Lords Sitting of 24 January 1956

Preamble
Reassembling for Public Business after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley—Affirmed.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
2.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury, would have wished beyond everything to be in his place today to express the sense of grief and loss which is felt by the whole of your Lordships' House at the death of Dr. Garbett. Archbishop of York. Lord Salisbury could have paid his tribute as a friend of long standing and as one who over many years had heard from these Benches the wise and direct counsel with which Dr. Garbett enlightened and enriched our debates. Inevitably, my Lords, my experience must be more recent and less intimate, but yet it was no time before, like many another. I found myself falling under the spell of his personality and beginning to understand why he was so individually loved as a man, so widely recognised as a true and powerful Churchman, and so universally acclaimed as a great Archbishop and statesman. From our own judgment we know that he was all that—and more, because when he spoke in this House on matters of national and international importance his was the authentic voice of the British people.
Where lay the secret of his unrivalled authority? His contemporaries and friends all testify that he was supremely good with the individual. He would mix with all and sundry. In country or town, in field or factory, he was equally at home and he would apply his sympathetic and inquiring mind to the problems which were brought to him by the
480
people—problems personal, social and economic. Because he was possessed of absolute integrity and a high degree of common sense he won the confidence of everybody; and because he had a clear mind which he applied to the possible, and was possessed of great administrative abilities, he carried conviction. His work in parish and diocese lives as a telling memorial to the success of a practical administrator.
But others have had these qualities, and more is needed to explain the instant devotion and the lifelong loyalty which he drew from people, even on the most casual acquaintance. Perhaps part of the attraction lay in the stern, unbending standard of conduct which he set for himself. The sight of a man who is strong and secure and rejoices in his faith brings courage to others; and here, if ever, was a public witness to the good Christian life. But here, too, was one who, though he was armed himself with the strength of certainty, nevertheless was filled with comprehension of the difficulties and doubts of lesser men; and one who was always ready to draw on the reserves of his strength in order to help others along. It was perhaps this blend of strength, gentleness and humour—always that was there—which made him a natural and trusted leader of men through university and parish, Diocese and See.
But, my Lords, further afield as well. In the last twelve years of the life of the Archbishop, when other men would have been content to rest on their laurels—and who had more than he?—he travelled the world. In Europe, throughout the Commonwealth and in America his name became a household word and his advice commanded attention. But it was this House, and through it the country, which benefited most from his expanding experience. Whatever the subject, it was subjected to that same penetrating analysis that so many of us have heard so often—no frills and no padding. He would apply his mind to the business of the clay, and none of us was ever left in doubt as to his meaning. As your Lordships will remember, he was always constructive in his speeches, but there were two qualities in all of them which were constant and compelling: his ability to establish first principles and to argue from them, and to be direct, incisive and convincing. Then he had that rare

481
courage, the courage which, whatever the circumstances, has no fear of the truth.
So to-day, my Lords, the Church and the nation and Parliament have lost a devoted servant, a man of stature and a man of distinction. For this House, in particular, to-day is a day of mourning, but it is also a day of gratitude, for there is not one of us who does not feel stronger and more resolute by the knowledge of the life of this triumphant Christian crusader.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to associate my colleagues and myself with the touching and eloquent tribute paid to our colleague in this House who has departed. The occasion of the passing of a most reverend Primate from your Lordships' House is one of great moment, not only to his Church but to the whole nation. In this country of ours we have a devotion to a certain religion and to a way of life which has been nurtured and guarded for centuries by those who have been leaders of our Church. I say, as a Free Churchman, that on the maintenance of such a Church, with such a mission, and in spite of all criticism outside, depends to a very great extent the future of our nation and our Commonwealth. To my mind, the influence of the Bible upon ourselves and upon all the nations who now go to make up the Commonwealth has been almost indescribable.
When we lose a leader of the Church we must ask ourselves how such a man came to be a leader in all the great holy issues which are so important for us. I am fascinated when I read the story of Dr. Garbett. He was a grammar-school boy at Portsmouth—a grammar-school boy of whom I first heard on my visits to Portsmouth in 1929, when I was at the Admiralty, for he had, in my experience, a unique record in the Christian ministry. He went almost straight from the university, where he won a scholarship and took an honours degree, to Portsea parish church, as a curate. And what an illustration it is of the humility of tie man that he stayed there as curate for nine years, serving, a place that he knew, associating with people that he knew and to whom he wished so much good. Then he remained there as vicar until 1919 and had no other parish charge until he was
482
elevated to his first great post at Southwark.
It was in Southwark where the working-class people of this country came to know something of those qualities on the social side which have been hinted at by the noble Earl. I have been talking during only the last few days to my old friend Mr. George Isaacs—still at the age of seventy-three the Member for the borough of Southwark—and he said to me: "We shall never forget in Southwark what the work he did as Bishop meant to our borough, especially in relation to his important work, on the great Southwark housing survey." He did his work because he believed that to raise the standard of life of the people was the Master's work. I do not know so much of his work at Winchester. I met him for the first time at Athens, in 1946, when I was on my way back from India and he happened to be lunching at the residence of the British Ambassador in Athens at that time; and we discussed many things across the table.
Since then, for only a brief period of five or six years, I, together with your Lordships, have seen something of the contribution that he has made to the life of this House as well as to the concentrated, intensive studies we try to make here. I have not always agreed with him but I have always admired him. I admired him, first of all, for his humility, and for his courage in stating his convictions—a quality so often possessed by those who have true humility. I admired him, above all, for what I have heard from my long association with Yorkshire at Sheffield—for the way in which he has kept touch at all times with the common people, in all parts of the countryside, in his great church up there.
We shall miss him very much and we grieve his loss in this House. The Church will be much the loser in his departure. I think the best thing we can do at this time, while his memory remains sweet and reverent in our minds, is to pray that there may be raised up for him a successor worthy to carry on the great work.
2.52 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it happens all too frequently when some well-loved Member of your Lordships' House dies that there appears to be inadequate

483
opportunity to pay the tribute, at least in public, which many of us feel we should like to pay. On the other hand, it sometimes happens that public tribute, and indeed sincere tribute, is paid to some eminent servant of the State who may, by circumstance alone, be little known as an individual or as a personal friend to a large number of your Lordships. On this sad occasion, however, we record both a collective regret and a personal sorrow at the absence from our midst of an eminent and able Primate, and at the same time a colleague and a friend whom we shall sorely miss. Direct both in thought and in speech, he was never inflexible in his approach. He was always human and humane; he was never ruthless or illiberal, and he was never unwilling to consider with sympathy, and often with humour, the opinions of those who might occasionally differ from him. We on these Benches sincerely and sorsowfully join in these words of regret and of admiration for a fine man, a fine leader and an irreplaceable friend.
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, I am personally grateful for all the words that have been said this afternoon in which have been portrayed the shining characteristics of Cyril Garbett. In churches all over the country, and in the language of the Church, this Church of England has been paying tribute to him, both for itself and for the nation, and has been offering faithful thanksgiving to Almighty God for the qualities and the power, expressed here this afternoon, of his Christian character and of his Christian leadership. The most moving funeral service in York Minster, and the great services in Southwark Cathedral and in Winchester Cathedral, mark out the three main chapters of his episcopal ministry.
One of the surprising things about this great man is the fact that the last chapter, when he was a septuagenarian, was the most vigorous, prolific and fruitful of them all. In Southwark, wedded to his shy graces, it was the strength of his character, of his moral force and of his severe discipline upon himself and upon everybody else that most impressed the Church and people. In Winchester, wedded to his strength, it was perhaps the flourishing graces of his character which most impressed. There he was able, for the first
484
time after Portsea and Southwark, to give time to develop his keen interests in books, in art, in the countryside and, above all, in friendship. There, he could indulge to the full his passion to explore everything. He had an insatiable desire to know all he could about everything that came to his notice; and he went out to meet new challenges of thought or experience, and to travel, as your Lordships have been reminded, both in space and in spirit.
So he came to York, for thirteen memorable years of his Archiepiscopate; and there everything, the strength of Southwark and the graces of Winchester, came to their full fruition. After he was seventy he travelled more than ever. If I may venture on a personal memory, I may tell your Lordships that after every one of his apostolic journeys he would come back and talk to me, and say. "Well, that is the last journey I shall ever do; I am too old for any more." But I knew perfectly well what would happen. Five or six months later, with that kind of shy impudence of the schoolboy which he never lost, he would say, "I have never been to so-and-so. I have always had a great desire to see some famous object there. Perhaps I might undertake just one more journey." This became a regular habit. Waiting for the next journey never ceased to exhilarate him. And so he went on and on, to the very year in which he died, for his last journey was to revisit, after forty years, Greece and the Holy Land. The problems of the Holy Land had always had a deep and abiding place in his concerns.
Not only did he travel more, but he wrote more. I once counted up all the books he had written: at Southwark, practically nothing, except some slight observances on parish work; at Winchester, a certain amount, but not a great deal; then he went to York, where he wrote books which will endure for a long time to come—this astonishing progress of vigour and vitality as his life went on. And at York I think he spoke to the public and was listened to by the public, more than ever before. All that came in the last decade of his life; and, as has been said this afternoon, with increasing years his undoubted and unquestioned authority grew.
Here, in the House of Lords, he was peculiarly at home. He enjoyed every

