Sitting of 27 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to enforcement of decrees ad factum praestandum, to solatium and damages, to contribution among joint wrongdoers, and to the limitation of actions; to amend and extend the Intestate Husband's Estates (Scotland) Acts, 1911 and 1919; to make provision regarding the powers of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer; to enable effect to be given to International Conventions affectting Scottish Courts; and to amend the law as to pleas of guilty on indictment as to the reading of the complaint in summary prosecutions, and as to the prorogation of jurisdiction. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill read.
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, before moving that the House resolve
608
itself into Committee on this Bill I should like to address a few remarks to your Lordships. This Bill is now returned from its examination by a Joint Select Committee, which was under the Chairmanship of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House. The Committee's Report, which is now before the House, shows that the Committee heard evidence from as many as forty-two witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Government Departments concerned, the associations representing local authorities, water undertakers, catchment and fishery boards, the main line railway companies, canal undertakers, landowners and industry; also some individual water undertakers, including the Metropolitan Water Board, and various classes of water users, including private individuals. As a result of the Committee's exhaustive examination of the Bill some 270 Amendments have been recommended. Many of these are of a drafting character. The remainder represent in part Amendments suggested by the Ministry of Health, and in part those suggested on behalf of the various bodies who gave evidence before the Committee. These Amendments will be found on pages 5 to 19 of the Report. All these Amendments have been accepted by the Minister of Health, and are, it is understood, acceptable to the great majority of the interests concerned.
Before telling your Lordships of the nature of the main Amendments recommended, I should perhaps remind your Lordships of the intended scope of this Bill. This Bill is primarily a consolidating Bill, designed to consolidate the existing law. It does, however, introduce a number of amendments to the law designed solely to secure greater simplicity, uniformity, and conciseness. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that it is the intention of the Minister of Health to consider the whole question of water supply, with a view to introducing legislation which will reform and reorganise the existing law. This consolidating Bill which is now before your Lordships' House is a very necessary preliminary to the introduction of such a measure. Your Lordships will therefore see the reasons why the Committee have recommended, for example, that Clause 5 of the Bill should be excluded. This

609
clause placed a duty on water undertakers to supply water for non-domestic purposes if the supply for domestic purposes would not be prejudiced. The Committee's reasons for not including this clause were to the effect that they considered that such a departure from the tenor of this consolidating Bill would be inappropriate. The Committee were not opposed to the provisions of this clause. They recommended, however, that until a measure had been enacted controlling the extraction of water from underground, this new duty should not be placed upon water undertakers. The control of the extraction of underground water will be one of the points to be considered by the Minister when he reviews the question of the reorganising and reforming of the law, about which I have just spoken.
The Committee also recommended that the Metropolitan Water Board should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The reasons for the Committee's recommendation are given in the Report. They are, in short, to the effect that as the Board is unique in this country as a water undertaking, many of the provisions of the Bill would not be appropriate for application to the Board, and alternatively many special provisions only applicable to the Board would have to be incorporated in the Bill. The representatives of the Metropolitan Water Board before the Committee agreed that it would be better to exclude the Board from the Bill, and that the Board (which, I understand, is often coming to Parliament) would promote legislation to apply the suitable provisions of the Bill to their area. It has not been considered desirable to incorporate in this Bill the recommendations of Lord Carnock's Committee on the breaking up of streets. As far as I know, none of the other interests concerned—gas, electricity, hydraulic or other undertakers—have fully considered Lord Carnock's report, and it would be inappropriate to give effect to the recommendations until they have been considered by all the interests concerned.
I must make some remarks about the recommended Amendments to Clause 52 of the First Schedule to the Bill. The representatives from the various associations of large and small hotels, boarding houses, restaurants, theatres, as well as
610
several individual owners of such premises, were alarmed by the financial hardships which those of their number who carried out what is called seasonal trade might suffer, if this clause in its present form became law. Under subsection (4) of Clause 52 of the First Schedule—I refer to the Bill which left your Lordships' House after the Second Reading, No. 102—as it now stands, hotels, boarding houses and so on would find themselves, during the busy season of the year (which may be less than three months in duration) when they are consuming exceptionally large quantities of water, charged in accordance with a meter reading. During the slack season, however, when very little or perhaps no water is being consumed, owing to the hotel or boarding house being shut, the charge for water consumption will not be in accordance with the low or non-existent meter reading, but will be brought up to the minimum quarterly charge of one quarter of the normal annual water rate.
I do not wish to imply that all the rest of the 270 Amendments are of a consequential or drafting nature. Should any of your Lordships desire more information on any of these other more or less agreed Amendments—that is to say, Amendments which have been nearly all agreed to by the water interests concerned—I shall, to the best of my ability, endeavour to give your Lordships the information required. I suggest that the most convenient course for dealing with all these Amendments of the Joint Committee would be to follow the procedure adopted in the case of the Local Government Act, 1933, the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, all of which originated in Bills of a similar character—namely, to insert en bloc all the Amendments recommended by the joint Committee. This would obviate the very laborious task of moving each of these Amendments individually. It is also proposed to move at this stage the Government Amendments on the Paper, which are all of a minor character, largely drafting. With your Lordships' permission, these Amendments, which I assure you are largely drafting, will also be taken en bloc. If this procedure is acceptable to the House, your Lordships will then have before you at the Report stage the Bill containing the Joint Committee's recommendations,

