2
Page 347
expected to approach the problem of the reform of the divorce law with sufficiently fresh minds, and that for this reason they would be of far greater value as witnesses before the Commission. In this connection it may be appropriate to recall the words of the Departmental Committee on the Procedure of Royal Commissions, whose Report was published in 1910 (Cmd. 5235 of 1910) and who say in paragraph 15:-
"And it is of equal or greater importance that those selected as Commis- sioners should, as far as possible, be persons who have not committed them- selves so deeply on any side of the questions involved in the reference as to render the probability of an impartial inquiry and an unanimous Report practically impossible.
"It seems to us impossible to avoid the conclusion that appointments have sometimes been made to Commissions of individuals whose proper place would rather have been in the witness box than on the tribunal. A Commis- sion selected on the principle of representing various interests starts with a serious handicap against the probability of harmony in its work, and perhaps even of practical result from its labours.
66
The true object of the appointment of a Royal Commission is to obtain a carefully considered judgment on the matters within their terms of reference; and this object is imperilled when the preliminary considerations mentioned above are disregarded, because its members are apt to divide almost from the date of their appointment into two or more opposing parties."
No doubt it will be exceedingly difficult to discover anyone who is suitable for appointment to a Royal Commission on the divorce law who has not already reached some provisional conclusions on the subject matter of the inquiry, but to invite anyone as deeply committed to a particular point of view as a representative of any of the Christian Churches must be is, it is argued, to court the very diffi- culties to which the Departmental Committee drew attention.
5. Finally, it may be said by those who oppose the Churches' representation on the Commission that such representation would necessarily imply acceptance of the Christian view of marriage and that this is not a matter which should be regarded as beyond controversy in the appointment of the Commission. This argument is not, perhaps, a strong one, as it can readily be answered by saying that the Churchmen were appointed as representatives of an important element in the national life, but nevertheless it may well be an argument which it might be desirable to avoid if possible.
6. I think that the considerations on both sides of this question are fairly evenly balanced, but before submitting to the Prime Minister a list of names for his consideration, I should be glad of guidance on the above question.
House of Lords, S.W. 1,
27th April, 1951.
Page 347.
Page 347
J.
G.R.