485
moment he spent in and about this Chamber. It began when he was at Southwark. In his Oxford days he had been a keen and passionate student of the social problems of that time, and in speaking about them he had become President of the Union. At Southwark, these very problems pressed hard on his conscience and awoke in him to the full the crusading and reforming zeal which he never lost. Indeed, it was in Southwark, when he had plenty to do elsewhere, that he formed the habit of dropping into the House of Lords whenever he could, and particularly to listen here to the well-informed speeches on social problems and allied topics which were his special concern. So it was that he grew to become a regular speaker on social problems in this House, such as housing (a subject which remained if his interest to the end of his life), road casualties—in fact, anything which concerned the lives and spiritual welfare of our people.
And as his life grew on, his range of informed knowledge grew as well, so that in his speeches he was able to embrace all the torturing field of international relations and such world problems as the feeding of the world as its population increases—a problem which had a special place in his speeches here and in his knowledge. I know how, when he went to York, he took special trouble to see that he did not lose that habit of attendance at the House of Lords and of speaking here. It was part of his duty, as of mine, to spend not less than three weeks every year sitting in the Church Assembly. If I absented myself, he had to take the Chair and had to keep me informed throughout. I know how often he would say, "Perhaps I might slip off this afternoon to the House of Lords"; and more often than not he was here instead of in the Church Assembly—for which I did not necessarily blame him at all. As your Lordships know, he was always well informed when he spoke, always direct and forceful, always outspoken in his denunciation of the insincere, the muddle-headed and the cowardly. And, as has been said this afternoon, he always did his utmost to be constructive and to point a way forward in faith and hope.
My Lords, we have tried to say a word or two about one who held our deepest affection and respect. He enjoyed it not
486
only here but throughout the nation. As he cared for them, he spoke for them. As he cared for truth, he spoke always for truth. As he cared for the Church of England and the Catholic Faith above all earthly things, he lived every day strenuously and gloriously in their service And at the right time, before he could be crippled by illness or frustrated by infirmity, which he would have hated, he passes from us—a great man and a beloved friend.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

  BROADCASTS BY ATHENS RADIO
  3.3 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government how many protests have been made to the Greek Government against the Anglophobic incitements and mendacities of Athens Radio; what answer has been received to the further protest in regard to that radio's recent allegation that a Turkish police sergeant was murdered in Cyprus by British agents to incriminate Greeks, and whether the British Government will now explain to the Greek Government that the case for maintaining an Ambassador in Athens is weakened when his legitimate representations meet not only with disregard but aggravated offence.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, since August, 1954, representations have been made to the Greek Government on more than twenty occasions about broadcasts to Cyprus by Athens Radio. The answer offered on the 16th of January by the Greek Government to Her Majesty's Government's latest protest was unsatisfactory and evasive. It was rejected by Her Majesty's Ambassador, who renewed his representations to the Greek Government and has now been authorised to convey to Her Majesty's Government the Greek Government's assurance that they dissociate themselves from the allegations made in the broadcast which gave rise to this protest. In answer to the last part of the Question, I am not at present able to say what particular measures Her

  487
  Majesty's Government will take should the Greek Government fail to put a stop to these hostile broadcasts.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, would it be possible—perhaps it has already been done—for the British Government to convey to the Greek Government that perpetual incitement to the murder of British subjects necessarily reduces the number of Greece's friends in this country?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that is not only a possible move, but one which has already been carried out on more than one occasion.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, observing that this murder of a Turkish police sergeant followed immediately upon one of these incitements to violence by Athens Radio, may I ask whether the advisability has been considered of asking the Greek Ambassador to come to the Foreign Office, so that he may be told face to face and in the most unmistakable manner, what we feel about the failure of the Greek Government to control Athens Radio? Further, may I ask whether the advisability has also been considered of inflicting a collective fine upon the town of Nicosia, observing that several people witnessed this murder but no one came forward to give evidence? Could not a collective fine be inflicted upon Nicosia, such as has been inflicted upon other quite small villages for lesser offences?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I may say that protests have been made to the greatest extent by the British Ambassador in Athens, and I think I am right in saying that on more than one occasion the Greek Ambassador here has been to the Foreign Office and has had the views of the Foreign Office on these matters conveyed to him. With all respect to the noble Lord, may I say that surely the second part of his question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper? I should not be able to answer it, if, indeed, it fell to me to answer it at all, without notice.

  ANGLOPHOBIC OUTBREAKS IN JORDAN
  3.6 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as stated by the Press, evidence has been discovered that recent Anglophobic outbreaks in Jordan were fomented or financed by Communists; and, if so, whether it will be published so that opportunity may be afforded of locating the responsibility.]
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question, I may say that the reports which Her Majesty's Government have received of the recent rioting in Jordan certainly indicate that it was organised and inspired by extremist elements in the population, including the Communists. The demonstrations of January 7 were started by organised groups of school children presumed to be acting under the direction of their teachers, many of whom are thought to be of left-wing political views. The demonstrations were joined and continued by rowdies and refugees and a certain amount of damage was done before the Arab Legion were called in to restore order. The arrest by the Jordan authorities of over 100 Communists indicates a degree of Communist responsibility. In answer to the second part of the Question, I may say that Her Majesty's Government understand that the Jordan Government will conduct an inquiry into the riots. No doubt the result of this will be published in due course.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his full and explicit Answer. If the Jordan Government is conducting an inquiry on its own, naturally I shall not press the noble Marquess further to-day, but will reserve my right to raise the Question again when their report has been published.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be true to say, on such information as has been published, that a good deal of the incitement in Jordan has come from the forces of two Arab States? I am no defender of the Communists—quite the

  489
  contrary—but it would be rather unfortunate if undue blame were placed upon one section of those responsible and no mention was made of the others.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I was directing myself to the terms of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who asked specifically whether these outbreaks were fomented or financed by Communists. I said in the course of my reply that they were inspired by extremist elements in the population, including the Communists. I therefore did not seek to attribute the whole responsibility to the Communists, and it would be quite wrong to do so.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
  3.9 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate (with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949) the statute law of England and Wales relating to sexual crimes, to the abduction, procuration and prostitution of women and to kindred offences, and to make such adaptations of Statutes extending beyond England and Wales as are needed in consequence of that consolidation; and I move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to he printed.

