Lords Sitting of 1 August 1911

APPEAL COMMITTEE.
Fourth Report from; read, and agreed to.

EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
BARONY OF LATYMER.
BARONY OF FITZWARYN.
BARONIES OF BURGH, STRABOLGI AND COBHAM.
Report made from the Committee for Privileges; read, and agreed to, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BARONY OF LATYMER.
Moved, That a Commission be issued to take the examination upon oath, viva voce, of Sir William James Farrer, Knight, and that the Commission be attended by one counsel on the part of the Claimant and by one counsel on the part of the Crown for the purpose of subjecting the witness to cross-examination, and that the Commission be also attended by the shorthand writer of this House or his sufficient deputy; agreed to: Moved, That the Claimant do pay the expenses of the Commissioner, of the counsel attending on the part of the Crown, and of the shorthand writer or his deputy; agreed to: Moved, That the report be made to the House and the evidence be annexed to the report; agreed to: Moved, That Charles George Talbot-Ponsonby be appointed the Commissioner under the said Commission; agreed to.
EARL LOREBURN.
The LORD PRESIDENT The LORD PRESIDENT (V. Morley) acquainted the House that His Majesty had been pleased to create Robert Threshie Baron Loreburn, G.C.M.G., Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, Earl of the United Kingdom by the style and title of Earl Loreburn, and his Lordship having retired to robe—Was introduced in the usual manner.
EARL BRASSEY.
Thomas Baron Brassey, G.C.B., Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, having been created Viscount Hythe of Hythe in the County of Kent and Earl Brassey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE.
Wentworth Canning Blackett, Baron Allendale, having been created Viscount Allendale of Allendale and Hexham in the County of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK.
Montolieu Fox Baron Elibank in the Peerage of Scotland having been created Viscount Elibank of Elibank in the County of Selkirk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 26th and 27th of July last discharged, and Bill committed for Tomorrow.
MARGAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHISWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
LORD ACTON'S NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified by the Lord Chancellor: Bill read 2a and committed for Thursday next.
IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL.
  WOKING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (BASINGSTOKE CANAL) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (IRELAND) (QUALI FICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. (No. 152.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL. (No. 153.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (SUPER-ANNUATION FUND, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed; and to be considered Tomorrow. (No. 154.)
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PENLLWYN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BRIDGE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON (FIRST ELECTION OF MEMBERS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name. The first group of these Amendments to the Standing Orders is rendered necessary by the adoption, which is commencing to be widespread, of the trolley vehicle system. There have been a number of Bills before your Lordships' Rouse this session, following on, I think, two Bills which received the Royal Assent last year, and it is in order to bring Bills dealing with this subject under the operation of the Standing Orders that the first group of Amendments is necessary. The second addition to the Standing Orders that will result if your Lordships pass this Motion will be found in the new Standing Order which deals with accommodation and service for workmen in cases of works of considerable magnitude. This Standing Order is the result of negotiation with the Government Department concerned and with the authorities in another place, and I am glad to understand that the President of the Local Government Board intends to move a similar Amendment in the Standing Orders of the other House. The last point dealt with is the amendment of Standing Order No. 113. The words to be added enact that no tramway shall be authorised to be made across any railway on the level. I think I can claim that the merits of that provision explain and justify the Amendment.
Moved, That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:
NOTE.—The words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
1. All Bills (not being Estate Bills) which seek powers with reference to any of the following subjects are in these Orders termed Local Bills, and are divided into two classes, according to the subjects to which they respectively relate:—
1ST CLASS.—Arbitration in respect of the affairs of any company, corporation, or persons
Stipendiary magistrate, or any public officer, payment of.
Trolley Vehicle System.
In these Orders, unless the context otherwise requires,
The term "tramway" means a tramway laid along a street or road; the term "tramroad" means a tramway laid elsewhere than along a street or road: Provided that where a Bill relates partly to tramroad and partly to tram way as here defined the provisions of these Orders shall apply to such tramroad or tramway however the same may be described in the Bill:
The term "railway" includes "tramroad" and "motor road,"
The term "Trolley vehicle system" means a system of traction whereby vehicles are propelled on roads by mechanical power conveyed by overhead wires and trolleys.
10. In the months of October and November, or one of them, immediately preceding the application for any Bill for laying down a tramway or constructing an underground railway, when such Bill contains powers authorising any alteration or disturbance of the surface of any street or road, notice thereof shall be posted for fourteen consecutive days in every such street or road in such manner as the authority having the control of such street or road shall direct; and, if after application to such authority no such direction shall be given, then in some conspicuous position in every such street or road, and such notice shall also state the place or places at which the plans of such tramway or railway will be deposited.
This Order shall apply to a trolley vehicle system in like manner as to a tramway.
13 a. On or before the fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the application for any Bill for laying down a tramway crossing any railway or tramway on the level, or crossing any railway, tramway, or canal by means of a bridge, or otherwise affecting or interfering with such railway, tramway, or canal, notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the owner or reputed owner, and upon the lessee or reputed lessee of such railway, tramway, or canal, and such notice shall state the place or places at which the plans of the tramway to be authorised by such Bill have been or will be deposited.
This Order shall apply to trolley vehicle systems in like manner as to tramways.
25 a. In cases of Bills for laying down a tramway or trolley vehicle system, an Ordnance map of the district on a scale of not less than six inches to a mile, with the line of the proposed tramway or trolley vehicle system marked thereon, and a diagram on a scale of not less than 2 inches to a mile, prepared in accordance with the specimen to be obtained at the Office of the Board of trade, shall also be deposited at that office and the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments on or before the thirtieth of November.
Deposits on or before the 21 st of December.
33. On or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy shall be deposited.
(4) Of every Local Bill relating to railways, train ways, trolley vehicles, canals, gas, water, patents, or electric lighting, or for incorporating or giving powers to any company at the Office of the Board of Trade;
62. In the case of every Bill, whether originating in this House, or in the House of Commons, promoted by a company already constituted by Act of Parliament, proof shall be given before the Examiner, before the second reading of the Bill in this House, that the following requirements have been complied with, and the Examiners shall report accordingly:—
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into Parliament shall be submitted to the proprietors of such company at a meeting held specially for that purpose:
Such meeting shall be called by advertisement inserted once in each of two consecutive weeks ins some one and the same newspaper published in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, as the case may be, and in some one and the same newspaper of the county or counties in which the principal office or offices of the company is or are situate, and also by a circular addressed to each proprietor on the register of the company at his last known or usual address, and sent by post or delivered at such address not less than ten days before the holding of such meeting, enclosing a blank form of proxy, with proper instructions for the use of the same, and the same form of proxy and the same instructions, and none other, shall be sent to every such proprietor; but no such form of proxy shall be stamped before it is sent out, nor shall the funds of the company be used for the stamping any proxies, nor shall intimation be sent as to any person in whose favour the proxy may be granted; and no other circular or form of proxy relating to such meeting shall be sent to any proprietor from the office of the company, or by any director or officer of the company so describing himself:
64. In the case of every Bill brought from the House of Commons in which provisions have been inserted in that House empowering the Promoters thereof, being a company already constituted by Act of Parliament, to execute, undertake, or contribute towards any work other than that for which it was originally established, or to sell or lease their undertaking or any part thereof, or to enter into agreements with any other company for the working, maintenance, management, or use of the railway or works of either company, or any part thereof, or to amalgamate their undertaking or any part thereof with any other undertaking, or to purchase any other undertaking or any part thereof, or any additional lands, or to abandons their undertaking or any part thereof, or to dissolve the said company, or in which any such provisions originally contained in the Bill have been materially altered in that House, or in

731
which any such powers are conferred on any company not being the Promoters of the Bill, the Examiner shall report as to compliance or noncompliance with the following requirements:—
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House shall be submitted to the proprietors of every such company, at a meeting held specially for that purpose:
Such meeting shall be called by advertisement inserted once in each of two consecutive weeks in some one and the same newspaper published in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, as the case may be, and in some one and the same newspaper of the county or counties in which the principal office or offices of the company is or are situate, and also by a circular addressed to each proprietor on the register of the company at his last known or usual address, and sent by post or delivered at such address not less than ten days before the holding of such meeting, enclosing a blank form of proxy, with proper instructions for the use of the same, and the same from of proxy, and the same instructions, and none other, shall be sent to every such proprietor; but no such form of proxy shall be stamped before it is sent out, nor shall the funds of the company be used for the stamping any proxies, nor shall intimation be sent as to any person in whose favour the proxy may be granted; and no other circular or form of proxy relating to such meeting shall be sent to any proprietor from the office of the company, or by any director or officer of the company so describing himself:
NEW STANDING ORDER.
111 a. In the case of every Bill authorising the construction of works outside the County of London or any municipal borough, the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall take this Order into their consideration, and if they are of opinion that such a number of workmen will probably be simultaneously employed upon the works as having regard to the nature and situation of the works to make such an inquiry desirable, they shall inquire into the question of the sufficiency of the accommodation and service available or proposed by the promoters to be provided under the Bill—

(1) for the proper housing and sanitary requirements of persons employed in constructing the works authorised by the Bill.

(2) for the treatment of cases of sickness or accident including accommodation for dealing with infectious disease;

and if they think that further accommodation or service for those purposes ought to be provided, they shall insert in the Bill such clauses as in their opinion. are necessary to secure the provision of satisfactory accommodation or service for those purposes by the local authority, company, or person authorised to execute the works.
113. No railway whereon carriages are moved by mechanical power shall be authorised to be made across any railway, tram way, tramroad or public carriage road on the level, and no tramway shall be authorised to be made across any railway
732
on the level, unless a report thereon from the proper officer of the Board of Trade recommend such level crossing, or the Committee on the Bill, after considering such report, and hearing the officer, if the Committee think fit, be of opinion that any level crossing not recommended thereby-should be authorised, in which case they shall report accordingly, with the reasons and facts upon which their opinion is founded; and in every clause authorising a level crossing, the number of lines of rails authorised to be made at such crossing shall be specified.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No. 155.)