611
when further Amendments, if the House so wishes, can be made. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Bridport.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I ask for some further information from my noble friend who has just moved? He tells us this is a consolidating Bill and that there are 270 Amendments by the Joint Committee. I bear in mind that there was another Joint Committee besides this one, which was appointed to deal with the water resources of England. I was a member of that Committee representing another place, and we took several months to report on the water resources of England. My noble friend has not told us whether he will include in the legislation which is to follow this Bill, or whether there will be included in this Bill, anything to deal with catchment areas, fishery areas, industrial supplies of water, and compensation water. All these different subjects were so extremely important that we issued a Report to the two Houses upon them. I trust that this Report upon the water resources of England will not be side-tracked, but that the points and recommendations of that Report will be to some extent embodied in any fresh legislation placed before your Lordships' House.
3.15 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as Chairman of the Joint Committee which sat on this Bill, I do not think I have very much to add to what my noble friend Lord Bridport has told your Lordships. This is the fourth Joint Committee of this kind of which I have been Chairman. We have had the Local Government Committee, the Food and Drugs Committee, this one, and I cannot at the moment recall the name of the fourth. In all these what we had in view was to take the existing law and, so to speak, clean it up. The process is called consolidation and amendment. The amendment in all these four cases is almost entirely represented by the em-
612
bodiment in the general law of model clauses and accepted general clauses inserted in Private Bills without question. That of course is an amendment of the general law, but it is more technical than actual, because the clauses are available to any local authority or undertaker who chooses to bring in a Bill. As regards other Amendments, there certainly have been one or two points on which new law has been added, but the Committee, as my noble friend told your Lordships, were very careful indeed not to go more than they could possibly help beyond this consolidation of the general law by amalgamating the actual general law and model clauses in Private Bills. There are one or two Amendments of which my noble friend has told your Lordships. He has also told you that the original proposals, like Clause 51, contained suggestions which went further than the Committee felt justified in asking your Lordships to accept at this stage. There were one or two others. There was a question regarding catchment areas which was new in Clause 11. It is not a very far-reaching Amendment, although there were some who did not very much like it. I do not think there are more of any substance.
As regards Clause 5, all the members of the Committee—I speak under correction—welcomed it on its merits, but did not think it was the proper place in which to insert it at the time. As regards Lord Carnock's Committee on the breaking up of streets, it is quite impossible to deal with that for various reasons. In the first place, as my noble friend said, the interested parties have not had time to consider it, and they were told by the Ministry of Health they had not even had time to read it. They are very busy at present, and it is very long, intricate, and able Report. Obviously your Lordships would agree that the Committee were right in not attempting to deal with that matter at this stage. Then there is the Amendment to Clause 53, which was Clause 52 in the former Bill, which my noble friend explained at length in regard to payment for water by small hotels and boarding houses. I ought to mention to your Lordships that I had a telegram to-day—I do not quite remember from whom, but evidently from some important body, who, I gather, does not approve of this particular Amendment,

613
and will bring forward alternative proposals at some later stage.
As regards procedure my noble friend suggested we should take all the Amendments together and, when I get into the Chair, put them en bloc. I should say this, that on the Paper are Amendments which were not considered by the Committee; they are Amendments which have been introduced by the Ministry of Health at a subsequent stage. I am assured—I have not read them—that they are not of substance and might easily be accepted by your Lordships with the others and taken en bloc. If your Lordships approve that would be the easiest form of procedure because the important Amendments are in the Bill and the unimportant ones are on the Paper. I cannot of course say anything with regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, just now, but I did take pains, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, to ask for a statement from the Ministry of Health as to their intentions in regard to future Bills. That statement is printed in the evidence and summarised in the Report, and probably will give as much information as is available at the present time in regard to future undertakings. The same question was addressed to the representative of the Minister of Transport, and his reply is also in the Report. The matter is going to be dealt with, but the position is rather vague. I do not think I have anything further to add to what my noble friend has said, but we sat for six days and gave a great deal of consideration to the matter and I hope your Lordships will approve the Amendments which the Committee have ventured to suggest.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I can assure him that the recommendations of the Committee to which he referred will be considered when the new Bill for amending, as opposed to this one which is a consolidating Bill, is drafted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be made.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be made.—(Viscount Bridport.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: Now I beg to move that the Amendments of which Notice has been given be agreed to, and I suggest that they be taken en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 30, after ("district") insert ("and the rivers board for any area")
Clause 2, page 7, line 2, leave out ("and")
Clause 2, page 7, line 2, after ("district") insert ("and the rivers board for any area")
Clause 5, page 11, line 5, after ("may") insert ("after a demand therefor")
Clause 5, page 11, line 10, after ("pay") insert ("within seven days after a demand therefor")
Clause 5, page 11, line 17, leave out from ("if") to ("notice") in line 18, and insert ("before the expiration of the said seven days")
Clause 5, page 11, line 21, leave out ("on their application") and insert ("on the application of either party")
Clause 5, page 12, line 24, at end insert:
("(7) Nothing in this section shall affect any enactment under which undertakers who are also a rating authority may be empowered to collect water rates, rents or charges together with general rates, or to recover water rates, rents or charges in the same manner as general rates.")
Clause 7, page 13, line 6, after ("undertaking") insert ("(regard being had by him to any capital which the undertakers may reasonably be expected to expend during the next five years)")
Clause 10, page 17, line 25, at end insert:
("(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the provisions of Section three hundred and six of the Public Health Act, 1936, with respect to the powers of water undertakers who are a local authority to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of their water undertaking.")
Clause 12, page 20, line 32, leave out ("and") and insert ("the")
Clause 12, page 20, line 33, after ("district") insert ("and the rivers board for any area")
Clause 20, page 28, line 18, at end insert:
("'rivers board' means a joint committee, board or other body constituted under subsection (3) of Section fourteen of the Local Government Act, 1888, or by or under a Local Act, for the purpose of exercising powers of a sanitary authority under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876;")
Clause 26, page 31, line so, leave out from ("1939") to end of subsection.
First Schedule, page 33, line 24, at end insert ("and includes any apparatus used in connection with such a pipe")
First Schedule, page 35, line 14, at end insert:
("'rivers board' means a joint committee, board or other body, constituted under subsection (3) of Section fourteen of the Local Government Act, 1888, or by or under a Local Act, for the purpose of exercising powers of a sanitary authority under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876;")
First Schedule, page 36, line 33, leave out ("interested in those lands") and insert ("having a legal interest therein")
First Schedule, page 41, line 37, after ("fishery board") insert ("a rivers board")
First Schedule, page 41, line 39, leave out from ("their") to ("any") in line 41, and insert ("area or district, or, as the case may be")
First Schedule, page 42, line 25, leave out ("(other than service pipes)")
First Schedule, page 42, line 27, leave out ("(other than service pipes)")
First Schedule, page 42, line 37, at end insert ("In this subsection the expression 'pipes' does not include service pipes")
First Schedule, page 45, line 4, leave out ("water")
First Schedule, page 45, line 35, leave out ("water")
First Schedule, page 46, line 7, leave out ("water")
First Schedule, page 46, line 44, leave out ("or construct")
First Schedule, page 47, line 2, leave out ("persons living") and insert ("premises")
First Schedule, page 47, line 4, leave out ("or constructed")
First Schedule, page 50, line 26, at the beginning insert:
("(1) The provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall apply in relation to any land within the limits of a street, but not included in a roadway or footpath thereof, as if that land were, or formed part of, a footpath of the street.
(2)")
First Schedule, page 59, line 37, after ("minimum") insert ("annual")
First Schedule, page 66, line 16, at end insert:
("In this subsection the expression 'month' means a period of four weeks exclusive of any day in the month of August")
First Schedule, page 77, line 4, after ("necessary") insert ("and until the prohibition is withdrawn by them")
First Schedule, page 77, line 11, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 12, and insert ("while the prohibition is in force, contravenes its provisions").—(Viscount Bridport.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR PLACES OF HISTORIC INTEREST OR NATURAL BEAUTY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
3.23 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Earl De La Warr, I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time. I propose, in view of the outrages of which your Lordships have read in the Press this morning, that the House should be asked to pass this Bill through all its stages tomorrow. It was proposed originally that the further stages should be taken on Monday, but I think your Lordships will agree with His Majesty's Government that it is advisable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment. We therefore hope to get the Royal Assent to-morrow. But there is one difficulty about it. There are several Amendments which the Government would desire to be inserted in the Bill. Therefore we propose, although it is not in accordance with the usual precedent of this House, that the Amendments should be circulated with the Bill to-night, although the Bill will not have received a Second Reading. That will enable your Lordships to study the Amendments and be able to take part in the discussion to-morrow, when we go into Committee if, as I imagine it will,

