Lords Sitting of 23 April 1907

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Standing Orders Committee. Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Electric Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provisions in the Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.] and the Midland Railway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committees on the Bills to insert the additional provisions.
Read, and agreed to.
Baines' Name Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with an Amendment.
Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [H.L.]; Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill; Bude Gas Bill; Falmouth Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 25th of February and 18th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Royal Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, &c.) Bill [H.L.] A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the councils of the administrative county of Surrey and the county boroughs of Birkenhead and Southport to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord President (E. Crewe); road 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 35.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3765. Saxony (Leipzig).
  No. 3766. Wurtemburg (trade and agriculture).
  No. 3767. Turkey (Adrianople).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Treasury minute, dated 16th April, 1907, sanctioning the sale of a plot of land at Kingstown known as Battery Plot, together with a further plot adjoining the municipal baths, to the Kingstown Urban District Council: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  General Report of the Proceedings of the Conservators of the River Thames during the year ended 31st December, 1906, with Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the River Thames for that year: Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, this is a Bill to which I apprehend there will be no opposition, because it is in accordance with a series of its predecessors the object of which has been to revise and, if possible, simplify the statute law. If this Bill passes, I hope it will lead to the edition being carried down to the end of the last

  1535
  century, which is nearly co-terminus with the end of the reign of Her late Majesty. The work has been conducted with great care and very successfully handled by the noble Earl who preceded me on the Woolsack. I hope this useful work of revision will be continued.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in reference to this Bill, but not in the least to oppose it. The work was inaugurated many years ago, and has been satisfactorily carried out. The Committee selected for this purpose is, of course, composed of eminent men in whom complete reliance is placed, but in the nature of things, as will be seen from a glance at the enormous Schedule of this Bill, a great amount of drudgery is required and a great deal of attentive and minute examination of a vast number of Acts of Parliament. It could not possibly be expected that the eminent personages on the Committee would themselves, in the first instance, wade through all this mass of material, and I therefore assume that others, who will work under their directions, must be entrusted with the initial duty of examining the statutes. I would venture to express a hope that the gentlemen chosen for this work will be men whose avocations and studies have led them to acquire a mastery of the reading of Acts of Parliament, and that nothing will be done lightly or hastily.
  I have no doubt that in the main what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said is entirely correct, that the work has been done with accuracy and care; but in the very nature of things it is inevitable that there must occasionally be mistakes. Therefore it is obviously essential that the most; extreme care should be taken in the selection of those who are given the primary duty of examination. That is a matter to which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will give attention. I would like to know whether in the selection of the gentlemen who are to give assistance to the Committee there is any division of labour, and whether the different classes of work are considered. I am more closely associated with Ireland, and I would suppose that someone
  1536
  acquainted by training and knowledge with Irish laws would be employed in reference to the revision of statutes relating to Ireland. The same remark would apply to Scotland. It would also be desirable to secure that statutes relating to important branches of the law should be read in the first instance by someone with special knowledge. That, I think, is an obvious consideration which would suggest itself to the mind of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  I am aware that the introductory words of the revised edition of the statutes are very wide as to savings and exceptions, and it is not easy to say what is the effect and how far the repeal and revision really operates at present in law. In the full and interesting note which is appended to this Bill it is pointed out that regard is to be had to Acts of Parliament that are superseded and are deemed to be obsolete and so on. But then there is the suggestion that preambles and recitals are to be left out. I am not sure how far that is wise. It may be wise in some cases, but I do not think it is wise in every ease to lay down the rule that you will not in any circumstances print the preambles or recitals. They might be very useful in discussion, it might be desired to refer to them in argument, and they might reasonably be used to elucidate the history of the statutes. It is a matter of great importance that the code of law should be shortened, and I am confident that the noble and learned Lord will apply himself to see that the revised edition proposed in this Bill is brought out in the most satisfactory and useful way.
