Lords Sitting of 11 March 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Marquess of Northampton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Ebury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
CORK HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords with reference to the Private Bills a list of which is printed on the Paper, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Message of the House of Commons of the 6th instant be taken into consideration; that a Committee of Four Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the Bills as mentioned in the said Message; and that the said Committee be named by the Committee of Selection.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, on two former occasions I have been so fortunate as to secure the approval of your Lordships to the passage of a measure designed to remove from women the disqualifications
590
that leave hitherto hindered them in entering the profession of solicitors. On one of those occasions the measure passed without a division; on the other it passed by a considerable majority; and on each there was a debate in which Lord Halsbury, Lord Finlay, Lord Loreburn, Lord Sumner, and Lord Selborne took part, so that I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that the subject was well and adequately debated. If, therefore, this Bill did no more that once more to ask you to consider and approve the measure that has been twice before your consideration I should say few of the very briefest sentences in its support.
But, for reasons that I will explain directly, I have thought it desirable to extend the measure, and the Bill for which I now ask a Second Reading attempts to remove both the disqualifications that prevent a woman from practising as a solicitor, and any disqualifications, if such there be, that prevent her from practising as a barrister. In other words, it throws open the doors of the legal profession to women without distinction. On the former occasions there was but little opposition to the merits of the measure. I think those of you who remember what then took place will bear me out when I say that the real objection that was taken was rather on the ground of its being inexpedient, at a moment when the war was on, to pass a measure of this kind than upon the ground that the measure ought not to be passed at all. I did my best to remove that feeling of uneasiness by pointing out that, even if the measure were passed at once, a period which in special cases would be a minimum of three years, and in the ordinary case of live, must elapse before any woman could be admitted to practice as a solicitor. But the duration of the war was then indefinite, and people were unaware how long it might last, or how profoundly it might affect the fortunes of those who were engaged in the legal profession, and one or two—notably, I think, Lord Finlay and Lord Halsbury—were anxious for that reason that the measure should be postponed. In substance that objection has passed away, and with it all real considered objection to the measure, so far as it relates to solicitors, has, I submit, been removed.
So far as this measure affects barristers, the matter stands on a different footing.

591
As to solicitors, as I have pointed out more than once, women were prevented from entering by reason of the construction that had been given to Acts of Parliament which regulate the profession of solicitor; but with regard to a barrister no such Statutes exist. Admission to the Bar has all through our legal history been obtained by admission to one of the Inns of Court, a qualification of a recent date imposed by passing examinations and calling to the Bar by the Benchers of the Inn. It was my belief that if the measure passed so far as solicitors were concerned no further difficulty would be raised by the Inns in the way of women entering the Inns as students. It would be quite plain that no distinction could in justice be made as between one branch of the profession and the other; and I thought it possible that the Inns might take what I regarded as the courageous course of saying that in the exercise of their unlimited and undoubted discretion they would admit women to the Inns without further delay. But the Inn of which I have the honour to be a Bencher, Lincoln's Inn, took another view. They said that the admission of women to be barristers was part of a wider national question, and that they did not think it was right for the Inns to act in a matter of that kind without receiving direction from Parliament. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the feeling that prompted them in that course. It did not involve any acceptance of the view that they had not the power, if they wished to exercise it, but that they thought they ought not to exercise such a power until Parliament had given them some indication that Parliament regarded it as in the national interest that women should be admitted. I have therefore included in a second clause a provision enabling women to be admitted to the Inns as well as to be admitted as solicitors.
Nobody thinks that the passage of this Bill is going to flood the legal profession with women. It will enable a few women, who are peculiarly qualified, to earn an honourable living in the practice of the law. So far as it affects barristers, it may enable a few women to help some of their less fortunate sisters in some of the hazards and perils that peculiarly encompass a woman's path. And if it succeeded in doing this, I am sure it would meet with your Lordships' approval. For the more certain you can be that all views of a
592
matter are placed before any tribunal which is to administer the law the more safe you may feel that justice will be done. The simple purpose of this Bill is to remove a disqualification on the ground of sex which, I submit, should no longer hinder women from using their energies and talents for the best interests of themselves, and, as I believe, of the nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, as this Bill does not in form apply to the Sister Isle, I have some diffidence in addressing your Lordships on the principle of the Bill. Anyone, whether an Irishman or an Englishman, who has had experience in the practice of the law or who has occupied a judicial position, must of necessity take a considerable interest in this proposal. It comes home to me all the more strongly because, not very long before I had tile honour of being a member of your Lordships' House, this matter and all the cases and decisions with regard to it came before the Irish Courts in a case which has since got into the books; and naturally one could not help forming a very definite opinion in a general sense upon this question, because time decision of the English Courts with regard to the admission of women to the profession of solicitors was naturally one of the subjects of debate.
The fact that this Bill has substantially, so far as the principle is concerned, been discussed so frequently before your Lordships' House and has met with your Lordships' approval makes it quite unnecessary at any length, as the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill pointed out, to enlarge upon the reasonableness of this measure. But I think it is not amiss that any one who has been brought into close contact with the question of legal practice should at any rate express his view; and my view I will say at once is one of wholehearted approval of the proposal of the noble and learned Lord.
The only reason why I trouble your Lordships is that. I suggest that. possibly in one respect the Bill has not gone quite far enough. Once women receive an education which undoubtedly fits them to take up a position requiring erudition, learning, tact, and skill, it is perfectly idle to exclude them from the practice of a