617
the House is prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I propose also that the Bill should be placed as the first Order on the Paper to-morrow. As soon as we have completed all the stages of the Bill we shall be able to return it to another place so that they can agree to the Amendments made by your Lordships, and then the Bill can return here in order to receive the Royal Assent. I hope that that will be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes. I may add that there are now available for your Lordships copies of the Bill in the Printed Paper Office. The Bill is available for anybody to study now if so desired.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, your Lordships will desire that this Bill should be passed as quickly as possible, and we shall raise no objection to the proposal which the Leader of the House has made. It may not be quite in accordance with our usual practice, but the Bill is one of urgency and we shall agree to whatever variation in the procedure is necessary.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 5:
Registration of persons carrying on business in the industry and of merchants.
(2) After the expiration of the period of three months beginning at the commencement of this Act, no person shall carry on business in the industry unless he is registered in the general register as so carrying on business, or an application to be so registered has been duly made by him and is under consideration; and any person who contravenes this subsection shall, on summary conviction, be liable—
3.27 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "three" and insert "two." The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of the Amendments in my name which appear on the Paper are
618
drafting, but this is rather more than a drafting Amendment and may require a little explanation. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 prevents any person from carrying on business in the industry unless he is registered in the general register, and such persons are given a period of three months from the commencement of the Act during which to register. While the Bill was under consideration by the Standing Committee in another place, an Amendment was moved which, with the object of speeding up the machinery provided by the Bill, required registration to take place before September 30, 1939. The Amendment was withdrawn on an undertaking by the Government to consider at a later stage whether the period allowed for registration could be reduced. This Amendment, which shortens the period allowed for registration from three months to two months, has been set down in fulfilment of that undertaking.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is to put right a mistake pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, to whom I am much obliged. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("acquires") and insert ("acquire").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Provisions as to price schemes]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the three Amendments in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 9, page 12, line 33, leave out ("following provisions of this") and insert ("provisions of the next following")
Clause 9, page 13, line 35, leave out ("the preceding subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of the last preceding section")
Clause 9, page 15, line 24, leave out ("this") and insert ("the last preceding").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the last Amendment to this clause is also a

619
drafting Amendment. It is proposed to divide Clause 9, which is a very long clause, into two clauses. The first will contain provisions relating to the contents of price schemes—that is, the provisions which shall or may be made in such schemes—and the second will deal with various controls upon the provisions of price schemes and controls on the operation of such schemes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, that Clause 9 be divided into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1), (4), (7) and (8) and the second to consist of subsections (2), (3), (5) and (6).—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
The Rayon Committee.
(2) If, upon a Motion made in each House of Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government at any time after the expiration of the period of one year beginning at the commencement of this Act, that House resolves that a committee should be constituted in accordance with the next following subsection, the Board of Trade shall constitute a committee accordingly, notwithstanding that no recommendation has been made to them under the preceding subsection.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "on behalf of His Majesty's Government." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I want to draw your attention to what seems an extraordinary provision in this clause—namely, that:
"If, upon a Motion made in each House of Parliament on behalf of his Majesty's Government … that House resolves that a committee should be constituted … the Board of Trade shall constitute a committee accordingly …"
When I put down my Amendment, I did not know that there was anything like a precedent for that proposal, and there is not really a precedent, although I think the noble Lord may produce what he would call two precedents. The first is in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. Section 23 (1) of that Act says:
"Where a Motion made in either House of Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government for the approval of a scheme under the principal Act the draft of which has been laid before that House—"
The second Act upon which my noble friend may rely is the Sea Fish Industry
620
Act, 1938. Section 17 (2) of that Act says:
"Where a Motion made in either House of Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government for the approval of a marketing scheme, the draft of which has been laid before that Mouse …"
Both those sections refer to the draft of a scheme, but in this clause of the Bill we are now considering there is no provision for any draft being laid. Therefore, if my noble friend relies on either precedent, his argument must fall to the ground, because they are only partial precedents. I hope that he will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 27, leave out ("on behalf of his Majesty's Government").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I on behalf of my noble friends support the noble Viscount in this Amendment? As we read this clause it takes away the rights of members of your Lordships' House. I am only speaking of this House. I have always understood that any Peer could make a Motion on public business, whereas this limits the right of making a Motion to the temporary occupants of the Front Bench opposite. I think the matter is of very great importance from that point of view.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, of course I know perfectly well that there are two precedents which the noble Viscount has quoted. I am not, however, going to base my defence of the words in the clause on those precedents but on the merits of the words. As your Lordships will know, under subsection (1) of this clause, the Board of Trade may constitute the Rayon Committee if they are satisfied that a majority of all the interests concerned desire them to do so. Subsection (2) of the clause, on the other hand, provides for the constitution of the committee at any time after the expiration of one year from the commencement of the Act (whether or not a majority of all the interests are in favour of that course) upon a Government Motion in each House of Parliament.
I should perhaps explain to your Lordships that the provision in subsection (2) of the clause was not inserted in the Bill until a late stage of the consideration in another place. Until then the Rayon