  There is one other point on which I should like to say a word. Judges, barristers, and others connected with the law find it a matter of great inconvenience in some cases that there is no reference at all in the revised edition to clauses that are omitted, and this necessitates in the case of many important statutes referring to the original Act to see what clauses have been left out. I venture to think it would be a great advantage in many cases if the more important clauses that are omitted could be included, with an intimation in red ink that they had been repealed. These are not matters easy to accomplish, but I think the effort is worth something.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I think I ought to say that for a good many years this work of revision went on under my supervision, and I have no reason to suppose any different method is being pursued now. Certain expert persons, amongst them very distinguished lawyers, were employed to see what the statutes were which it was intended either to consolidate or to put into form; they were persons in the habit of preparing Bills brought into Parliament on behalf of the Government. After they had prepared their suggestions, a Committee was summoned to consider the suggestions, and each amendment to each statute was looked at with great care. No statute was subjected to revision or amendment without being distinctly brought before the whole Committee, which sometimes included learned Judges and sometimes Members of the other House.
  The work of the Committee afterwards came before the House as this Bill does to-night. One result of the work has been that statutes which formerly were in 110 volumes were reduced into ten volumes. Of course I am speaking of the same editions and the same print. The effect of that was valuable in many ways. The work was discontinued because an hon. Member in the House of Commons thought it right to object to this form of producing the revised statutes, and I myself said that if that was the mode in which the matter was to be discussed after it had gone through this process in this House—if, notwithstanding, it was to be discussed as if it were a new Bill—I would no longer be responsible for asking a number of distinguished men to act with me in the matter. From that time, when one of these Bills was rejected in the House of Commons for the reason I have stated, this work has been discontinued. I can only say that I very heartily welcome the renewal of that procedure, and I have no doubt the work will be well and accurately done. The consolidation and correction of the forms of the statute law has been brought down to 1886, and so far as I know not a single mistake has been made. I heartily support the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  RULE COMMITTEE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill received a Second Reading last year and passed through your Lordships' House. Its object is a very modest one. It is to provide that there should be two solicitors on the Rule Committee instead of one. I might have hoped that so unambitious a project would have succeeded in obtaining legislative sanction, but it was found impracticable in the other House to pass it last session. I cannot help feeling that there is inconvenience to public Departments through perfectly uncontroversial Bills not being able to secure a passage through Parliament without great difficulty. This is a mere departmental administrative difficulty, and, being of a sanguine temperament, I hope that the Bill may now succeed in obtaining the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I desire to support the Second Reading of this Bill. Although, as my noble friend has said, this is a small measure, it is one to which considerable importance is attached by the solicitor branch of the profession. Having worked on the Rule Committee for many years I think it will be a very great advantage if we have a larger number of men on that Committee who are acquainted with the practical working of the administration of justice from the solicitor's point of view. I sincerely trust the Bill will pass. I think there is a slip in Clause I which will require attention. It is provided that the persons in whom the power of making Rules of Court under the Judicature Acts is vested shall include four persons, but only three are described. When the Bill is in Committee I think it will be necessary to put in some definition of the fourth person who is to be added to the Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it will perhaps be expected that I should say one or two words to explain why this Bill, which I described as urgent, has not been brought forward for Third Reading before. The reason is that some controversy has apparently arisen; and I have received communications indicative of hostility, which I cannot say is unusual in the legal profession towards legal reform. My desire is that objections should be considered maturely and upon their merits, and there is nothing I should like less than to hurry through Parliament a Bill to which exception is taken. Therefore I postponed the Third Reading until now.
  It is possible that this Bill will now embark upon a more stormy course than it has hitherto experienced. I can only say the object of the Bill is not to split the Court of Appeal into Courts consisting of two members each. It is a Bill merely to provide for so doing where the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that there is a special cause. It is not a Bill intended to affect the work of the Court of Appeal as a regular rule, but only temporarily to deal with an emergency which everybody admits—namely, the unfortunate block of business in the Court of Appeal, an accumulation that is still slowly increasing rather than diminishing. I am sure that anyone responsible for the management of the judicial business of the country would feel bound to take some step in order to meet this great difficulty. I do not propose to suggest any Amendments at this stage. But I desire to treat this Bill as an uncontroversial measure, and so long as its main effect is not impaired, the Government will be inclined to consider impartially any improvements that may be suggested.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am entirely in favour of this Bill, treating it as a measure designed to meet an emergency. My judicial experience has convinced me that if two people sit together and form the same judgment,
  1540
  the other side has not so good an opportunity of being heard as would otherwise be the case. I have been struck by the; admirable manner in which the work of the Court of Appeal has been done; and. I wish to bear my testimony to the extreme care with which even trivial cases have been sifted and adjudicated upon by that tribunal.
