two features which, in all that has been written and said about him, have perhaps been too little recognised. The first is this: that though to him success in his profession came easily and quickly, he never failed to understand and, with understanding, to hold out a helping hand to those who found the path a more difficult one to tread. I think there are many of us now alive—and many more must already have passed away—who recall with gratitude the kindly words of encouragement, and sometimes something more than words of encouragement, that came to them from John Simon. The second feature is this: a long and wide experience in the law, a scholar's passion for accuracy, and a compelling sense of the judicial oath drove him to sustained and unremitting efforts in the preparation of judgments which will, as I said the other day, be his most enduring monument. I sometimes thought that in that work he found his greatest happiness. We, at least, who were his colleagues will not forget his example.
May I add a few words about Lord Wavell, though about him I do not find it easy to speak. A friendship which I had formed in schooldays with his father was renewed, in the same school, by my sons with him whom we now mourn. So it was that I knew him from boyhood; and recently I knew him in circumstances which revealed to me the shining qualities of selflessness and sympathy to which, in many quarters, moving testimony has been given. It is, I think, true to say that he had not fully found himself: it was not yet clear to him, and it was not clear to us, his friends, what part he would play in the world. But of this I am sure: that he was, by his qualities of heart and mind, destined to lead, in
276
whatever the sphere of action he chose for his own. He accomplished much quietly and unostentatiously in his own way, but he died before the full fruit could be borne. Of him those noble and comforting lines might well have been written:
"In small proportions we just beauties see;
And in short measure, life may perfect be."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.30 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, with whom I know we all sympathise in the loss of his distinguished brother, to tell the House that he is postponing the Motion on military aid to Pakistan, which is on the Order Paper for debate to-morrow, Wednesday afternoon, until a later date. He much regrets if this unavoidable postponement should cause any inconvenience to those who had proposed to take part in the discussion.

TRADE VISITS TO CHINA
3.31 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what formalities and facilities there are for representatives of British industrial firms to visit China with a view to exploring possibilities of obtaining orders for non-embargo British goods: and, if such facilities exist, where and how they can most expeditiously be obtained.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage trade between this country and China in all goods permitted by our strategic controls. Therefore, we should give British firms wishing to send representatives to China to discuss trade in such goods all such proper facilities as lay within our power, and would do our best to help them through the necessary formalities. The Chinese Government, however, have not, so far as I am aware, yet granted facilities for the representatives of British firms to visit China, except on two occasions when they have invited organised

277
parties. These invitations seem to have been issued for political propaganda rather than for the promotion of trade. British firms with representatives resident in China have experienced great difficulty and delay in obtaining permits for normal staff movements.
An entry permit issued on the authority of the Chinese Government is necessary for travel in China. There is no representative of the Chinese Government in any British territory with authority to issue visas. The nearest Chinese Embassy or consulate is in Switzerland. Firms considering visits to China may prefer to write direct to the Ministry of Foreign Trade in Pekin. In all such matters Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Pekin will give such help as he can. His ability to help is qualified, however, by the restricted measure of recognition accorded to him by the Chinese Government.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for his helpful and informative reply? I should like to make clear that I asked the Question in the general interests of our export drive for British trade. In accordance with tradition, I had better reveal to the House that I have certain interests connected with the Far East.

MARKETING OF PERSIAN OIL
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any information as to the reported setting up of an internationally owned marketing company to sell Persian oil with the United States as the predominant partner.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the reports to which the noble Lord refers are inaccurate; but as Her Majesty's Government have only just entered into discussions with the Persian Government about this complex problem, I think it would be premature to say more about it publicly at this early stage.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply, and will follow the advice it contains.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDA- TION) BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Bill which I invite the House to read for a second time to-day has as its background the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, a Committee which investigated the law and practice relating to charitable trusts. If I may say so in the presence of the noble Lord, that was a most remarkable Report, and I think that all who are in any way concerned with the many matters dealt with in that Report will feel grateful to him and to his colleagues.
