Lords Sitting of 22 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.

COMMONS REGULATION (COPPY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD):This is a purely local Bill, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ernle I beg to move it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
TREATY OF PEACE BILL.
ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the House is aware that the two Treaty Bills passed through all their stages in the House of Commons yesterday—the Treaty of Peace Bill and the Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France) Bill. The noble Earl the Leader of the House suggests that your Lordships should take these two Bills through all their stages on Thursday. He will present both Bills himself; and accordingly proposes to move, in respect of the two Bills, that Standing Order No. XXXIX should be suspended.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, speaking for myself I should have thought what is proposed is reasonable, provided
890
we can have a good discussion on the Second Reading. It need not take very long, but the matter is one of great importance. If that were done I should think there would be no desire to spend a great deal of time over the Committee Stage, the Report Stage, or Third Reading. The important thing is the principle, and that can be discussed on the Second Reading. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to meet the House on that point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I imagine that none of your Lordships would desire to put any obstacles in the way of urgent legislation of this description. On the contrary, we should all desire to co-operate in any way we could. But I hope when the noble Earl speaks again, or when he moves the suspension of the Standing Order, he will tell us why it is so necessary to rush these Bills through. I can see that it is an easy question to answer, because the House of Commons has been much impressed with them. No doubt there is a good reason.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Does the noble Earl contemplate that the House would be pressed, in case the discussion should prove to be longer than he anticipates, against an adjournment. It is possible that the discussion may take a wide range and raise very important questions.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, that is quite possible, and I have no doubt that Lord Curzon is most anxious to meet that view. Indeed, can say offhand that Lord Curzon expects that some of your Lordships will make observations upon wide questions of principle involved in these two measures. He will, none the less, move to take powers to pass the two Bills through all their stages at the one sitting, and it is quite clear that if your Lordships find the time insufficient the Bills must be postponed. I hope, however, that that will not be the case. The Bills will, of course, take precedence.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: At what hour is it proposed that the House should meet?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At the usual hour of 4.15, on Thursday.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Could we not meet a little earlier?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I answer that question? The House has already twice in the last week met at 3 o'clock, with the result that it has not been possible for your Lordships on the judicial side to sit at all after lunch, and at this period of the session it will be most unfortunate if that should occur again.
LORD BUCKMASTER: In arranging these times it appears to be overlooked that there is another tribunal of supreme importance which sits from day to day—namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—which is struggling with a heavy list of work, and the curtailment of its time is a very serious thing. It is too often believed that it is merely this House whose convenience is to be considered, but I would beg the noble Earl—and I am sure I am urging my request upon an attentive ear—to bear in mind that some of the noble Lords who take part in our discussions are compelled by their duties to attend the Privy Council daily and for long hours.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Speaking for myself, I confess that on these matters I am entirely in favour of the lawyers, not because I am a lawyer myself but because I have work to do in my own Department, and it is extremely difficult for those of us who have standing engagements, as I have every Thursday, to make our arrangements when we do not know at what hour the House is going to meet. I sympathise with what was said by the noble Lord about the Privy Council, and likewise with what was said by the Lord Chancellor about the judicial side of our business; and my own desire is that we should meet at the normal hour regularly and sit regularly after dinner. Lord Curzon, in making his Motion, will explain why he thinks it desirable that two Bills of this character should be passed without delay.

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, in asking you to give a Second Reading to a Bill which a very short time ago was regarded by every one as of a revolutionary character, I am well aware that I am recommending to your Lordships that the degree of
892
encouragement which Second Reading involves should be given to many proposals which will demand careful and even critical consideration by your Lordships. It is, perhaps, sufficient to say generally that the Bill is intended to fulfil the pledges given by various members of the Government during the General Election, to remove such obstacles as prevent the appointment of women to public offices and the fulfilment by them of public functions. A Bill with the same professed objects was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Adamson, and passed through all its stages in that House, and it is down for Second Reading in this House on Thursday, in the name of Lord Kimberley. I have been considering how I can best assist your Lordships in explaining the scope of the present Bill, and it appears to me that a useful method would be to compare this Bill with Lord Kimberley's Bill, clause by clause, so that the House will be well aware of the character of the present proposals and at the same time be in a position to establish a mental comparison between its proposals and those in Lord Kimberley's Bill.
Lord Kimberley's Bill, by Clause 1, removes any disqualification of a woman by sex or marriage from holding any civil or judicial office or place of profit or trust under the King or any body deriving powers from any Act of Parliament, and so forth. I am bound to say, giving the best consideration I can to the language of that clause, that I am unable to give you any assistance on this point, as to what the effect of the clause would be if passed into law. It is drafted in a manner which I do not understand, and in a manner which in my judgment is very unlikely to carry out what are the obvious intentions of the sponsors of the Bill. It does not purport to open the door to such professions as those of barrister or solicitor. It neither enables nor compels women to serve as jurors, and probably if women by legislation outside that Bill became barristers or solicitors the effect of the clause would be to enable them to hold judicial office. But it may be doubted, and I doubt, whether if the legal professions were thrown open by Statute to them it would be necessary expressly to throw open those offices the qualification for which is membership of one or other of the professions.
The Civil Service, as the House is well aware, is not closed to women, as is made

893
clear by the fact that many hundreds of women hold posts in the Civil Service to-day. Nor is the teaching profession closed to them. I form the conjecture that the promoters of the Bill have in mind some confused idea that, because women are not in fact admitted to certain Civil Service examinations, statutory authority is necessary to enable them to be appointed to the offices entrance to which is obtained, under the existing practice, by those examinations. The clause purports to remove disqualification by marriage. No such disqualification, so far as I am aware, is known to the law, but in the Government service and in the service of the local authorities women, for reasons that are perhaps obvious, are usually required to leave the service on marriage. This, however, hardly amounts, as your Lordships will see, to a disqualification which is readily removable by Statute.
The Government Bill, on the other side, opens to women all those professions entrance to which is barred or supposed to be barred by law. The professions of barrister and solicitor are, of course, both comprehended in that clause. Our Bill enables women to hold any office the qualification for which is membership of any such profession. It enables them to be created justices of the peace and to act as jurymen. That is, of course, a grave provision, and it will receive no doubt the very careful consideration of members of this House before your Lordships reach a conclusion upon it. But I confess it seems to me that if it be the sense of the House, as we know it, that women should be admitted to practise in the Courts for emoluments as solicitors and as barristers, it is reasonable that they should discharge the obligations which are imposed upon men in respect to jury service; and this Bill accordingly imposes the same obligations upon women as rest upon men, subject to the reservation that in any particular case a woman may be released from service on a jury which is to try a case that is unsuitable, in the opinion of the Judge, to be heard by women. I do not know that that reservation is entirely logical, but your Lordships will understand its object and will form a judgment upon it. The clause in our view further makes it clear that women can be appointed to posts in the Civil Service. Power is given in this Bill to regulate the mode in which they may be so admitted and the conditions under which they are to serve, but it allows the
894
exclusion of women from the Indian Civil Service. I do not debate that exclusion at this stage, but your Lordships will observe it and form an opinion upon it.
I come to Clause 2 of Lord Kimberley's Bill. This grants to women the franchise on the same terms as men, thereby removing the age limit imposed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918. This clause was consistently opposed by the Government during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons on grounds which were repeatedly made clear and which I may summarise. In the first place, the franchises for men and women were settled last year by the Representation of the People Act as the result of the Speaker's Conference, which was representative of all political parties. In preparing the Coalition manifesto which was issued during the General Election Ministers certainly had no intention whatever of reopening the franchise questions which have been so recently settled and after such full discussion. The sex inequalities which they had in mind include those which it is the object of this Bill to correct. In the next place, it is contrary to the constitutional practice to extend the franchise in the first session of a new Parliament. To give women the same Parliamentary franchise as men at this moment would involve the addition of some 5,000,000 new voters to the electorate, and a General Election certainly ought., if we adhere to constitutional precedent, to follow closely upon the passing of a measure which had produced so great a change in the existing constituencies. The Government may be right or they may be wrong, but they have a full programme of legislative and administrative measures of reconstruction, and in their view a General Election, unless untoward and unanticipated events arise, should not take place until the country has had some further time to settle down after the war. I have only to add, in summarising the grounds which led the Government to oppose this change at this moment, that the Government are proposing an Inquiry into the question of legislative devolution and the delegation of powers to subordinate Parliaments, and the question of the electorate must necessarily arise in connection with that Inquiry. For these reasons the clause finds no place in the present Bill.
I may, perhaps, remind the House that the Bill which I introduced recently to re-

