Are there any, and, if so, how many claims other than shipping? I believe there are none. I have not gone into the matter, but even the face value of the claims is less than £500,000, and if this Amendment is passed you can only deal with £500,000, and to talk about £18,000,000 on this Amendment is really nothing to the point at all. It is said that it is unfair to pass this Amendment, because by doing so you place people who were vigilant to protect their rights in a better position than those persons who rested upon a statement in Parliament and were too lazy to do anything, or too trustful. The Majority of this House consists of private Members, although scattered about our benches there are eminent Ministers and ex-Ministers, and it will be a very evil day for the legislation of this House if it is to be thought that any Minister or any Government, however eminent or however strongly they may be entrenched, can treat this House as a mere registering authority: a House which is bound to pass any Act of Parliament which the Minister may choose to recommend. It is not a fact, and I sincerely hope it will never be a fact. There is a world of difference between the statement of a Minister given in absolute good faith—no one questions that—and an Act of Parliament. A man applying ordinary common sense and with a knowledge of the law of England is not entitled to allow time to slip by or to allow time to rip, if I may use the expression, and then to claim to be put in as good a position as those who took active steps to assert their rights.

We are dealing with a comparatively small sum of money, but we are dealing with what is a fundamental and vital principle, a principle which it may be very important, I say this advisedly, to bear in mind in years to come. The Courts have pronounced a decision. I am not concerned with the merits of the case. I rather agree with the late President of the Board of Trade, who said on a previous occasion that there was not much to be said about the merits of the case. I have no doubt that these shipowners were doing very well. The vital principle is that the Courts have pronounced their decision, and they have in one case adjudged that £34,000 is due to the litigant, and he has judgment for that amount. The Attorney-General, in the case of Carr v. Bride, in the last House of Commons, asked the then Attorney-General whether there was any precedent for what was being done, and I now ask him, in turn, what precedent he finds for this House passing an Act of Parliament to reverse a judgment which has already been given in favour of a litigant? I believe that he may search for a long time without finding any precedent. It would be a most evil day if this House interfered in this way when judgment has been given. I therefore support the Amendment. It deals with a sum the face value of which is £500,000, but anyone who knows anything about litigation knows that the face value is generally a good deal higher than the actual value. We are dealing with a question of vital principle, which concerns Members in all parts of the House. It is not a party question, and I hope the House will take its stand and will see to it that this most unfortunate precedent which is being set up in this case is not allowed to stand.