The subject matter of this Bill is very technical and, I am afraid, somewhat dry. I must do my best to explain it to your Lordships. I know from the list of speakers which has been handed to me that few of your Lordships feel inclined to embark upon the troubled waves of this matter. Following upon—indeed coincidental with—the publication of the noble Lord's Report, the Government made a statement in which they announced their intention of accepting broadly the recommendations in Chapter 12 of the Report, a chapter which deals with what were called imperfect trust provisions. Let me explain, in a word, what that means. By "imperfect trust," an expression coined for this purpose, is meant a trust under which the income may he applied either for charitable or for non-charitable purposes. The purpose of this Bill is to validate in certain respects, and subject to certain qualifications and savings, those imperfect trust provisions. I think it will be proper, in order that your Lordships may not be left completely in the dark, that I should say a few introductory words upon this rather technical subject.
The first point that may occur to your Lordships is to wonder what is wrong with a trust which provides partly for charitable and partly for non-charitable objects. The reasons are these. Under our law, one cannot create a trust which is to be operated for more than a certain period. The policy of the law is against the creation of what is called technically a perpetuity—that is to say, the holding up of the capital of a trust for more than

279
a limited period, a period I can roughly describe as that of the lives in being and twenty-one years thereafter. So, if one attempts to settle one's income on a trust which exceeds that period, one is infringing the rule against perpetuities and the provision is void. But that is not so, and never has been so, in regard to a charitable trust. A charitable trust may be constituted for countless generations. So it is that there are many charitable trusts to-day that have persisted through centuries, not infringing the rule against perpetuities.
The second aspect (I hope that I am not being too didactic to your Lordships in this matter, but I think it is important to understand why we ask for this Bill) is that while the law forbids a man to make a will disposing of his property upon what trust he likes, yet he must make his own will. He cannot leave it to another to make it. He must make it in precise and certain terms. For, if he does not, he will leave it to others, his executors, to operate it, not as he willed it but as they think fit. Accordingly, unless a man defines his trust with sufficient precision, it will be void for uncertainty. But that is not the case with a charitable trust, so that if the charitable intention is clear, it does not matter if the purposes are undefined. For the court, as it has said, will execute the trust by settling a scheme for the administration of the charity. Therefore my second point is that whereas an ordinary non-charitable trust may fail for uncertainty, a charitable trust will not fail for uncertainty.
The third aspect of the matter, which has assumed great importance in modern times, distinguishing charitable from non-charitable trusts, is this: that in respect of the income of a charitable trust income tax is not exigible. So we find this important distinction, a matter which often comes before the courts, of a particular institution claiming that its purpose is charitable, in order that tax may not be exigible, while the Inland Revenue claim that it is not charitable and that tax is exigible. It happened—and it was a somewhat strange accident—that in 1949 two cases came before the Law Courts in which the trusts under consideration, though claimed by the institutions concerned to be charitable, were held to be not charitable, for the reason that the
280
purposes of the trusts were both charitable and non-charitable, and so mixed up that they could not be distinguished the one from the other. In those circumstances, the court, following precedents which were, indeed, centuries old, held that the trusts were void because they infringed the rule against perpetuity. That covered a wide range of trusts which had unfortunately grown up as a result partly of a model deed which had found its place in a volume of precedents. Accordingly, the Nathan Committee, if I may refer to them somewhat colloquially in that way, recommended, and Her Majesty's Government thought fit to accept, that those trusts should, subject, as I say, to certain qualifications, be validated.
Imperfect trusts may take one of two forms combining the charitable with the non-charitable. It may be in some such words as these, "The trust may be for charitable or other objects." In that case, it is quite clear that the "other objects" are not charitable objects. There you get exactly the case, and the decisions of the court are centuries old, that the trust is invalid. But there is a more subtle case than that. There is the case where the object itself is described in language which admits either of a charitable or a non-charitable purpose—for instance, a gift for parochial purposes. I need not go into the intricacies of the law, but it is clear that some so-called parochial purposes are charitable and some so-called parochial purposes are not charitable. Accordingly, it is clear, on long authority, that that trust is invalid, because the charitable is mixed with the non-charitable. That is just the type of case which it is intended to validate by this Bill.
With that preface, which I hope has not been too long, let me take your Lordships to the Bill itself. The Bill first describes "imperfect trust provision"; and it describes it substantially in the language which I have been using, as meaning
"any provision declaring the objects for which property is to be held or applied, and so describing those objects that, consistently with the terms of the provision, the property could be used exclusively for charitable purposes, but could also be used for purposes which are not charitable."