593
profession which demands those requirements; and I altogether endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said that the admission of a few women to the profession in question will not create a great revolution, or do anything except to remove a very real grievance. But I suggest with diffidence to the noble and learned Lord that this Bill as framed does not cover one of the grievances which I think is most keenly felt.
In a case which is now almost ancient history—the case of Beresford-Hope versus Sandhurst—which arose in connection with the qualification of women to exercise a certain franchise, according to my recollection, Lord Esher laid down as being the law two very strong propositions. These propositions were, first, that neither by the Common Law nor by the Constitution of this country can a woman be entitled to exercise any public function; and, second, where you have a Statute which deals with the exercise of public functions, unless that Statute expressly gives power to women to exercise that function it is to be taken that the power is confined to men. The manner in which in concrete form this question arose was this. A very humble post indeed, that of petty sessions clerk to an Irish petty sessions court, was given to a woman by the justices who had power to confer it. It is not a very elevated position; it is one which could be discharged very readily by a boy not very long out of an intermediate school, except possibly in a few of the larger cities and towns. But the majority of the Court, of which I had the honour to be a member, held that, on the construction of the Statute, as there was no power given to a woman to exercise the functions of petty sessions clerk, there was inherent evidence from the Statutes themselves that she could not possibly be appointed; and the members of the Court deplored that result.
I would point out that the mere removal of the disqualifications of a woman to be admitted as a barrister or solicitor would not necessarily entitle her as such to compete for those public offices—some of them possibly small public offices—to which otherwise as barrister or solicitor she would be entitled; and it may be necessary to go a little further if real effect is to be given to a very commonsense principle, at any rate so far as it affects the position of a woman who might wish such a post as that of petty sessions clerk.
594
I do not, suggest positively that this is absolutely so, because personally, with all respect to the great Judge who gave the decision, I think it may well be that he went a little too far. At the same time I suggest that if this Bill passes into Committee, in order to give real effect to the principle of it may be necessary to go a little further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, it may be convenient for me to make a few observations on this subject on behalf of the Government, having regard to what was said by Lord Finlay when he sat on the Woolsack on the last occasion on which this Bill was under discussion. At that time, as Lord Buckmaster has said, the war was still in progress, and no human being could tell how long it was likely to last or in what ultimate condition it was likely to leave the legal profession. In those circumstances my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay, in an argument with most of which at that time I confess I agreed, took the view that the moment was not opportune for a change of such considerable magnitude.
I confess that, as Attorney-General, when the proposal was brought forward at the general meeting of the Bar, I took the view that it would have had the effect without the interposition of Parliament of passing a recommendation by the members of the Bar that women should be admitted. As Attorney-General I opposed that on the ground that it was not a convenient moment for the members of the Bar themselves to take such a step at a time when so many of the members of the profession were serving in His Majesty's Forces. The circumstances today are in many respects wholly changed. Lord Buckmaster has reminded your Lordships that this Bill now rests on a broader basis. I must admit that it seemed to me he was exposed to a good deal of criticism, some of it ill-founded, some of it better founded, as long as his Bill dealt solely with the case of solicitors. The criticism was generally passed by the solicitors' branch of the profession, "Why do you not deal with the Bar, to which you belong; why do you confine these beneficent reforms to the other branch of the profession?" Lord Buckmaster has given an explanation of the course he adopted. He said that in his view the Benchers of each Inn were always