621
Committee could not be established at all unless and until the Cotton Industry Advisory Committee were satisfied that a majority of the persons using rayon in each of the branches of the industry desired it. Certain of the rayon interests, for the most part outside the cotton industry, desired the immediate constitution of the committee, but as there was and is a strong feeling amongst the users of rayon in the cotton industry against this, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was not prepared to accept their request. He felt, and I hope your Lordships will agree with him, that no useful work could be expected from a committee set up in such circumstances against the wishes of most of the people whose interests the committee were intended to serve.
At the same time he felt that at some future date circumstances might show that establishment of the committee was desirable although all the conditions on which the Cotton Industry Advisory Committee were to be satisfied were not fulfilled. In discussions with the interests that desired the immediate establishment of the committee he offered to introduce a provision which would enable him when he thought the time was ripe—and he was to be the judge of that—to set up the committee provided Parliament approved. All the interests concerned were satisfied with this and said they would be content to leave the decision to him. In these circumstances subsection (2) of Clause 15 was framed so as to provide that the initiative in raising the matter should rest with the Government. That arrangement was accepted by all the interests concerned; if it had not been the Government would have felt considerable difficulty in submitting the proposal to Parliament, The Government would wish that the Rayon Committee should be established as soon as it appears that its establishment would be useful. When the Board of Trade are satisfied on this—and they will keep a close watch on the position in the industry in this respect—the matter will be submitted for decision by Parliament.
The Government feel that the consequences of any disturbance of the compromise that was recently agreed to or of any attempt to raise this matter in the future before the time is ripe, might be most unfortunate since it would revive
622
the controversy which has centred round this subject and postpone the time when the different sections will be able to work amicably together. I should like to acquaint my noble friend that I saw the President of the Board of trade last night and he impressed on me—and I should like to impress on my noble friend and your Lordships—the very great difficulty with which the negotiations were conducted. They have now come to a successful conclusion, enabling this Bill to be brought forward. My right honourable friend feels that if such an Amendment as that proposed by the noble Viscount were accepted it would be a breach of faith on his part as representing His Majesty's Government, and he could not possibly consider it. I hope, therefore, that after this explanation my noble friend may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I, by leave of the House, put a question to the noble Lord? Does it not come to the same thing if the Amendment is accepted, because if a private Peer put forward a Motion the Government could always defeat it? That would implement their promise to the industry, but as the clause stands it takes away rights of Parliament. It may be of very great importance in the future, and that is what we are disturbed about.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am afraid I think the remarks of my noble friend are quite irrelevant. The noble Lord said it would be a breach of faith, but I understand that it would be a breach of faith between some private individuals and some Members of Parliament. I do not think either House ought to be ruled by private interests, and I hope that in future His Majesty's Government will not have recourse to this method. I expect that if I went to a Division I should be defeated, and so, having made my protest, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Interpretation]:
3.39 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, there are three drafting Amendments to this clause. The first Amendment relates to the definition of "merchant." The definition at present would include producers

623
in the industry who sell their goods to other producers in the industry—for example, a spinner who sells yarn to a manufacturer. Such persons should not be regarded as merchants and the Amendment makes this clear. The second and third Amendments are purely verbal changes. I beg to move the three Amendments together.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 21, after ("Kingdom") insert ("(otherwise than in the industry)")
Page 53, line 37, leave out from ("on") to ("in") in line 38.
Page 53, line 38, at end insert ("business by way of any activity which, by virtue of this Act, is to be treated as part of the industry").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule [Part II—Authorisation of price or charge less than normal minimum price or charge]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 28, leave out from ("person") to ("is") in line 29.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Provisions with respect to sectional schemes]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have to move another Amendment for which I am indebted to my noble and grammatical friend Viscount Bertie. I am very much obliged to him again, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 8, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Templemore.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I require no thanks; I thank him for having done the dirty work for me.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, can the attention of the draftsman not be drawn to these points, so that my noble friend Viscount Bettie may be relieved of this task?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There is only one safe way, and that is to treat the nouns of multitude in the neuter singular. If you do that, I do not think you can, to use an unparlia-
624
mentary word, come up against any snag.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Provisions for Exchequer assistance to boards administering redundancy schemes]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, both these Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 5, leave out ("purchasing").
Page 74, line 6, after ("board") insert ("to acquire plant").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, in pursuance of the Resolution of Monday last:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
OVERSEAS TRADE GUARANTEES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD): My Lords, I seek your leave to move the Second Reading of the War Risks Insurance Bill. This Bill is part of the emergency legislation which is necessary at the present time to bring the machinery of Government up to date and to enable us to fit the necessities of today on to the machinery of twenty-five years ago. The old War Risks Insurance Agreement was one which had been worked out between Government officials and the representatives of the shipping industry before we were within sight of

