Lords Sitting of 13 March 1907

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BAINES' NAME BILL. [H.L.]
  Moved, "That this Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  Lord ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I do not like to interfere in a matter of private concern, but I would like to ask the meaning of this Bill. If the machinery of Parliament is to be used in connection with every change that is made in a man's name, we shall be accumulating business about the merest trifles. I always understood that a person could change his name by inserting an advertisement in The Times, by deed poll, or by registration. To have the whole machinery of Parliament invoked in this way to enable a person to change his name strikes me as remarkable. I am sure the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees is not seized of any precise know-
  2
  ledge of this matter, but I should like to know if an Act of Parliament is really necessary in this case, and whether none of the other methods adopted every day in the week would have sufficed.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Onslow): My Lords, I am sorry my noble and learned friend did not give me notice that he was going to raise this point and therefore enable me to place myself in a position to reply. Every private Bill contains a recital that the object of it cannot be obtained without the consent of Parliament, and unless that recital can be proved it is obvious that the Bill ought not to be further proceeded with. So far as I recollect the Bill—I read it in the month of December and have not looked at it since—it is not so much a question of name as a question of property. If this man cannot quite legally take the name he cannot hold the property, and the object of this Bill is not, as is commonly the case, to change a name, but to enable the person concerned to hold property which he could not

  3
  otherwise legally possess. I am answering entirely off-hand, but I will look into the question more closely, and if I am satisfied that the object can be obtained without a Bill I shall certainly say the preamble has not been proved.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am quite satisfied.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): I am certain the noble Earl the Lord Chairman will satisfy himself in the matter. Of course, if the change of name involves the acquisition of property and it cannot be done without an Act of Parliament, it means that, indirectly, Parliament is bestowing upon Aproperty which would otherwise belong to B. That may disarrange the ordinary law. I do not say that it is so in this case, but I think it worth looking into.
  On Question, Bill read 2a,and committed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: —Buckhaven Dock [H.L.].
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  Barnsley, Wombwell, and Wath Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The order of Thursday last, referring the Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.
  Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Birmingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Viscount Iveagh.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Judgments of the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords in
  4
  the case of The King v. The County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

  TREATY SERIES No. 9 (1907).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Switzerland respecting commercial travellers' samples; signed at Berne, 20th February, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Report of the Board of Education, for the year 1905–1906, on the administration of schools under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (BOROUGH OF NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT).
  Order made by the council of the borough of Newport, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain shops within the borough.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  DENTAL COMPANIES (RESTRICTIONS OF PRACTICE) BILL [H.L.] (No. 15.)
  A Bill to prohibit joint stock companies from carrying on practice as dentists or dental surgeons except by means of duly qualified persons; and
  PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL PRACTICE BY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.] (No. 16.)
  A Bill to prohibit joint stock companies from acting as physicians, surgeons, or medical practitioners; Were presented by the Lord Hylton; read 1a; and to be printed.

  THE HOLDING OF LAND IN SCOTLAND.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to ask whether the Government would introduce in this House the Bill, promised in His Majesty's Speech, which was to deal with the holding of land in Scotland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, among the Bills which were promised in the Gracious Speech from the Throne was one affecting the holding of land in Scotland. That nomenclature is not very clear, but

  5
  I apprehend that it must refer to small holdings, because the Government indicated that the Bill passed last session in connection with the holding of land both in England and in Scotland contained the whole of their mind on that subject. I apprehend, therefore, that this Bill is one relating to small holdings in Scotland, and the remarks which I shall make will proceed on that supposition. I apprehend also that this Bill in some respects, at all events, will resemble the measure which is to be introduced for England.
  When the other day my noble friend Lord Onslow asked that the English Bill should be introduced in this House the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, while recognising the great experience of your Lordships in this matter and your practical knowledge of and acquaintance with the subject, gave as his reason for refusing the request that public money was involved and that it was more usual to introduce Bills of that description in the other House of Parliament. Now, in this case, unless His Majesty's Government have entirely changed their minds during the last few months, I suppose the Scottish Bill will resemble the Bill introduced last August, which established a Land Court consisting of five Commissioners, who were to take over the management of all existing small holdings in Scotland and were also empowered to carve out small holdings in any part of Scotland in any number and in any place they might see fit. It was not proposed in that Bill to take any public money for the purchase of land, and indeed the Secretary for Scotland, when questioned on the subject, denied altogether that there was any such intention. Apparently, if that Bill were to become law the funds would be found by the existing owners of property in Scotland.
  In these circumstances I do not think the arguments against introducing the English Bill in this House apply to the case of the Scottish Bill, and therefore I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will introduce the Bill in your Lordships' House. The Bill takes rather a back seat in the Gracious Speech, and I do not know what hopes His Majesty's Government may have of its becoming law in the present session. They have told us lately that their time will be fully occupied, and it is very possible that
  6
  they may not think there is a very good chance of passing the Bill into law during this session. If they have any doubt on the subject, that is an additional reason for introducing the Bill in this House, because, as your Lordships know, a Bill is much better when it has been introduced more than once. There has then been ample time to examine all the details, and, generally speaking, a Bill which is passed after mature consideration extending over more than one session is found to work better than a measure passed in a hurry. I therefore ask the Question standing in my name.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the noble Earl has reminded the House of the conversation that took place the other night when the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees asked whether it would not be possible for us to introduce our Small Holdings Bill for England into this House. I frankly admitted at the time, and I think it cannot be disputed, that the arguments which the noble Earl adduced for adopting that course were strong. The number of your Lordships who have special knowledge of the subject, and who are personally interested in it to a large extent, is very great, and it is also the fact that the Minister in charge of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Carrington, sits in this House. Consequently we fully admitted that the arguments were strong. On the whole, however, we thought, and still think, that in the circumstances the balance of advantage rested with the introduction of that measure in another place.
  With regard to this measure the general arguments are surely not so strong for its introduction here. The proportion of noble Lords who have a special knowledge of and are specially interested in land in Scotland is not very large in relation to the whole of the Members of the House. I do not think it is probably as large as the proportion as those who are specifically acquainted with the subject in the House of Commons, and there is the further fact that the Minister responsible for the Bill sits in another place. Then the noble Earl based his argument partly on the ground that, whereas the English

  7
  Bill might be said to deal with public money, the same reason did not apply here. That is not the case. It is perfectly true that the Scottish Bill is in no sense a Land Purchase Bill, but I think when it is seen it will be found that a very considerable sum of public money will be required to carry its operations into effect.
  Then the noble Earl asked whether it might not be advantageous, in view of the general pressure of business, to introduce this particular Bill in your Lordships' House, because he thought it was a measure which through lack of time might not have much chance of passing. As a matter of fact, I am informed that this particular measure will be introduced at a very early date in another place. It is practically one of the first measures likely to be introduced there, and it will, I conceive, reach your Lordships before the English Bill, although, of course, I cannot speak positively on that point. In these circumstances I am obliged to give a negative reply to the Question which the noble Earl has asked, I am bound to say, in very moderate and reasonable terms.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.