595
at liberty to call women to the Bar without legislation. That may be so. But it seems to me it was not a very satisfactory position in which to leave the Benchers of each Inn, without any guidance at all from Parliament at the very moment when Parliament was not only giving guidance but enforcing compulsion upon the other branch of the profession.
I therefore think that Lord Buckmaster has taken an extremely wise course in making it clear that the scope of the present proposals comprehends both branches of the profession. Lord Buckmaster has told your Lordships something of the attitude of the Benchers of his own Inn. I have made some inquiries on the point, and I am in a position to assure your Lordships, in relation to the Benchers, I think, of all the Inns, that while I cannot pretend that they are avid of this change, or that they would have formed themselves into professional associations to agitate for its introduction, at the same time I am confident of this that if it be the will, as I anticipate it may prove to be, of Parliament that this great and memorable change should take place, the Benchers of the various Inns will loyally co-operate in order to give effect to the wishes of Parliament.
I am not one of those who would seek in any way to ignore the significance of the decision which is being taken to-day, and I say plainly that, as you will have surmised from the speeches made during the Election by leading members of the Government, in the changed circumstances of the day the Government welcome this proposal; and if your Lordships should give a Second Reading to this Bill and pass it through its remaining stages in this session of Parliament, it is the hope of the Government that they may be able to give it such assistance in another place as will render it highly probable that it will pass into law. My Lords, I cannot believe that any among your number, or many among your number, who think for a moment of the lessons of the last few years, can entertain any doubt that this decision is both a wise and necessary one. Much has been said, and your Lordships need no instruction upon that point, of the immense contribution which has been made by women to this war, and your Lordships will not have failed to notice that it has been rendered in circumstances which of all others would at first sight appear to be the least suitable for
596
feminine contribution. It has none the less been ungrudgingly and most efficiently given, and very few, I think, will doubt that it would have been impossible to win the war had it not been for the contribution made by women.
My noble and learned friend Lord Sumner, when this Bill was under discussion on the previous occasion, said it appeared to him that the general contribution which had been made by women had very little to do with the special question whether women should be allowed to practice as solicitors. I do not agree with that view. The argument appears to me to be a fortiori. If a contribution of so much value has been made by women in occupations for which at first sight they would appear to possess no special attribute at all, there seems every ground for thinking that to a purely intellectual profession, in which special aptitude and quickness are required, there can be no reason why they should be denied access. When once it is conceded that the test of entry into an intellectual profession is by the door of examination, surely it is far beyond the day when a distinction or barrier based exclusively upon sex can be maintained or defended. In these circumstances it is the hope of the Government that your Lordships will send this Bill to another place, and it is the desire and intention of the Government to give such assistance to it as is in their power.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I recognise quite as fully as Lord Buckmaster, or the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the result of recent events and the trend of public opinion is such that, even if I desired to do so, which I do not, I could not offer any successful opposition to the passage of this Bill or to its obtaining a Second Reading. My only object in addressing a few words to your Lordships this afternoon is to refer to matters of detail which interest the profession. I think it should be known on this occasion that, so far as I have been able to ascertain—and it is rather corroborated by what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—I should not anticipate that among the profession there would be found any desire to obstruct or prevent the alteration of the law which is embodied in the present Bill. Whether it will in effect be of much