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND INSURANCE SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, the object of the Bill which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time is to promote the formation and extension of agricultural credit and insurance societies. It is recognised on all hands that there is a necessity for some such legislation, and in framing this Bill we have had two main objects in view. Tile first is this. In view of our limited experience in this country we have thought it necessary not to attempt to frame any very precise code of rules, such as were adumbrated in Lord Shaftesbury's Bill which was read a second time last week, as to the working and constitution of these societies. Secondly, we have tried to frame the Bill, and I hope we have to some extent succeeded, so as to secure what is an absolute necessity—the confidence and co-operation of the leading bankers of this country.
I will now briefly explain the main provisions of the Bill. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 you will see that, as it is most important that the Board of Agriculture should take an active part in the formation of these societies, we propose to pay the preliminary expenses, not exactly in the same way but on the same lines as in the Small Holdings Act, so as to enable the societies to run alone and to put them, as it were, on their legs; but it must not for one moment be supposed that the Board of Agriculture in any way intend to dispense with voluntary help. On the contrary, we

733
want as far as possible to enlist it; but having done so much towards bringing the new system of small holdings into existence, we feel that it is our duty to secure for the present small holders all possible means by which they may be able to achieve the success which noble Lords on both sides of the House so earnestly desire.
The societies may at present register under two Acts of Parliament. They can register under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act of 1893, which, as your Lordships are aware, permits limited liability, and also under the Friendly Societies Act of 1896, which permits unlimited liability. We propose to enable societies to register either with unlimited liability or with liability limited by guarantee. These are very complicated Acts. I have tried to make our intention intelligible, but I will explain again that our intention is to allow these small holdings societies to be registered under both Acts either with unlimited liability or with liability limited by guarantee. A man would guarantee so much, and his liability would be limited to the amount that he had guaranteed.
The word "guarantees" brings me to the next point, and that is that we hope and believe that we shall have no necessity to ask for State guarantees. We are very strong on that point, as all our land legislation has been attempted to be made as self-supporting as possible; and as your Lordships know from the debates that have taken place within the last few weeks, we have resolutely set our face against any schemes, however good the results might be, if they necessitated the dipping of hands into the public purse to carry out those experiments. But the initial difficulties in the formation of these societies are very great. I will mention one or two. There are difficulties in regard to the framing and registering of the rules and the appointment of a secretary, and a secretary is an absolute necessity before these societies can properly run alone. There is also the difficulty of hiring a room or an office for holding meetings to explain the objects of these societies to the agricultural population, and also the expenses of management. Therefore to meet these difficulties and these necessary expenses we propose that a grant should be made out of the Small Holdings Account. That Account was originally granted to me for contingencies of various
734
descriptions in connection with the formation of small holdings. Between three and four years ago I was given £100,000, and I think there is at least £40,000 of that money still available out of the original grant, and it might be expended for this purpose. I think this will meet the difficulty which I suppose induced Lord Mersey's Committee to approve of the combination of trading and banking with unlimited liability which is adumbrated in the Report signed by the noble and learned Lord. As I have said before, that is a combination which I do not think for one moment would meet with approval in the banking world.
In Clause 2, subsection (1), paragraph (b) we provide that the accounts of the society shall be audited by a person nominated by the Board. To those words we attach great importance. It is considered an essential point, and I think your Lordships will agree that there should be a very strict and proper audit of the accounts of these societies. That is, of course, considered an essential point by the great banking interest if they are in any way to help the scheme. I think I have now explained the main provisions of the Bill. Its object is to secure sums as working capital for agriculturists of small means, from whom up to the present moment all assistance has been withheld. We propose to secure these sums as working capital for productive purposes, and for productive purposes only. It cannot be too clearly explained that this Bill is not introduced in any way to enable farmers or others to purchase land. The object of the Bill is to foster agricultural co-operative credit and insurance, and to utilise the existing agencies and authorities, educational and otherwise, and to prevent the overlapping that at present exists. The object is also to provide for the expense of forming societies, for auditing their accounts, and for the organisation of accredited societies by properly trained men. That is one of the great difficulties at the present time. We have not men properly trained for this work. This must be done cautiously, for if the wrong sort of persons are sent helter skelter over England to assist in the formation of these societies the result will be very different from what we hope for and have every reason to anticipate under the Bill.
Some people are contending in the newspapers that this Bill is only a skeleton, but

735
I repeat that our land policy is to go step by step and to build up stone by stone and brick by brick. Our endeavour all the way through has been not to dip our hands deep into the public purse, but to see that our land legislation is practical, economical, and self-supporting. I am not asking for any large sum of money for an experiment, however good that experiment may be. I am trying to initiate by degrees a system which will be financially sound, and, I hope, approved of by the great banking houses and acceptable to the hard-working small holders, whom it is the object of both sides to assist. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD FABER: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the words which fell from the noble Earl, and with all the more interest because the noble Earl was good enough to allow a group of bankers, of whom I happened to be the chairman, to have a conversation with him on certain features of this Bill. I said then, and I say now, that bankers are very willing indeed to find help for large and small farmers and for these credit societies if it is a proper business proposition. They look first of all and last of all to that. I have heard the proposition put forward that if a man has nothing and ten such men, each of them having nothing, are banded together and become a society, those ten men are more worthy of credit than the one; but I have never been able to see how ten men who have nothing could be more trustworthy than one man who has nothing. That, at all events, would not be a business proposition. As regards the audit of the accounts I think that is an important matter, and so far as that goes, if we can be of any assistance to the noble Earl in lending him trained men for auditing the accounts of the societies we will do so gladly.
It has been said up and down the country that bankers have not been sufficiently liberal in the past to big farmers, and perhaps more especially to small farmers. That is very easy to say, but let us analyse it, remembering the fact, first of all, that banks have large sums of money deposited with them by their customers and the public, and that their first care must be to see that those funds are not placed in any jeopardy
736
by what I may call bad banking. I speak in this matter from ray own personal experience, and I will take you back to the year 1872. During the twenty years previous to 1872 farmers had been exceedingly good customers of bankers. They had got into the confidence of bankers, who let them have what they wanted and they never had any reason to regret it. But in the year 1875 there happened to farmers what happens constantly to whole groups of trades. Somehow or other the farming interest collapsed and land values collapsed, and bankers had to face considerable losses—losses which a good many of them remember even to this day. What the cause of that sudden collapse was I know not, but looking back I think there were several causes. One cause was the state of luxury in which farmers had come to live, more luxury than the circumstances warranted, and they did not work as hard as they should have done. Then, again, we had disastrous wet seasons, and above all we had the great oncoming of the Western States of America, and wheat was literally shovelled over to the Continent of Europe and to this country. Consequently the price of wheat fell, and that injured the farmers as well. That lasted from 1875 to 1900 and perhaps later.
But of recent years farmers seem to me to be doing better. They are paying more attention to their business and prices are better, and, after all, I suppose population has been increasing faster than the wheat lands have come under cultivation. That, too, has helped farmers. I repeat that the bankers are ready to be of use to the farmers of this country. I do not speak in a political or philanthropic sense, but as a business man. If the propositions which you put before us are reasonably sound and if they will not endanger the safety which we are obliged to accord to our depositors, then we will vote for them with both hands; and as far as I am concerned I support the Second Reading of this Bill, which I think is a very fair and prudent one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not rise to make any severe criticism on the merits of the noble Earl's proposal. He has heard from a noble Lord eminently qualified to speak words of considerable approval of the Second Reading of this Bill. But what I did rise just to note is the serenity with which the noble Earl and

737
his Department carry on their business, as if there was no great cataclysm of crisis going on at the same time. No one reading the draft of the noble Earl's Bill would believe that the main subject of discussion throughout the country is the invasion by the Lords of the financial privileges of the House of Commons. Yet when we read this Bill it appears to be a breach of privilege from one end of it to the other, and it is very interesting as showing how different the practice of the Government is from their theory.
In Clause 2 it is proposed that your Lordships should enact that certain grants should be made out of the Small Holdings Account. Now that account is a pure taxpayers' account. Even if it were a ratepayers' account that would not make any difference in the rigid theory which is prescribed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. But I believe it is a taxpayers' account, and yet we are asked by His Majesty's Government, without the benefit of italics, to vote with great solemnity for certain heavy obligations being thrown on the taxpayers of the country by the anachronism in which I have the honour to speak at this moment. And when I go on and read Clause 3 I am so shocked that I hardly dare remind your Lordships of the fact that we are positively asked to pass a provision in which certain expenses are to be met out of "moneys provided by Parliament." That, of course, we all know is the consecrated phrase meaning the Appropriation Act. So that your Lordships are almost asked to initiate an Appropriation Act in this House. Perhaps this little experience may convince noble Lords opposite how absurd are the exaggerations of the financial privileges of the House of Commons which they habitually push upon us. If we had submitted any such proposal as this in the course of Amendments in your Lordships' House, we should have been held up throughout the length and breadth of the country as invading the privileges of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture said that his Board were going to initiate these credit and insurance societies, and I wish to
738
say that we have found in Ireland that it is much better that the farmers themselves should first form the societies and then that the Department should help them. For myself I believe greatly in self-help. Then the noble Earl spoke about sending people helter skelter over England to promote the formation of these societies. I do not know about helter skelter, but he will certainly have to send people down to explain the whole scheme and ask the farmers to come forward and establish these credit societies. In my opinion the noble Earl is beginning at the wrong end. I think the small holders themselves should be asked to start the societies, and if the Board of Agriculture found them going on well they might step in and help them. I regret that the proposal in this Bill does not commence with self-help. It commences with help from a Government Department, which, as I say, we in Ireland do not think is the right way to begin.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without amendment, and to be. read 3a To-morrow.
BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed and sent to the Commons.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READ1NG.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I am afraid that this Bill may be open to some of the criticisms which the noble Marquess opposite poured out upon its predecessor, for it is a Bill which proposes to appoint more Judges and to pay for them. But, unfortunately, it is never wholly possible to separate money from policy. That is a thesis of which we have had illustration in the last few weeks in the course of debate, and a thesis which has