That is a clear definition of the imperfect trust provision with which we are dealing in this Bill. What do we propose to do

281
with that? We propose making a clear-cut division as at the date when the Nathan Report was published and the Government statement made—namely, December 16, 1952. What we propose is that, as the result of this Bill, as respects the period before the commencement of the Act the trust is to be treated as if the whole of the declared objects were charitable. Your Lordships will see the result of that. The result is that the trustees, having been treated as having disposed of the whole of the income for charitable purposes, are not liable to be attacked for anything they have done. In effect, they are franked for anything they have done in the past. What do we do as to the future? As to the future, we separate the charitable from the non-charitable and provide for the trust to be treated
"as respects the period after that commencement as if the provision had required the property to be held or applied for the declared objects in so far only as they authorise use for charitable purposes."
I must go back for one moment, because I see that I made a small error. The date for division is not December 16, 1952, but the date when the Act comes into force. That is what the Act does.
The next question is: To what dispositions is the Act to apply? It is only an innocent and inexperienced person—I think I might say a rather foolish person—who would say that this is capable of simple drafting, because there is an infinite complexity here in the kind of instruments by which charitable trusts are created, and, indeed, in the terms of these instruments. It may be the simplest of all settlements or wills by which the property is left on trust for charitable and non-charitable objects. But it may be an instrument in which there are first life interests, and then gifts for such purposes. It may not be an instrument in the ordinary sense at all, but an appeal. It may be a form of charity which is constituted by no other writing than the words on a collection box. It may be that it is created by means of covenants, and so on. The language of this Bill is so drafted as to try and cover all those sorts of dispositions.
Having said what we propose to do, I would ask your Lordships to consider what are the dispositions to which the Act is to apply. As the simplest way of
282
doing that, I will read the provisions of Clause 2 (1). That says:
"Subject to the next following subsection, this Act applies to any disposition of property to be held or applied for objects declared by an imperfect trust provision, and to any covenant to make such a disposition, where apart from this Act the disposition or covenant is invalid under the law of England and Wales, but would be valid if the objects were exclusively charitable."
That defines the nature of the disposition. Subsection (2) of this clause is of great importance. It says:
"This Act does not apply to a disposition or covenant which before the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, has been treated as invalid on the ground that the objects are not exclusively charitable.…"
As your Lordships, will appreciate, it is obviously necessary to save from this general validation dispositions which had been, quite rightly as the law stood, treated as invalid; end accordingly they are excluded from the operation of the Act. I am quite prepared to hear some criticism of the words "treated as invalid ". I can only say that the accomplished draftsman of the Bill has tried hard—and I myself have tried—to find some comprehensive words which would cover all that we mean, but we have not found it possible to do more than use rather general words which it will be left to the courts to interpret. It is quite clear that, where there have been proceedings before the court and a judgment declaring the trust invalid, in that case it has been treated as invalid. But there are many other cases that will occur to your Lordships where, equally, the trust has been treated as invalid—where, for instance, the trustees, upon advice, have proceeded to the distribution of the trust income upon the footing that it is invalid. If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who I know takes a great interest in this matter, can find more appropriate words between now and the Committee stage, we shall be glad to consider them. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 goes on to say:
"but this subsection shall not be taken as excluding the application of this Act to any disposition or covenant by reason only of the fact that, for purposes of taxation or for the purposes of any enactment, the objects have been treated (whether in consequence of legal proceedings or otherwise) as not being exclusively charitable."
Those words mean this. While it is quite right that, if a disposition has been treated as invalid generally, it should not get the benefit of this Act, it would seem rather

283
hard if the trustees have been subjected to taxation, upon the contention of the Inland Revenue that the trust is not a charitable one, but have otherwise maintained that it is a charitable one and have distributed the income accordingly. So there is an exception within an exception. If the disposition has been treated as invalid for taxation purposes only, that is not to affect the operation of the Act.
Clause 3 of the Bill is also an important one, because it provides for saving the rights of beneficiaries under a settlement which they might want to challenge. In effect, it provides a saving for the rights of persons who may have a claim to property which is the subject of an imperfect trust provision on the ground of its invalidity. But those saving rights are limited. To take advantage of the saving provision, the person must show that his right accrued on a date not more than six years before December 16, 1952—that is the date of the publication of the Report and of the Government statement. Further, not only must the right have accrued not more than six years before that date, but it must be asserted within one year after the passing of the Bill or within one year after the right first accrued to the claimant or to some person through whom he claims, whichever is the later. Your Lordships see that there are no savings but qualified savings, and it appears to Her Majesty's Government that that maintains a proper compromise between those who would benefit by the declared invalidity of the provision and those who wished to assert that in all circumstances the provision should be a valid one.