  It is impossible, owing to the altered condition of things, to make a comparison between the Court of Appeal and the old Court of Exchequer Chamber. I think a certain absence of familiarity with the condition of things that then existed has led to an unfavourable comparison being made between the two Courts. It is not easy to bring to the attention of your Lordships, although some of you are lawyers, the technical difficulties that surrounded the Court of Exchequer Chamber. The Court of Exchequer Chamber only heard what are technically known among lawyers as errors, and I suppose not one case in twenty of those that are subject to appeal could be brought before the Court of Error.
  Certain regulations were made in relation to the higher Courts. By an Act of William III. the Exchequer Chamber and others were regulated, and finally I think, in 11 George IV. and 1 William IV., there was some improvement made, but one difficulty existed. Until 1852, when what is known as the Common Law Procedure Act was passed, there was the whole cumbrous proceedings of writ of error, joinder in error, assignments in error, every one of these steps expensive and delaying; and the Court of Exchequer Chamber itself had no certain time to sit and no certain constitution of its members, and one reason why the Court of Exchequer Chamber was not very slow in disposing of its business was that there was no business to do. The people who complained of judgments could not get there. But in 1852, under the Common Law Procedure Act, there was a little more approximation to judicial determination of every question in dispute brought before the Courts.
  The principle of two Judges disposing, of matters on appeal certainly has been tried under very favourable circumstances. Lord Justice James and Lord Justice Mellish, two of the most eminent

  1541
  lawyers who ever sat on the English Bench, gave entire satisfaction sitting as a Court of two. I do not, however, support this Bill on the ground that I think two Judges should constitute a Court permanently. I have thought it right to say these few words not only because I am a member of the Court of Appeal myself, but because I think undue complaint has been made of the Court of Appeal. The delay arises in a great measure from an increase in litigation, and people do not seem to remember that a great deal of the law has been altered. When I was first called to the Bar the people whow knew most about the question in dispute were excluded from the witness box, and the art of nisi prius at that time was a cunning game of chess. But wiser counsels have since prevailed. The result is that you have doubled and trebled the amount of litigation that was possible under the old system, and this has led to a block of business in the Court of Appeal. That Court has most diligently and ably fulfilled its functions, and is in no way deserving of the criticism which has been passed upon it.
  *LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I am sure it will be a great satisfaction for the legal profession to hear the statement which the Lord Chancellor has repeated this afternoon, that there is to be no permanent reduction in the number of Judges in the Court of Appeal. That particular matter has been the subject of representations made to me, and I know to other members of the Bench, from persons who are absolutely friendly to His Majesty's Government and have the strongest faith in everything which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may do; but the experience of the last few weeks has shown us that difficulties may arise from Courts of two, and I am sure that the announcement that the Lord Chancellor has made to-day will very much assist in another place the passing of this Bill, which I believe to be absolutely necessary. I am afraid that on the last occasion I availed myself of the opportunity of uttering a cry in the wilderness. But the numerous communications that I have received and the study which I have given to this project confirm me in the opinion that the subject must at no late date be looked at from a larger standpoint. It will
  1542
  really be necessary to consider whether the number of Judges is sufficent to deal with business as it is now conducted. Whether or not the number of cases can be reduced I am not sure, but I am quite sure that the matter cannot be dealt with permanently as in this Bill, and that some further reforms will be absolutely necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Earl in regard to what he said about the Court of Appeal. We would indeed be ungrateful if we did not recognise the immense self-sacrifice and labour which have been exhibited by that Court, but they really have been of late over weighted, and I am anxious to relieve them. That is the purpose of this Bill. With regard to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said, his cry was not a cry in the wilderness; on the contrary, since he made his speech, it has been pondered over and thought over by myself. I agree with him that the larger aspects of this question must be considered, and I contemplate considering them without delay, with a view of seeing whether some further amendment of a permanent character may be needed. I do not know whether it is so or not, but I think it might very fairly be carefully considered, in order to see whether some further steps are needed.
  On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, ETC.) BILL.

    METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Commons' Message of the 26th of March last considered (according to order), moved that a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bills as mentioned in the said Message; and that the said Committee be named by the Committee of Selection (The Earl Carrington); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
    House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.