739
led no doubt to many views being expressed; but there has never been any reason why we in this House should not have amicable conversations on matters which touch finance, provided they are in the nature of conversations undertaken for the purpose of illustrating policy. I have another apology to make. This Bill is not one which, strictly speaking, concerns the War Department. It belongs to the Department of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, but although he takes the deepest interest in the Bill he has asked me to introduce it, partly because I was with him present at the Imperial Conference, partly because the subject is one in which I have taken great interest for many years, and partly because I have recently been sitting in the Judicial Committee and when at the Bar I had a long experience of these matters.
We think that the problem of how to put the appellate jurisdiction of the Empire on a proper footing will never be adequately solved until there is a real Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire. At present the appellate jurisdiction is divided between this House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or rather the Privy Council itself on the Report of the Judicial Committee, and there has been a feeling for a long time that we are reaching a period when a real Imperial Court of Appeal would be more truly in accord with the Constitution of the Empire. That is our view, but it is one thing to have that view and to be able to eat the cherry all at one bite. Before the jurisdiction of this House can be touched Constitutional questions must be discussed. In the course of the debate on the Reconstitution Bill the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and, I think, other speakers—Lord Rosebery notably—expressed the view that there was no reason why the Law Lords who represent the appellate side should sit in this House. I think that view was received with a good deal of dissent. But many held the view that the time has come when a Supreme Appeal Court for the Empire is a possible thing. That view is taken in the Dominions. It was considered at the Imperial Conference on a Resolution brought up from New Zealand, and it was also supported in another Resolution from Australia. But until the constitution of this House is generally dealt with a convenient opportunity does not appear to offer for separating
740
what is certainly an important feature of the existence of this House, and therefore we have devoted ourselves to producing the substance and laying the foundations without going the full length.
What we propose to do is to lay the foundations for what is virtually and in substance a single Court of Appeal for the whole Empire, although it will sit under two forms—at times as the Court of Appeal of your Lordships' House and at other times as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At the present time the appellate business of the Empire consists of two parts—the appeals that come from the United Kingdom, which form the greater part of the business and number, I think, over 100 in each year, and the appeals from the Dominions, the Crown Colonies, and the Channel Islands, which form an important but a smaller part of the business. In the year 1910 there were seventy-eight of these appeals. Of these more than half came from India and of the remainder rather more than half came from Canada, the rest being from the remaining parts of the Empire. Your Lordships will see what enormous variety is there presented. I remember once, in a period of three weeks at the Bar, arguing a series of appeals which illustrated the extraordinary character of the business which comes before the supreme tribunal for the rest of the Empire. The first appeal came from Burma; the next came from New Zealand, and dealt with the customs of the Maoris; the third case was from Quebec, and dealt with the old French law; then there was a Roman Dutch appeal from the Cape; an appeal from the Channel Islands; one from Malta; another from Australia; and we finished up by returning to an Indian case—an appeal from the High Court of Bombay. That is what is going on for more than half the year in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is enough to mention those cases to show what an important Court it is and what high quality is required in the Judges.
An interesting question to the historian is how the appellate jurisdiction for the United Kingdom came to be separated from that for the remainder of the Empire. By a process analogous to the process by which the House of Commons secured control of finance at the expense of this House, only put into force in a still more

741
drastic fashion, this House has gradually acquired complete control of the appellate administration of justice. That is the case in regard to the United Kingdom, but the jurisdiction of the King in Council remains for the rest of the Empire. Consequently you now have nominally two tribunals. They are quite distinct, but in the main the Judges are the same in both. The nucleus of the Judges are the four regular Law Lords who sit here, the Lord Chancellor, the ex-Lord Chancellor—a very distinguished figure at the present time—and such other members of your Lordships' House as are qualified by having occupied high judicial office to sit in the Judicial Committee. All those are eligible; but in addition, under statutory powers, there are several members of the Judicial Committee who are not members of the House of Lords. There are two Indian ex-Judges who sit practically only on Indian Appeals, and there are the Chief Justices from most of the Dominions who can come specially and sit every now and again on appeals from the Dominions. That is a process which has been put only to a very inconsiderable degree in force, with this exception, that Lord de Villiers, the Chief Justice of South Africa, has sat frequently in the Judicial Committee. The two Courts thus divided consist mainly of the nucleus—the Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor—who sit chiefly in this House; and such as can be spared from that nucleus, strengthened and reinforced by the others of whom I have spoken, sit in the Judicial Committee. The result is that there has been dissatisfaction for a long time past. If the House of Lords is sitting in its legal capacity in strength it is not always possible to detach a very full Court for the Judicial Committee. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack exercises great care in that regard, but it is sometimes impossible to secure that the decision of five Judges sitting in a Dominion Court of Appeal shall not be reversed by three or four Judges sitting here, and the result has led to a good deal of misunderstanding.
In this state of things the matter was brought before the recent Imperial Conference. Those of your Lordships who wish to refer to the discussions will find them at page 213 of the Minutes of Proceedings, June 12, and again at page 431, June 20; and you will find at page 236 of the supplementary volume, which contains the
742
documents laid before the Conference, what was actually agreed to. At first New Zealand proposed that every Dominion should have a Judge of its own on the Judicial Committee, but it was pointed out that some of the Dominions had only one or two appeals a year, and for them to spend £5,000 or £6,000 a year on keeping a Judge here would be absurd. That was unanimously dropped. But it was agreed that the Chief Justices or other eminent members of the Bench in those Dominions and the Colonies might well be summoned when there were questions which had to be decided of a character in which local assistance was specially desirable. For instance, New Zealand laws and customs relating to the Maoris seem to make it desirable that there should be someone present familiar with their code of law. That was one of the matters on which the Conference came to an agreement.
Finally eight propositions were agreed to by the Conference. I will read them—

"1. At present, the House of Lords is the Supreme Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom, and the King in Council (in effect the Judicial Committee) is the Supreme Court of Appeal for the rest of the Empire.

2. It is proposed to take a first step towards combining these Courts into a Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire, and towards strengthening them by adding to the number of Judges composing them.

3. The scheme is that the Home Government should add two selected Judges to the Lords of Appeal. There would then be six Law Lords devoting their whole time to sitting in the two Courts.

4. In addition, the Lord Chancellor would. as now, preside whenever he is present, and all who are now qualified to sit in either the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee would be able so sit as now.

5. In this way the appeals of the United Kingdom and of the rest of the Empire respectively would be heard by the same Judges who hear them now, with the addition of two Law Lords to both Courts, but the two Courts would both be branches of the Imperial Court of Appeal."

That is foreshadowing a further and formal step which remains to be taken—
"6. Except where it is necessary that the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee shall sit simultaneously it is contemplated that the Court shall sit in full strength first at the one and then at the other."
The judicial sittings of this House and the sittings of the Judicial Committee take place simultaneously. The result is that it is not possible in either to command that strength which the great appellate tribunal of the Empire, perhaps the most remarkable

743
tribunal and with the most extensive jurisdiction that has ever been known, should possess. It seems wrong that such a tribunal should be condemned to sit in part of its strength, and therefore what is proposed is that the tribunal should sit in its full strength first in the one place and then in the other by an arrangement of the sittings. That will not require to be mathematically carried out, because in the case of Indian appeals two ex-Indian Judges sit. on the Judicial Committee, and when they are there you will not require such a strong body of other Judges on the Committee. But in the main the proposal of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack is that the whole strength of the Court should always be commanded, so that the appellate business of the Empire should be held with great power. Your Lordships will see how easy it will be under that arrangement to declare the one Court sitting under its two forms to be a Court that is henceforth to sit under one form—the Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire. The other two proposals were—
"7. It will be necessary that the conditions and method of appeal from different parts of the Empire shall be suited to the local requirements, and it is not practicable to attain uniformity in these respects, at all events at first. But as the Judges will be almost entirely the same for all kinds of appeals, it seems probable that a greater degree of uniformity may be reached. and possibly in time all differences may be effaced.
8. It is further proposed that, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Dominion Representatives, the practice of the Judicial committee shall be modified so that in Dominion cases any dissentient Judge may be free to give his reasons if His Majesty's consent is given to this change."
The meaning of that is simple. The King in Council gives the judgment in a case that comes to the Privy Council, but the King in Council acts upon the report of a board which is the Judicial Committee. As a Privy Councillor never violates the secrets of the Council the opinion of any dissenting Judge is never given. The report consists of various reasons, but dissent is never shown. The Dominions say that the judgments would be more illuminating if they knew the opinion of any dissenting Judge. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack sees no difficulty in altering the procedure so that the proceedings there may be more like a hearing and judgment in an ordinary Court. Another point taken was that owing to the Courts being separate and
744
not sitting at the same time there is sometimes divergence of opinion in the Judicial Committee and in this House. That, of course, will be obviated if it is one Court in substance which is always sitting.
I have told your Lordships what the ground of the proposals in this Bill is. Now I come to the Bill itself. There are three clauses. The first provides that the judicial sittings of this House and the sittings of the Judicial Committee shall be arranged as far as is possible in such a manner as not to take place simultaneously; but it. is provided that nothing in the clause shall be construed as requiring the sittings to be held any times other than those prescribed for sittings of the Court of Appeal in England in pursuance of the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1910, that period being between October and the beginning of August. Clause 2 enacts that His Majesty may appoint two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under Section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, in addition to the four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary whom he may appoint under Sections 6 and 14 of that Act. That will give six Lords of Appeal together with the Lord Chancellor, the ex-Lord Chancellor, and such other Lords as are qualified to sit, as well as the extra Judges who sit on the Judicial Committee and any Chief Justice or Assessor from the Dominions who may be summoned to attend. The third clause gives effect to the conclusion that it is wrong to differentiate so much as has been done between the salary of a Lord of Appeal and that of a Judge of a Court of Appeal. It is thought that £5,000 a year should be the salary in all cases. The work certainly is not greater; it is a good deal less, and we know that you will get just as eminent Judges on the one footing a8 on the other, and we prefer a footing of uniformity. But that will apply, of course, only to future appointments.
I have now stated the substance of the Bill, and I believe that, if your Lordships see fit to approve of its passage, the Bill, in which His Majesty's Government take a deep interest on account of its Imperial character, will lead to a very great strengthening, not only of the Judicial Committee but of the appellate side of this House, and form the foundation on which hereafter to transfer the whole into a Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire,