Now, as is always the case when you have a saving of rights, the question arises in regard to those who are not in a position at once to assert their rights, either because they are under a disability or because there are prior interests and so on. Without going into any technicalities, I think all I need say to your Lordships is that the succeeding parts of Clause 3 deal with just that aspect of the case—namely, the extension of a further period of claim to those who rest under a disability and, therefore, are not in a position at once to assert their claim. I ought to say this further in regard to the saving of rights to beneficiaries. We wish to put the trustees into as favourable a position
284
as possible, and so the Bill provides that in regard to trustees they may proceed upon the footing that the trusts are valid unless and until they receive an express notice of claim. Your Lordships see how important that is for the due administration of trusts. I have heard already, and I expect I shall hear again from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, some criticism of the extension of time which is given to those under disability, and naturally everything that the noble Lord has to say about this very complex subject will receive our earnest and sympathetic consideration. But as at present advised, our view is that it is proper in this case, as in other cases where any sort of statutory limitation is imposed, to give to those who are under a disability an extended time to make their claim.
I think I need say nothing more about Clause 3, though there are many aspects of detail which may be referred to upon the Committee stage of the Bill. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 4 which first of all provides that the Act is not to apply for the purpose of any legal proceedings begun before December 16, 1952. I call special attention to that, because I had a communication from a well-known and distinguished firm of solicitors who were concerned with this matter and who seemed to have overlooked that provision. Nothing which this Bill does will affect proceedings which were commenced before December 16, 1952. More than that, the second subsection of Clause 4 provides that where legal proceedings have been commenced between December 16, 1952, and the passing of the Bill—that is to say, where proceedings have really been started in order to forestall the provisions of this Bill—it shall be open to the people who have been prejudiced by any order made in such proceedings to apply to the court to have the matter reinstated in the position it would be in if no such proceedings had been taken. Subsection (3) of Clause 4 deals with the taxation situation. Your Lordships will see that this Bill may easily give rise to a number of difficulties in regard to taxation. Broadly, the position which is assumed by the Bill is that where tax has been paid it will not be repaid (I am speaking now of trust provisions that are validated by this Bill), and where it has not been paid it will not be demanded. It is impossible, I think, to have anything except a rough and ready

285
division of that kind in regard to this matter.
Clause 5 gives necessary powers to the Government in Northern Ireland to make laws for purposes similar to the purposes of this Act. That provision is necessary, because this Bill affects taxation, which is a reserved matter, and the Act binds the Crown if it is necessary. Your Lordships will have the usual intimation in due course, otherwise there might be a claim to bona vacantia. I have attempted, at, I hope, not too great length, to put this difficult Bill before your Lordships, and submit it accordingly for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.58 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches support this Bill as a useful and necessary measure to meet a need that has been clearly disclosed. Having said that on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I address myself to your Lordships in a personal capacity as Chairman of the Committee out of whose report this Bill emerges. Let me say at once how much I appreciate the kind and agreeable words spoken by the Lord Chancellor about the work of my Committee, which not only are acceptable to myself but will also he most agreeably heard by my colleagues of the Committee. Her Majesty's Government were prompt in acting upon the suggestions made in this respect by my Committee, and it was necessary that that should be so because the Report disclosed a situation of peril for trustees unless steps were taken to safeguard their position. It was for that reason that, simultaneously with the presentation of the Report to Parliament, the Prime Minister in another place and the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack in this House made a statement on behalf of the Government. I am prompted to ask, incidentally, whether the Lord Chancellor is in a position to make any statement as regards the Government's intentions respecting the Report generally whether, for instance, there is likely to be a policy White Paper, and if so when. I hope the Lord Chancellor may he able to give sonic reassuring answer, for I have had a number of inquiries made of me and I know there is a widespread and manifest anxiety to know how matters are moving and when something is likely to happen.
286
I know it cannot be this Session but I am hopeful that it may be next Session.