597
advantage to women, I confess I feel considerable doubt.
I am, as it happens, serving on a Committee of my own Bench, as to the effect of the admission of women to the profession of the Bar in foreign countries, and the result of our inquiries is to show that so far it has not been a profession in which women have attained any success or indeed in which they have entered much into competition. Whether the same thing will occur in this country when women are admitted to practice I cannot tell; but as far as the signs go, I do not think it can be said that they will affect the conduct of law proceedings to any large extent. I am quite sure, and not only for that reason, that it would be very unjust, if at any time there were opposition to this change, that such opposition should be attributed to a desire on the part of existing members of the profession to protect their material interests, because I do not think they, any more than I, anticipate that those interests are likely to be at all seriously affected thereby.
What I desire to call attention to this afternoon is that the Bill of Lord Buckmaster contemplates admission of women to the Bar by exactly the same steps and procedure as apply to men at the present time—namely, entrance as a student, becoming a member of an Inn of Court, and after keeping terms and passing examinations then being called by the Benchers to the Bar. That may be, and on the whole I think it is, the shortest and best way of dealing with it. But there are people who hold other views, and it might he quite conceivable that the way of doing it would have been to have thrown the profession of the Bar open to women merely on passing to the satisfaction of examiners certain examinations identical with the examinations for men. I am not asking that, because I do not think it is my own view, but I have heard it expressed and I think it is held by many people. Life in an Inn may be compared with college life to a modified extent, and it is not usual, at any rate in any of the big Universities, to have women and men members of the same College. I have heard the opinion expressed that this might have been done in a different way, but it having been done in this way, and I think rightly, it is a matter which very closely concerns the Inns of Court. The Inns of Court are responsible or the discipline and control of the Bar,
598
and I think that before this Bill comes to its final stage—in some way or other, if they can do it, and if they are in agreement—corporate counsel might be obtained by the many representatives of the Inns of this House as to either regulations or slight amendments that would come before the House from those who have a knowledge of the conditions.
I am told there is no possible objection to telling the House what is being done. A lady applied for admission to Lincoln's Inn, but, having regard to the opinion of the Judges in 1903, the Benchers were of opinion that, whether they would otherwise have called her or not, it was not open to there to do so. Another application of the same character has recently been made, and it came before the various inns of Court, including the one of which I have the honour to be a Bencher. It was referred—properly referred, as it seemed to me—to a standing joint committee which deals with the discipline and interests of the Bar. That committee passed a resolution on the subject. Of course, it was only a resolution of the committee, which may or may not be accepted by the Inn, but the House should know it, and I desire to show that there is no apparent tendency at present to do otherwise than co-operate in working the change if Parliament should think it should be decided upon.
I understand that there is no possible objection to reading the resolution of the joint committee, which is a recommendation to the Inns they represent. It is as follows—
"Resolved, That the Committee are of opinion, having regard to the decision of the Judges in the case of a lady on December 2, 1903, that women are not now eligible by law to be members of an Inn of Court or to be called to the Bar; they are further of opinion that, in view of the possibility of legislation being passed making women so eligible, the Inns of Court should consider in common how best the change should be carried into effect, having regard to the ancient discipline and customs of the Inns of Court and their control over all students and barristers; and that it is desirable that a special joint committee be appointed by the four Courts for this purpose."
I entirely concur that, things having got to this point, it is most desirable that the Bill should pass into law during the present session. I apprehend that it may not be long before the Inns of Court, if they agree, may be able to be of assistance and so far from hindering would facilitate the passage of the Bill.