745
with uniform procedure and without the anomalies which by degrees have grown up. The Bill is simple and without complication, and, as I have said, it represents the unanimous opinion of the Premiers in consultation with the Home Ministers during the sittings of the Imperial Conference in June. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I earnestly hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I consider one of great importance. Indeed the principal link of the Mother Country to the Dominions beyond the seas is now this appeal to the King in Council. I have had occasion to observe the great importance that our fellow-subjects in the Dominions attach to this appeal and to the proper working of the Court. I have had occasion to urge upon the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack and on his predecessors the importance of this question, and I must say that it has always met with the greatest consideration on their part and that they have endeavoured to the best of their power to make a strong Court of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Whether the Judicial Committee and the House of Lords Court of Appeal should be merged into one Supreme Court of Appeal it is not now necessary for us to discuss. I hope in time to see that done; but in the meantime let us strengthen in every way the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Its decisions are watched with great interest in all the Dominions and also in the Crown Colonies, and the knowledge that they can appeal has very great effect. My apology for interfering in this debate is that I first joined the Colonial Office in 1867 and was for six years Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I can say, therefore, from long personal experience that this question of sustaining the dignity and authority of the Judicial Committee is constantly arising; that it is a matter of great importance; and that your Lordships cannot do wrong in passing this Bill.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, when we were engaged in discussing the reconstitution of this House I remarked that I thought it a pity occasion had not been taken to satisfy the Oversea Dominions in respect of their demand for a strengthening of the Appellate Court in this
746
country. Therefore, like the noble Viscount who has just sat down, I congratulate the Government on having so soon brought forward a measure, and I hope it may satisfy our kinsmen overseas. I am not competent to discuss the provisions of this Bill, but I may say that at the time when the Federation of Australia took place I was then in Queensland, and there was a very powerful intrigue at that time to abrogate altogether this sole remaining link which connects the various parts of the Empire together, and it was solely due to the insistence of Queensland that the right of appeal was retained in regard to Australia. Anything that can tend to promote a greater feeling of confidence in the tribunal which hears the appeals from the outlying parts of the Empire is to be hailed with pleasure, and I endorse the remarks made by the noble Viscount who preceded me.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I entirely agree with the opinions expressed by the two noble Lords opposite as to the great desirability of strengthening the Court of Appeal for the outlying Dominions of the Empire. It is most desirable that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be clothed with the highest authority with a view to inspiring the greatest respect in all parts of the Empire. I also feel that much deference must be paid to the conclusions of the Imperial Conference, and as this Bill is founded on their conclusions one cannot but be disposed to receive it with respect. At the same time I must avow to your Lordships that I am not persuaded that this Bill is the right way of dealing with the problem to be faced.
The Government are dealing with what is said to be a deficiency of authority in the Judicial Committee, and are proceeding to constitute one Court which is to embrace both the appellate jurisdiction of this House and the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee. It is expressly provided that the Court so constituted shall as a rule, almost universally, sit as one Court. If that scheme is carried through, then I submit to your Lordships that you do not require the addition of two Law Lords to this House. You do not want an increase in the Judicial power of this House. Its power is confessedly adequate to the labour thrown upon it. At this time

747
it is very amply furnished with Judicial power, and if appeals from the Dominions are to be heard by the same body, though not sitting here, you will always have the Judicial force of this House at your disposal to hear appeals from the Colonies. If it were proposed to constitute a tribunal composed of the Lord Chancellor, the ex-Lord Chancellor, the other Law Lords who may be available, and six Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and to divide them into two Courts, you might then well have your two Courts working with great efficiency and with great approval on the part of all concerned. But that is not the scheme here. Here it is proposed, for some reason which does not appear, to incur unnecessary expenditure in the creation of two new Lords of Appeal. If the Law Lords in this House are competent to do their work here, they are competent also to hear the cases from the Oversea Dominions.
As I have said, it is not proposed to constitute two Courts. There are practically no arrears in your Lordships' House. Yet it is proposed to increase the number of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, not to do work in this House or to do work elsewhere when this House is sitting, but, as it seems to me, for no reason at all. For my part I am very jealous of any increase in the Judiciary, It is important for the high character of the Judiciary that it should not be unnecessarily multiplied. Not long since the question had to be considered of an addition to the strength of the King's Bench Division, and the Joint Committee which considered that matter agreed, reluctantly, to recommend that two additional Judges should be temporarily appointed. They have since been appointed, and with their assistance all the arrears in the King's Bench Division have been disposed of, and it is conceived that these two additional appointments may be in the end, as was intended, only temporary appointments.
The question of expense is a matter of indifference to me, and I confess I do not agree with the proposal to cut down the salary from £6,000 to £5,000 so as to make it equal to that of members of the Court of Appeal. Members of the Court of Appeal not infrequently pass by way of promotion to the Court of Appeal of your Lordships' House, and it seems not inappropriate that there should be with that transition some additional emoluments.
748
The gain is insignificant, and I think the proposal is only put forward as a means of mitigating the expenditure on the creation of two new and unnecessary Lords of Appeal. It is said that this suggestion emanates from the Imperial Conference, but with all respect to that Conference I remember that this matter was brought up first by the representative of New Zealand, and that the suggestions of New Zealand were distinguished for their crude character. They were no sooner made than they had to be abandoned, and what was at length agreed upon was a compromise rather to save the face of the Colonies. I feel very strongly the impropriety of any unnecessary increase in the Judiciary, and I maintain that no case has been made out to show the necessity of appointing two additional Law Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, though disguised with a genial smile, I think we could see that the noble and learned Viscount opposite was a little perturbed in his mind at finding that he was violating the privileges of the House of Commons. The noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite who spoke last actually ventured to criticise expenditure. Can there be anything more surprising and shocking than that a member of your Lordships' House should criticise expenditure that it may please the representatives of the people to impose on the taxpayers? The noble and learned Viscount said that there had been expressions of opinion in recent debates that the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House might be abolished. That is perfectly true; but one of the reasons for those expressions of opinion was that some politicians of the baser sort have actually used the decisions of your Lordships' House sitting judicially as a stick with which to beat the House as a body sitting politically. That was, of course, disgraceful, and for that reason it became necessary for many of us to say, and to say with conviction, that if the impartial judicial decisions of your Lordships' House were to be used for political purposes, the sooner the judicial jurisdiction was abolished the better. So much for the political side of the question.
This is not a political Bill. It is a Bill of the greatest importance and of a purely legal character, and I feel very

749
much out of place in discussing such a Bill. There are, of course, in your Lordships' House many members well qualified to deal with this subject, but they do not appear to be present at this moment. I must say one or two words, however, in order, if possible, to elicit a little more clearly what is the exact proposition which the Government have laid before Parliament. This is evidently a Bill of the greatest importance, because, as the noble and learned Viscount said, its object is to carry out the recommendations of the Imperial Conference with reference to the establishment of a new Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire. The noble Lord who has just spoken criticised the proposal of the Government because the Bill provides for the appointment of two new Lords of Appeal. Whether that is a good proposal or not depends very much upon how the Government intend to carry out the provision in practice. If I understood the noble Viscount aright, he indicated that the two new Lords of Appeal were to be specially appointed with a view to being qualified to sit on Colonial appeals. [VISCOUNT HALDANE dissented.] The noble and learned Viscount shakes his head. He did not actually say so; but he called attention to certain resolutions which were debated in the Imperial Conference, the first proposal being that there should be a special member appointed from each of the great Dominions. The noble and learned Viscount said that that proposal did not meet with the favour of the Conference and for very good reasons; and then he went on to say that in substitution for that proposal His Majesty's Government submit this proposal to add two new Lords of Appeal.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It was agreed by everybody that Chief Justices of the Dominions should be made members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and should come over here when appeals were heard from their Dominions. The addition of two Lords of Appeal was agreed on with a view to strengthening the Court for all purposes. The English Common Law extends over the greater part of the Empire, and it was thought that this was the best addition you could make.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand, then, that the New Zealand proposal was met partly by a compromise
750
to appoint more Chief Justices to the Privy Council, and partly by the appointment of two new Lords of Appeal who were to be good for all purposes, Colonial and other.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And hereafter, as I understand, there will be a Bill introduced to abolish the separate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House, to amalgamate the two jurisdictions, and to have only one Supreme Court of Appeal?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a matter of supreme importance, and I do not feel qualified to criticise it. But I am pleased to hear from the noble Viscount that no difficulty is apprehended from too much business being thrown on a single tribunal. There was a time when the decisions of your Lordships' House as a Court of Appeal were very long delayed, but I rather think that that state of things has passed away, and that now the judgments of your Lordships' House are delivered promptly; but if the old state of things were to reappear through working with one Court instead of two it might be a serious matter.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Bill says "wherever practicable."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The only other matter which I note is that it is proposed to alter the procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by establishing minority judgments. I do not know if the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Viscount opposite have consulted with the noble and learned Lords on this side of the House as to whether that is a desirable change. It is evidently one of very great, and in some respects of vital, importance, and unless there has been some understanding between the two legal sides of the House we must reserve liberty of action on this point at a future stage. There is no doubt that His Majesty's Government have been well advised in entering upon these changes, because it is above all things important that the well-considered advice of the Imperial Conference should, if possible be followed up in the Imperial Parliament.

751
From all parts of the Empire men of great distinction have met together and resolved that these changes ought to be carried out, and we cannot blame, but must praise, the Government for having taken an early opportunity of carrying them into effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I would be sorry to deprive the noble Marquess of the pleasure of thinking that we are violating the privileges of the House of Commons in monetary matters by introducing this Bill, but Bills of this kind have always been brought in in this House, and there is a process on the Third Reading by which we say that the privilege Amendment be agreed to, so that the Bill becomes merely a suggestion to the House of Commons rather than an enactment. With regard to altering the practice hitherto observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of only delivering one judgment, or one statement of opinion as to the advice to be submitted to the Crown, I would frankly prefer that things should remain as they are. I believe it is better that the Court should all agree on one particular view, for the guidance of other Courts, and experience has proved its desirability. At the same time mine was the voice of one perfectly disregarded at the Conference. The representatives of the Dominions concurred in taking a different view. As these judgments affect them entirely I do not think it is our business to stand in the way of their distinct preference not only for the opinion of the majority of the Court, but also for the opinion of any dissenting critic. I hope and am sure that dissent will be rare and very moderately expressed; but I did not myself feel at liberty to disregard the view put forward by the representatives of the Dominions.
With regard to the other part of the Bill, it is not only very important but rather delicate work that we have to do. This House, having borrowed from the Crown the authority which is still called the decision of the King in Parliament, decides all appeals from the United Kingdom. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hears all appeals from all parts of the British Dominions, and there are several and many different codes and kinds of law that have to be administered, There is Indian law, the Roman-Dutch, the old French law dating prior to the
752
French Revolution of 1789, together with the English Common Law and the Statutory laws enacted in some of the Dominions, to say nothing of other systems. The work requires the very best men you can get. The great causes that come to this House from the United Kingdom, and the other causes, some of which are of immense Constitutional importance, that, come before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are increasing in number. There has, no doubt, been a marked increase since I have had the honour of sitting on the Woolsack, and if it continues it will certainly mean a great deal more work. I am glad to say there are no arrears, and that yesterday morning I heard that the last case had been finished in the Judicial Committee. All the cases ready for hearing had been despatched by yesterday. Your Lordships will I think find, if you inquire, that there is no reason to complain of any delay in this House, but the work is heavy.
What one has to do sometimes—in fact not infrequently—is to divide the Court into two, and my Judicial colleagues are good enough to leave to me the choice in the composition of the two Courts. I do my very best, and with the assistance of Lord Halsbury, Lord Gorell, Lord Mersey, Lord Ashbourne, and others we do make very good Courts, and I do not think there is anything to complain of. But we have no right to ask Lord Halsbury to serve; nothing but his kindness leads him to do so. An ex-Lord Chancellor is not bound to help, although I am sure that as long as he could be would willingly do so. But we have no claim on him, nor on Lord Ashbourne. nor on Lord Gorell, or the other Lords. It is all gratuitous service that they give. The regular body consists of the Lord Chancellor for the time being and four Lords of Appeal. Speaking for myself, I will go on as long as I can doing my best, but I declare that the time is coming and is near at hand when the combination of the duties of Speaker of one of the Houses of Parliament, of a Judge of the Highest Court of Appeal, of a member of the Cabinet with important and momentous matters to decide, to say nothing of administrative duties relating to lunacy, magistrates, and many other matters, may prove too much for the strength of anybody unless it is mitigated by lightening the burden in some direction.