895
move the disqualification which prevented women from becoming justices of the peace as originally drafted said that any woman could become a justice of the peace as soon as she had attained a legal majority, but your Lordships inserted, rather against the wish of the Government, an Amendment to the effect that no woman could become a justice of the peace until she reached the age of twenty-five years. The proposals of the Government restore the franchise to the same term of years as the Bill which the Government presented to your Lordships' House for dealing with the qualification for justices of the peace.
I come next to Clause 3 of Lord Kimberley's Bill. That clause provides that a woman is not to be disqualified from sitting in the House of Lords if a Peeress in her own right. I should like to make it plain what the view of the Government is both upon this proposal and upon the substituted proposal which finds a place in the present. Bill, and which I will presently explain. The Government recognised at once, as any sensible people must, that your Lordships are principally concerned in this grave, momentous, and far-reaching decision as to whether under any circumstances—whether by the proposals of Lord Kimberley's Bill or by the proposals of the Government Bill—Peeresses shall become eligible to sit in your Lordships' House. The particular clause which deals with this proposal is not put forward as a Government proposal, though the rest of the Bill is a Government Bill for which as a Government we accept responsibility. That part of the Bill which deals with the position of Peeresses and the question of their admission to your Lordships' House is one in which as a Government we shall take no part, and which every member of your Lordships' House will decide according his conviction. It follows that the Government Whips will not be put on in Committee dealing with the matter. But in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing its views, the course has been adopted of drafting a clause which in our judgment would most conveniently and reasonably give effect to this change if your Lordships, on consideration, were to sanction so remarkable a reform. Accordingly Clause 2 of the Bill has been put in which puts the proposal making it possible that women should sit in the House of Lords in its proper form. The creation of Peers having a seat in Parliament is, of course, a matter of Royal Prerogative, and
896
both on constitutional and other grounds it is improper, in my judgment, that the ladies who at present possess Peerages in their own right should be seated in the House automatically without the King on the advice of his responsible Ministers having considered the matter in each case. The intention of Clause 3 in Lord Kimberley's Bill appears to be that upon the passing of that Bill all those ladies who now hold Baronies by writ or Peerages in special remainder will automatically become members of your Lordships' House. I greatly doubt whether here, again, the draftsman of that Bill has been completely successful, and I am by no means sure that the clause is effectual for its purpose. The effect of the clause in the Government Bill, if it should become law, would be to enable the King, upon the advice of his Ministers, to insert in ally Patent granting a Peerage to a woman, by special remainder or otherwise, a grant of a seat.
Such, in brief, are the proposals which are contained in this Bill. To many they will prove, I anticipate, surprising, and to many extremely disagreeable. The only observation which one may, perhaps, venture to make is that the current and development of events have plainly so proceeded as to produce, whether we wish it or whether we do not wish it, a complete revolution in the position of women. The general acceptance of the conditions on which women acquired the vote, the obvious reflection that the concession of the vote to women carried with it all kinds of implications which at the moment. it was not possible to work out to a definite conclusion—these considerations will, I anticipate, reconcile many of your Lordships to most of the proposals in this Bill. The time has gone—in the judgment of the Government, gone for ever—in which it is possible to justify the exclusion of women from the various fields of activity which are opened out to them in this Bill. And, in moving the Second Reading, I am sure that the Government may expect a friendly, if critical, consideration of the proposals in the Bill which it is my duty to lay before the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has truly said that this Bill introduces no novel principle, but is rather the working

897
out of a principle which was adopted—far beyond the limits of this House, far beyond the limits of the other House—by the nation on the occasion when the whole matter was recently before it. The Bill does to some extent work out and apply that principle, and, in so far as it does it, it does it, I think, well. The first part of Clause 1 is in such proper form as will open the professions to women and give effect to the principle.
But I have risen, not for the purpose of discussing what is a trite subject, but for the purpose of pointing out that there are two very serious drawbacks to this Bill in detail—one a very substantial one, and the other less important, but still an important one. The first to which I refer is in subsection (a) of Clause 1—the proviso that by Order in Council Regulations may be made. It is called prescribing the mode of admission to the Civil Service, but it is really taking away the right which is given in the initial part of Clause 1, going back on the principle there expressed, and saying that so far as the Civil Service is concerned women are not to be eligible to it in the same way as they are eligible to other public positions. I can quite well understand that there may be certain posts in the Civil Service which it is desired to reserve for men. But surely that can be done in a very different fashion from the way it is done here. To enable Regulations to be made (I suppose by the Civil Service Commissioners or by some body which it is very difficult for Parliament to influence) which may exclude women altogether from admission to a very large part, of the Civil Service is, I think, very serious; it is a serious thing that that should be done by a matter of discretion and judgment in dealing with individual cases. The clause as it stands runs counter to the Reports of several Committees, and to the Minority Report of one Royal Commission on which my noble and learned friend Lord Muir Mackenzie served. The only support I know for it is the support of a Committee which recently reported, and the Report of which is in conflict with the great body of testimony on this subject.
The other point is what the Lord Chancellor has alluded to about Peerages. I take it that it will not be used for your Lordships to deny the application of the principle which now covers the other House to this House. In principle and in theory, at least, I do not see how you can justify
898
excluding women from sitting in this House; and there I sympathise more with the Bill of my noble friend Lord Kimberley than I do with what the Government have done. Because the Government have simply laid down that the King may include in the Letters-Patent for the creation of a Peer the power to a woman to take her seat in this House. The Lord Chancellor said that this was a matter of grave principle and that it should be reserved for the decision of His Majesty, advised by his Ministers. But surely now is the time to give a decision as to whether women may be made members of this House, and, if that decision is taken, it is taken on a principle which extends equally to women who are already Peeresses. I see no ground or justification upon which Clause 2 is restricted in the fashion it is, and I much prefer the principle as it is put in the other Bill.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, it may I think, be argued that those of us who opposed the extension of the suffrage to women a year ago are not necessarily obliged, logically and consistently with the views expressed then, to make any opposition either to the admission of women to the various professions contemplated in this Bill or to your Lordships' House. The two questions seem to me to stand upon a totally different footing. The ground on which many of us opposed the grant of the suffrage to women was that we believed the very large majority of the women in this country did not desire to vote, and we thought that the very large majority of women in this country had not given sufficient attention to public affairs, nor had they sufficient knowledge to be well qualified for that function.
But these arguments do not apply here at all. I think it may well be argued that if there are women (and we all know there are) who are well fitted by their acumen, by their knowledge, by their familiarity with the conditions of life in various classes of the community, to sit in your Lordships' House, there is no valid reason for excluding them, and they might give wise counsel and add to the intellectual strength of the House. So far, therefore, as I may venture to express a personal opinion, I should not oppose this Bill on that ground at all. But when I come to the provisions of this Bill itself, I see some difficulties which I should like respectfully to submit to your Lordships.