While the Bill gives effect to the substance of our recommendations—though as regards the older defective trusts it is slightly different—my view is that its proposals are somewhat more simple and more effective than those adumbrated by my Committee. For that reason I welcome the Bill and regard it with more than ordinary cordiality. Indeed, I subscribe to what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said as to the apparent simplicity but intrinsic complexity of the problem with which the draftsman was confronted. I am full of admiration for the way in which the Bill has been prepared, and any comments which I have to make upon it will not in the least derogate from my wholehearted admiration of the skill shown in preparing the Bill on this very complex matter.
The Lord Chancellor, as might be ex-peeled, has given a most lucid and comprehensive, though none too long, statement as to the law applicable to this difficult problem and the provisions, by no means simple, of this Bill. There is one point on which I might add an addendum by way of explanation. As the Lord Chancellor has said, the matter in question arose in two cases in the course of the same year, 1949. It arose in the first instance in the case of the Oxford Group. The Oxford Group was registered in the form of a charity incorporated under what is now Section 19 of the Companies Act, 1948. The purposes and objects of the Oxford Group, as set out in its memorandum of association, were held by the court to be some of them charitable and others of them non-charitable, with the result that the Oxford Group was held not to be entitled as a charity exemption from income tax. It was open, however, to the Oxford Group, as a company incorporated under the Companies Act, to change its objects clause—to alter, that is, its memorandum of association—so as to put this right and qualify itself for the future for exemption from income tax as a charity. This it proceeded to do. But Parliament also intervened in the matter, and by Section 37, I think it was, of the Finance Act, 1950, it was prescribed that this alteration, when made by any charity so incorporated, should have not merely effect for the future but also

287
retroactive effect. That was a considerable concession to those charities incorporated under the Companies Act.
The problem with which my Committee was confronted was how to apply, with equity to all concerned, the same principle to charities that were not incorporated under the Companies Act—in other words charities created either by will or by gifts inter vivos. It was not a simple problem because, whereas when you are dealing with a company the company has nobody but itself to think of in the sense that any steps it thinks right to take do not affect the right of others, in the case of an invalid trust created by will or by deed, the trust cannot be put right at all (except in the very rare instance where provision to that effect exists in the will or deed) and immediately the rights of third parties, the next of kin, the donors to a charity or whoever it may be that provided the funds, come into play.
The real object of this Bill is to do the best that can be done to place non-incorporated charities in the same position as that in which incorporated charities now stand, whilst at the same time having due regard to the rights of third parties who are brought into the picture by reason of the invalidity of the trust because it is both charitable and non-charitable. The difficulties which have been shown to exist gave rise to this problem of the Oxford Group and what is known as the Ellis case, both in 1949, and it is pretty clear that from the practical standpoint there are obvious advantages in future, generally speaking, in the incorporation of charities under the appropriate provisions of the Companies Act, 1949, Section 19, rather than by will or deed. It cannot always be done, for it is not applicable to all occasions; but I think as a general rule it would be better, because then the worst that can happen for a company is that it may lose its income tax, but that can be put right for the future by an alteration of its memorandum of association; whereas, in a trust created by will or by deed, nothing can be done except with the assistance of Parliament, as by this present Bill.
I was greatly interested to hear the Lord Chancellor say, and much indebted to him for saying it, that this Bill covers the case not only where there is a clearly
288
defined charitable accompanied by a non-charitable purpose, but where there is a single purpose which may be operated in either a charitable or a non-charitable fashion. I think that that will bring great relief to the mass of many Church of England charities and even more, perhaps, to Roman Catholic charities, both of which types of charity are greatly affected by this Bill and the problems which it is designed to meet. I am delighted that the Lord Chancellor feels that the Bill covers that point, because it allows me to move away from a suggestion which we made in our Report, rather against our will—it sounds odd—as to validating trusts which had been operated as if they were charities but which had no charitable object. We felt ourselves constrained to make that suggestion, odd though we thought it then and odd though it sounds now, because we did not feel certain that a trust object defined as a single object could be divided into a trust which could be operated for charitable purposes only and that one could disregard any non-charitable application of that trust.
There is one point to which the Lord Chancellor did not refer. It is a relatively trifling point but perhaps it is worth mentioning. That is the case of the trust valid as charitable when it begins, but afterwards held to be non-charitable. I think the most striking instance is the case of anti-vivisection, which seems to have been charitable in 1895 but had ceased to be so by 1947. There are two cases bearing upon that subject. I ask the Lord Chancellor whether he thinks it possible to arrange that a trust if once charitable should be preserved for charity on something like the cy-près principle.