753
That was the situation we had to face. The Colonial Premiers had given notice beforehand of resolutions from New Zealand and Australia desiring that there should be an Imperial Court of Appeal, and the New Zealand suggestion was, I think, that it should consist of Judges from all parts of the British Dominions. They wanted the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be fused into one. The difficulty about that was that every single self-governing part of the Dominions is entitled to say what sort of Court it wants to decide its final appeals. We found, as we knew beforehand, that Canada, for instance, was not prepared to say that a Canadian appeal should be heard by a South African, a New Zealand, an Australian, and an Indian Judge, and so forth; and unless you could get the consent of the self-governing Dominions, which they withheld—the point was expressly put to them—it would be very difficult to constitute a Court which would be composed of Judges from all parts of the Dominions. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Courtney does not agree to our proposal. I thought I was one of the privileged people who sometimes had the honour of the noble Lord's concurrence, but on this occasion apparently I am not entitled to reckon upon it.
Feeling that with all this heavy and increasing work it is not quite enough to have a nucleus of the Lord Chancellor and four Lords of Appeal I suggested, after conferring with my colleagues, that if the Colonial representatives were not prepared to take Colonial Judges we should add two more of the finest Judges we could get in England for the purpose, and they all fell in with the view and concurred in the resolutions—I think I may so call them—which my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane read to the House. That is the origin and genesis of this proposal, to which Lord Courtney seems to have some aversion. I think it is a reasonable thing to do. The object of saying that the Courts are not to sit simultaneously is that, so far as practicable, we want the fullest strength we can get in trying the appeals from the United Kingdom, and in trying appeals from the British Dominions beyond the seas. We cannot always do that, and we shall be obliged to sit in two bodies. I do not know whether this method of dealing with the subject is strictly logical—
754
I am quite prepared to admit that it may not be—but at the same time I think it is a practical method of dealing with a practical difficulty, and that it will strengthen the Court. It is impossible that it can be too strong. The cases that we have to consider are very heavy, and I think the proposal in the Bill would prove most useful.
I will only refer to one other subject—the question whether the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ought to sit in this House. May I respectfully suggest a point of view that perhaps has not occurred to your Lordships? I am not particularly enamoured of their sitting here, but the criticism which has been levelled against them is that they have not delivered popular judgments, that they have brought unpopularity upon your Lordships' House by doing justice——
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said so. On the contrary, the charge I brought was that certain politicians had said that noble and learned Lords had delivered unpopular judgments, and, therefore, that that was another blemish on your Lordships' House, and another reason for attacking it on every platform in England.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mean to convey that the noble Marquess intended to blame the administration of justice, but the real feeling at the bottom of the complaint is one which I think this House or any House may well afford to be superior to. This House loses nothing by containing within its ranks men who give unpopular judgments. I understand what the noble Marquess means, and share his views. I think it is very wrong indeed to blame either this House or the Law Lords who give these judgments. It is certainly unfair to associate the House of Lords, which has nothing to do with them, with the judgments of the Law Lords. At the same time it is dangerous ground, and I believe myself that neither this House nor any House will ever lose by giving judgments which are fair and just, even though they may happen to be unpopular. For my own part, I may say that I am in a singularly favoured position. I have not been a party to any of these judgments. Had I been present I might have committed myself to some very unpopular opinions. I can therefore say all

755
the more freely, I am quite certain that the opinions which have been given by the noble and learned Lords who arrived at those conclusions have been purely their view of what the law required.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I cannot help rising to say a single word in regard to what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. One reason why every one in this House respects the noble and learned Earl is that he is straightforward and downright, and we are convinced that in any judgment he might give or in any action he might take he would be actuated solely by his opinion of what is right. At the same time it is undoubtedly the fact that the name of the House of Lords being attached to the highest Court of Appeal has prejudicially affected this House in the opinion certainly of the Radical portion of the country. We have had reason to complain more than once that responsible Members of Parliament have not taken the means that they ought to have taken to represent that the opinions entertained in Radical circles on this subject were entertained under misapprehension.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It does not affect one side only. On the last occasion that I contested an election for a seat in the House of Commons I was attacked by Conservative questioners because of the monstrous appointments which it was said the Liberals had made and which it was alleged had led to these labour judgments.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I was not referring to that matter. I was talking about what had been said of this House, more especially in Radical circles, throughout the country. We have on many occasions protested against that. We have held that your Lordships' House was very unfairly treated by such things being said of it, and we have felt that this House might have been protected on some occasions by persons who have neglected to do so. If it were possible to do so under this Bill, I would suggest that His Majesty's Government should take some means of separating the House in its appellate capacity from the name of the House of Lords.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Offences of cruelty.
1.—(1) If any person—

(a) shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal, or shall cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall by doing or omitting to do any act, or by causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering, or being the owner, permit any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any animal; or

(b) shall convey or carry, or cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering; or

(c) shall cause, procure, or be a party to, the fighting or baiting of any animal; or shall keep, use, manage, or act or assist in the management of, any premises or place for the purpose, or partly for the purpose, of fighting or baiting any animal, or shall permit any promises or place to be so kept, managed, or used, or shall receive, or cause or procure any person to receive, money for the admission of any person to such premises or place; or

(d) Shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, administer, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, such administration of, any poisonous or injurious drag or substance to any animal, or shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, cause any such substance to be taken by any animal; or

(e) Shall subject, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, to be subjected, any animal to any operation which is performed without duo care and humanity;

such person shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.
(2) For the purposes of this section an owner shall be deemed to have permitted cruelty within the meaning of this Act if he shall have failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision in respect of the protection of the animal therefrom:
Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty within the meaning of this Act by reason only of his having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
(3) Nothing in this section shall render illegal any act lawfully done under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, or shall apply—

(a) to the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction, or the preparation for destruction, of any animal as food for mankind, unless such destruction or such preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering; or

757

(b) to the coursing or hunting of any captive animal, unless such animal is liberated in an injured, mutilated, or exhausted condition; but a captive animal shall not for the purposes of this section be deemed to be coursed or hunted before it is liberated for the purpose of being coursed or hunted, or after it has been re-captured, or if it is under control.

THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved an Amendment in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after the word "by" ["or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall by"], to insert the words "wantonly or unreasonably." The noble Earl said: There is no desire on my part to lessen the strength of this Bill, but one is bound, when a Bill like this is accompanied by a Memorandum which is so inaccurate as the one which accompanies this Bill, to look very carefully into the various provisions. I have done so, and I find that the words "wantonly or unreasonably" appear in the two Acts which it is proposed to consolidate, and I see no reason why they should be omitted from this Bill. I know that it is contended by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the words "unnecessary suffering" cover the case, but I do not share that opinion. A man, for instance, might cause unnecessary suffering not out of malice but because he did not understand the case. He might treat the animal for one illness when it really had another. That might cause unnecessary suffering, but it would not have been caused wantonly or unreasonably, and therefore would not deserve punishment. The object of the Bill would be just as well carried out if the words "wantonly or unreasonably" were inserted, and it would prevent a case being brought against a man who, with the best intention in the world, had made a mistake perhaps I in the diagnosis of the illness of the animal.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("by") insert ("wantonly or unreasonably").—(The Earl of Derby.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: It seems to me that to insert the words "wantonly or unreasonably" would be to give a loophole for cruelty. In 99 cases out of 100 where an owner permitted unnecessary suffering it would be wantonly or unreasonably done, yet under the Amendment the burden of proof would rest with the prosecution, and it might be very difficult to get a conviction.
THE EARL OF DERBY: This is supposed to be a Consolidation Bill. Why were the words in the original Acts taken out?
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I cannot explain that.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Lord says he cannot explain that, and therefore I must insist on my Amendment.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I will not trouble the House to divide against the Amendment, but will content myself with entering a protest.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think the words "be a party to" at the beginning of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) are rather too wide. I therefore propose to delete them, and to insert "aid or assist at."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("be a party to") and insert ("aid or assist at").—(The Earl of Derby.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My next Amendment is to omit from paragraph (a) of subsection (3) the words "unless such destruction or such preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering." But I do not wish to press this Amendment if I can get an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this provision will not be used by "cranks" for instituting prosecutions. It is probably very unnecessary cruelty to put a live lobster into boiling water, but it is invariably done. Under this Bill, however, that would be liable to prosecution. I understand that the noble Lord docs not mean to effect any change in the present methods of the cooking world.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I do not think this clause aims at the lobster in any way.
LORD NEWTON: How can the noble Lord opposite possibly give a guarantee that the Bill will not be construed in the