899
The Lord Chancellor, I notice, has not advanced any arguments of principle in favour of the Bill, beyond saying that he thought it followed upon what had been done already. In fact, the principal argument I understood him to advance in favour of the Bill was that, although it was revolutionary and disagreeable to a large number of persons, it was not nearly so bad as the Bill standing in the name of Lord Kimberley; therefore, for fear we should have to put up with that Bill, we had better accept this one. I presume we may take it that by the power which is given under Clause 2 of this Bill there would be nothing whatever to prevent a husband and wife holding separate Peerages both sitting in the House and exercising the functions of speaking and voting. I am confirmed in that view by recollecting the case of Lady Beaconsfield. Lady Beaconsfield, as your Lordships will all remember, was first of all created a Peeress; then after that her husband was created a Peer; under this Bill they would both have sat in the House if she had been included in the Patent.
I notice, however, that His Majesty's Government in drawing this clause have, after all, not been complete or consistent in their application of the doctrine of the absolute equality of men and women. They have gone so far as to make women eligible, by Clause 1, for the offices of Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice, but they have not gone so far as to make the grant of a Peerage carry with it as of right the function of sitting and voting in this House. I may be wrong—I shall be corrected, no doubt, by the noble and learned Lord, or any other legal luminary, if I am—but my impression is that it has not been held to be within the competence of the Crown to create a Peer without the right of sitting and voting in your Lordships' House. I think that just as it was held some sixty years ago that the Crown could not create life Peers, so it has been held that no Peerage call be created which does not also carry the right of sitting in this House. If that be so, it is clear that this is not done by this Bill; because I understand Clause 2 to mean that it is in the power of the Crown—in fact, the noble and learned Lord said so—to create a woman a Peeress with or without the right of sitting and voting in this House. There you have a very clear case of inequality and I should like to know what justification is advanced either for this departure from consistency
900
or for creating the new doctrine that a person can be created a Peer without the right of sitting and voting in the house of Lords. That, way we should have two sets of Peeresses in future—the Peeresses with a seat in this House and the Peeresses without it; and I gather that it would require a special creation to enable those who are already Peeresses in their own right to have a. seat in this House.
I have, however, a more serious objection which I desire to place before the House. His Majesty's Government have promised that in the next session they will bring in a Bill to reconstruct this House, or, as they express it, "to create a new Second Chamber." That promise will have to be fulfilled—the Government are so very scrupulous regarding their Election pledge;—within the next twelve months. Now, why is it necessary at this moment to deal with the constitution of your Lordships' House when a far more complete and sweeping measure is promised to be brought in so soon? Would it not have been very much better to wait until the question of the future constitution of this House comes to be dealt with and then to have dealt with this question of women? I should see no objection whatever to making women eligible to sit in this House if it is placed upon a new basis, but I can see no object for beginning to nibble at the question when we have a large measure so near in prospect. Also, when the hereditary principle, as we are told, is one of the obstacles in the way of our reconstruction which it is desired to diminish, why increase the number of hereditary seats in the House? This proposal is not a democratic proposal; it is not a proposal to increase in any way the power of the people in legislation. On the contrary, it is a proposal to increase the power of the Executive.
Clause 2 proposes to enable the Prime Minister of the day to create a large number of new hereditary Peerages, and to create them by bestowing them upon a class which has hitherto been excluded from participation in legislation. We shall have not only the legislator but the legislatrix, and that apparently without any limit. That is a very sensible addition to the power which the Crown has hitherto enjoyed, and I cannot understand that it can be represented as being in any way a proposition of a liberal or democratic character. If His Majesty's Government at any time wished to swamp this House

901
this will increase their facilities for so doing; they will have a much larger area over which to go to look for persons whom they want to put under pledge to give a vote to support and carry a measure which they desire to carry without waiting for the delays interposed by the Parliament Act. I submit to your Lordships that this is not only (as the noble and learned Lord said) a remarkable reform, but it is a reform backwards. It is reform not in the direction of increasing the rights of the people but of increasing the rights of the Crown.
Your Lordships will remember that at the last General Election no woman was elected in any constituency in Great Britain. One was elected in Ireland; and it was a very remarkable case; it was the case of a lady who played a leading part in the Sinn Fein Rebellion and who, immediately after that Rebellion, was convicted and imprisoned. Therefore there cannot be any very great zeal so far on the part of people in this country for the exercise of this power; and I think it might have been just as well to wait and see what the electors did in returning a new House of Commons before we began to try these experiments upon your Lordships' House. However, I suppose the Government feel that they are bound to give effect to their Election pledges—they are very scrupulous upon that subject; but I would suggest that they may well satisfy their conscience by fulfilling the pledge next year as well as this year, and that this House might be allowed for one year more to retain its ancient character. I do not suppose that His Majesty's Government, are likely to be deterred, by the revolutionary character of the change, from submitting it—in fact, it is submitted—although we are told it is not submitted on behalf of the Government and that every member of the Government will be free to vote as he pleases. I respectfully submit to your Lordships, however, that it would be a great deal better when we come to this clause to drop it out and to let the question stand as res integra until the large subject of the reconstitution of this House comes to be dealt with.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am rather at a disadvantage because I was not in the least prepared to hear my "baby"—my Bill—torn to pieces by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to-night. I thought that probably next Thursday it would receive that castigation. The noble and learned Lord spent most of
902
his speech in referring to the Bill that I have charge of nest Thursday. I quite agree with him as to a part of Clause 1, and one or two legal friends of mine have pointed out the same defect in it as the noble and learned Lord has. Naturally it rather surprises me, because this Bill has been through the other House, where there are a great number of very able lawyers, and I should have thought they would have pointed this out and seen that it was amended and pm into limper language. It surprises me that, if the Government disliked the Bill, they did not put a quietus upon it long before. They waited till the Third Reading, and then it was passed against their will.
Now the noble and learned Lord brings in a small addition to my Bill. I merely say that any Peeress who was a Peeress in her own right should have the right to sit in this House. It seems most extraordinary that under the Government's Bill you are not to give Peeresses who are Peeresses in their own right a right to sit, but you add a clause that in any future Peerages that are created—that is how I interpret it—the Crown may, but not necessarily, put in the right of female succession, and if there are no male successors the daughter will succeed, and the grand-daughter eventually; she will have a right to sit in your Lordships' House. It is a most extraordinary anomaly that Peeresses who are Peeresses now in their own right should be excluded and daughters of future Peers may come in, if it is in the Patent, and sit. I feel certain that that must be open to amendment; if you are going to give the future Peeress a right to sit, you should also give the present Peeress a right to sit in this House.
The unfortunate clause to which the noble and learned Lord takes great exception in my Bill is merely to give every woman a vote. There was a Conference, and at that Conference it was decided that women should only have a vote at thirty years of age. How long is the decision of that Conference to last? The law is full of anomalies. A woman can sit in the House of Commons at the present moment, but I understand that a married woman of twenty-four or twenty-five cannot have a vote where her house is or where her husband's house is. She is fit to sit in the House of Commons, but she is not fit to vote for another member of the House of