625
the Great War of 1914. The shipping interests themselves had in existence their mutual war risks associations, which had worked with complete smoothness, very largely because those who were in control of those associations were masters of the art of insurance and had foreseen the troubles that were likely to arise before they were visible to other people. But even an agreement reached, like that of 1914, between the Government representatives and those who represented the Chamber of Shipping and the various mutual war risks associations in course of time proved to be inadequate, and there are some respects in which it is necessary that changes should be made.
In the first place there has been a considerable change in the area of the risks to be covered. The risks reinsured in 1914 were defined in the agreement as:
"the risks of capture, seizure and detainment by the King's enemies and the consequences thereof or any attempt thereat, and all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations by or against the King's enemies whether before or after declaration of war."
In the revised agreement the asks reinsured have been defined in relation to the clause which is current practice in the marine insurance market and which takes account, among other things, of the fact that there may be or may not be a formal declaration of war. The risks reinsured under the revised agreement are:
"the risks of capture, seizure, arrest, restraint, or detainment by the King's enemies and the consequences thereof or any attempt thereat; also of the consequences of hostilities or warlike operations by or against the King's enemies whether there be a declaration of war or not; but excepting civil war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection and civil strife arising therefrom and piracy."
It will therefore be seen that there has been an alteration in the area over which this scheme is to work.
Under the 1914 agreement ships were held covered under their current peacetime policies (which were issued without payment of premium) for ten days after the outbreak of war if they were in port, or if they were at sea until arrival at the last port of destination for which they had cargo or passengers on board at the outbreak of war and for ten days thereafter. If such port became unsafe during the ten days they were at liberty to move to another port and were held covered for ten days after arrival at a port which was a "safe port" at the
626
time of arrival and remained a "safe port" for ten days thereafter. The altered conditions to be contemplated in a future war have rendered the "safe port" provision inappropriate, and in the revised agreement references to a "safe port" have been eliminated. Ships in port are held covered for seven days from the issue of an "emergency notice" by the Board of Trade, and those at sea are held covered until arrival at the last port for which they have cargo or passengers on board at the time of the issue of such a notice and for seven days thereafter.
"Emergency notice" is defined in the agreement, and it will be seen that the revised agreement provides not only for the contingency that hostilities may begin without a formal declaration of war, but also for the possibility of the giving of notice to terminate reinsurance without premium before an actual outbreak of hostilities. The third point in which there has been a change since the operation of the 1914 agreement is that the 1914 agreement provided that when Great Britain was at war ships should comply with the orders of His Majesty's Government and the directions of the committees of the associations as to routes, ports of call and stoppages. The revised agreement requires compliance with these orders and directions as from the issue of the Board of Trade emergency notice."
The next point to which I would draw the attention of your Lordships is that of valuation. This has always been a matter of controversy, but under the 1914 agreement ships were accepted for purposes of reinsurance at the values at which they were entered in the associations for war risk purposes on the outbreak of war. This provision—that is to say, the values which were entered in the association for war risk purposes—was necessary because the agreement was negotiated only on the eve of the outbreak of war and no opportunity had occurred for the provision of alternative insurance facilities. It was a condition of the agreement, however, that entered values applied only until September 9, 1914. Thereafter the value of ships for purposes of Government reinsurance was limited to first cost less depreciation at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum, subject to a minimum value of 30s. per ton gross.

627
Under the revised agreement which we are now considering the basic value of cost less 4 per cent. per annum has been maintained, and this basis of valuation will apply both as regards voyages current on an outbreak of war and also subsequent voyages. A provision has, however, been added to permit of additions to the value at which a ship may be entered for purposes of Government reinsurance where alterations or additions have been effected, the first cast of which is equivalent to not less than 20 per cent. of the first cost of the vessel. This change is rendered necessary by many examples of the reconstruction, extension or improvement of vessels, often at very high cost, completely transforming their nature. The agreement now suggested will permit of the insurance of values over and above the Government scale value, but any such "excess values" so placed will not rank for Government reinsurance. As in the case of the 1914 agreement, provision is made whereby the insured values of all vessels for the purpose of the agreement may be increased or diminished by agreement with the Board of Trade at any time after the outbreak of war. It will be seen therefore that these changes, although not material, have in fact been rendered necessary by the experience of past times and must now be made in war to bring the agreement up to date.
May I point out the objects of the Bill? They are defined in the documents just circulated to your Lordships' House. The object of Part I of the Bill is to give the Board of Trade the power, with the approval of the Treasury, to operate the comprehensive scheme of marine war risk insurance referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on January 31 of this year. The Bill will empower the Board of Trade to enter into agreements for re-insurances against King's enemy risks of British ships and cargoes carried by ship or aircraft. In anticipation of these powers the Board of Trade have already made arrangements with certain mutual war risks associations of shipowners in the United Kingdom, under which the associations will continue their present practice of insuring ships registered in the United Kingdom against all war risks, and the Board of Trade will reinsure the associations in respect of claims arising from King's enemy risks to a ship so
628
insured up to 80 per cent. of the value of the ship, as determined under the arrangement.
The proposed powers will also enable the Board of Trade to conclude with the marine insurance market an agreement for affording improved facilities for the war risks insurance of cargoes destined for discharge in, or shipped from, the United Kingdom, including cargoes shipped ocean-wise between ports of the United Kingdom. It will be remembered that this agreement was put into operation on a provisional basis on April 13 last. Under this agreement the market, through the medium of a War Risks Cargo Pool, grants full war risks insurance cover to traders, and the Board of Trade reinsures the Pool in respect of King's enemy risks. The new scheme provides that the Board of Trade shall receive a specified portion of the premiums charged by the market for comprehensive war risk cover, and the market undertake, on their side, certain obligations in regard to the maximum rates of premium to be charged to traders, and agree to modify in the interests of the trading community, certain of the conditions of insurance which were customary before April 13. The Bill also empowers the Board of Trade to effect direct insurances of British ships, and of cargoes carried in ships or aircraft against war risks or King's enemy risks at any time when it appears to them that reasonable and adequate facilities for such insurances are not otherwise available, and it gives the Board of Trade full powers to effect insurances of ships and cargoes in war-time. These are the objects of Clauses 1 and 2, forming the first Part of the Bill.
The second Part of the Bill is designed to make provision for the protection against King's enemy risks of stocks in the hands of manufacturers, producers and traders, so as to enable trade to be carried on in a normal manner, and to prevent the risk of stocks in peace time being unduly depleted through the absence of any war risk cover. Such a provision is a necesary corollary of the scheme for marine risks insurance, as it is not sufficient to make provision for the insurance of goods on their way to this country if there is not equivalent protection for them after they are warehoused on arrival. This will cover all goods, whether home produced or imported.