I have one word to say—as indeed the Lord Chancellor showed quite clearly that he anticipated—on the question of savings in favour of those under disability. I fully realise the importance of savings in favour of persons such as infants who are under the disability of infancy until they attain their majority, and, in the ordinary way, I doubt whether I should wish to do anything which would limit the period during which they might assert their rights. But it seems to me that this is rather a special case—not that hard cases make good law—because the object of this Bill is not so much to secure that something shall accrue to beneficiaries as

289
to preserve for charity what was intended for charity, and to prevent uncertainty from prevailing beyond the narrowest limits of time. So narrow, indeed, are the limits of time provided by the Bill in general that, if a claim is not made within a period of twelve months, then the trust is valid and the rights of the claimant are for ever thereafter extinguished. But, in the case of an infant, to take the most obvious example, the period of uncertainty does not come to an end with the lapse of a year. If there should be, for instance, one of these imperfect trust provisions where the infant ultimately entitled as a beneficiary in the event of invalidity is now, say, a week old, the trustees would have to wait twenty-two years, and so would the charitable beneficiaries, before knowing whether the trust should be validated as a charitable trust or not. That seems to me to be too long, in the circumstances of that case.
If, perchance, someone on behalf of such an infant were to give notice now to the trustees of such a claim, then under the scheme of the Bill I imagine that the trustees, having thus been affected by express notice of an adverse claim, would have to close the trust down until it was ultimately decided by the courts whether or not it was valid twenty-one or twenty-two years hence. That seems to me too long a period, arid scarcely in line with the idea underlying the Bill or the general scheme of the Bill. I would urge the Lord Chancellor to consider most carefully whether infants should not he left to the remedy which they have of suing, for instance, by their "next friend," so that finality might be reached within a limited period, within say the year prescribed by the Bill for the ordinary claimant. I think there is some statutory precedent to be found for such an arrangement. I refer the Lord Chancellor to the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, Section 3, and to the Copyright Act, 1911, Section 10. They are not altogether in like case—I would not suggest that they are—but there is perhaps a precedent to be found there for telescoping the period during which claims may he made. That seems to me to be infinitely desirable in the present instance.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with an expression of my opinion or suggest to-day my modifications of the, phrase used in the Bill to which the Lord
290
Chancellor has referred—trust provisions which have been "treated as invalid." It is not a term of art and it may very well give rise to difficulties and litigation. But the Lord Chancellor has challenged me to try to provide a better phrase. I will be frank with your Lordships and say that I have already tried, and found myself unable to devise a phrase which seemed at once sufficiently precise and sufficiently comprehensible. That does not mean that it may not be possible for the highly skilled Parliamentary draftsman in the light of this discussion to find some other phrase. If something could be found which lacked the imprecision of the present phrase, I think it would be all to the good; but I must candidly confess that I have found myself unable to make any positive contribution to the solution of this particular problem though, like the Lord Chancellor—I think, like the Lord Chancellor—I see the problem.
That is all I have to say about this Bill. Naturally, in the light of what if have said, your Lordships will realise that I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration. My noble friends, like myself, will support the Second Reading. I think this is a useful measure to get upon the Statute Book in order to relieve the anxieties of many trustees, charitable beneficiaries and, for all I know, third parties in many parts of the country, in a matter of great concern to all charitable endowments.