903
Commons. It was done, I suppose, in a hurry. Here you have a married woman; she may marry at twenty-one; she may have five or six children, and be a very able woman, but she cannot have a vote about all these things until she is thirty.
The argument is that you will have 5,000,000 more voters. I do not understand that there is any reason why you are obliged, when you enfranchise a great number of women, to give effect to it at once. You may pass an Amendment to say that this franchise shall not take place until a General Election, and that it shall not take place at a by-election. If my memory serves me aright, when the Ballot Act was passed they did not have a General Election upon it, but at each by-election as it came along the Ballot Act was adopted. You can order it the other way. You can say that the women can have a vote, but it shall not be till the General Election. Personally, I think there is nothing more favourable. I have seen two alterations in the franchise, and I have seen directly afterwards a General Election, and usually it is a snap election. It certainly was so the last time, and it certainly was more or less in 1885. You have an alteration in the franchise, and then you are in a great hurry to have a General Election. People do not know which way they are going to vote or what they want. You had an alteration last year, and then you suddenly had a General Election.
I do not think women ought to wait. The question is the increase of the franchise. After all, it must come. The noble Lord's Bill is one small bite at the cherry. If he will only take my Bill on his hands now as well, he can put what Amendments he may like into it. Your Lordships may defeat the clause which gives every girl a vote, and those of you who have daughters may go home and say, "No, you cannot have a vote, because you are not old enough." Yet in the last four years these girls have done all kinds of things in connection with the war. They were fit to go and do nursing; they were fit to undertake all kinds of arduous duties to help in that war which is now happily ended; but they are not fit to have a vote—they must wait till they are thirty. I think it is rather hard. I did not know that I should have to defend my Bill to-day. I have done my best. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord will in some way meet me and take charge of these two Bills.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I suppose it may be assumed that the House will not refuse a Second Reading to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. So far as the first clause in it is concerned, although it does not carry out what is called, I believe, the emancipation of women so fully as the Bill of my noble friend (Lord Kimberley), which will, as I understand, come before the House on Thursday, yet I think there will be general agreement that, after the grant of the suffrage to women, the wide qualifications offered by Clause 1 are reasonable and desirable. How far it is necessary to embody in that clause the possible restriction to which my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane took exception, I will not attempt to argue at this moment, because he will probably desire to raise that question I in Committee.
With regard, however, to Clause 2, I confess that there I find myself in far more agreement with my noble friend Lord Kimberley than I do with the Government Bill—that is to say, that if here and now Peeresses are to be given seats in the House there can be no question, as it seems to me, that the holders of existing Peerages who are women ought to be included. My noble friend mentioned that certain ladies hold hereditary Peerages. He did not mention two bearers of the great military Peerages last created before the present war—Lady Roberts and Lady Wolseley—both of them most honoured bearers of the great names to which they succeeded. It seems impossible that the stipulation in the Bill, if it ought properly to be applied at all, cannot be applied to the holders of hereditary Peerages in the female line.
But I am bound to say that I am in full agreement with my noble friend below the gangway (Lord Bryce), who anticipated the protest I have always contended should be made against touching this question at all at this moment. We all know that His Majesty's Government are under a pledge to undertake the reform of your Lordships' House. I ventured more than a year ago to express some scepticism as to when that intention would be implemented, as they say in the north. It appeared evident that no such attempt was likely to be made until a General Election was imminent. His Majesty's then Government refused to undertake the task, as they might I think have undertaken it, before the last General

905
Election, and we shall, therefore, no doubt have to wait some little time before it is undertaken now. I most heartily agree with my noble friend Lord Bryce that it is an aimless thing to do to attempt to invent what is really a new type of Peerage during this short interval, as it must be.
What is intended, I suppose, is this—that every patent of Peerage will now contain the special remainder which was adopted in the two cases I have mentioned, those of Viscount Wolseley and Earl Roberts, two very distinguished public servants, each of whom had a daughter but not a son. It may be understood now tint in the creation of every future Peerage what has hitherto been a special remainder will be included, authorising daughters to succeed to the Peerage as well as sons. It is rather curious to consider what the form of that special remainder will be. Will it be in the form of the old Baronies by writ in England, in which, where there is more than one female heir, the Peerage falls into abeyance, or will the analogy of the old Scottish Baronies and some other titles be accepted, by which the eldest daughter succeeds to the Peerage as though she were the eldest son? I confess it seems to me most unwise to touch this question at all at this moment, and, though I for one fully accept and hope that to the reformed Second Chamber of the future women will be eligible as well as men, just as they are to the House of Commons, yet to attempt—before that Second Chamber has, I suppose, even been contemplated by His Majesty's Government—to invent this new class of Peerage appears to be in the highest degree unnecessary and unwise.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, the two main propositions in this Bill concern matters with which I have had to deal all my life. Therefore perhaps the House will forgive me for detaining it while I make a few observations on the Bill. I gather that the question before the House is whether this Bill should be read a second time. I gather also that there is no doubt whatsoever that the first clause, which includes, in very general terms, what some people call the "emancipation of women," is one that the House will accept, and I imagine that no criticisms which have been passed to-night will prevent the House voting generally for the Second Reading of the Bill.
906
When I said that the first Clause was in general terms—and therefore, if I may say so, in terms with which I sympathise as strongly as I possibly can—it did occur, to me on reading the Bill that there were qualifications made in the latter part of the clause which rather alarmed me. I was, as the noble Viscount opposite has remarked, a member of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which sat for three years and laboured very hard, and though the particular proposition as to what was desirable in the way of appointing women to office was not arrived at unanimously, there was a strong feeling throughout the Commission as to the employment of women and a strong minority of the Commission went very far in that direction. J cannot help being a little apprehensive at seeing that there is now put into this Bill power for the Civil Service Commissioners—for that is really what it comes to—to lay down Regulations as to the way in which women shall enter into the Civil Service at all and as to their appointment to certain posts. That, of course, looks very like as if they are not getting to the highest posts. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I think the language is very wide and somewhat unfortunate. I should hope it would be very carefully examined in Committee. There is, of course, a very troublesome proviso a little further on with reference to juries. I will not go into particulars about that. It is a very difficult subject and this also no doubt will have to be very carefully examined in Committee.
Now we come to the clause upon which almost the whole of the debate this evening has been directed—Clause 2, about the Peerages. When the question is raised whether the subject should be dealt with at all, that is a very important consideration, but I imagine it does not go so far as to be a suggestion that this Bill should not be read a second time, It really is a Committee question, though it goes very far when it proposes to leave out the subject altogether. I do not profess to be able to give an opinion of any weight on that subject, though my own sympathies are, infact, in favour of the subject not being dealt with at present. But as to the more technical matter—namely, whether this is the right way to do it—I venture, as having had to deal with patents of the Peerage all my life, to express the very strongest opinion that this is done in the right way. Although there are those