599
I do not know whether I shall be successful, but the only object I had in speaking to-night was to appeal to my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster to leave perhaps rather a prolonged, certainly an unusual, time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, so that the Inns should have an opportunity to make suggestions to some of us who represent them in this House as to any details that may be necessary for giving effect to the Bill in the best way, having regard to the interests and discipline of the Bar, including as it may a certain number of women. In that way the Bill may be sent to the House of Commons in a form in which it may not be likely to require further amendment. I am not in any way opposing the Bill or its Second Reading. But I make the appeal that a little time should be given so that details may be considered by the Inns who may very well be able to make useful suggestions as to amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I would make it plain that the Government in no way bound themselves to adopt the precise form, and still less the precise language, of Lord Buckmaster's Bill; and before taking steps, if they are able to take steps, in the House of Commons it would certainly be their intention to consult the various Inns of Court.
LORD FINLAY: My Lords, I did not come down to the House with any intention of taking part in this debate. In fact, I did not know that this Bill was among the Orders of the Day. I rise in consequence of an observation that was made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He referred to the speech that I made when the Bill with regard to solicitors was before the House, and he spoke as if I had rested my opposition to it solely on the ground that the war was then pending. My objection to that measure was based on other and more general ground as well as on that of the pendency of the war to which it was vary probable I referred though I have no recollection that it formed the main subject of my argument. The argument now put forward in support of the measure is that it will only lead to a very few women—one or two, I think, it was said—coming to the Bar and a few becoming solicitors. That may be so but I think if that be the fact it goes a very long way to show that
600
the Common Law of England was not so absurd after all, and that it may in course of time be recognised that the Common Law was in conformity with the facts of the case. I do not rise to make a speech. I do not rise to move the rejection of the measure. But I think it only right, after what the Lord Chancellor has said, to correct the misapprehension under which I believe he was with regard to my attitude in the previous occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to Lord Chancellor to make rules.
3. The Lord Chancellor, with the advice and assistance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, may make rules for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed and in particular for—

(i)regulating the place and time of the sittings of the commissioners, and as to the quorum necessary;

(ii)the taking of evidence, and hearing by the commissioners of objections;

(iii)the notices (if any) to be given of their sittings to the incumbents, patrons, churchwardens or other persons interested, and the service of such notices;

(iv)the filling of vacancies in the number of commissioners, and the time within which the commissioners are to make their report;

(v)the payments (if any) to be made towards the costs and expenses incurred in the matter by any Bishop or by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or by the commissioners or the persons appearing before them;

(vi)the registration and inspection in the diocesan registries or elsewhere of Orders in Council made under this Act;

601

(vii)the fees to be paid to diocesan or other officials; and

(viii)generally as to all matters and things incidental to or connected with the holding of local inquiries and the publication or registration of draft schemes, schemes, or Orders made under this Act.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved, in paragraph (viii), after the word "inquiries," to insert "appeals to His Majesty in Council." The right rev. Prelate said: it is quite plain that if there are to be appeals it is necessary that provision should be made, and that the Lord Chancellor should make rules accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("inquiries") insert ("appeals to His Majesty in Council").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Bishop to transmit report of commissioners to Ecclesiastical Commissioners who are to propose scheme.
4.—(a) The Bishop receiving a report under this Act shall cause the same, or a copy thereof, to be transmitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, if the report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the dioceses or the Bishops of the dioceses affected shall signify in writing his or their approval of the report, but not otherwise, cause to be prepared a scheme based upon the terms recommended for effecting the proposed union, which scheme may, with the assent of the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, embody any modification of the proposals.
Draft scheme to be published locally.
(b) Drafts of such proposed scheme shall be published locally in the prescribed manner, and also be transmitted in the prescribed manner to the patron or patrons affected, together with a notice in each case requiring any objections to such draft scheme to be stated or transmitted in writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners within the prescribed time.
Ecclesiastical Commissioners to certify final scheme to the King in Council.
(c) After giving full consideration to such objections (if any), and after making such alterations (if any) in the draft, scheme as, having regard to such objections, they shall deem right, and after submitting such alterations (if any) to the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, and obtaining his or their consent thereto in writing, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (unless, after full consideration, they shall think it advisable to withdraw the scheme) shall certify the scheme, and the consent thereto in writing of the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, to His Majesty in Council.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name, which is that in paragraph (a) of Clause 4, after the words "who shall, if the," to insert "Commissioners or a majority of the Commissions making the,"
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after "the ") insert ("Commissioners or a majority of the Commissioners making the")—.(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose it is the ordinary practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to act by the majority?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: These are not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the three Commissioners.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in paragraph (a), after the words "and if the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected," to insert "and the patron or patrons affected." The noble Viscount said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I would say three things to begin with. I have not the least desire or intention to stop the passing of this Bill. I do not move my Amendment for that purpose. For what purpose I do move it I will say a little later. In the second place, with regard to certain communications that I have had by letter and personally both with the most rev. Primate and the right rev. Prelates who have taken part in the debates on this Bill, I wish to tender to them my thanks for the courtesy with which they met my appeal. But notwithstanding that, I am not perfectly satisfied with the position which will be held under this Bill by patrons, who may take, as I think justly, objection to some of its provisions.
May I refer for a moment to this point? What is the origin of the great majority of the benefices to which I refer. The greater part of them, beyond all doubt, have either been endowed by the existing patrons or by their predecessors, and I think we are sometimes a little apt to forget that at the present moment at all events they are as much the legal property of the patrons as anything else the patrons possess, or any one of your Lordships possess. Yet it cannot be denied that there are some very drastic provisions in