  CLAIMS TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
  3.10 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 whether the report published in the Press is true that in England and Wales, during the year 1955, ninety-three persons charged with a variety of breaches of the law had the charges against them dismissed without trial, because they claimed, and were entitled to, diplomatic immunity.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the report mentioned in the noble Lord's question no doubt referred to a reply given to a Question in another place on 19th December, 1955, by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He stated that in the twelve months ended 30th September, 1955, ninety-three cases arising in England and Wales were brought to his notice in which criminal proceedings were not taken against foreign persons as a result of claims to diplomatic immunity being established. All were eases of offences against the motoring laws. Exceeding the speed limit and certain minor matters, such as parking and lighting, accounted for some eighty offences.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which rather disposes of the supplementary question that I proposed to address to him—namely, whether he could break down the figures as between criminal and civil proceedings. The noble Lord's Answer covers that point.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I very much hope that it does; it was for that reason that I put my Answer in that form.

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
  3.12 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It comes to us from another place, where it had an unopposed passage, and is now before us in exactly the same form in which it was first introduced there by my honourable friend the Member for Maryhill. It is greatly to his credit that he set out upon the task of doing what was necessary to meet a difficulty in giving effect to the English Act of 1933 and the Scottish Act of 1937. It had become evident that, by crossing the Border in either direction, it was possible to evade the consequences of failure by parents properly to look after their children and to preserve them from physical and moral danger.

  491
  This Bill will link together two pieces of legislation already in existence and thus make it impossible for a ruling imposed by the courts in Scotland or in England to be evaded by crossing the Border. The Scottish writ now runs only in Scotland and the decree of the English courts is applicable only in England. Hitherto, to cross the Border was to annul the provisions made by local authorities for the proper care of children. I find no great pleasure in dealing with a matter of this kind, for it should not be necessary to pass legislation and to apply parental care vicariously, putting children under the care of a local authority. I am glad to think, however, that such action is taken only with great reluctance and exercised with great sympathy. I am thinking particularly of the City of Glasgow, in which the constituency of Maryhill is situated, and of the reputation which that city has for the care of children coming within the bounds of a measure of this kind.
  This is an old-standing flaw in human life. We can find in the Book of Isaiah reference to failure properly to consider children; and William Cowper, many years ago, was the author of a hymn that many of your Lordships will know, one verse of which says:
  "Can a woman's tender care
  Cease towards the child she bear?
  Yes, she may forgetful be,
  Yet will I remember thee."
  The Old and New Testaments are blended in those words. Many of us remember this week the birthday of that great Scotsman who was born 197 years ago tomorrow and the wonderful tribute that he paid in his Lament for James, Earl of Glencairn. I am sure that it is familiar to many, at least, of your Scottish Lordships. At the close of that great tribute Robert Burns gathered together three impossibles—or things that should be impossible—and put his own high regard and affection for James, Earl of Glencairn, into imperishable words in praise of his friend and benefactor when he said:
  "The bridegroom may forget the bride
  Was made his wedded wife yestreen.
  The Monarch may forget the Crown
  That on his head an hour has been.
  The mother may forget the child
  That smiles sac sweetly on her knee;
  But I'll remember thee, Glencairn
  And a' that thou hast done for me."
  492
  It is not new to require that care shall be taken of children who are not properly cared for by their parents, and this Bill will fill a gap that exists at present and enable us to do what is required for those children when their own parents, those who should care for them, are neglectful or wicked in their attitude towards their own offspring. As I have said, this Bill comes before your Lordships in the form in which it was first introduced in another place, where it had a completely unopposed passage. I hope that that will be its fate in this House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mathers.)
  3.20 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, it may be convenient if I intervene at this stage. I have little, if anything, to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has said in moving the Second Reading of this small but very useful measure which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has told your Lordships, closes a gap in the present law, and therefore I assume that it will be welcome to your Lordships. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on his continued interest in all matters affecting the care of children and young people. May I remind your Lordships that it is now more than twenty-five years ago since, in another place, the noble Lord moved a Bill for the adoption of young children—now the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act, 1930—and he himself followed it through all its stages there. In the intervening years he has always been active in that same cause, and we have evidence to-day that he is so maintaining his deep interest. The Government welcome the Bill, and I would commend it to your Lordships.
  3.21 p.m.
  LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, there is little for me to add to what has been so eloquently said on this subject. I should, however, like to bring forward just one point. I am very hesitant about this, not only because I am not learned in the law but also because I know that Her Majesty's Government and their advisers have given great thought to this measure. What I am alluding to is a gap which I feel still exists in the law concerning children and young persons. There are

  493
  children needing care or protection who are taken away from their families and boarded somewhere or other. It sometimes happens that these children are allowed to go back again to their families, which is normally, of course, a very good thing; but sometimes, even in such cases, mistakes are made, and in such circumstances the authority which is responsible for these children has no power to take the children away again and board them out and deal with them as before. The only way in which the authority can do it is by getting a writ of Habeas Corpus or bringing the case before the High Court—which I understand is very difficult to do. I do not know whether I am in order in suggesting that this gap should be filled. If it could be, I am sure that this would be greatly strengthened. I throw myself on the mercy of your Lordships' House, and particularly on that of the legal authorities, as to whether it would be possible for me to move an Amendment in this connection at the Committee stage.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I too have little to add to what has already been said. I should like first to say how pleased I am that the Government give this Bill their blessing, and I would express the hope that, in view of the fact that there is no difference of opinion about the merits of the measure, no time will be lost in seeing it passed through all the necessary stages. For that reason, I should like to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood—though I may sympathise with his pint of view—not to attempt to introduce into the Bill any new points, because already there has been far more delay than some of us think proper in regard to it.
  I should not rise to speak upon this matter were it net that it originated as the result of an experience and a discovery which was made in Glasgow. In endeavouring to do good for three children, who at that time were aged seven, eight and four years, and in respect of whom the courts had given authority to the Glasgow Corporation,
  494
  because the mother had twice been convicted as being a person of ill-repute, it was found that, after the youngest child had been lured away by the mother, Glasgow Corporation, in spite of many attempts which they had made, judicially and extra-judicially, to obtain recovery of the child, were unsuccessful. So was discovered this loophole in the law which, I am glad to see, this measure will now fill up permanently. It has the further effect that it will be possible once the Bill is passed, for two-way traffic to take place in these matters, so that both England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, if they should find themselves in a situation similar to that which arose in Glasgow, will now have the advantage of this measure and so will be able to right the sort of wrong which Glasgow suffered. I am therefore very happy to associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Mathers has said, and also to express pleasure at the attitude of the Government.
  3.26 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, it seems to me that there is little more I can say, except to thank the Minister of State for the kindly way in which he has received this Bill here. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, I confess that I am unable fully to appreciate what would he involved in making the Amendment which he has asked for. I had hoped that, in view of the unanimous approval given to the Bill in another place, and the fact that it is required to meet a particular point where the law falls short of carrying out its full intention, the Bill might go through this House unamended, in the same way as it went through another place. That would, I am sure, be a matter of great gratification to my honourable friend the Member for Maryhill who set himself the task of removing this flaw in the law. However, I am moving, at the moment, the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am certain that there will be no opposition whatever to that.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  COERCIVE ACTION (RELIEF) BILL [H.L.]
  3.28 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, the quality to which we attach most importance in a civilised society is the measure of the rule of law which prevails in that society. In a civilised society the rights of the individual are defined by law. The law both circumscribes and protects his freedom; it defines the area within which he can conduct his own affairs in his own way under the protection of the law, and so safeguards his freedom. It has been emphasised frequently that the conception of the rule of law is older than democracy as we know it to-day, and it is important for our civilisation that democracy should preserve the rule of law and not destroy it. If democracy is to substitute for the rule of law just the weight of numbers then the individual will have no rights. Individual liberty has been the source of much creative achievement in the world, and must be preserved if we value progress. This short Bill, which I have the honour to present, fits in, I think, to buttress individual liberty.
  No one admires the bully, still less a collection of bullies. I could give details of a number of specific cases in which individuals have suffered recently, to whom this Bill might afford relief; but I do not feel that it is necessary for me to do so. I am sure that a number of noble Lords will speak of particular cases within their knowledge, and I am sure that all noble Lords have in their minds cases within their knowledge, so that there will be a readiness to admit that on too many occasions the small trader in business and the individual worker are subjected to a form of Coercion which we know to be wrong, coercion often backed by a snooping organisation and a secret court or private trial. Nor do I wish to present this Bill merely to deal with a number of particular cases. It is general, giving a general right to all individuals whenever they feel that they are being coerced in their lawful life. It is general, as I think all good laws should be; a general buttress to the liberty of the individual which, I submit, is necessary in these days of powerfully organised groups.
  496
  With your Lordships' permission, may I run through briefly the clauses of the Bill? Clause 1 defines the purpose—to provide a remedy against coercion where the existing law is inadequate for the protection of individual freedom in the pursuit of lawful occupation or the lawful conduct of affairs. Clause 2 seeks to give a right to an oppressed party to apply to the courts for relief. It gives a new remedy, additional to any remedy which may exist. Clause 3 provides the method by which application for relief can be made—that is, by application to a court having jurisdiction to grant an injunction, declaration or order so as to afford effective relief. Clause 4 makes provision for appeals. Clause 5 contains a definition of what constitutes coercive action. This means any action taken against another person and
  "… includes any request or demand, the infliction of any penalty, or the withholding from or depriving any person of any benefit or amenity … so as to induce or compel any person to act otherwise than in accordance with his will or conscience;".
  Clause 6 exempts from the provisions of the Bill any action taken by virtue of any process of law. It exempts any action arising out of any lawful contractual obligation which can be dealt with by the courts in the usual way, unless the obligation was entered into under the duress of coercive action as defined by the Bill. It exempts any action taken in accordance with lawful decisions of registered trade unions.
  I submit again that this Bill is necessary in these days of powerfully organised groups. On my first count, the case of the small trader, so much was shown and condemned by reports recently published on restrictive practices. On my second count, that of the individual worker, so much is admitted in an attack upon this Bill by the Daily Worker, though the article suggests that the cases of oppression are too few to make a fuss about. Oppression which involves human suffering is so distasteful to all of us, particularly when, as so often happens, wives and children are included in the persecution, that I am sure noble Lords would wish to act to save even a few sufferers. There is a record of at least one case where the worker committed suicide. But I do not believe that it is just a few people who are affected. Few resist long enough for their cases to come to light. Others submit to what they believe