629
I would point out that these provisions extend to ships under construction for sale, but do not cover fixed property or plant, and for the simple reason that the figure which would have to be covered by insurance of fixed property comes to the prodigious one of about £10,000,000,000. The total figure to be covered on ships, large as it is, is only £250,000,000. On cargoes and goods in transit it is £130,000,000, making a total, when ships are included, of £380,000,000. Part II of the Bill deals with the insurance of commodities estimated at £2,000,000,000, making a grand total of £2,380,000,000. These prodigious figures are small compared with the figures attributable to fixed property, buildings and machinery and furniture, which come to the enormous figure of £12,000,000,000. It is only fair to say that the Government considered, with great sympathy, the request which has been made to make schemes for the insurance of buildings and fixed plant. They were unable, with these examples before them, and figures on such a gigantic scale, to justify or agree to the inclusion in this Bill of buildings, including private houses and property, but a strong case was made out in argument, and the Government have agreed, as I think was announced in your Lordships' House on July 17, that a conference of four or five gentlemen of acknowledged standing will confer, and they will be asked by the Government "to examine the practicability of evolving a scheme for mutual provision against risk of war damage to fixed property in private ownership, excluding ships, cargoes and commodities already covered by the Government's insurance scheme." The names of these gentlemen will shortly be made public, and then I hope it will be possible for a much closer examination to be made of the facts which must govern any scheme of this nature.
Power is taken in Clause II to exclude goods of any description, that is to say, to exclude goods which are not deemed to be a necessity for the life of the community. It is intended that the measure shall apply to retailers as well as to wholesalers, and that there should be a minimum premium. Clause 7 provides that in war time the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, put into operation a scheme enabling
630
goods of the kinds in question held in the United Kingdom to be insured against King's enemy risks on payment of a premium. How is this portion of the insurance scheme to be worked? Clause 8 provides that the owners of insurable goods shall be enabled on the passage of this Bill to register them in times of peace on payment of a registration fee, assessed in accordance with the Schedule which appears at the end of the Bill. By such registration they will be assured of indemnity if war breaks out, but will be under obligation to pay the appropriate insurance premium for the initial period of war.
Both registration in peace and insurance in war are to be optional. Power is, however, taken in Clause 9 to make insurance of goods in war time compulsory, should that course appear to be desirable. Compulsion would be applied by Order, which would provide that no trader should be compelled to insure unless he owned stocks of a minimum value. Power is also taken in the event of such an Order being made to prescribe different rates of premium in relation to different descriptions of goods, and according to the place at which and the circumstances in which the goods are situated. Clause 10 provides that while a war risk insurance Order is in force no person shall issue policies of insurance covering the same ground except as agent of the Board of Trade. In other words, it becomes a State monopoly which nobody else wishes to undertake.
I have drawn attention to the various features of this Bill, but I need hardly say that it is one of considerable complexity to those who are not closely acquainted with what is called "the market" and the mutual insurance system under which shipping has been provided with cover for so many years. The reason why it is necessary to have an insurance scheme of this kind at all is a very simple one. There would be the risk on the outbreak of war or of hostilities of vessels making for the nearest port for shelter, and not completing their whole voyage. They would wish to avoid the risk of capture. The general purpose of this scheme is to ensure that at times of emergency, there shall be no such inducement, and that ships shall not be laid up and commerce shall not be interrupted because reasonable

631
and adequate facilities for war risk insurance are not available. It is to fulfil these requirements that this Bill has been introduced. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Viscount Runciman of Doxford.)
4.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I believe I am right in saying this is the first time the noble Viscount has addressed your Lordships since he had a regrettable illness, and I should like to be allowed to congratulate him on the recovery he has made and the good results of the sea voyage he took. May I first of all raise a legal matter with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack? It seems to me that the time has come when the Lord Chancellor should set up one of his famous legal Committees to determine whether some different phraseology is not called for instead of using the term "King's enemy risk." The noble Viscount explained that the Bill is so drawn that risks are insured against arising from hostile action when there is no declaration of war. I may be entirely wrong, and I approach this matter with the greatest diffidence in the presence of the Lord Chancellor, but it seems to me that these conditions have certainly altered. We have seen hostilities in China and Albania without any declaration of war at all—in the case of China considerable hostilities on a very large scale, which have now entered on their third year. Indeed, it is apparently the new technique to engage in war on a large scale without a declaration of war, and I imagine one of the reasons is to avoid coming under the effects of certain neutrality legislation in America. At any rate it seems to me that the old definitions, so well understood and well accepted by insurers and shippers and others, do not quite cover the situation under modern totalitarian methods. I do not ask the Lord Chancellor to say anything on the matter now. I have given him very scant notice that I was going to raise this, but it has been conveyed to me that difficulties might arise over this definition question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My attention has been called to the fact that there is a definition in Clause 6, page 7, line 6. I am not sure
632
whether that does to some extent meet the noble Lord's criticism.
LORD STRABOLGI: I read that, and it certainly is very wide. It deals with rebellion, revolution, civil war and civil strife, but I do not think the undeclared act of war is covered. That is not civil war, it is not rebellion, it is an act by a sovereign State without a declaration of war.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Has the noble Lord seen paragraph (b)?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes—"action taken by an enemy, or from action taken in combating an enemy." On the other hand, who is your enemy without a declaration of war? As I say, it may be perfectly clear to the Lord Chancellor and the Admiralty Court, but I suggest that it needs looking into under modern conditions. However, that is a matter about which I do not pretend to have any knowledge.
With regard to the Bill itself, we of course do not wish to impede it in any way. It is necessary, and the case is well understood. Our complaint is that it does not go far enough. I must revert to the matter touched on by the noble Viscount—namely, the omission of insurance for lieges of their private property. We have this situation: the shipowner is insured as to his hull and cargo, the merchant or storekeeper in certain cases is insured, but the man who has his whole property in his house or buildings cannot get insurance in any direction at all, and that is causing a great deal of anxiety to many small householders particularly, and other persons. The noble Viscount on behalf of the Government quotes the astronomical figure of the whole value of the real estate and hereditaments of this country, and says, "How can we shoulder the possible risk of £12,000,000,000 or some such figure?" That is not what is suggested, and never has been suggested, by my Party. We say it should be mutual, and possibly later on it may be found that the Government have to under-pin it or support it, and invite all the property holders to contribute to a pool. After all, insurance is mutual; in the beginning it was a purely mutual concern. That is all we ask at the present time. There are thousands of property owners—I am one in a small

