Lords Sitting of 1 March 1916

SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CANADA COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
HORNSEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIA- TION BILL. [H.L.]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES- HEAD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
YEADON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Wednesday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Merchant Shipping (Load Line and Deck Cargoes of Wood Goods)—Report of Committee appointed by Board of Trade to advise on the load lines of merchant ships and the carriage of deck cargoes of wood goods—Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Pawnbrokers (Ireland)—Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for 1915:
Bankruptcy (Ireland)—Returns of the Official Assignee of the King's Bench Division in Bankruptey in Ireland and of the Local Courts at Belfast and Cork, for the year 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 4.)
NAVAL PRIZE (PROCEDURE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 5.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): Your Lordships will observe a Motion on the Paper for the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX for to-day. It is moved in respect of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill and the Naval Prize (Procedure) Bill, both of which have to receive the Royal Assent to-morrow. It seemed to us that it might be more convenient, should it be desired to raise any discussion upon the Naval Prize Bill, to take the Second Reading to-day and the remaining stages to-morrow which would give an opportunity to noble Lords, either to-day or to-morrow, to express their views.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before your Lordships agree to this Motion I should like to put a question to the noble Marquess. I quite understand why the Consolidated Fund Bill must receive the Royal Assent to-morrow. But what is the urgency in the case of the Naval Prize (Procedure) Bill?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, legally and technically it is not absolutely necessary that the Naval Prize (Procedure) Bill should receive the Royal Assent tomorrow, but it would be of great convenience if that were possible. The Bill has passed through all its stages in the other House, and I hope your Lordships will facilitate its passage so that it may be placed on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, we do not desire in any way to impede the passage of these Bills, but we do feel, as we felt all through last session, that every Bill is now given the character of being extremely urgent. If we could get an assurance from His Majesty's Government that we shall not be constantly exposed to a repetition of this practice, it would give us great satisfaction. I have come across instances of measures of great importance passed during last session in which most serious mistakes were made solely because your Lordships had not proper time in which to consider those Bills. Changes were hastily accepted in the course of a few hours, and now, not only on the part of members of this House but on the part also of His Majesty's Government I under-

249
stand, there is considerable misgiving as to the changes which were made or were not made at the last moment owing to the great haste in which the Bills were passed through this House. I hope that what occurred last session is not going to be a precedent for this session.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that this is a novel proceeding at this period of the session. At the end of a session, when time is very important, the Standing Order has been frequently suspended, but not at the beginning of a session. This is an important matter of principle: and although I would not go to the length of attempting to resist what His Majesty's Government have stated is an important matter to be done at once, I must enter my protest.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can quite understand the feelings which have prompted noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite to say what they have. As the noble Duke behind me clearly stated, the Naval Prize (Procedure) Bill is not one winch the Government would think it right to press your Lordships to take through all its stages to-day and tomorrow on the ground of the national necessity of its receiving the Royal Assent to-morrow. Therefore if the House were to continue to press us in the sense in which noble Lords opposite have, we should be obliged to ask your Lordships to take the responsibility of putting the Admiralty to the inconvenience which my noble friend has mentioned. The Consolidated Fund Bill, as your Lordships are aware, is another matter. It contains technical points which have to be dealt with at a particular time. I may, however, remind your Lordships that the matter of Naval prize is one with which the Admiralty are anxious to proceed with as much speed as possible, because it has been a subject for some time of unfavourable comment from various quarters that the regularising of Prize Court proceedings in every respect has not been achieved by this time. Therefore I am inclined to think that my noble friend will feel that when the Admiralty are in a position to act immediately in one matter it is somewhat hard upon them that their efforts should meet with so cold a reception.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to
250
say—and I believe on this occasion I speak for noble Lords who sit behind me—that we do not desire to be inconvenient in any way, and we shall not ask the Government to postpone the Bill on the present occasion. But we do honestly think that when a Bill is not urgent your Lordships' procedure ought to be carried out in its entirety, and the various stages of a Bill taken on the several days appointed for them.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Bill read 2a (The Lord Hylton): Committee negatived: Bill read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: I am sorry to rise to a point of order. But the Motion standing in the name of the noble Marquess on the Paper reads that the Standing Order should be suspended for this day's sitting "in order to take the First and Second Readings" of the two Bills.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is quite immaterial.
Motion (by leave) withdrawn, and Bill to be passed To-morrow.