907
difficult questions raised—such as the position of Peeresses in their own right and other points where it looks as if anomalies might arise and, as the noble Marquess opposite has said, a new class of Peeresses may seem to be created—I believe that all those difficulties can be got over, but that the real principle is the right one which is contained in the Bill—namely, that it is a matter of the prerogative of the Crown, and that it is not a matter where persons, either existing persons or persons in the future, should be given seats in this House by direct legislation. I venture to think that in Committee it will appear that the principle contained in the clause of the Lord Chancellor's Bill is the right one. I have tried to limit my observations to your Lordships to points on which I have practical experience. Otherwise, I should not have ventured to intervene in the debate.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, there is much in connection with this Bill in regard to its application to Ireland which T desire to suggest to the consideration of the Government. It may be quite right that women should take the burden if they get the benefit, but in Ireland there is a singular and practical difference in the application of the law dealing with juries from that which obtains in England. The qualifications, roughly speaking, are much the same. There is the income of £10 at least from freehold land not held in trust; there is also the leasehold qualification. But there is this practical difference, and it has given rise to considerable trouble and will be aggravated unless some modification is inserted in Committee. The conversion of land in Ireland from the ownership of large landlords to the ownership of small peasant proprietors has resulted in this curious fact, that the number of persons qualified by reason of interest in freehold land has been increased, roughly speaking, to thirty as to one. That is, wherever there was one landlord there are now thirty small peasant proprietors, all of whom are qualified to serve on ordinary common juries.
The result is that in counties like Donegal, where transit facilities are not great, and in a large county like Cork, when the Assizes come on, you have a number of wretched men who possess this qualification, some of whom cannot afford to pay the railway fare if there was a railway, who therefore have to walk into the city, neglect their business for several days whilst waiting for the
908
Assizes, and then walk back as best they can. If this obligation is extended to women this curious result will occur. Your Lordships may not quite understand the custom in Ireland and the peculiar nature of the character of rate qualification. It has produced this result. Although the qualification for a juror is nominally having an income of the necessary amount, it is practically always determined by the Poor Law valuation. A valuation of £10 for the Poor Law is very small, and the chances are ten to one that a person will be a juror. If you add women to that number, widows, who are in possession of these small holdings supporting small families, you will compel them to tramp long distances to attend Assizes in obedience to the mandate of the Sheriff. It would be very hard. I would suggest that the point should be considered and that some words should be inserted which would mitigate the hardship.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said, and I think his observation deserves consideration. It is quite possible that a daughter may be the eldest born child, and why should she not succeed instead of the son? That is an important point which should be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I reply briefly to some of the points which have been raised during the debate. I desire, in the first, place, to make it quite plain to Lord Kimberley that I intended no discourtesy to him by not giving him notice that his Bill would occupy some place in my observations. I confess I supposed that Lord Kimberley would not be unaware that my Bill was to be discussed to-day, and it would seem obvious that I could neither discuss nor recommend my Bill to your Lordships' notice without entering into a somewhat comparative examination of his Bill. I hope his amour propre, as the Parliamentary parent of his Bill, will not be hurt. I suggest for his consideration that it may be a matter worth bearing in mind whether the changes which he desires to make in the law could not be effectively made, if Your Lordships were inclined to take his view instead of mine, by moving Amendments to my Bill on Committee stage. I am inclined to think that there is no point of variance between the noble Earl and myself which could not be put to the test of discussion and decision in the form of an Amendment to my Bill.

909
I am a little interested to observe that no opponent of the principle has declared himself this afternoon, unless I detected, under the smooth language of the noble Viscount below the gangway, a desire to oppose this Bill. The noble Viscount was, in my view, a little ambiguous as to whether he carried his unfavourable criticism of the Bill to this length. He indeed, that it is not a democratic Bill; it is not a Bill which adds power or influence to the people. Strange as it may seem, that was net the object of the Bill. Its object was not to add power or influence to the people, nor, using the word in its political sense, was it intended to be a democratic Bill. What the Bill purported to do was to remove in the economic and other spheres certain patent disabilities which to-day affect women and hamper their activities.
I thought. I almost detected a touch of sarcasm in the noble Viscount's observations, because he said that no doubt the Government would be scrupulous as to carrying out its obligations. This assurance of the noble Viscount's opinion of the Government is valuable, though it was hardly necessary to make it three times. But, if it is right we should attempt to carry oat our undertakings, then it may well he, if your Lordships share his favourable view, that that will be a point deserving careful consideration when we come to Committee stage. But if the noble Viscount was using this language in the sense that he thought the Government would not carry out, or could not carry out, its obligations—the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, also indicated some doubt as to whether the Government would be in a position to carry out this reform—if they are right, then of course the value of their argument on merits is greatly diminished. If they really believe that the Government will not attempt, or be in a position to at tempt, the reform, then the substratum of their argument is dissipated.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I entirely intended to convey the opinion that I expected that the Government would carry out their promise and bring in a Bill dealing with the constitution of this House next session.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had forgotten that the pledge was so specific that the Bill is to be introduced next session. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for reminding me of it, but. I am a little doubtful still whether he is correct. The
910
noble Marquess, who was evidently sincere when he spoke of the difficulty of the reform of the House of Lords and of the chance that such reform may be delayed, I readily concede, is well able to judge of these probabilities, because he himself, and those with whom he is associated, found that it took a considerable time to carry out the terms of the Preamble, with the language of which we are very familiar. Therefore we must undoubtedly bear in our minds the risk that it may not be possible to effect this change in the period which some of us would desire; but I may and I do tell your Lordships that it is undoubtedly the intention of the Government to bring forward proposals to your Lordships with that object. The other points are really points of detail. My noble and learned friend Lord Haldane indicated, with reference to Clause subsection (a), a fear that the conditions under which regulations may be framed for the admission of women to the Civil Service, might be of such a character as to deprive our provision of its operative value. It may be; but I suspect that when the matter has been fully discussed, although some Amendment may be found to be necessary, your Lordships will be unwilling to remove tire words altogether. It is unnecessary that I should add anything more.
I will now cone to the vexed question, which is the subject of discussion, as to the position of Peeresses—as to whether you think A wise to sanction a change so great. I made it plain, in recommending this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, that I was myself at this particular moment not enamoured of the proposal, which I plainly stated that the Government only placed before your Lordships because they thought it right to do so, in order that it might be the subject of discussion and decision by your Lordships. There is a great deal—to be said for the view which was pressed by Lord Crewe and by other speakers, that if Peeresses were to be made eligible for membership of this House at all those who at this moment are Peeresses in their own right should not be debarred but, as Lord Muir Mackenzie pointed out., the matter is debatable. There is a distinctions—the distinction that in the case of the existing Peeresses nobody's mind was ever directed, at the time the patents were made out in their favour, to the possibility that they might sit in this House.