633
way myself—who would be glad to pay into a general pool. If their houses are destroyed now they would get nothing. The Government says, "Oh yes, you would be all right when the war was over." The war may last a very long time, and there are always claims and adjustments to be made. It means that the poor man is unable to build another house, or get compensation, for a considerable time; whereas the shipowner—I do not blame the noble Viscount for looking after his own cloth—the shipowner who loses his hull gets another ship at once.
I want some better provision for the householder. The Government says, "Oh, yes, we realise that there is a large body of opinion which holds these views, and there is a General Election coming along perhaps, so we must do something." So what do they do? On July 17 they announced the appointment of a Committee of four or five eminent business men. Well, where are the Committee? This is July 27, and they have not even been chosen. In a few days' time the recognised holiday season will have commenced. These four or five eminent business men have not been chosen. Are they then going to scatter to Scotland or Derbyshire during August for the holidays, and nothing done until we reassemble at the end of September? Really the matter is more urgent than the Government seem to appreciate. And I most respectfully suggest that it is not nearly so complicated as the Government have made out. In the meantime there is great anxiety and dissatisfaction among many worthy people, who feel apprehensive. As the noble Viscount knows, the building industry is at the present moment very hard hit, because of this very difficulty. People have had these war alarms now for so many months that they are afraid to embark on new building enterprise, and until the Government do something there will be that difficulty. I do hope this matter is going to be hastened because Parliament is rising in a few days and we have not even got the names of the Committee. The noble Viscount has a great reputation for administrative ability and energy, if he will allow me to say so. He has always been regarded as one of the quick movers in politics. Cannot he put a little ginger into this matter, and get a scheme before the unfortunate property owners as soon as possible?
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord expects me to reply. This is a matter that has received a great deal of attention. It is not so simple as the noble Lord would make out. One set of facts was skated over very lightly. He made no reference to premiums. I presume he is going to try and collect some revenue in a scheme of this nature.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: Then may I point out the difficulty into which he would tumble? He would either make that premium too high and therefore a burden on the simple householder, or make it too low and therefore penalise the State. I leave him to get out of that dilemma. We should be foolish if we were to embark on anything so complex, so varied, so difficult of solution without a full examination of the various conditions which must apply to any scheme of this nature.
LORD STRABOLGI: I will get the noble Viscount out of that difficulty immediately. All that property owners are asking is that they should get their share of whatever goes into the pool. You can make the premiums high or low; it is immaterial.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: That is all very well. It is no comfort to the householder if it is unfair to him in the effort to make it fair to the State. I think my noble friend would get into difficulties at once. At all events there is no reason why we should decide, in dealing with anything so stupendous as this problem undoubtedly is, without much greater care and closer scrutiny. I do not know whether my noble friend expects me to say anything more on the subject, but twice in this House and in another place statements have been made on behalf of the Government pointing out that they are ready, willing, and anxious to get to the bottom of this problem if they can. But we must be in the position of having the data before us, and we seek for the advice of those who, quite impartially, with no interest at all—not even shipowners—will be ready to set down a solution of what is an extremely difficult problem.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow

635
me to say so, I am still a little puzzled. The only argument my noble friend gave in his first speech was that the sum was so very large. That means the danger to the individual is very large also. Why should we protect the shipowner or the owner of goods because he is risking less, and leave unprotected the owner of private property because he is risking a great deal? I should have thought the larger the risk the more reason there was for the State to intervene to help to meet the threat to a very large proportion of the community. No one doubts that the thing is complex. It is obviously a very complex and difficult question. On the other hand, why is it more difficult than the other part of insurance against war risks? I do not see any greater complication in the one case than in the other. The difficulty of premium arises in any form of insurance. Why should it only be insuperable, or nearly insuperable, in the case of the owners of private property? I confess I am a little puzzled, and I hope the noble Viscount will give us some hope that the matter is to be pressed on with more rapidity than at the present moment because time is getting on.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the possibility of war has existed for many months, and therefore I cannot see why His Majesty's Government have not taken the best advice to know what premiums are proper to pay.
4.16 p.m.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I do not know what answer my noble friend will give to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, on the question he raised regarding the insurance of property, but, as I understand this Bill, it is a Bill to enable the means to be given in time of war to replace both shipping and goods which are necessary to the community, whereas buildings can well afford to wait until the end of the war. It seems to me and those who had something to do with it in the last War that that was the main reason why this Bill was drafted.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the difficulty was not that at all. The difficulty in the last War was that the whole resources of the country were engaged in dealing with the actual fighting, and therefore there was no one
636
left to build ships. You will not get over that by insurance. That is a totally different matter. Replacement is not provided for in this Bill, only the payment of money to enable you to replace.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Exactly—that is the reason for this Bill,
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CLERGY (NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRECAUTIONS) MEASURE, 1939.
4.17 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy (National Emergency Precautions) Measure, 1939, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. This Measure is a contribution on the part of the Church of England to that national preparedness which is desirable in the event of an emergency which we all most certainly hope will not occur. The Church of England, as your Lordships are well aware, is subject, unlike other denominations, to certain legal requirements as to the use of churches and the provision of services. It may well be that in circumstances of emergency it may be necessary to modify these legal requirements A very similar Measure as the one now before your Lordships was passed during the last War, in 1917, but it was comparatively narrow in its scope, and the circumstances of modern war may well make it desirable to widen the scope of such emergency legislation.
The object of the Measure, as described in its Title and preamble, is:
"To enable the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to make regulations for the more effective exercise of the cure of souls in the event of war, and to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Ann's Bounty to make financial provision in respect thereof."
Clause 2 confers on the Archbishops the power of making regulations for certain purposes which are set forth in that clause. The chief of them are these: First of all, in certain areas that may be described as vulnerable or evacuation areas, it may not be desirable that certain churches should remain open, either