NAVAL PRIZE (PROCEDURE) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to deal with a small matter which has arisen with regard to actions which have been and might be brought against persons in the Naval service or in the employment of the Admiralty. Under the existing law these actions have to be brought within the United Kingdom, and, as your Lordships can readily imagine, this is not always a convenient practice. This Bill proposes to deal with that matter. Under the Act passed last year, prize proceedings can be transferred when they are taken against a ship or the cargo. The object of this Bill is to make such procedure apply in all cases. The course which it is proposed to adopt in this Bill is to repeal so much of Section 51 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, as provides that actions and proceedings against any

251
person in His Majesty's Naval service or in the employment of the Admiralty shall not be brought or instituted elsewhere than in the United Kingdom. That is accomplished by the first clause of this Bill. The second clause provides that Section 1 of the Prize Courts Act, 1915—which relates to the transfer of proceedings against a ship or cargo from one Prize Court to another—shall be extended so as to apply to all proceedings pending at any time in a Prize Court. It is felt that it would be a great deal more convenient, if any such actions and proceedings are instituted, that the question should be raised before and should be dealt with by the same Court as deals with the ship or cargo.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, on the Motion for the adjournment. I would ask the noble Marquess what the intention of the Government is with regard to the future sittings of the House. On the first day of the session we had some discussion on the matter, and certainly several members on this side who are constant attendants are of opinion that it would not be at all an undesirable thing to restrict the meetings of the House to three days in alternate weeks. I do not think it very much adds to our proceedings to meet frequently with a small attendance and not very much to discuss. But if the meetings of the House were fixed for alternate weeks the debates would be more concentrated, and there would be larger attendances and better opportunities for discussion. Unless His Majesty's Government make up their minds as to what should be the sitting days of the House, some days in each week will be filled up. That is now the case for next week. Obviously the Questions that are on the Paper for next week could have been discussed with ample opportunity to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite well remember the observations that were made at the opening of the session on this proposal at the instance of my noble friend opposite. We feel that we are really in the hands of the House in this matter. If it is desired that we should only hold sittings on
252
a few days, it ought not, one would think, to be difficult for noble Lords who have Motions that they desire to place on the Paper, by a simple system of combination, to carry out the desire of the noble Viscount; and instead of there being possibly one Question to-day, one tomorrow, and one the next day, noble Lords might agree to put them on the Paper for the same day. But the noble Viscount will see, I am sure, that there is a difficulty in adjourning over a whole week, because he is aware that by the procedure of the House, supposing we were to decide, which I understand is what my noble friend wants, that next week should not be a sitting week and that we should adjourn from to-morrow till the Tuesday of the week following, no power would exist and no device would enable us to hold a sitting in between those dates, however urgent it might be to do so. It is not always quite easy to foresee when urgent financial matters, for instance, may come up from another place and have to be passed rapidly into law. We are unwilling, therefore, to make it the practice to adjourn over a whole week. I think it is not impossible, however, that the opinion which the noble Viscount has expressed, and the opinion which I am now expressing on behalf of the Government, may lead noble Lords to arrange their Notices in a manner which, in effect, would bring about what the noble Viscount desires. It would, of course, be possible for us to sit only two day as week instead of three—that is to say, we could make it a general rule to adjourn on Wednesday evening until the Tuesday following; and I should not be altogether indisposed to take that course if I was quite certain that it had the approval of the House. I remember that when we were discussing the matter before and I hinted some doubt as to whether the noble Viscount's plan would lead to much concentration or to shortening of business and avoidance of waste of time, my observation received not a little assent from noble Lords sitting in different parts of the House. I do not feel, therefore, quite confident that my noble friend, in his desire to meet on alternate weeks, would be supported by the majority of your Lordships. In those circumstances I am disposed to leave the matter as it is for the moment and see whether noble Lords, on the noble Viscount's appeal and mine, will not endeavour to concentrate their Notices a good deal more than they have done in the past.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Marquess has said. I agree that it would be better to concentrate our efforts, but there is considerable difficulty in an absolute adjournment over a whole week. I might take an example from what has happened to-day. Had my noble friend been willing to let the Naval Prize (Procedure) Bill take its several stages, he would have read it a first time to-day and a second time to-morrow. But if next week had been one of the weeks when the House did not sit, the Bill could not have been proceeded with until the week after next, which would be a Considerable delay supposing the matter to be one of urgency. That is an illustration of what would happen if your Lordships put it out of your power to legislate for a whole week. There may be a way out of the difficulty, but I certainly cannot support the noble Viscount's suggestion. I am in favour of concentrating our sittings to particular days, but I should be sorry to assent straight off to an absolute adjournment over a whole week unless the Government were quite certain that the business of the country would not suffer.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is a great deal of force in what my noble friend has just said. There are
254
no doubt a number of Peers who would be very glad to feel sure that for a certain number of days in the week there would be no meeting of the House, so that they might be liberated to attend to the numerous other valuable services to which they are devoted away from London. On the other hand, I think there are a great many of Your Lordships who would be sorry to part unreservedly for a considerable period of time with the privilege of meeting. In my opinion the only way in which this question can be satisfactorily arranged is by some kind of collusion between the independent Peers and His Majesty's Government. I think if Peers who take an interest in the business of the House could manage to concentrate that business and avoid dispersing their Notices over a very wide period of time, we might safely adjourn, let us say, from the Wednesday or Thursday of one week until the Wednesday or Thursday of the following week. That seems to me a possible arrangement, but I do not like to give any encouragement to the idea of abdicating altogether for any very long period our right to meet and transact business at a time like the present.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.