759
way suggested? If I were in the position of the noble Earl who has this Amendment on the Paper I should be very chary in accepting any assurance from the noble Lord opposite.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not wish in any way to lessen the power of the authorities to prevent cruelty, and therefore I will not move the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My noble friend Lord Leigh, who is not able to be present to-day, has asked me to move the new clause, after Clause 2, which stands in his name on the Paper. The substance of this new clause was discussed at a previous stage, and the Government at that time were not unwilling to accept it but with certain limitations, and those limitations are to be found in the last sentence of the proposed new clause which runs—
"No order shall be made under this section unless it is shown by evidence as to previous convictions or character of the owner or otherwise that the animal is likely to be exposed to further cruelty."
I believe those words have been favourably received by the Government. But apart from that I wish to move the clause in words slightly differing from those which appear on the Paper. I have communicated with noble Lords opposite, and I may say that the words which are suggested really proceed from the Government side of the House.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
"If the owner of any animal shall be guilty of cruelty within the meaning of tin's Act to the animal, the court, upon his conviction thereof, may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, deprive such person of the ownership of the animal, and may make such order as to the disposal of the animal as they think fit under the circumstances. Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless it is shown by evidence as to previous convictions or character of the owner or otherwise that the animal is likely to be exposed to further cruelty."—(The Earl of Camperdown)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: The noble Earl's Amendment is entirely acceptable to the promoters of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The Act of 1849 is repealed by this Bill, but there is a provision in that Act which I think
760
should not be repealed. I refer to the section prohibiting a person licensed to slaughter horses from acting also as a dealer in horses. I think the House will see that such a practice might lead to great abuse and cruelty. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
"It shall not be lawful for any person who shall be licensed to slaughter horses during the time while such licence shall be in force to exercise or use the trade or business of a dealer in horses."—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: Does that mean that such a person would not be able to sell the horse alive?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes. The provision is in the Act at the present moment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I should like to ask whether this new clause would prevent an officer of a ship from slaughtering a horse which had been seriously injured on a voyage?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not think the noble Lord can have understood the new clause which I am proposing. It is that a man who has a licence to carry on the business of a knacker shall not act also as a horse dealer. That does not apply in any way to the captain or officer of a ship.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Animals in pounds,
5.—(1) Any person who impounds or confines, or causes or procures to be impounded or confined, any animal in any pound shall, while the animal is so impounded or confined, supply it with a sufficient quantity of wholesome and suitable food and water, and if he fails to do so he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(2) If any animal is impounded or confined in any pound and is without sufficient suitable food or water for six successive hours, or longer, any person may enter the pound for the purpose of supplying the animal therewith.
(3) The reasonable cost of the food and water supplied to any animal impounded or confined in any pound shall be recoverable summarily from the owner of the animal as a civil debt.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I move to omit the words "or procures" at the commencement of subsection (1). They are unnecessary and might open a very wide field.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("or procures")—(The Earl of Derby.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Poisoned grain and flesh, &c.
6. If any person—

(a) shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or give away, or cause or procure any person to sell or offer or expose for sale or give, away, or knowingly be a party to the sale or offering or exposing for sale or giving away of any grain or seed which has been rendered poisonous except for bonâ fide use in agriculture; or

(b) shall knowingly put or place, or cause or procure any person to put or place, or knowingly be a party to the put ring or placing, in or upon any land or building any poison,

such person shall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds,. Provided that in any proceedings under paragraph (b) of this section it shall be a defence that the poison was placed by the accused for the purpose of destroying rats, mice, or other small vermin, and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or oilier domestic animals.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to insert, at the end of paragraph (b), the words in my Amendment. The object is to reinstate words which were struck out by mistake.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, after ("poison") insert ("or any fluid or edible matter (not being sown seed or grain) which has been rendered poisonous")—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: The object of the new clause which I move to insert after Clause 7 is to meet the objections of the noble Marquess and the noble Earl opposite with regard to traps. The introduction of this Amendment is considered necessary by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and is justified by the large number of convictions for cruelty arising out of animals at various times being caught in spring traps and remaining there for a long time in great suffering.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
".Any person who sets, or causes or procures to be set, any spring trap for the purpose of catching any hare or rabbit, or which is so placed as to be likely to catch any hare or rabbit, shall
762
inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect, the trap at least once in every twelve hours, and if any person shall fail to comply with the provisions of this section he shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds."—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
LORD NEWTON: I should like to have the words "competent person" defined. Would a woman or a girl be a competent person?
LORD SAYE AND SELE: Some women are competent persons.
LORD NEWTON: It is very difficult to get any explanation from the noble Lord about his own Bill. I really think I am entitled to some definition of what constitutes competency in this matter. The noble Lord always takes refuge when questioned about this Bill by saying he really does not know much about it.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I never said I knew nothing about it.
LORD NEWTON: Whenever I have asked for an explanation the noble Lord has, in so many words, said that he does not know much about the Bill. Now I ask him to tell me what he means by "competent person."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The expression is a very common word in Statutes. The object here is to prevent an animal being kept in torture for a long period, and the expression "competent person" would cover somebody with sense enough to act in the matter.
LORD NEWTON: If that is so, then I suggest that the word "competent" is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I would point out that a spring trap can catch many other animals besides a hare or rabbit. I would like to substitute for "hare or rabbit" the word "animal."
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To leave out ("hare or rabbit") and to insert ("animal")—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is my noble friend sure that that will be an improvement to the clause? Spring traps are used to catch moles. Is it intended that mole traps must be inspected once in every twelve hours on a penalty of £5? I think we might leave "hare or rabbit"

763
in as a general definition. It will be a difficult clause to enforce, but it is an indication that in the view of Parliament it is necessary that these traps should be used in circumstances which involve as little risk as possible of suffering to the animal.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NEWTON: I move to omit from the proposed new clause the word "competent."
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To omit the word ("competent").—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I do not see any object in omitting the word "competent." It is obvious what is meant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But is there any object in retaining it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lord would gain very much by omitting the word, and it might open the door to culpable negligence by the sending of a child.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
On Question, proposed new clause agreed to.
Clause 11:
Appeals.
11.—(1) An appeal shall lie from any conviction or order (other than an order for the destruction of an animal) by a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act to quarter sessions.
(2) Where there is an appeal by the owner of an animal from any conviction or order by a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act, the court may direct that the recognisance inquired to be entered into under subsection (3) of section thirty-one, which relates to procedure on appeal to general or quarter sessions, of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1870, shall include an undertaking not to sell or part with the animal until the appeal is determined or abandoned, and to produce it before or at or after the hearing of the appeal if ordered by the court of quarter sessions to do so, in accordance with the order.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The Bill provides that where there is a case before the Court the animal shall be produced if such production is possible without cruelty. The right of appeal is given, and there again the animal can be brought before the Court, but at the Court of Appeal there is
764
no provision for its being produced "if such production is possible without cruelty." I think this provision is just as necessary before the Court of Appeal as in the other case.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("order") insert ("and if such production is possible without cruelty").— (The Earl of Derby.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Application to Ireland.
14. This Act in its application to Ireland shall be subject to the following modifications, namely:—

(1) (a) Section twenty-three of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851 (which gives a right of appeal), shall apply as respects any conviction or order under this Act (other than an order for the destruction of an animal, notwithstanding that the fine imposed does not exceed twenty shillings or that the term of imprisonment imposed docs not exceed one month;

(b) A reference to section twenty-four of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to subsection (3) of section thirty-one of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

(2) Nothing in section six of this Act shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying or causing 1o be laid any poison or poisonous matter as therein described, after a notice has been posted in a conspicuous place, and notice in writing has been given to the nearest constabulary station.

LORD SAYE AND SELE LORD SAYE AND SELE had the two following Amendments on the Paper to this clause—
Page 8, line 35, after ("six") insert ("which relates to poisoned grain and flush, &c.,")
Page 8, line 38, after ("described") insert ("other than strychnine or any compound of which strychnine forms an ingredient.")
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move these Amendments.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Why not?
LORD SAYE AND SELE: It was the opinion of the promoters of this Bill that the use of strychnine was excessively cruel, but on examination it was discovered that there was no possible way of avoiding it; in fact, that any other method would be more cruel.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 156.)

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, on the motion for the Third Reading of this Bill I have given notice to move its rejection, and I do not think that any of your Lordships who have been present on the previous occasions when this Bill has been discussed can be in any way surprised that such an Amendment should be moved. I am not in the least opposing the principle of the noble Earl's Small Holdings Act. I say that because on several occasions when remarks have been made with regard to the administration of that Act or any part of it, the noble Earl has always regarded the remarks as if they were directed at the Act itself.
My reason for moving that this Bill be read a third time this day six months is this. I am sure it will be agreed that if any exemption is proposed to be given in a Bill regarding small holdings or any other matter of that kind to any class or set of people, it ought not to be given without grave consideration, and that when that exemption has been given and is in the Act it ought not to be taken away without some really good reason. This Bill has gone through as many changes and vicissitudes as any Bill that I ever remember, and, if your Lordships give it a Third Reading, the noble Earl is going further to alter it and for the fourth time to introduce material Amendments.
May I, in a few words, state what has occurred with regard to this Bill? First of all let me read the subsection which this Bill as introduced was intended to repeal. It is subsection (3) of Clause 41 of the Small Holdings Act of 1908, and it runs—
"No holding of fifty acres or less in extent or any part of such holding shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily for the purpose of small holdings or allotments."
This Bill as originally introduced into your Lordships' House was entitled a Bill "to repeal subsection (3) of Section 41." When the noble Earl moved the Second Reading of the Bill he was asked what
766
reasons he had for taking away from the holders of fifty acres or less a protection which he himself had given to them in the Act of 1908. His reply was that a coach and four were being driven through the Act, and he gave us a case where an old lady in Buckinghamshire had divided a farm among, I think he said, five of her relatives, or at all events among five tenants, and had in this way endeavoured to contravene the principle of the Act.
Naturally, this Bill excited a great deal of uncomfortable feeling in the country. People who had felt perfectly safe under this exemption in subsection (3) were alarmed that it should be proposed to take away this protection from them without any good reason. The noble Earl was challenged, and was asked to produce at the next stage the cases on which he founded his allegations of evasion. When the next stage of the Bill was reached the noble Earl admitted that he had no more cases to give us, and his explanation was that his Department were naturally the last people to hear of any violations of the Act. It apparently did not occur to him that it was his Department and he himself who were proposing to legislate on this question. The noble Earl admitted that he could not produce any case except that of the old lady in Buckinghamshire.
But that was not all. The noble Earl then altered the title of his Bill. The title of Bill No. 1 was to "repeal" this subsection, but Bill No. 2 was altered in Committee to a Bill to "amend Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908." This was the second edition of the Bill; but in this the noble Earl provided protection only for the tenant of fifty acres. Under the Act, of course, the protection extended both to the owner and to the tenant of fifty acres. The noble Earl's proposal having been originally to limit the protection which was to be given, he accepted from Lord Clinton an Amendment which runs in this way—
"The powers conferred on a council by an order for the compulsory acquisition of land under this Act shall not authorise the council to acquire or extinguish the interest of any person in land comprised in the order and cultivated by him if the total area, including such laud cultivated by him, does not exceed fifty acres in one holding—
That is, of course, exactly the same provision as is in subsection (3) which the noble Earl was proposing to repeal—