637
because large parts of the population have been evacuated or because they may be placed in a position of peculiar danger. On the other hand, it may very well be that clergy who are serving in such vulnerable or evacuation areas will be more needed in other districts—for example, more needed to follow up the population of their own parishes who may be largely transferred to so-called reception areas, and whose advent in these areas may overtax the man-power of the parishes to which they are sent. Sometimes it may even be desirable that clergymen should be directed to serve, with due consents and consultations, in another diocese. Subsections (2) and (6) of Clause 2 contain consequential provisions. Subsection (6) provides that these regulations must be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and may be annulled, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, or to the making of new regulations.
Clause 3 deals with the cases which may arise of a clergyman suffering from financial hardship through being transferred from his own parish, where many of his obligations will still remain, for service in another parish; or, again, there will be cases where a clergyman holding a benefice or some other preferment is also serving as a Chaplain to the Forces, in which case he will receive the proper emoluments of his office, but some other clergyman must be employed to do the duty of the parish from which he has gone to serve with the Forces. In those circumstances, it is only right that the clergyman doing his duty should be adequately remunerated. I have not the slightest doubt that in any future war, as in the last, these arrangements will be effected in the most friendly, voluntary manner, but even the clergy are not always reasonable, and difficulties may occur, and it would obviously be most undesirable that any clergyman should make any kind of profit out of war conditions. Accordingly, Clause 3 gives a discretionary power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to vary the sums which they have paid to the clergy concerned so as to meet the circumstances which I have mentioned.
The Measure is in no sense controversial. It passed through all its stages in the last session of the Church Assembly
638
practically with unanimity. It has been approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, I think I may say with more than usual strength of approval. It has already been before another place, and a Motion has there been passed that it be submitted to His Majesty for his assent. It is quite true that certain clergy have raised their voices in protest against what they think to be the autocratic powers which the Measure proposes should be placed in the hands of the Archbishops, but I think it is worthy of note that when the Measure was before the Church Assembly in the House of Clergy, where the clergy have their elected representatives, the Measure was passed with only three dissentients out of the whole House. It is true also that the Measure makes some temporary interference with certain rights which the public enjoy as to the use of the churches and the services therein, but here I think it is sufficient to quote the words of the Ecclesiastical Committee in their Report where they say:
"In the circumstances, however, in which it can continue operative, what is usual must give way to what is unusual in many things besides those which concern the Church. It is fitting that those who are responsible for Church government should follow examples set by the State and prepare to meet an emergency."
In certain respects which experience has shown to be probable and which foresight shows to be also probable, this Measure endeavours to deal with any emergency when it exists. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy (National Emergency Precautions) Measure, 1939, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIA: IMPORTS OF POTABLE SPIRITS.
4.25 p.m.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper.
[The Question was as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government what

639
was the quantity, value in pounds sterling, and source of foreign potable spirits imported into India during the years 1932–1933 and 1937–1938 respectively.]
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have here the figures which are required to answer the noble Lord's Question, but since they are necessarily in tabular form I would, with his permission, circulate them with the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may say, broadly speaking, that the figures show that while the value of the imported potable spirits into India in the later date was rather higher than in the earlier date, the actual quantity was appreciably lower, the actual figures being, so far as value is concerned, £608,754 in the later date, and £605,295 in the earlier date, and the quantities being 521,765 gallons in the later date, as compared with 541,276 gallons in the earlier date. But the detailed figures with regard to countries of origin and so on will be included in the tabular statement which I am circulating.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the information he has given, and I cordially assent to the course which he has proposed.
The figures referred to are as follows:
640
Quantity and value of potable spirits (Brandy, Gin, Liqueurs, Rum and Whisky) imported into India during the years, 1932–3 and 1937–8, showing countries from which exported.

Countries.

Quantities.

Value*

1932–3.

1937–8.

1932–3.

1937–8.

Gallons.

Gallons.

£

£

United Kingdom (including Channel Islands).

419,519

401,115

473,702

469,267

Other British Possessions.

511

835

569

1,126

Germany

4,117

2,053

2,662

1,769

France

111,266

109,204

122,444

128,501

Netherlands

3,816

6,220

2,597

4,478

United States of America.

637

871

1,781

1,828

Other Foreign Countries.†

1,410

1,467

1,540

1,785

Total

541,276

521,765

605,295

608,754

* Conversion rate 1S. 6d. = 1 Rupee.

† The figures shown against "Other Foreign Countries" may include small quantities exported from the foreign countries shown in the statement.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past four o'clock.

AROON KUMAR SINHA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Report made from the Committee for Privileges:

1. That by Letters Patent dated the 14th day of February, 1919, Sir Satyendra Prasanna Sinha Knight, the father of the Petitioner, was created Baron Sinha of Raipur in the Presidency of Bengal with a limitation of such dignity, title and honour to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten.

2. That on the 15th day of May, 1880, the said Baron Sinha of Raipur intermarried with Gobinda Mohini Sinha according to the formalities prescribed by Hindu law and usage.

3. That the said Baron Sinha of Raipur and his said wife were at all times domiciled in Your Majesty's said Presidency and were members of the Hindu community until the year 1886.

4. That in the year 1886 the said Baron Sinha of Raipur and his said wife left the Hindu community and joined a monogamous sect known as the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, whose tenets, customs, rites and ceremonies they thenceforth observed.

642

5. That the Petitioner was born at Calcutta on the 22nd day of August, 1887, and is the eldest son of the said marriage.

6. That the said Baron Sinha of Raipur died on the 4th day of March, 1928, without having contracted any other marriage.

7. That His Majesty should be humbly prayed to direct that a Writ of Summons to Parliament may be issued to the Petitioner Aroon Kumar Sinha as the second Baron Sinha of Raipur.

Read, and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and resolution and judgment to be laid before His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.