603
this Bill which might conceivably, in cases which would not be just, deprive them altogether of the property and the rights which it confers upon them.
In the course of the debate the other day the most rev. Primate told me that he could not understand what I meant when I ventured to suggest that a patron, if it came to a dispute before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, would always be in a minority. I think I find the answer to that in the words of the most rev. Primate himself in the debate which took place on Tuesday last. This is what he said—
"What does he mean by representatives of the Church? The Church is represented as to one part by the patron, as to another by the Bishop, and as to the third part by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner."
Those are the three persons to which I myself referred in the case I submitted last week. Is it not obvious, when we remember that one of the provisions of the Bill is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioner is to be Chairman, that the third part, as pointed out by the most rev. Primate, is directly connected with the Church. I have had dealings in days gone by with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and somehow or other—I do not know why or wherefore, and make no criticism or accusation against them—I fancy that in these matters they lean rather to the Church. It would be surprising indeed if they did not. That is what I meant when I said that where there was a difference of opinion between the Bishop on the one hand and the patron on the other, the third party representing according to the most rev. Primate the Church, the patron would always be in a minority. The most rev. Primate also said that this case was argued last year and the matter then disposed of. I have taken the pains to read the debate of last year, but I cannot see that the objections to the case which I submitted were answered then.
I will not delay the Committee for more than a single moment, but may I just say what my case was? I will quote what I said the other evening—
"There are two parishes now adjoining.… One of them during my time was extra-parochial altogether. The other was a parish with a very good living and a very old church. The time came when I thought it was desirable that the means of religious worship and education should be provided in the parish which originally was extra-parochial altogether, and there I built a small church and a school, and not only that but I endowed a living, and there it is at the present
604
moment.… The adjoining parish contains a church of the old-fashioned description, which was much more common in my younger days than it is now."
That church, at a very considerable expense to the patron, was restored in a modern way, and made into a church which gave great satisfaction to every one. I want to know whether in a case like that it would not be fair and right that the patron should not only have a voice but an effective voice in any questions that arise. It seems to me that if it is not so he would be very hardly and unjustly treated.
I am told that all these matters are to be carefully inquired into and examined by the three Commissioners, before whom the patron may raise any objection he pleases. That is quite true, and if Bishops were invariably like some of those whom it has been my great privilege to know exceedingly well, I do not believe that I should have had anything to say upon this occasion. But there are exceptions to that rule, and I do not think these very drastic powers ought to be given without the possibility of an appeal being afforded to the patron who has adopted the course I have endeavoured to describe, if a case is given against him. It is not for me to say how this Bill should be altered if this Amendment is carried. I do not want to stop the Bill; that is the last thing I desire to do. But it does seem to me that consequential Amendments could be very easily introduced giving the right of appeal, under certain conditions, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if, in cases such as I have endeavoured to describe, the verdict was given against the interest of the patron. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything further in connection with the Amendment which I have ventured to place upon the Paper, and with this brief explanation of my object I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, after ("affected") insert ("and the patron or patrons affected").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope that the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill will not accept the Amendment in the form in which the noble Viscount has moved it. I am entirely with the noble Viscount in every part of the argument that he has submitted. I want the patron, as a