4.19 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, looked at me as he said that this Bill would affect a great many Church of England charities, and the Lord Chancellor spoke of "parochial purposes" as being a very frequent phrase in connection with these charities. I rise only to say that I have authority to state in this House that the Church Commissioners, who are, as your Lordships know, the body charged with a great deal of the care of the property of the Church of England, including, of course, a general oversight of such matters as are comprehended in this measure, have examined the contents of this Bill with great care, from the point of view of parochial purposes arid parochial charities, and are entirely satisfied with the provisions included in the measure.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must say at once how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan for the way in which he has received this Bill. I am the more grateful because I know, if he will allow me to be personal, that he has come at great personal inconvenience to himself to take part in this debate. It was a gracious and a rather gallant act on his part. The first question that the noble Lord asked me was what the Government proposed to do about the rest of his Report, and he asked me specifically whether and when there would be a White Paper. I will meet him halfway. I will tell him that, so far as I know, there certainly will be a White Paper: but I will not commit myself in regard to when. This is a most complex matter which is under investigation. I can assure him that it is under constant investigation, and we have made considerable progress. It would not be right for me to commit myself exactly in regard to when the White Paper will be published. I want to correct one thing that I said about Clause 4 (1) of the Bill. I referred to a communication that I have received. I think perhaps that I misread it, and did not do justice to the writers of it. All I want to say is that I will again look into the matter referred to in that communication.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has made some criticism of the matter to which I myself referred, the limitation of time for claims made by those under disability, such as infants. I think that the noble Lord has rather forgotten one aspect of this case. This is retrospective legislation of a most unusual kind, validating trusts which at present are in law invalid, validating them for the benefit of charity and to the prejudice of the persons who are in law now entitled to them. I do not think one ought to go too far when one is doing that: and accordingly, when persons are under disability, I think that they ought to have the full time which is normally allowed to such persons in order to assert or to withdraw their claims. That is more particularly so when we consider that this is not really a case where the law is in doubt, but a case where the persons who are really entitled are to have the option of saying whether or not they will assert their claims. It is my present view, although I am open to
292
further consideration and perhaps even to conviction, that that is something which ought to be done by the person under disability—infant, as it may be—on his own behalf, and not by somebody on his behalf. Therefore I still venture to think that where you have an infant who is entitled under the law as it stands to assert his rights and say, "This is an invalid provision and I am entitled to this trust property," it should be left to him to say it when he is of age, and not for anybody else to say it now on his behalf. That is my present view, but, as I say, I am quite open to consider it further.
Then the noble Lord asked me a very difficult question, to which I do not propose to give a final answer at present; that is, the very unusual case where a particular trust has at a certain period been held to be valid, and then, subsequently, the question coming before the courts again, not that trust but a similar trust is held to be invalid—that was the case of the Anti-Vivisection Trust. Some fifty years ago it was held that a trust for anti-vivisection was a valid charitable trust, but in a case which came before this House some few years ago, in which I am glad to say I had the privilege of reading the leading judgment, it was held not to be a charitable trust. What exactly is to be done in such a case as that, in regard to a trust which has once been held to be charitable, is a puzzle which I should like further to consider. The noble Lord has the satisfaction of knowing that he has given me a rather difficult task. However, we will consider that. It is a very small point, and I think one which must be of the rarest possible occurrence. Subject to that I think that I have dealt with the points which the noble Lord has raised. Once more I would thank him and the right reverend Prelate for the reception which this Bill has received. Of course there are points which we may still consider on the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I rise only for one purpose: to congratulate Lord Nathan, and to thank him for the great amount of trouble that he has taken in connection with this matter for several years past, and for the admirable recommendations that have been made by his Committee, which in some small respect

293
are being implemented in this Bill. I rise to say this because, as a former president of the National Council of Social Service and a present-day member of its executive committee, so far as this Bill affects the work of the Council I may say on their behalf that we are entirely in sympathy with him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to have risen before the noble Viscount. I did not realise that he wished to speak.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CWMBRAN NEW TOWN COMPUL SORY PURCHASE ORDER No. 9 (THE GARW), 1952.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BURDENhad given notice of his intention to move, That the Cwmbran New Town Compulsory Purchase Order No. 9 (The Garw), 1952, a copy of which was laid before the House on the 24tha of November last, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since this Motion was placed on the Order Paper I understand that there has been a considerable amount of negotiation, and I am bound to say that there exists some misapprehension, not on the merits of the Order or the dispute between the two bodies, both worthy bodies, but, so to speak, on the mechanics of the Motions standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Ogmore. I understand that these two Motions have been put down for consideration in another place, and therefore, without prejudice to the rights of this House in matters of this kind, I do not propose to move my Motion this afternoon.