911
Here again the Government certainly are wedded to no view, while on the main principle they remain entirely in the hands of your Lordships. I admit quite plainly that full weight ought to be given to the prospect that much wider reforms will, if matters pursue their normal course, be recommended to your Lordships by the Government, and if that anticipation is sufficient reason for postponing any such change as that contained in Clause 2, then your Lordships will give effect to the views which you will form upon that point. This debate has ranged over a considerable area, but I hope that I have dealt with most of the points that have been taken. The noble Lord who has just sat down raised an interesting point which, if he will resume it on the Committee stage, I will then deal with. The same observation applies to Lord Shandon's remark with reference to juries in Ireland. I am not acquainted with all the details, but the points shall receive consideration before the Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHECK WEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, this Bill requires very slight explanation, because it passed through the other House without any amendment whatever. It is for the purpose of extending the advantages of checkweighing to certain specified industries—namely, the men employed in the manufacture of iron and steel, the dockers, the men employed in quarries of chalk and limestone, and men employed in the manufacture of cement and lime, and in other industries. This Bill is almost identical in terms with one introduced for the same object in 1914 by Mr. McKenna, which came to an unfortunate end in consequence of the war. It is, after all, only extending to these workmen privileges enjoyed by the miners since 1860 and which have been constantly demanded by their co-workers since that period. I think it entirely unnecessary, in view of the fact that there was no serious opposition in the other House to the measure, that no kind of amendment was made, and that I believe the Government
912
are in sympathy with the measure, to further enlarge upon it. I therefore move that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Weardale.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the subject dealt with in this Bill is of a technical character, and I think I can most usefully adopt the course of setting out the result of its provisions, and the changes which they effect in the existing law, in a form which may be convenient for reference by any of your Lordships who intend to take part in the Committee discussion. The object of the Bill is to simplify the procedure which now regulates the acquisition of land for public purposes, and to secure that the compensation payable on the land, while fair to the landowners, shall not be excessive in amount.
The whole procedure for compulsory acquisition of land has lately been the subject of careful consideration by a Reconstruction Committee consisting of gentlemen of very great experience, who devoted a great deal of time and attention to this matter. They made two Reports, and although it may be that some of your Lordships have studied those Reports, it would be well to explain that one of them dealt with the procedure for obtaining the power of compulsory acquisition, and the other dealt with the assessment of compensation when such power was put in force. The second also made recommendations on the very difficult questions of betterment and recoupment. It would undoubtedly have been desirable to introduce legislation which dealt with all the matters affected by these Reports, but this would have involved the introduction of an extremely long and complex measure, which would certainly have raised great controversy, and equally certainly have taken up a great deal of time, in the course of its passage into law. In those circumstances the Government adopted the decision, in view of the great urgency which exists for some modification of the Lands Clauses Acts, under which the acquisition of land is now carried out, to

913
deal solely with the question of the assessment of compensation, and to leave the other matters referred to in these Reports to be dealt with as and when time permits.
The proposals which I am about to explain were criticised from both angles in the House of Commons, where the matter was very fully and carefully considered. They were criticised by some who thought that the methods of compensation adopted were unduly liberal to the land owner, and criticised by others who thought that they were not liberal enough; and the Government are sanguine enough to hope that they have found a middle course between those two criticisms. The measure deals with four points. (1) The constitution of the tribunal which is to assess the compensation; (2) the definition of certain principles which are to govern assessments; (3) the procedure of the Tribunal; and (4) the costs of the proceedings.
At the present time the tribunal to assess compensation under the Compulsory Acquisition Act is, apart from special legislation, either two arbitrators and an umpire, or a jury over which the Under-Sheriff presides. In certain small cases, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, the compensation is assessed by two justices. This Bill provides that the compensation shall in all cases be determined by a single arbitrator. This is a plan which has already been adopted in the Small holdings Act and in other Acts, and which has been found, I believe, to work very satisfactorily in practice. The arbitrator may be chosen by the partners to the arbitration if they can agree upon him, and if he is not so chosen he will be selected from a panel of whole-time officers who, while holding such an appointment, may not directly or indirectly engage in private practice. Important decisions were necessary to reach that conclusion.
Any of your Lordships who have had their business dealt with under the Lands Clauses Acts provisions will, I think, support the observation which I intend to make. It was found by experience that the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act is cumbrous and unduly expensive. I, like many others whose business it has been to conduct arbitrations under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, hold very strongly the view that the procedure had almost every conceivable disadvantage which could attend a tribunal or a legislative scheme of this kind. Making a sub
914
stitute in the form of a single arbitrator, the question arose, Was the most convenient and effective method to select gentlemen of eminence in the profession of surveyors and allow them one day for their own private practice as witnesses and another day to sit as judges, or was the most promising course to select those gentlemen and say, You shall be in the same position as those who occupy judicial positions to this extent, that you will work for the State, and you will discharge a public function, and will not one day be engaged on private practice and the next day in giving a decision on behalf of the State? "The Government decided, after consideration, that the work would be more efficiently and more satisfactorily, and on the whole not more expensively, done by the employment of whole-time valuers. It is not expected that they will exceed five for England and Wales, two for Scotland, and one for Ireland. The proposed salary is £3,000 a year.
Your Lordships will see that this work must be done by men of high professional standing, and if it is to be done by men of such standing it is necessary that there should be an adequate salary. Having regard to the expenses under the Lands Clauses Acts, it is hoped that the substituted proposals will contain in themselves the germs of very great economy. The arbitrator will be appointed for a definite term by what is known as the Reference Committee, and the cost to the State of their salaries will be entirely, or almost so, covered by the fees which will of course properly be charged to the parties who come before them. The Reference Committee which will appoint the panel of arbitrators, and will make Rules to deal with the particular case, will consist in England of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution. Analogous arrangements are proposed in the case of Scotland and Ireland.
I will now give a summary explanation of the Rules for the assessment of compensation. The first of those Rules is that no allowance is to be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory. As many of your Lordships know, the Lands Clauses Acts nowhere provide that any such allowance be made. The practice depends upon no statutory basis, and has never had any statutory sanction, but the practice has arisen of allowing in England

915
an addition of 10 per cent., and I believe in Scotland of a considerably higher percentage. The proposal to abolish this arbitrary addition is by no means new, and has been already adopted in the Small Holdings Act, 1908, the Housing Act, 1909, and other Acts. The next Rule in order of importance is that the value of the land is to be taken to be the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise. I have no doubt that at a later stage the question may arise, Why does not this provision contain any allusion to a willing buyer? If that observation is made, I shall hope to be able to satisfy your Lordships that the phraseology adopted is that which is best calculated to define what is generally known as a fair market value. I emphasise most strongly these words, because it is the genuine desire of the Government to see that those who are parting with their property under the singular circumstances shall receive an honest and a fair market value for what is taken away from them. The third Rule directs the valuer to exclude from consideration any value which is clue to the special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser. Those words are a little general in their character, and your Lordships will rightly scrutinise them closely, and they will require explanation and justification.
But I may perhaps say that, owing to the ingenuity of the expert witnesses who have appeared in cases of compulsory acquisition, arbitrators have been induced to award sums relatively immense for land which in itself is of very little value, and where there cannot be the slightest doubt that if the promoters had not sought to take the land for a particular purpose, say for a waterworks or a firing range or similar project, no other person would have been found to give any fancy price for the land, certainly not to give a price in any way comparable to that awarded. Your Lordships canot believe that is right. Indeed. I may say that one of the elements in the situation which caused the greatest difficulty has been the extraordinary disparity of view that has been taken in giving their evidence by gentlemen of the highest influence in the profession of surveying. It is quite common to find a case in which one witness of the highest possible position
916
has been found to advance the view that the value of the claim put forward was £20,000, whereas the witness en the other side, of equal eminence, has been able to contend that under no conceivable circumstances could the property be worth more than £10,000—a most amazing contrast from gentlemen of equal eminence. Let us hope that the definition of these Rules, if your Lordships should ultimately approve them, and the appointment of a whole time panel, will do much to correct the inequalities and anomalies to which I have drawn attention. The fourth Rule excludes any compensation for value due to the premises being used for a purpose which is either illegal or detrimental to the public health; and the fifth Rule deals with certain special cases in which what is generally known as compensation for reinstatement is properly paid.
I come to Clause 3 of the Bill. This regulates the procedure under which the additional valuers will carry out their functions. It limits the use of expert witnesses, and the view taken by the Government upon that point is this. Useful and, in fact, indispensable as expert witnesses are in these matters it is on the whole possible to have too much of a good thing. The prodigal employment of expert witnesses is one of the principal causes of the most scandalous costliness of arbitration proceedings to-day, awl it is believed that a useful provision will be that which lays down that the official valuer shall, if so required, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular matter. This provision ought to remove the misconception which has so often arisen where a large sum is awarded as compensation for the acquisition of an area small in itself and of very little apparent value, and yet where the damage to the rest of the estate by severance is indisputably serious. The explanation of this will perhaps throw light upon many awards which may otherwise seem obscure.
The next important clause is Clause 5, and that contains certain provisions relating to costs which, even on a Second Reading stage, I ought to explain. At the present time a person whose land is acquired is in the fortunate position that he can for all practical purposes embark upon an arbitration at the expense of the promoters. And the dislike for litigation which is common to all humanity has in practice been found to be very considerably modified