605
representative of local interests, to have the fullest possible say that he can legitimately and reasonably be supposed to have in this matter. I want him to have—and I believe the Bill gives him—the full right of appeal if his interests have been in any way impaired or seriously tampered with, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount has, in the first place, omitted to notice what are the powers of the patron under the Bill in having his case put from his point of view, and, secondly, that he fails to realise where the difficulty now arises with regard to patrons and how that would be perpetuated if the Bill were to be amended in the way that he suggests.
As the Bill now stands, in every case any suggestion made will be considered by three Commissioners, one of whom will be appointed by the patron. That Commissioner will have his say with the other two Commissioners as to what is to be done. When the Report of the Commission has been made it will be sent to the patron as well as to the Bishop, and the patron will have the full right to make any objection or remarks that he desires to make upon it. We will suppose that the matter goes forward against what the patron has asked for. There would then still remain, what is set forth more fully in the proposed Amendment of the Bill by its mover, the right of the patron to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision before that decision can take effect. The patron, therefore, will have all these possibilities before him throughout the proceedings; but if the noble Viscount's Amendment were carried he could, by merely declining to answer a letter—I am sorry to say an exceedingly common thing in matters of this kind—stop all proceedings ab initio.
The Bill would say, if the noble Viscount had his will, that "The Bishop receiving such a report shall transmit to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, if the Report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the diocese affected and the patron shall signify in writing their approval of the Report, but not otherwise," it shall go forward. Therefore, unless the patron took the trouble to signify his approval the whole thing would absolutely drop. It seems to me that the patron would only have to sit still and do nothing, and by that means he would absolutely debar the whole proceedings soon after the beginning of them. I can hardly believe
606
that this is what the noble Viscount suggests, and I should think he is really unaware of the kind of difficulties that arise in these matters. We have to deal with small parishes, the patrons of which are living quite away, and who, I am sorry to say, care very little about them. The difficulty is to get them to take an interest in the matter. If the patron were really a representative of local feeling and local life in the way that I am quite sure the noble Viscount is, in regard to the parishes that he speaks of, and where such interest as he has described felt by the patron, it is perfectly obvious there would not be the difficulty that is now encountered.
The Bishop of the diocese and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are bound to consider any representations which the patron makes, and ultimately the patron has an appeal to the Privy Council. Therefore through the whole proceedings the greatest care has been taken that the patron shall have his side of the ease considered by his representative, or himself if he desires it, appearing before the Commission to make further statements. In addition to having a representative there, later by notification in writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners he can bring forward the objections he holds, and also by making objections to the Bishop, and if all these are overriden he has a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: After Clause 4?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Yes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Where does he get that?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: In Clause 5 of the Bill, to which an Amendment is going to be moved by the Bishop of Norwich. That Amendment sets out in full the manner of the appeal. The right of appeal is given in the Bill, but the Amendment places it beyond all possible doubt because it sets out in full how the appeal to the Privy Council can be given. All this seems to me to safeguard the rights of the patron absolutely to every reasonable extent that the patron could ask.
I feel that the noble Viscount went a little too far when he spoke of the patron's position with regard to the advowson of