  497
  to be inevitable, for they have not the means of fighting back against great odds.
  The Bill does not attempt to deal generally with the evil of monopolies. We await the proposals of Her Majesty's Government on this wide subject. It may prove a useful supplement to their proposals. It is no Bill to revise trade union law. The lawful decisions under existing law of the trade unions are not involved. I think it is likely to prove definitely helpful to workers—for example, to those who are employed by small traders who are being coerced out of business. This Bill does not create any new crimes or offences and does not introduce any new penalties—a feature which I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will note with approbation. All it does is to give a new right to small people who believe that they are being coerced by the action of others out of their lawful business or in the enjoyment of their lawful occupation; a new right to go to a court of law and tell the story of their oppression. If the court finds that there is such oppression, all that the court need do is to order that the practices which are the instruments of that oppression shall stop. The courts have their own way of dealing with disobedience of their orders. No law and no court can make men treat their fellows with consideration and kindness or abolish selfishness, but the law can act to restrain positive actions of villainy and persecution.
  Need I say more? I am sure that in this matter I have the sympathy of all in your Lordships' House. Some may wish to criticise the wording, the drafting. I ask the indulgence of all in this matter. The Bill is the attempt of an inexperienced Member of your Lordships' House to deal with an evil which Ministers have admitted to be baffling and difficult. May I ask those who would criticise to help improve the Bill in Committee, if they will, but to show determination to carry it through and not to destroy it. I suggest that its very existence on the Statute Book will have a salutary effect and will help to diminish the evils which it is designed to check. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Grantchester.)
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, at once that, though I do not support his Bill, I appreciate the spirit in which he introduced it. The first question I ask myself is: what is the problem with which this Bill is supposed to deal? The noble Lord was wise enough to make it appear to be a small and unimportant Bill, in that it will affect only a small number of people, and to suggest that the trade unions and the employers' organisations need not worry in the least because they will not be affected by this Bill. I would tell the noble Lord at once that the trade union movement feel that they are affected by this Bill, and that they are intended to be affected by it. So there need not be any uncertainty as to how they feel about it.
  I agree that coercion—and here I speak from experience—is a most undesirable thing; but it is exercised in many ways, not all of which are detected. Those of us who have spent our lives in the trade union movement are fully aware of coercion but it is not confined to one side of industry. I agree that coercion is something that we should deal with, so far as we can, but I am certain that this is not the way to deal with it. To me, legislation is one of the last ways in which to deal with what is troubling this country at the moment. I know that this "sending to Coventry" business has upset many of us inside the trade union movement, and we are worried about it. Rest assured, my Lords, that the trade union movement will deal with it, and more effectively than could be done under this Bill. But it must take time.
  When I look at the Bill, the first question I ask myself is: is it well timed? At the moment this country is confronted with some big problems, and the Government are having a difficult time in dealing with them. They are being fairly and sometimes, if I may say so, unfairly criticised for the manner in which they are dealing with them. To what extent will this Bill help? Will it bring about a better feeling throughout the trade union movement? My worry is that this type of legislation from your Lordships' House may cause more trouble than the good it can do. Let it not be said that e in the trade union movement are not sympathetic to any effort to deal with

  499
  what has been happening in certain places, and especially in a small section of the trade union movement. After all, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that full employment plays into the hands of this small section. As has been said before in your Lordships' House by a number of noble Lords, this full employment is a test of moral character on the part of the men, just as unemployment was a test of moral character on the part of employers. Many of the employers failed to show that moral character, just as some of the men are not showing it in this period of full employment.
  When I look at this Bill and go through its clauses, all of which have been defined, I would say that it is far too loosely drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that he was a humble Member of your Lordships' House attempting to deal with an evil that is baffling the whole country. When dealing with evils that baffle the whole country it is as well to approach the interested parties. I sincerely hope that the Government are not going, to welcome this Bill, but, at the same time. I hope that they will indicate a willingness to go into the question of how this undesirable coercion which has taken place in certain parts of the country can be dealt with. If they do that, I believe they will find the employers' organisations and the workers' organisations anxious to help. I should have preferred the noble Lord to put down a Motion on the Order Paper outlining what he has in mind. This Bill is something that will divide the House, if it goes to a Division, and that will not help the cause. I am sure that a well-worded Motion on this issue could have achieved unanimity, and that would have hen a good start, whereas, as I say, with this Bill we might start with a divided House.
  It is not my intention to speak at any length on this problem—it is not a small or easy problem, but a large and difficult one—but I want to say here, on behalf of the T.U.C., that they have looked at this Bill, and they have informed me that they see in it nothing that would be effective in dealing with the evil envisaged. I can assure your Lordships that the T.U.C., and the employers' organisations, too, would be only too willing to find a way out of this difficulty. Let it be clearly stated that we on these
  500
  Benches believe that coercion of the kind referred to by the noble Lord is something that must be dealt with, but we do not think that this is the way to deal with it. We believe that consultation with the interested parties, and the putting forward of suggestions, followed, if necessary, by agreed legislation, would more appropriately deal with the evil that troubles the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
  3.45 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking on this Bill today. I am, unfortunately, pledged, and have been for some time, to address your Lordships to-morrow on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I can only promise that, as I find myself compelled to speak to-day, what I have to say will be quite short. I feel bound to support the mover of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, because it seems to me that something in the nature of this Bill is badly needed to-day. We in Britain have always been distinguished in the matter of liberty, in that we did not merely talk about individual liberty but presented practical methods of protecting it. At one time the main danger to individual liberty in Britain appeared to come only, or mainly, from the Government of the country, and after long experience of successive Governments we invented, not a general resolution in favour of liberty from the Government but the Habeas Corpus Act, which crystallised, after many attempts, in the Act of 1679, and which gave to any individual whose personal liberty was threatened by the coercive action of the Government, or by imprisonment, the means of bringing his case before a court of justice independent of the Government, so securing to him his freedom from any form of imprisonment not inflicted in pursuance of an authorised legal decision of a court.
  That Writ of Habeas Corpus, as lawyers know, has not been used only to protect people against interference with their liberty by Governments: it amounts to a bar dealing with all forms of physical imprisonment. It has actually been used to restrict the rights of a parent over his child, or of a guardian over his ward; and in one case, if not more, it has been used to enable the mother of an illegitimate child to rescue the child from the reputed father when he sought to take the child from her. All these things are