917
by this evil, and it is one which in the opinion of the Government should not survive. It is quite true that if the amount awarded does not exceed what is known as a sealed offer by the promoter the landowner has to bear his own costs, but this provision is in practice found to be inadequate for the protection of promoters, who are very seriously handicapped in their negotiations by their liability to costs if the negotiations, which in themselves are often very costly, fail.
This Bill provides that if the landowner is awarded no more than the sum which the promoters have offered him he is to bear his own costs and also those of the promoters. I hope your Lordships will, on reflection, think that is a fair and reasonable provision. When an offer is made to a man whose property is being taken it is his duty carefully to consider the offer which is made to hint by the promoters, and. it certainly does not appear to me unreasonable (though I shall have the advantage of hearing your Lordships' views on that in Committee) that we should act thus in cases where the landowner is seeking what ex hypothesi is au unfair profit.
And conversely, if the landowner offers to accept a certain sum and the sum awarded is not less than that which he has offered to accept and the promoters refuse, the promoter in his turn must pay the costs of the landowner. Subject to these two provisions, which deal with the two cases, the costs of the arbitration are in the entire discretion of the official valuer, and he can disallow the costs of counsel if he considers that they have been unnecessarily incurred. In my judgment the amendment of the law as to costs should do more than almost any other provision to induce both promoters and landowners to be reasonable in their negotiations as to compensation, and the Government think that the result should be to reduce the number of eases which will actually require a decision by the arbitrator to a number small enough not to render it necessary to provide a larger equipment of valuers than I have attempted to indicate to your Lordships.
There may conceivably be cases (such eases have been known in the past) in which both parties would have preferred that the compensation should be assessed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and provision is made in Clause 8 to enable
918
this course to be adopted. The provisions of the Bill will supersede any inconsistent provisions in the various Acts which dealt heretofore with compulsory acquisition, except in certain cases which are specifically referred to in Clause 7.
The Bill does not carry out, or pretend to carry out, all the reforms that would be useful if unlimited time were at the disposal either of the Government or of your Lordships. It contains many provisions which your Lordships, if I may say so, may rightly think it proper to examine and to debate, but the Government knows that this House is deeply alive to the fact that it is impossible to translate into the terms of a Statute the pledges which I think all parties in the State have made to soldiers—the hopes that have been held out that those who are suited to such employments should be enabled to settle upon the land—unless the machinery by which land can be compulsorily acquired is simplified, is made less expensive, is made less dilatory. It is the hope of the Government that they have produced a Bill which, whatever else may be said, this at least may be claimed in its favour, that it will produce the results which are necessary if the first-fruits which the whole community owe to those who have done so much to save the country are to be paid. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I ant sure the House feels the same sense of gratitude which I feels to the noble Lord on the Woolsack for having given us so full and lucid an exposition of the scheme of the Bill and of the clauses. Because this is essentially a Bill which consists of detail, and without the account which has been given to us we could not have followed it.
My impression about this Bill remains what it was when I fist read it. It is a Bill which will do good, and will be useful, but it will disappoint a great many people, and I venture to think it will not be a permanent solution of the question. It does the useful thing which the noble and learned Lord pointed out, but on the whole it sticks to the old-fashioned tradition and practice. Eminent bodies, not the Government, but Chief Justices, Lord Presidents of the Court of Sessions, Lord Chief Justices of Ireland—with always, of course, the President of the Surveyors' Institute—are to select a panel of gentle

919
men who are to receive £3,000 a year—this to be paid, we will hope, by fees received from the litigants. I hope so—that is all I have got to say; but, at any rate, a number of new and very valuable appointments are created in the first instance in this country. But that is not all. These gentlemen have certain powers of circumscription, but the good old-fashioned method of counsel and expert witnesses still obtains. True it is that there will be generally only one expert witness, and that the learned arbitrator may say that he disallows the fees of counsel; but you may be sure that the expert witness will be a person of eminence, with a remuneration which corresponds with eminence, and that in every case there will be counsel and solicitors. It is impossible to get land cheaply upon that principle.
There is another way which appears in the Bill, a more excellent way, but it is introduced in such a very timorous and tentative fashion that I am afraid it will amount to very little. The noble and learned Lord has alluded to it. The Inland Revenue Commissioners, as your Lordships know, are now valuing the land throughout the country. Sometimes people put their land at a fair figure because they do not want to be assessed at more than it is worth, but some do not tell the truth. On the other hand if they have told the truth—I think that on the whole they try to tell the truth—they have given very fairly what the value of the land is. Now, Clause 8 enables ally one who wishes to do so—but it is not to be the normal practice—to refer the question of disputed compensation to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who have already been valuing the whole thing and who have the whole of the materials before them. One would have thought that this would have been an admirable plan to make the normal kind of thing, allowing a departure from it for those cases which were not covered. Indeed, as some of your Lordships are aware, there has been an inquiry going on by a Committee, there has been a great deal of investigation, and a great deal of reference to the use which might be made of the work which the Commissioners have done, but I feel that in this Bill the Commissioners play a very small part and, so far from being the normal method of getting at the truth of the value of the land, it is so abnormal a method that no one is very much encouraged to consult the Commissioners. No, on the whole things will go
920
on not as they were, of course, but in very much the same spirit; and as for the hope of getting a cheap procedure for valuing land I think we may give it up in the light of this Bill.
No doubt the Bill is much better than the old procedure under the Lands Clauses Act, with the two arbitrators and an umpire—the arbitrators being always advocates, and the umpire's business being to keep them right. There will be fewer expert witnesses, there will not be the great arrays of learned counsel, and the costs (as the noble and learned Lord said) will be substantially diminished; moreover the costs will be in the discretion of the arbitrator and they will be limited by the amount which the litigant recovers. All these things are good. But what I regret about the Bill is that I think we have reached the stage when people are very much in earnest about the principle that no one can be allowed any longer to keep any more than the value of his land if the land is wanted for public purposes. If land is wanted for public purposes it ought to be in the freest way available for public purposes, and the owner ought to get its value. That value can be ascertained by cheaper and more effective methods than this Bill embodies, and I think the course to which we shall inevitably come will be that the value as ascertained—either by the Inland Revenue Commissioners or by some other way—will be the standard basis on which land is taken. Therefore I doubt whether this Bill represents the permanent machinery for carrying out the objects the Government have in view.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I warmly welcome the provisions of this Bill. The procedure of arriving at the value of land, even of agricultural land, has, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has pointed out, been in the past very cumbrous and expensive, and any thing that will simplify or cheapen the method should, I think, be welcomed by members of this House. This appears to be the first chapter, if I may say so, in the process of settling upon the land a large number of ex-soldiers and sailors, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that any extra burden that might be imposed on land by way of charging for the land which they will occupy—as soon as they themselves eventually become the owners of it, as I hope they will—an excessive price, or charging them a rent based on too high a value, is in every way to be deprecated.