767
"or sixty acres in two or more holdings; nor where they exceed those areas if the annual value for purposes of income Tax does not exceed £50 or £60 respectively."
Therefore so far from diminishing this security, if there is any alteration at all it is certainly in the way of increasing it.
As I say, it has now become a Bill to amend. It was considered and further amended on Report, and then the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, called attention to the fact that the owner was not included, and accordingly an Amendment was accepted including the owner as well as the occupier. That is the stage which the Bill has now reached, but if your Lordships give it a Third Reading, the noble Earl has, as I have said, an Amendment on the Paper which is going to further alter the Bill and will, as far as I can see, leave the law as nearly as possible in the same state in which it is now without this Bill. Surely in these circumstances your Lordships cannot give the Bill a Third Reading. The Bill seems to be absolutely purposeless arid useless. The noble Earl introduced it because he wanted to repeal this subsection. If he succeeds in obtaining what he desires from your Lordships to-day he will not have repealed this subsection at all. He has, indeed, boasted that the Bill would leave the tenant of fifty acres or less in exactly the same position as he is in now. I do not think I need say anything more. I cannot believe any one in this House wishes to pass legislation which, if it is anything at all, is so much waste paper.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD ILKESTON: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment to think again before he presses it upon the House. I do so because there is a serious reason why some Bill of this kind should be passed, and I believe before being placed on the Statute Book the Bill would be made as efficient as the noble Earl would like it to lie. I admit that the criticism of the noble Earl opposite is fair criticism of the procedure connected with this Bill. I do not think the procedure is altogether what my noble friend Lord Carrington or any of us would have wished. But at the back of this Bill there is an urgent necessity for legislation.
768
If your Lordships will allow me I will put before you an illustration of how at the present time the Act is rendered nugatory, and I think the instance that I shall give will show that there is a crying. necessity for some measure to amend this particular subsection in the original Act. I have myself been connected with allotments and small holdings for a great number of years, especially in the county of Worcester, where there are a large number of these holdings and where they have proved very useful to the inhabitants. The local authority desired, as early as 1909, to acquire a small plot of land of about 12 acres in extent from a. comparatively large farm for the purpose of allotments. They tried for six months to negotiate for that piece of land. They commenced in April, 1909, and at the end of that year they bad not been able to acquire the plot. The local authority rapidly exhausted all the means of obtaining the land without compulsory powers, and finally they passed a resolution to endeavour to acquire it compulsorily, feeling that the needs of their constituents required that this land should be procured. But in this they were thwarted. They issued their compulsory order on September 14, 1910, but on September 12—two days before—the farm was divided up between the man who originally cultivated it and his three sons, all of whom were made tenants of portions under fifty acres. It looked suspicious; there was no doubt about the method in which it was done. There was a public inquiry held into the question, and the solicitor for the owner came before the Inspector of the Board of Agriculture and said distinctly that this division was clone in order to frustrate the acquisition of that particular piece of land for the purposes of allotments. That is what my noble friend below me described as driving a coach-and-four through the Act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: How will matters be altered by this Bill?
LORD ILKESTON: This was an endeavour to take from a large farm by compulsory methods, after all other methods had failed, twelve acres for the purposes of allotments. This was frustrated by the division of the farm into holdings of under fifty acres.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And so it will remain under this Bill.
LORD ILKESTON: This Bill, as my noble friend proposes to amend it and as it will be amended in another place if your Lordships allow it to go to there, will be made efficacious for the purpose of preventing such frustration of the Act. The moment it is publicly announced that an Act can be frustrated in this way the provision in the Act is rendered inoperative. I would beg your Lordships not to reject the Bill on Third Reading, because I feel confident that if it passes through this House Amendments will be introduced in another place which will make it efficacious. We do not want an Act capable of doing untold good among the poorer members of the agricultural population frustrated, as this Act has been, by these devices. In the particular district of which I am speaking—Bromsgrove—there has been great annoyance in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining this land. I hope that after the statement I have made showing the necessity for some such legislation as this the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): There has been more evasion of this provision than the noble Earl seems to imagine, and it is to me an amazing thing that a great Scottish noble should take the trouble to come down to your Lordships' House to throw out a Bill and thereby perpetuate what has been most clearly shown to be an undoubted hardship. It has been persistently represented inside and outside of this House that my intention was to change the class of existing small holdings——
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have never said a single word of that sort.
EARL CARRINGTON: No; but the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, used these words—that my intention was "to change the class of existing small holdings." Those are his exact words as reported in Hansard. It is said that I wish to reduce the size of the holdings and deprive small holders of the security they at present enjoy. Nothing was further from my intention, and I thought I fully explained the object I had in view. I will read to your Lordships what I stated in moving
770
the Second Reading of the Bill on May 11 last. I said—
"I have seen it stated in the Press that there is some sinister design at the back of this Bill and that it ought to be resisted. It is stated that there is a sinister design to cut up farms and to injure existing small holders. I can assure the House that nothing is further from the thoughts of the Government than to do any such thing."
I am quoting from the Official Report. I went on to say—
"The sole and only reason for proposing the repeal of this subsection is that it has had in its working results which were neither contemplated nor desired."
The noble Earl cannot stand up and say that these results were contemplated, and still less can lie say that they were desired.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But I will stand up and say that the noble Earl could not give us any cases of evasion when asked to do so after due notice.
EARL CARRINGTON: My explanation was misunderstood, or else it has been entirely forgotten. To make my position absolutely clear I had the subsection redrafted so as to give the genuine small holder that full security on which the noble Earl and the House rightly insist. There are two grave difficulties with which it is my duty to grapple. First there is the question of by-takes. If the noble Earl carries this Amendment he will perpetuate by-takes. As the law stands at present a tenant farmer farming 1,000 acres may hire a field of under fifty acres, and no matter how important that field may be to the villagers or to the people in that neighbourhood, it is a small holding in the eyes of the law because the additional land is taken from another landlord. Does the noble Earl wish to perpetuate such a thing as that? In Norfolk alone there have been at least four cases of that kind. Shall I be told that it is unreasonable to ask your Lordships' gracious permission to be allowed to remove this anomaly? The second difficulty has been well described by my noble friend Lord Ilkeston, than whom no man in England knows more about small holdings, for it was in 1883 I think that my noble friend and Mr. Jesse Collings started the small holding movement in Birmingham. The second difficulty is that the Act as it stands offers a ready and simple means of evasion. Unless this Bill is allowed to pass, all that a man has to do to retain

771
a large farm in its entirety is to let it out in parcels of fifty acres nominally to various members of his family, and, as my noble friend Lord Ilkeston said, the county council cannot touch it.
Your Lordships have challenged me to produce cases in addition to the case in Buckinghamshire. Four cases of farms being subdivided in order to evade the Small Holdings Act have come to my knowledge. Two cases have come to my knowledge within the last three days, and there is the case which has been quoted to-night by my noble friend behind me, which makes three, and the day before yesterday the clerk to the Northumberland County Council sent in another case, which makes four in a week. That these cases exist there is no earthly doubt, and, as Lord Ilkeston so well said, you have only got to advertise them, as the noble Earl has been doing, to lead to cases all over the country of a coach-and-four being driven through this provision of the Act. I feel very strongly about this. Your Lordships would never allow one of your agents in any circumstances to do such a thing as is being done to evade this Act, and appeal with confidence to the noble Earl to let the Bill go through, and not to perpetuate what is undoubtedly a hardship.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Earl is rather under a misapprehension as to the reasons which induced my noble friend Lord Camperdown to interest himself in this measure. The noble Earl seems to think that Lord Camperdown's action is a purely vexatious one, but that is not at all the case. Let the House remember that this Bill when it was laid upon the Table was directed only to one object—namely, the repeal of the third subsection of Section 41 of the Small Holdings Act, 1908. That subsection is the charter of the small holder. It is the subsection which says to a man who occupies a small holding that because he is a small holder he shall not be liable to find himself dispossessed of a part of his holding in order that it may be given to someone else. When we saw the noble Earl laying sacrilegious hands on that provision we were bound to enter a protest, and that was the explanation of my noble friend's intervention. The noble Earl opposite told us that nothing was further from the thoughts of His Majesty's Government
772
than to produce any result of this kind. I have no doubt the noble Earl is perfectly sincere, but we were dealing, not with the intention of His Majesty's Government, but with the effect of their Bill, and their Bill beyond all question would have had the effect I have ventured to ascribe to it.
The noble Earl will remember that when he was challenged as to the necessity of this legislation and asked to produce the cases of evasion on which he said he grounded his proposal he was able only to produce a single case, and that seemed to some of us rather a slender foundation for so grave an alteration of the law. The noble Earl has brought up his reserve forces this afternoon. The noble Lord who sits behind him has produced a second case. We had heard nothing of it before, and some of us thought it did not appear to be in all respects appropriate to the argument; but I will assume there is a second case. Then the noble Earl stated that he was himself able to contribute another two cases, so that we have a total of four cases. But what the noble Earl forgets for the moment is that this Bill has been altered on every occasion on which it has come before us. I think the Amendments which the noble Earl is going to move to-day after the Third Reading constitute the fourth transformation which this Bill has undergone, and he really must not be surprised if the House is a little bit puzzled and I may say a little bit suspicious also.
I wish the noble Earl would tell us in the simplest possible language what really is the alteration which this Bill makes in the existing law, as I cannot help thinking that the Bill as we now have it preserves subsection (3) of Section 41, at any rate in its essentials, with a comparatively slight addition. If that is the case, if small holders are not going to be deprived by this Bill of any of the protection which they now enjoy under the existing law, and if the only alteration is that if one of them holds a second holding the two holdings together are not to exceed a total area of sixty acres—if that is really all that the Bill does, I cannot see that it does any great harm, and I for one would venture to counsel my noble friend beside me not to press his opposition. At any rate if the noble Earl, with his Department at his back, is really able to tell us that there is a