  501
  possible under Habeas Corpus. But Habeas Corpus is concerned only with physical liberty. True liberty means much more than purely physical liberty, the escape from imprisonment. Liberty is something positive, for action.
  To-day there are more powers than those of the Government able to threaten individual liberty. There are associations of all kinds, in which numbers of men may, and do, band themselves together to limit the freedom of their neighbours to live as ordinary citizens of this country. There are business associations whose purpose it is to make it difficult or impossible for individuals to buy or sell, or to employ or be employed, freely. There are trade unions (and I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor—though no doubt he knows this—that the term "trade union" legally covers not merely associations of workmen but associations of employers, and associations of all kinds which are not in the least On the workmen's side of the employment contract), which have now grown to immense power in the State. We all know that such bodies, whether they are associations of workmen or associations of business firms, have a power that can challenge the power of the Government itself.
  Are we sure that that great power of these associations will never be misused? Is it not important to see that any action that may be taken by such associations to diminish the priceless heritage of individual liberty in l3ritain will be brought to public notice, and can thus be made the subject of remedial action? That is the whole purpose of this Bill. Striking instances of interference, not by the Government but by such associations of individual citizens, with the freedom of other individual citizens occur daily; and we all know that Smithfield, which formerly distinguished itself as a place for burning people of excessive independence of mind, is a centre for a new form of tyranny of interference with individual liberty. I will not dwell upon the dangers, because we all know them. Even the noble Lord who preceded me, although he did not like this Bill, was well aware of the danger.
  This Bill has been devised, with all the care its authors could take in drafting a workmanlike measure and one that was carefully prevented from doing any harm,
  502
  as an effective defence of individual liberty against tyranny of all kinds; tyranny moving against the liberty of the individual, not only from the State but from groups of other individuals, and tyranny that uses not the primitive weapon of physical force but the modern weapons of monopoly, boycott, restrictive practice and restrictive agreement by the people forming the association. Naturally, the wording of a Bill of this sort needs careful examination, and naturally it may be argued that some different form of words would better serve the purpose which I believe we all have in common. I hope that if the Government accept this Bill they will let it go forward as a basis for discussion and will not say, "There is nothing to be done." There is everything to be done, because individual liberty, which we thought we had protected sufficiently in this country by protecting it in 1679 from the Stuart family and their kind, is now threatened by much greater dangers coming from different sources.
  I think that this Bill is a good Bill, because it gives to ordinary citizens who feel that their liberty to buy and sell and to live their lives as free citizens is threatened unduly by fellow citizens, the opportunity of bringing this threat to public knowledge and thus allowing the foundations of an amendment. I trust that the Government will hold out to us the hope that something real will be done to bring about what I have called the new defences against the new evils of tyranny and interference with liberty which threaten many people to-day.
  3.56 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships w ill give this Bill a Second Reading. I particularly welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, when he remarked that one side of this evil was occupying the attention and concern of his friends. I welcome that very much indeed. He has my full sympathy in all that he said there. I deprecate a little his concern about this Bill as emanating from your Lordships' House, because I do not think any Bill ought to have that said about it, either here or outside.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My only point was that it was without consultation with the affected parties.
  LORD SALTOUN: But when a Bill has passed through Parliament it is a conscious act of volition of both Houses. I will say no more about that. There was an old Scots country lawyer, now long gone to his rest, who once brought a case before the sheriff's court. After he had proceeded a little way in his ease the sheriff interrupted him and said: "Well, Mr. Milne, it is perfectly clear to us that your client has suffered a wrong, but what I do not understand is what you wish me to do." The old man put down his brief, looked up at the sheriff, and said: "My Lord, your Lordship has said that my client has suffered a wrong. On that account I am come to your Lordship to ask your advice, because where there is a wrong there must be a remedy, and I am asking your Lordship's advice as to how I should proceed to seek it." The court thereupon being asked to use its brains, did so, and found my old friend a way out of his difficulty. I think that is a maxim of Scots law and I should have thought it was a maxim of English law and one which ought to he invoked a great deal more frequently. If this Bill is going to stimulate courts to take that kind of action more frequently, it will in that way, at least, be a good thing.
  I take it, from some of the things my noble friend Lord Grantchester said, that he was thinking particularly of a matter I brought before your Lordships a short time before we rose for the Christmas Recess, where members of the National Union of Railwaymen who remained at work were visited in their homes by members of the striking union. I suppose one could, on the law as it stands at present, take action in those cases as being action liable to lead to a breach of the peace, if one could identify the individuals. In Scotland, I suppose one would proceed by way of an interdict. But an interdict has two disadvantages, and one is that it operates only against particular parties named in the interdict; it does not operate against the action universally. The other disadvantage is that a court will grant an interdict only in a case where a repetition of the offence is held to be likely. If this Bill would facilitate something in the nature of an interdict against people doing wrongful actions, then I think it would be a very good thing. I certainly hope that your Lordships will give the
  504
  Bill a Second Reading. It will be interesting to see the Amendments that are moved to it on the Committee stage.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it may possibly be to the advantage of the House if I intervene at this moment to give your Lordships some indication of how Her Majesty's Government react to this Bill. I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on his courage in tackling this important, controversial and difficult subject. I should also like to congratulate him upon the serried ranks of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches on whose loyalty he has been able to call this afternoon to hear him move his Bill. I wish I could equally congratulate him upon achieving the object which he has set out to gain; but that, alas! I cannot do.
  It is easy, as we all know, to legislate in theory. We all do it to ourselves every day of the week. It is a very different matter, though, to legislate in practice. Here, I offer the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, my personal sympathy because I have more than once tried to do exactly the same as he is trying to do this afternoon. I apologise to him in advance if I appear to, as I must, pour cold water upon his Bill, but this is not a general debate. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, expressed regret that we had perhaps not tackled this matter by way of a general debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, talked about a basis for discussion. I had a second-in-command once who used to regard every order I gave him as a basis for discussion, and that, too, always ended in tears. This is a Bill. We must treat it as a piece of proposed legislation, not just as a general debate on an interesting and important subject. I am afraid that I must be frank at once with the noble Lord and say that, even after listening carefully to his able and unprovocative explanation, I am quite unable to change the original opinion I formed of this Bill. It strikes me as liberal in conception, lofty in principle, and quite unworkable in practice.
  Let us look at the objects of the Bill. They are: the preservation of the rule of law in such a way as to secure that no person shall suffer duress or coercion in his lawful pursuits or the conduct of his affairs without means of effective redress. With those principles nobody can quarrel,