921
While saying this, I hope that the Government will not be opposed to our moving certain Amendments in Committee which we may deem to effect an improvement in the Bill and, in fact, facilitate the carrying out of its provisions. Personally I rather regret that while the Government were about it they did not go in for a much more comprehensive scheme to apply to all these transactions on which a valuation has to be set on land in this country. This is legislation of a piecemeal character and applies only to transactions as between the Government or a public authority on the one hand and a private owner on the other hand; it leaves out of account certainly nine-tenths of the transactions in which valuations have to be made and which I cannot help thinking will have to be dealt with by a much more comprehensive and consolidating measure in the days to come. I was interested to note that the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading started by speaking of these gentlemen who are to decide the value of land as "arbitrators." Forced by the phraseology of the Bill, he went on later to speak of "official valuers." They are, of course, arbitrators and not valuers at all; and as they are not valuers there seems no particular reason for calling them so in the Bill. There is a strong reason against calling them valuers because the term "official valuer" has come to have a somewhat repugnant meaning to many of us, it having been used in relation to those gentlemen who have acted, under the Finance Act of 1910, in carrying out a task which has been not only very distasteful to many of them but somewhat inoperative in its results.
The noble and learned Lord spoke of these gentlemen as being whole-time valuers. I do not know whether your Lordships will think it worth while to raise again in this House the question as to whether you, in fact, will get the most reliable and best-informed arbitrators by asking them to give up the whole of their time to the task imposed upon them under t his Bill. I am not at all satisfied in any case that the Bill should not be modified in this respect, and whether, in Clause 1, subsection (3), it is not open to these gentlemen to carry on some other business altogether in addition to what they would do in connection with this Bill so long as it cannot be described as "in private practice or business as estate or land agent, surveyor or valuer." If they are really to be whole
922
time servants, it seems to me desirable to make the Bill watertight to ensure that. I may say, in passing, that I myself have very grave doubts whether, even by giving gentlemen in the position of a professional surveyor what is deemed to be a large salary—namely, £3,000 a year, which after all is only the monetary equivalent to something like £1,500 a year before the war—you are going to get men who are best acquainted for the time being with the land of which they will be asked to assess the value. It is very difficult for gentlemen who are professional surveyors, unless they take their pant in the day to day business of valuation as conducted in a valuer's office, to realise what are the changing values of even agricultural land, still more of land which has some other attributes besides its value for agricultural development or cultivation.
I was rather sorry to hear—it is a fact of which I was not previously aware—that the salaries of these gentlemen are to be paid out of the fees charged to those persons who are at issue upon the value of the land. I hope that the Government will reconsider that proposal, because it does not appear, as I understand, on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that if the salaries are as high as in my judgment they ought to be in order to get the cream of the profession, it may impose quite an undue burden upon those, possibly in some cases poor men, whose land is being taken from them compulsorily, and who may be doubtful as to its true value.
As regards value, it occurs to me extremely difficult to assess at the present time what the true value of agricultural land is. In any case, I am quite satisfied that, although land has been recently changing hands very considerably and passing to a large extent into the hands of sitting agricultural tenants, agricultural land in this country is still far cheaper, considering its inherent value, than land in any other country in Western Europe, and possibly in any other country iii the world. Agricultural land, at any rate, at the present apparently enhanced value, is sold at prices which to my knowledge some of the Continental cultivators view with considerable envy, bearing in mind the very much higher prices they have to pay both for proprietorship and by way of rent in the case of occupation.
I venture to hope, my Lords, that this Bill will receive the full sympathy of your

923
Lordships' House; at the same time, I hope that the Government will regard with favour any reasonable Amendment that may be moved in the Committee stage, and not be in any way prejudiced by the idea that because many of us are owners of agricultural land we are influenced in our judgment upon this Bill by those considerations. On the contrary, we are, as I believe, prepared to make as easy as possible the lot of the men who, having served the country in a military or naval capacity during the war, desire to settle upon agricultural laud with as easy a burden upon their shoulders in the matter of rent as is possible. Many of these men will be none too well qualified from an agricultural standpoint to carry on their operations, awl we do not want to add to the difficulties of their position by charging them an undue amount for the land which they will occupy.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, there is no doubt that this Bill has been improved a good deal during the course of its passage through the other House, but I hope that it will receive further improvement in this House and that the Government will not find itself obliged to oppose certain very reasonable Amendments which have been suggested by authoritative bodies possessing great knowledge upon this subject, such as the Surveyors Institution and the Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute. For this latter body, knowing something of the leading men who compose it, I have a very great respect as a valuable, impartial, and knowledgeable business body. There are suggestions made by both these bodies which I trust will be before your Lordships and will receive your Lordships' attention. One Amendment to Clause 8, which is strongly supported by the Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute, I shall take the liberty to put down for your Lordships' consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
Third Reading put off to Monday next.

TREATY OF PEACE BILL.
ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CHEPSTOW WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following twenty-four Bills received the Royal Assent—

Anthrax Prevention.

Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment).

Grant of Administration (Bonds).

Law Agents Apprenticeship (War Service) (Scotland).

Matrimonial Causes (Dominion Troops).

Weights and Measures (Leather Measurement).

Statement of Rates.

Official Solicitor.

Solicitors (Articled Clerks).

Public Notaries (Articled Clerks).

Bridge of Allan Water Order Confirmation.

Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Order Confirmation.

Northampton Gas.

Legal and General Life Assurance Society.

Hartlepool Corporation.

Mansfield Railway.

Reigate Corporation.

Hartlepool Gas and Water.

Beccles Waterworks.

Tees Conservancy.

Stourport Gas.

Sunderland Gas.

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock.

Chepstow Water.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 21.]
PRIVATE BILLS.
  ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS) ORDER, 1919.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WELSH CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL) ORDER, 1919.
  Adjourned debate on the Motion of the Viscount Sandhurst in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection (3), of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, to resolve, That this House approves the said Draft Orders; to be resumed on Monday next.
LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday the 29th instant (The Lord Parmoor).
STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]

  PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons for copies of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this
  926
  House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the cases: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA).
Message from the Commons for leave for the VISCOUNT CAVE to attend to be examined before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he thinks fit, and, his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at seven o'clock until three o'clock tomorrow.