4.28 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as it would have fallen to my lot to respond, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to these two Motions on the Order Paper, perhaps I may be permitted to say one or two words upon them. I will try and be as impersonal as I can. I have, however, spent a fortnight in a thorough and intensive study of these Motions, in an attempt to make myself familiar with the details of this complex matter. I had even gone so far as to pay a visit, at my own expense, to Cwmbran to study
294
the situation on the ground, a journey which has now obviously proved really unnecessary. If the noble Lord had been able to give me more than an hour's notice that the two Motions that have been on the Order Paper for nearly a month were to be withdrawn, he would have saved rue personally some inconvenience—but that is an argument which it would have been improper for me to advance in your Lordships' House. Whether he would have saved any inconvenience to other noble Lords in your Lordships' House who were intending to speak upon this matter, I know not, for I have not had the time, within an hour, to inquire. The reason that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has given is that the matter is to be discussed in another place. Whether that is an adequate reason for withdrawing these two Motions at an hour's notice is, again, not for me to say—it is a matter for your Lordships. I should have thought that your Lordships' House would be able to discuss these complex things quite as well as another place; but again that is not for me to say.
All I want to say is this. These two Motions contain what is, of course, an attack upon the policies of the new town of Cwmbran and its Corporation, and thus, indirectly, upon my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government (whom I have the honour to represent in your Lordships' House) for giving the Corporation his support in this matter. A Petition lies upon the Table. The pros and cons of this Petition have been bruited abroad in the Press, and particularly in the Press of South Wales, because the people of Pontypool and Cwmbran are naturally keenly concerned in this matter. I will not say that "mud sticks," because it would be discourteous to the noble Lord to suggest that his Motion contains anything so unparliamentary as mud. But the Motion is an attack—a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary attack—and I think that such an attack, once levelled should not appear to go unanswered merely by reason of the noble Lord's being given permission to withdraw his Motion.
I should like to say, as shortly as I can, that had I been called upon to answer this case, I would have done so, I am sorry to say, at some length and in some

295
detail, but, I flatter myself, to your Lordships' satisfaction. I should have advanced the argument that my right honourable friend the Minister has been wholly blameless in this matter, and has acted with complete propriety and fairness. I should not like the House to grant Lord Burden permission to withdraw his Motion without giving me the opportunity of saying these few words in defence of my right honourable friend, for fear that, by my silence, I should be thought to acquiesce for one moment in a possible accusation that my right honourable friend has been anything except wholly proper and wholly fair in his conduct. I leave the matter there. I have no personal complaint to make, but I should not like this attack on my right honourable friend to go by default.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is only a short time ago that a Resolution was accepted that Motions on the Order Paper should not be withdrawn or altered except when full notice has been given. I am sure the noble Lord will remember that that Resolution was accepted by the House only a very short time ago.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, perhaps the House will allow me to say just one or two words in reply. In the first place, I was not intending to develop the merits of the case one way or the other, and if the noble Lord thinks that this Motion involves an attack on his right honourable friend, then I ask him to accept an assurance from me that that was in no way intended. In putting down this Motion I have only been concerned to see—and the same is true of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—that the mechanics, so to speak, provided under the Bill, should be complied with. This arises out of an accident, otherwise it would not be before your Lordships to-day. I ask Lord Mancroft to accept my assurance that in no way was I going to develop the case one way or the other, because, frankly—if I may express a personal opinion—I think that, on the merits, the case is against the rural district council, and in
296
favour of the new town and the action that the Minister has taken.
I think your Lordships will agree, however, that a subject has the right, if he or she feels aggrieved, to come to Members of this House and ask for redress of any particular grievance, if the law so provides. As this is now being done in another place, I accept the position. It is because of something which was urged on me, and also because of the attitude of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that I was induced two hours ago to agree to withdraw the Motion.
4.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I am certain that there was no intention of doing anything deliberately to embarrass the Government or anything of that kind. But a number of noble Lords have been in Governments, and no doubt will be in Governments again, and they know the immense pressure under which Ministers work. This Motion, which has been put down, has involved the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in a very considerable amount of work. If they had been informed earlier through the usual channels that the noble Lord did not intend to move the Motion, it would have meant a very great saving of their time, and of the country's time. I therefore suggest that on occasions of this kind, when the noble Lord or any other noble Lord does not mean to move, they should let us know as soon as they possibly can and so save unnecessary labour.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think I can undertake, on behalf of the noble Viscount the acting Leader of this Party, that in future we will take all possible steps to avoid occurrences of this sort. I should like to say to Lord Man-croft that I regret very much that he has been put quite unnecessarily to a great deal of trouble. If my noble friend had been able to give longer notice of the proposed withdrawal of this Motion on this occasion, I am sure he would have done so. Once again, I express our regret at the unnecessary trouble which has been caused.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before five o'clock.