  505
  The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has expressed his approval of those principles. But we have to progress beyond principles. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I think wisely, did not mention in detail many of the cases which we have at the back of our minds and which he must have had at the back of his mind when he put this Bill on the Order Paper. No good purpose will be served by going into the various examples which have worried most people of good will. The chief vice of this Bill is that it offends against the very principle which it seeks to uphold. The Bill is thus fundamentally objectionable and is rot susceptible of amendment on Committee stage.
  Having made that rather sweeping attack upon it, I must try now to demonstrate what I mean. The noble Lord has rightly called in aid the rule of law. "Rule of law" is not a term of art, and it is something from which the draftsman shies away when he is drafting an Act of Parliament. What it means, roughly, is, of course, that no man is above the law. There are two considerations that we must bear in mind. The first is that the essence of the rule of law is that, so far as practicable, rights recognised and enforced by the courts should be ascertained and capable of precise definition. If it means anything, it implies a degree of certainty which is wholly absent from the noble Lord's Bill.
  The second consideration is that the enforcement of those rights should not be a matter of arbitrary discretion. I am afraid that, under the Bill, neither object is achieved. There are two fundamental reasons for the noble Lord's failure, if he will allow me to say so. In Clause 2 there is no clear indication of the rights which the Bill intends to protect. Secondly, the power of granting relief conferred on the court by Clause 3 (2) is wholly discretionary. Clause 1 seeks to protect persons against duress or coercion in their lawful pursuits or in the conduct of their affairs. Duress, I suppose, has a meaning sufficiently clearly defined in law, but coercion certainly has not. It is not clear what action is to be regarded as sufficient for the noble Lord's purpose.
  I am afraid that Clause 2 is even more vague. There is no indication of what is to be regarded as undue pressure or unreasonable or vexatious oppression or
  506
  coercion. I should have thought it was essential in a Bill like this that everybody should know exactly what he was up against, and should know it beforehand. No wonder that the court is given, by Clause 3 (2), completely unfettered discretion as to whether or not to grant relief, subject only to the requirement that the court must be satisfied that the complaint is well founded. We ask ourselves how the court is to reach this conclusion. That again, I am afraid, is not indicated: nor incidentally is the court. The noble Lord does not tell us whether he means the High Court, the county court, the mayor's court, or any other court; but that is a minor detail.
  It is possible under the noble Lord's Bill for the court to grant an injunction or make an order oil an ex parte application. Anyone who has a working knew-ledge of procedure will realise that that is an enormous and undefined power. The fact that, in reaching its decision, the court is required to have regard to the purposes referred to in Clause 1 is not of much assistance because—again I apologise to the noble Lord for speaking so harshly—those purposes are so ill-defined. In the field of action with which the Bill is concerned, as we all know, passions and prejudices are easily aroused, Therefore it seems to me particularly desirable that arbitrary discretion should not be conferred on the courts, particularly when Party politics are so deeply and so frequently involved. Your Lordships will also observe that there is no limitation on what the court may do. The court may award damages, it may grant an injunction or it may, presumably, commit an offender to prison. So far as I can see, it can commit an almost limitless number of unofficial strikers, if it so minded, which is a very queer and undesirable possibility to put into an Act of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is impossible.
  LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord draws attention to the fact that he has created no new offence. I would not be so sure about that, either, if one looks carefully through the powers that spring from the rights that the noble Lord is giving to the court. There is no principle by the light of which the court is required to act. It is to be guided only by

  507
  what is, in its opinion, necessary or desirable in order to secure the vague and general purposes referred to in Clause 1. I really cannot imagine anything more likely to bring the courts into the cockpit of political or industrial controversy than this Bill, and I think your Lordships will agree that that is wholly undesirable.
  Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, realises this and he has attempted to avoid it, but I am afraid that his attempts are ineffective. Take his savings clause, Clause 6. The savings themselves indicate the unsatisfactory nature of the earlier provisions of the Bill. The Bill is not to apply to action taken in pursuance of any lawful contractual obligation unless the court is satisfied that such obligation was entered into as a result of action inconsistent with the Bill's declared purposes. For my part, I think it is hard to see why any lawful obligation could possibly be regarded as contrary to the purposes of the Bill. The vagueness of the purposes would make it impossible to tell in advance whether or not the given contract could be regarded as enforceable as against a person who was minded to evade its provisions. The existing relief already available in law I should have thought in these particular circumstances was adequate.
  Paragraph (c) of Clause 6 seeks to protect action taken in accordance with the lawful decision of a trade union. Here again—and I think noble Lords opposite who have more experience in these matters than I would agree with me—I have considerable doubt as to what decision could, in the light of the declared objects of the Bill, be regarded as lawful or unlawful. Surely such uncertainty in a Bill of this kind is most unfortunate. The clause I am discussing at the moment removes from the scope of the Bill actions taken in accordance with the lawful decision of trade unions, but it would leave within the scope of the Bill the whole range of unofficial action of various kinds—such as alleged victimisation and no doubt many other incidents in the sphere of industrial relations. For Her Majesty's Government to support legislation of this character would, I am afraid, be a total reversal of our traditional policy in the field of industrial relations.
  In general, these questions are regarded as a matter for settlement between the two
  508
  sides of industry. Here I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and I endorse also his hope that the two sides, as I feel certain they will, will realise the onus upon them at this particular moment to discharge that well-established and well-recognised duty to the full. The ineffectiveness, and indeed the positive harm, from seeking to regulate this sort of problem by legal process has been recognised for a long time. Responsibility for the success or failure in harmonious industrial relations rests with the two sides.
  My Lords, I speak with a certain amount of experience in this matter. I was for five years the chairman of a joint advisory committee in one of our craft industries, and I very soon learned how impossible it was to legislate, either in Parliament or unilaterally within the industry, in problems of this nature. If there were two sides, no satisfactory solution could be obtained unless there was cooperation between the two. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve by legislation the co-operation which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, wants. He carries us all with him in regard to the principles that he has enumerated this afternoon. We wholeheartedly endorse those principles, but they cannot be put into practice by legislation or by any other means of written compulsion which lacks the agreement of both sides. I must add that within recent months a National Joint Advisory Council, on which are represented the British Employers' Federation, the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries, have made it clear to the Government that they are all opposed to fresh legislation in the field of industrial relations. I am afraid, therefore, that the noble Lord's Bill would not command the support of either side of industry; and although the legal objections to the Bill are, as I hope I have demonstrated to your Lordships, powerful, it is that reason above all which makes me most reluctant to suggest that this Bill should be allowed to go any stage further.
  May I sum up our objections? The Bill represents a well-meaning attempt—I am not in any way patronising the noble Lord; he means well in this Bill, and we acknowledge and respect what he is seeking to do—to legislate in a field where