773
hard case which ought to be dealt with and that that hard case can be dealt with without practically impairing the security which these small holders now enjoy under the existing law, I for one would be prepared to accept his assurance and not oppose the further progress of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Marquess has spoken in a reasonable and fair way about the clause, and I do not think some of the observations of the noble Earl opposite were otherwise than justified. This is a difficult and complicated matter, but I think the justification of the clause is found when you read subsection (3) of Section 41 of the original Act. One has only to look at it to see that that was one of those provisions put in by the draftsman amid a group of clauses and not sufficiently thought out. The subsection is too abstract in its form. It simply took the fifty acre limit and said that nobody who had under fifty acres was to be displaced. That was not enough, and there have been cases of evasion. The Bill preserves the whole of the bona fide rights of the fifty acre holder. It also embraces the holder of sixty acres, and protects him if the sixty acres are in two small holdings and do not exceed a certain figure in value. The Bill simply seeks to carry out what was the original policy of the Act of 1908, and I submit that it is within the spirit of what was intended by subsection (3) and will make the matter clear.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We have now found out that the person who is really at fault over subsection (3) is the draftsman. The noble and learned Viscount has said that the draftsman somehow or other failed to express correctly the intention of the noble Earl. All one can say is that the noble Earl never said that for himself. It is a defence which certainly is original. As to how far it is correct that might be a matter for further discussion. However, I have not heard yet a really clear statement of what the difference will be if this subsection disappears and the noble Earl's subsection is substituted. The noble Earl says that if the House accepts the Amendments which he will move after the Third Reading it will not be such a bad Bill; but as the Bill stands now I cannot see that it makes any difference worth speaking of in the
774
existing law, nor do I see that even if the noble Earl's Amendments are accepted the existing law will be altered in any material way. It is highly inexpedient to alter existing laws unless you are making some really material, intelligible, and good alteration. I shall, however, accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess and not press my Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. I think it is a matter of very little consequence. All that will happen will be that your Lordships will have distinguished yourselves by putting on the Statute Book by way of a great reform a Bill which, so far as I can make out, does not alter the existing law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before the question is put I should like to say a few words on this Bill. I took great interest in the Small Holdings Act and have been vainly endeavouring to ascertain how this Bill, as proposed to be amended by the noble Earl, will meet the difficulty with which he seeks to deal. I am in entire sympathy with him with regard to that difficulty. I do not want to see county councils prevented, by fictitious sub-divisions of large farms, from taking land for small holdings and allotments, but what I fail to see is how that will be prevented by the Bill even as the noble Earl proposes to amend it after the Third Reading. I think that Lord Ilkeston, who has had considerable experience in this matter, did see sonic defect in the words as they stand in the Bill. If your Lordships pass this Bill, as I suppose you will, I hope it will be under protest, so that it may be further considered in another place and put into a shape in which it will work.
EARL CARRINGTON: There are at the present moment two classes of hard cases which will be dealt with by this Bill without any danger whatever to the security of the tenant or the owner of fifty acres and under or of sixty acres if held in two holdings. I should have been perfectly content to leave it at fifty acres, but Lord Clinton put the case of a man who may have added to his holding land which brought it to over fifty acres. We therefore thought that there should be a little latitude, and because I accepted the Amendment I have been reproached by noble Lords on the other side. There is no

775
possible danger in this Bill to the security of the tenant, and if your Lordships allow me to have this Bill the two classes of hard cases, which I am sure nobody on the other side of the House would permit. on his own estates, will be satisfactorily dealt with.
On Question, the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to amend Clause 1, so that it would read—
1. Subsection (3) of section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (which prohibits the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of small holdings or allotments of holdings of fifty acres or less in extent), is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof the following subsection shall be substituted:—
"(3) The powers conferred on a council by an order for the compulsory acquisition of land under this Act shall not authorise the council to acquire or extinguish the interest of any person in land comprised in the order and cultivated by him or his tenant, if the total area which is cultivated by the occupier of the land comprised in the order, including such land, does not exceed fifty acres in one holding, or sixty acres in two or more holdings; nor where the total area exceeds those areas if the annual value for purposes of income tax does not exceed fifty pounds or sixty pounds respectively."
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ("order") insert ("and cultivated by him or his tenant") and after ("area") insert ("which is cultivated by the occupier of the land comprised in the Order.")
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("they exceed") and insert ("the total area exceeds").—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SALES OF ARMOURED SHIPS.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY rose to call attention to recent sales of armoured ships, and to the insufficient number of cruisers in reserve on distant stations.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in submitting suggestions on this subject I have chiefly in view that policy of co-operation for defence to which, it is understood, especial attention was given at the recent Colonial Conference. I shall endeavour to show how the Mother Country may, without adding to expenditure on the
776
Imperial Navy, materially assist Australia and Canada in creating local naval forces. The cost of constructing ships must be a heavy charge on young nations. Under the scheme prepared by Admiral Henderson for Australian naval defence, the total expenditure on construction would be no less than £23,000,000, and the annual charges would aggregate £5,000,000. It is certain that expenditure on so vast a scale must be spread over a long space of time. In the interval which must elapse before the ships proposed for the local navies are completed, we may place war vessels which we can spare in reserve in the ports of the outer Empire, and more especially in Australasia. We have this year struck off the list and have sold or are about to sell no less than ten battleships, completed so recently as 1894. The list includes the eight ships of the "Empress of India" class, displacement 14,000 tons. These ships are powerfully armed, of good speed, with ample coal supply, and in sound condition. Two ships—the "Revenge" and "Centurion"—are of smaller dimensions and less heavily armed. They have a speed of over 18 knots. In addition, we have lately sold the "Nile" and "Trafalgar," little inferior in fighting efficiency to the "Empress" class; date of completion, 1890. It is not necessary to go further back. The twelve ships named are the last on a long list.
The naval advisers of the Admiralty are, perhaps unconsciously, too ready to strike off ships. They know that their retention as efficient for service is in some quarters an argument for cutting down Votes. Naval Lords look to the latest ships of the most formidable foreign Power which we must be prepared to meet. They condemn as obsolete ships sensibly inferior in any of the elements of efficiency. We have to look at the naval position as it must be considered in Australasia. Ships of the latest type are few in distant seas. Our ally, Japan, has two Dreadnoughts built, and three building. The other battleships of the Japanese Navy, eleven in number, are similar in type to those which we have struck off.
There is a further consideration. At the present time the Commonwealth is slenderly provided with the means of defence. The existing naval forces consist of three modern destroyers, a few torpedo-boats,

777
one small coast-defence monitor, launched in 1868, one small third-class cruiser, and some gunboats. The local Navy of Australia is a harbour defence flotilla. Battleships no longer fit to lie in line may be a valuable reinforcement. Melbourne, Brisbane, Wellington, and Hobart are at the head of deep inlets. The channels of approach, through shoals and banks, could be enfiladed by the fire from the heavy guns of ships grounded in suitable positions. There are other services for which armoured ships not of the latest type are well adapted. They would be admirable for the sea training of the Australian Naval Reserves.
Let us turn from battleships to cruisers. We have a wide responsibility for the protection of trade. Of all the Dominions and Dependencies, Australia is the furthest from the base of the Empire. Its Colonial and over-sea trade is valued at £160,000,000 annually. To give the protection required would be a severe tax on the Imperial main sea forces. As Captain Creswell, the able director of the Australian Navy, has truly said, the distance is the greatest possible, and the value of the prize offered to an enemy is probably unequalled. How can we best co-operate with the Commonwealth for the protection of trade? The ships from which damage might be apprehended are not the "greyhounds" of the Atlantic, few in number, and, in any time of emergency, certain to be closely watched by our fast and powerful cruisers, but the far more numerous vessels, not of exceptional speed, scattered over the world, which cannot all be watched, pursued, and captured by the regular cruisers of the Navy. We have many cruisers on our list which could be spared, and of a type better adapted for service in Australasian waters than the cruisers of the "Town" class, which the Commonwealth have been advised to build. Take the "Spartiate" class, seven in number, displacement 11,000 tons, twice the tonnage of the "Town" class vessels, with good beam, ample free board, and a speed of 21 knots. Though completed so recently as 1902, yet as the oldest on the lists of protected vessels they may, if the policy of recent years is pursued, not long hence be struck off the list of effectives. Let us not repeat the errors of the past. As we continue from year to year to build cruisers specially designed for naval operations in European waters, let us place in reserve
778
in the ports of the outer Empire vessels which may for many years be valuable for the protection of the coasting trade of Australia if threatened by a stray raider.
In dealing with the naval defences of the Empire it is necessary to distribute as well as to concentrate our forces. I was serving at the Admiralty at the time of the Penjdeh incident. War with Russia was imminent. There was grave anxiety as to the safety of our shipping in distant seas. P. and 0. steamers were taken up and fitted at great cost as improvised cruisers. In Hong Kong and Sydney heavy expenses would have been saved and anxiety relieved if we had had vessels in reserve in those waters ready for service in any emergency. In conclusion, the policy it has been sought to recommend would, as has been said, relieve the self-governing Dominions in no inconsiderable degree of the heavy expense of building new ships. It should lessen charges on Imperial funds for manning. The complements of cruisers of the "Spartiate" class are nearly 700 men, or a total for the seven ships of the type of 5,000 men. if these ships were stationed in the outer Empire they would be effective for the protection of commerce from raiders, and the local Governments might help us to man them.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Your Lordships invariably listen with attention to any remarks which the noble Earl makes on matters connected with the merchant service and the Royal Navy, of which he has such large knowledge, and I would venture on behalf of the House to offer him our congratulations upon the promotion in the Peerage which the King has been graciously pleased to confer upon him. Now with regard to the speech of the noble Earl, it is not the case, as he seems to think, that the Admiralty have any objection to selling ships to the Dominions. Two ships—the "Niobe" and the "Rainbow"—have already been sold to Canada, and I understand that the Dominion of Australia are proposing to purchase a destroyer for training purposes. But the Dominions have to consider whether this is the best way of spending the funds which they have at their disposal. The Government of Australia are about to spend a very large sum on their Navy, and it is a question whether the purchase of old cruisers and battleships is the best

779
way of spending that money. I think it cannot be denied that there is a very general tendency to under-rate the cost of manning these ships and very much to over-value their fighting capacity. So far there has been no great inclination on the part of the Dominions to buy this class of vessel, and as far as the Admiralty are concerned the advice they give to the Dominions is to build up-to-date ships and to man them with thoroughly efficient crews. Take a ship of the "Royal Sovereign" class. A ship of that order is very expensive to keep up. She deteriorates very quickly and her deterioration, especially as regards machinery, becomes more apparent every year. In addition to this, a battleship of that class has a crew the complement of which is double that of cruisers of other classes and is in no way so effective for defending commerce. I need hardly say that the Admiralty very carefully consider the
780
fighting qualities and general effectiveness of any ship before it is condemned, and they never condemn a ship until they are perfectly certain that the cost of maintenance is not proportionate with the fighting efficiency of the ship. The Dominion Governments have come for advice to the Admiralty, and the advice given by the Admiralty is certainly not to buy old and obsolete battleships and cruisers which can be of no practical use and are very expensive to keep up.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (IRELAND) (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 157.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.