  509
  legislation is, quite frankly, impracticable. He is trying to legislate and to put into an Act of Parliament good manners, honouring your obligations, sticking to your bargain, doing unto others as you would have done unto you. But you cannot make a man a gentleman by an Act of Parliament; and that is what the noble Lord is trying to do. The Bill's operation would be quite arbitrary. It would confer on the courts a jurisdiction which the judges would neither welcome nor be well-equipped to exercise. I cannot believe that a measure on these lines would contribute to happier industrial relations or be of any practical benefit to individuals in the daily incidents of their working life—individuals whom we all seek to protect and who, when attacked or abused or unfairly treated, command, I hope, our universal sympathy. My Lords, in conclusion, I see a real danger of actually creating ill feeling by this Bill at a time when our national prosperity depends more than anything else on mutual understanding and good will in industry. I hope that your Lordships, while admiring the noble Lord's courage and respecting his ideals, will not allow his Bill to go any further.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I support the Second Reading of this measure because I want it to be examined more fully and in detail on subsequent stages. The speech to which we have just listened puts upon the argument this afternoon a complexion which is, I think, conclusive. Although I have promised the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to vote for the Second Reading should the matter go to a Division this afternoon, it would be well if notice were taken by him and by his Party of the suggestion that has been made, that although it is right that these subjects should be ventilated (that is my point in supporting the Bill, so that it may go to a subsequent stage), they could perhaps be better ventilated, at any rate at the present time, in a full-dress debate upon a Motion.
  I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will do, but there are one or two points that I should like to make, which I feel are important from the point of view of industrial relationships. I know that the Bill affects not only industry but also the other side. The question of monopolies and coercive
  510
  measures there will, I think, be dealt with effectually by the Monopolies Commission. The purpose of preventing the exercise of arbitrary compulsion in matters of will and conscience (to use Lord Grantchester's terminology) appeals to me, but when it is proposed to legislate on the matter I can see possible dangers. I am not quite sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, in the notion that if legislation is passed which offends trade unions, that is the last word upon the matter. I want good industrial relationships, and of course I want the trade unions—I think they are capable of it—to act as sanely as anyone else in establishing concord in the industrial field.
  In my young days I had a world to conquer; I fear in my old age that the world has conquered me—unless the illusion of time has come too much into play. I am disappointed. In my view, we are much less free than we used to be. Instead of removing internal defects from the concept of freedom and thus purifying it, we have followed mechanical progress—good enough, of course, in itself—by turning ourselves more and more into machines. I have looked at this Bill and I feel that I am not so much in love with the law: I believe in the soul of man and not in the entrails of a machine—least of all a legal one. In looking upon this measure, I can see many difficulties aid I feel that the measure does not, simply because it cannot, probe the very source of injustice that exists and that is in the mind of its promoter. Here again, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. He brushes aside the whole question of interference with human liberty as being not of much importance because it applies only to one or two small sections here and there—I gathered that was the general tenor of what he had to say on that matter.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Perhaps we had better get it right. My point was that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, tried to confine the Bill to a very small area and so hoped to get it through. My point is that it affects a much larger number of people than he indicates.
  LORD AMWELL: Evidently I misunderstood what the noble Lord said.

  511
  But the point is that the particular incidents that cause trouble in many directions are those which do not come under this Bill at all. For example, people will not apply to the courts because they have been "sent to Coventry." I know something about trade unions; I was a member of one until I became a politician. I know what it means, for instance, to vote or speak against a majority in a trade union branch on political and other matters. I know what the open ballot means: it means that a large number of members of a branch will not vote at all, because they are afraid of social ostracism. That goes on to a large extent all over the country, and I consider it deplorable.
  I do not altogether understand the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this question. It may be due to a misunderstanding. The Government seem to be opposed to any risk of offending the trade unions. The Government are opposed to the idea of the secret ballot. Yet, after all, the secret ballot was the sheet anchor of progressive thought from the days of the Chartists. It was included in Mr. Gladstone's programme. The earliest Socialists fought for the adoption of the secret ballot in elections. The principle has been a dear one, and it is a sound one. I do not see why it should not apply to the question of unofficial strikes. It does not seem to be understood that the secret ballot could be imposed except where a strike has been decided upon by the legitimate executive authority of the union concerned. In other words, the possibility of an unofficial strike should be avoided (by allowing time to pass in cases of emergency) without interference with the legitimate function of the union. I make the suggestion that that might be a way of handling the question—to divide into two the issue of whether or not there should be a secret ballot.
  I want to deal with two cases which are important and relevant at the present moment. Though I do not want to go beyond the scope of the measure under discussion this afternoon, I feel that the use of one or two examples may make my point more easily understood. I do not like the closed shop, but what is not usually appreciated is that the ideal of 100 per cent. membership of a trade union is unexceptionable. I do not believe that
  512
  anyone is opposed to the trade union aim of 100 per cent. membership in any shop or industry. What is to be objected to is the use of force to achieve that aim. Two things should be distinguished. We who are libertarian say merely that pressed men do not make the best soldiers. Considering the small number of those who are really "scabs" at heart against the mighty organisations of to-day, it is far better to let men be free and to rely on reason, persuasion and good faith.
  If you do not accept that position, the only alternative is to penalise a man for acting according to his own conscience, good or had. That is what you are actually doing, and you might as well apply it to the whole question of politics and political rights; for if a "scab" (to use the current terminology) is injuring the working classes by taking advantage of trade union effort in making gains for the workers concerned without standing his corner—and that is the argument—then the man who votes for a Liberal, a Conservative or an Independent at an election is also doing the same thing in the view of those who argue that the Labour Party is the party of the workers. If a man is thus to be deprived of his right to earn his living in the trade he has adopted, he might as well be deprived of his vote, because he takes advantage of Labour legislation and at the same time votes against the Labour movement and the Party. The argument might run that that was exactly the same thing. The tyranny beneath a great deal of modern thought is one of the reasons why I support the general tenor of this Bill while criticising it in detail—though not as effectively as the representative of Her Majesty's Government has done this afternoon.
  There is a further point. I notice in the Press that this Bill has been referred to as a measure which, if it were the law to-day, would cover the question of market porters at Smithfield, a matter which will be particularly in the public mind to-morrow because of a certain conference. I am perturbed by the rate at which we seem to be drifting towards a coercive system of life in many directions. One of the reasons why I left the Party to which I belonged was that I believe that to-day there is a drift away from the whole of the libertarian principles of the early Socialist movement. All the

  513
  same, we must be aware of any "hot under the collar' judgment. It is the easiest thing in the world to wax indignant about the bummarees of Smithfield Market; but they have a case. The issue is not as superficial as outsiders who criticise seem to imagine.
  Had Mr. Tribe put their case, instead of posturing as a pocket Mussolini, he would have gained much in public support. Omitting the legal aspect, with which I am not qualified to deal, it is one thing to argue that a retail butcher should be allowed to use his own staff instead of licensed porters; it is another thing to have to stand by, as these men are expected to do, while small firms, without adequate staff or with no staff at all, roll in and take advantage of the situation to turn an organised body of men into a rabble. Where that is the case I do not see who can blame them. Their case should at least be considered fairly and should not go by default or be oversimplified.
  Though I am not au fait with Parliamentary draftsmanship to that extent, I cannot see how this measure will help, as it does not cover the real tyrannies that exist. I am a libertarian and I do not like legislation when it can be avoided. I do not want, for trade union organisations, more legislation than can be helped. For reasons which will be accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I believe that to be bad. If legislation is necessary, however, that fact ought definitely to be stated. We must not be afraid even of trade unions. But I do not want any interference; I prefer to rely upon the sanity of the common man. Yet men inside the unions who really are coerced show insufficient courage in standing up for those rights which they should possess. That is largely because, on bigger issues, people are not as politically and seriously minded as they used to be. I am afraid that that is a judgment I cannot avoid. Until the people of this country—the trade unionists and everyone else—are imbued with the spirit of freedom, we shall have something which is not freedom. But we cannot alter it by legislation. We cannot make people moral by legislation, as the last speaker has said. We must leave these vital issues to goad will; to the arts of persuasion; to the arts of argument and
  514
  reason. Those are the things I prefer to rely upon rather than upon the force of legislation.
  Nevertheless, I agree with the spirit behind the measure. I am opposed to much of the coercion that exists. But do not forget that the coercions which exist inside the trade unions are probably nothing in comparison with the coercions which exist outside the trade unions. Do not, for Heaven's sake! just make a stab at the trade union movement and leave the others alone. We shall await what the Monopolies Commission produce. But there are other things besides monopolies. I speak with feeling on this matter for during the course of my life I have lost more than one job for standing up for my right as an individual to think for myself. That is the kind of thing we want to deal with. People should not have reason to be afraid of being in the limelight when they have individually and ought to be expressing that individuality.
  4.32 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House has a certain sympathy with a Bill the object of which is to strike a blow against oppression and on the side of freedom, but your Lordships will agree that a measure of that kind must he put into practical form before it has any right even to a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. While I feel that this Bill is, no doubt, a tribute to the warmth of heart of the noble Lord who has brought it forward, I regret that I cannot say that it throws an equally favourable light on the workings of his mind, because it seems to me that he has produced a Bill which, from a legal point of view, is almost complete nonsense. It is on that basis that I should like to address a few words to your Lordships' House in regard to the Bill.
  My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, in a very eloquent speech with which I entirely agreed, indicated that this Bill would, in effect, if it were passed into law, throw a spanner into the workings of the trade union movement and into the whole problem of labour at the present time. Lord Amwell, in a speech which he said was supposed to support the Second Reading of the Bill, seemed to me to subject it to even more devastating criticism. Almost every point he made in the course of his speech was really highly critical of the terms of the

  515
  Bill. Lord Mancroft, who spoke on behalf of the Government, seemed to me effectively to dispose of the Bill in a most searching analysis, and I cannot feel that those members of the Liberal Party who are lawyers could possibly put their hands on their hearts and go into the Division Lobby in support of a Bill of this kind which, as Lord Mancroft said, is really quite beyond amendment at the Committee stage.
  Here we have a Bill the really operative clause of which is Clause 2. because it is there provided that a man who feels himself to be subject to undue pressure—feels himself, be it noted—is to be entitled to go into a court of law and demand relief. I speak in the presence of much more distinguished lawyers, but I should like to suggest that there is not on the Statute Book of this or any other country a Statute which is so vague in its terms. Lord Beveridge, in a very eloquent speech, said that in this country we had invented practical measures for defending liberty. My objection to this Bill is that it is not a practical measure at all. It lays down rights in the vaguest possible language which no judge would be able to administer in any sort of practical administration of the law.
  Lord Mancroft pointed out that most of the terms which establish these vague rights in Clause 2 are terms unknown to the law. It is true that in Clause l there is the word "duress," which is known to the law and has been defined in the courts, to some extent, in a number of cases. But it is rather curious that when we come to Clause 2, the operative clause, we find that that one word is left out, and we are there confronted with a lot of vague words like "undue pressure," "unreasonable or vexatious restriction," "oppression or coercion." All those are things which can exist not only in connection with labour and industrial problems but in many other walks of life. For example, a housewife who felt herself to be unduly oppressed in the grocer's shop, because of something which happened there and which she might well bring within the terms of Clause 2, is given the right to bring an action in a court of law.
  It is true that in Clause 6, which is the saving clause, there are some equally vague exceptions. They would be equally
  516
  difficult for any court of law to consider. If this Bill were passed into law it would be, in one sense, a gold mine, for all kinds of foolish litigation would follow its passing. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, quite understands that the effect of his Bill would be to open a veritable Pandora's Box. The measure would inevitably be followed by all kinds of ridiculous actions brought in all sorts of courts of law. Lord Mancroft pointed out that Clause 3, which gives the right to go to court, does not say which court it is to be, and it gives the judges of whatever court it may be all kinds of extraordinarily vague sanctions which they are to apply in the vague spirit of the vague aspirations laid down in Clause 1. Really, as a lawyer, I have never seen a document of this kind which is so vague and which is so clearly not administrable in any court of law. All I can say is that I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, insists on pressing his Motion for the Second Reading to a Division, your Lordships will throw the Bill out without any question at all.
  4.38 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, after the two powerful legal broadsides which have been discharged at the Liberal Party, I must admit that I am not feeling anything like as comfortable as a few hours ago I had hoped that I should be when it came to be my turn to speak. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that if those experts who have spoken had bent their minds to the task of providing something constructive instead of something destructive, we might have had more in the way of salvage, so that what now appears to be a wreck might still have remained a navigable ship sailing through all its stages with the aid of Amendments made to it during its passage.
  Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor says that this is a matter which affects the trade unions, and he states quite frankly that the trade unions would object to a Bill of this kind. That does not seem to me to be a good enough reason for rejecting the Bill out of hand in your Lordships' House. We are told that we should not look only towards coercion inside trade unions but also to coercion outside those bodies. Indeed, that is what we on these Benches certainly want to do. If I may descend into the

  517
  arena of Party politics, of the three Parties it is only the Liberal Party which has been consistently advocating some inquiry into the working of trade unionism. That does not involve hostile criticism of the trade unions. It is known inside and outside the trade unions that there are cases of victimisation and case; of things going wrong, not only among the trade unions but also among employers. We, as a Party, should like to see both types of victimisation inquired into.
  We are awaiting the Government's new Bill, but, before the "big thing" comes along, it seems to me that we have here something in a small way, which is not an attack on anyone, to go on with. It gives a remedy to the man who has suffered injury, and I cannot accept from noble Lords on either side of the House that this Bill is, as it has been called, an attack on either side. "Side" is an unfortunate word. In the industrial field it is normally taken to mean the employers on the one side and the employees on the other. What we are really getting at in this Bill is neither of those two sides, but the third party—the consumer, the housewife, the non-Party person if you like, or the all-Party person. Noble Lords on both sides of the House know perfectly well that in the trade unions there are Conservative workers and Liberal workers, who are compelled to subscribe to Labour Party funds.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not compelled.
  LORD REA: That may be, but it often so happens. This Bill is not directed at either side, either for the one or against the other. It is directed to the benefit of the ordinary person, the citizen of this nation, who may be put to considerable inconvenience, and worse, by acts which are coercive. I leave it to my noble friend Lord Grantchester to take what action he likes about a Division; but if he does take the Bill to a Division I would remind your Lordships of the implication: that it will mean a vote for or against the right of a man to go to a court of law to get a grievance remedied. That, I think, is a point which will not escape your Lordships' notice.
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting
  518
  debate. As my noble friend Lord Rea has said, this Bill is not directed against one side of industry. There are many forms of coercion. In spite of what noble Lords have said about the legal phraseology and the difficulties of the courts, I am afraid I am quite unconvinced. Surely the test is: is the applicant being forced out of his lawful business or occupation? If he is, while the court cannot make people behave properly to him—we have made that perfectly clear—it can take steps to stop what I described as "positive acts of villainy and oppression."
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord not see that the Bill does not deal with positive acts; it deals with feelings?
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: It deals with the feelings of an individual who is oppressed, by enabling him to go to court. But the court does not deal with feelings; it deals with the fact of whether or not he has been pushed out of, or is being pushed out of, business or lawful occupation by coercive action and prevented from living his life within the law. If he has been, or is being, he is entitled to a remedy. I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, said. He referred to Smithfield; but it is not only the action of the bummarees but also the action of the wholesalers that might be called in question.
  We should he the last to try to throw a spanner into industrial relations, but even if this matter were discussed between both sides of industry and they were to reach an agreement, does not the individual still come in somewhere? Should he not have the right to go to a court and say, "I am forced out of my lawful business or occupation by the oppression of this group"? I admit that he may have other remedies in certain cases, such as in those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, when he spoke of calling upon the wives of railway workers who obeyed the orders of their union and stayed at work. It might be possible for action to be taken for a breach of the peace. But it is not done. These would be criminal proceedings. I suggest that these people need the new right to go to a civil court to raise matters for themselves if they cannot get the protection of the Government to which they are

  519
  entitled. If we take this matter to a Division, as I think we should, I want the Division to be a protest against ignoring the individual. Even if there are negotiations between the two "big boys" on both sides of industry, the individual still
  has a right, which needs to be maintained and strengthened.
  On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
  Their Lordships divided:—
  Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 49.

  CONTENTS

  Gainsborough, E.

  Beveridge, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Colwyn, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Grantchester, L. [Teller.]

  Rea, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Amulree, L. [Teller.]

  Layton, L.

  Stamp, L.

  Amwell, L.

  Meston, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Portman, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Soulbury, V.

  Hayter, L.

  Reading, M.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Woolton, V.

  Hore-Belisha, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Home, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  Kenswood, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Carrington, L.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Chorley, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Conesford, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Croft, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Digby, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Forbes, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Glentanar, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Monsell, V.

  Greenhill, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE POWERS OF THE HOUSE
  Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.