607
which he is patron as being absolutely the same legal possession as the legal possession that he has of any other thing he holds. I think that the law even suggests that there are certain limitations to an absolute free right of that kind. But apart from that, it is of course the whole trust principle that we are trying at this moment to assure—that patronage is a trust and not a question of mere property—and I should be sorry if anything that went out from here seemed to show that this House regarded the power of a patron with regard to an advowson as being precisely similar to that with regard to any other property. It would be unfortunate if that phrase were to get out. I think that I have made it clear to the noble Viscount that the patron from first to last has his interest fully considered as regards power for the appointment of a Commissioner, and his power of protesting afterwards against the report of the Commissioners, and ultimately his power of appeal to the Privy Council. If we are to give him power to stop the whole thing by not answering the letter, I feel that we might as well not go forward with the Bill. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: If I understand the most rev. Primate correctly, I should go even further than he would in one respect. I would have no patience at all with the patron who did not even take the trouble to answer a letter or raise an objection. In such a case I would allow it to go by default, and I should be willing to move an Amendment to that effect if it were necessary. Perhaps I said a word too much in describing the patron's position with regard to this particular property when I said—if I did say so—that it was just as legally his property as any other property that he might possess. Of course, I quite agree that there may be, and ought to be, limitations with regard to patronage of that kind. But when the Bill was published there was not this right of appeal so far as I remember, and it is to be given by an Amendment. I only came up from the country late this afternoon, and have not had time since arriving at the House to read the Amendments giving a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the diocese affected shall signify in writing his approval of the Report, but not otherwise,
608
then they may cause to be prepared a scheme. I was not aware that it was contemplated that there should be an appeal after that to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is the very thing that I asked for and suggested myself just now as being perfectly satisfactory to myself. If I correctly understood the right rev. Prelate, there is very little difference between him and myself.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I explained that it was so in the Bill, as we believed—in Clause 5. But in case there could be any doubt about it we have made it perfectly clear in the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very glad that the noble Viscount has not persisted in his Amendment, which, as he has explained, he only pressed under a certain degree of misapprehension. I think that the remarks made by the most rev. Primate show that there is a quite sufficient appeal, which would protect the interests of the patron to every reasonable extent without giving him an absolute veto in the case of a proposed union.
There is one point, however, on which the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill could give me a little information. I notice in the Schedule that the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, is amended in certain respects; and if the right rev. Prelate would look at the proposed Amendment to Section 11 of that Act, I understand that where the united benefices produce a revenue which is regarded as too large for the single benefice, then, by an extension of the power which formerly applied only to the metropolis, surplus revenues may be allotted to any other parish in the diocese. That, of course, is a power that might seriously affect the interests of a patron, assuming, for instance, that both the united livings were in a single patronage and the surplus of their combined revenue was handed over to a parish, possibly in a different county, with which the patron had no connection at all.
The question I desire to ask is this. I assume that the omission of the words "of the patron or patrons of the benefices proposed to be united and of the vestries of the parishes to be affected thereby" does not prevent the final appeal, even on that point, which the patron might desire to

609
make to the Judicial Committee; and that it does not mean, as it might appear to mean, that that power is absolutely given and is not subject to appeal.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I think there is a good deal in what the noble Marquess says, and if at a later stage he proposed to move an Amendment in that direction I certainly should not be one to find any fault with the proposal. The union of the two small benefices might produce such an income as might be wholly inappropriate to the purpose, and in that care it seemed wise to take power to deal with it. But I have no reason to imagine that that would be done, or that any other step would be taken, in an outrageous or inconsiderate sort of way, and certainly every scheme, whatever the clauses and provisions, would be subject to the final appeal, which. I hope to move as an Amendment to the existing Clause 5.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If that is so, it seems hardly necessary in my opinion to alter the terms of the Schedule. I could, of course, consider the point with some of my friends before Report if it is desirable to do so. But personally I should be quite content with the final appeal to the Privy Council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Orders in Council.
5. It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make and issue any Order or Orders for affirming the scheme, and for uniting the, benefices and parishes proposed to be united to the extent and for the purposes recommended in the scheme: Provided always that if any petition or statement is lodged by way of protest, or any appeal is made against the scheme, or any part thereof, under this Act, no such Order or Orders in Council shall be made or issued until such petition or statement has been duly considered, or the parties to such appeal have been duly heard.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 5 and insert the following new clause:—
Appeals to His Majesty in Council.
5.—(1) After the scheme and consent shall have been certified as aforesaid public notice of I such certification shall be given in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, and any person who has in accordance with this Act made objection to the draft scheme may appeal to His
610
Majesty in Council against the scheme, or any part thereof.
(2) If no appeal is so made within the period of one month after the date of the said public notice it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make and issue any order or orders for affirming the scheme, and for uniting the benefices and parishes proposed to be united to the extent and for the purposes recommended in the scheme.
(3) If any appeal is so made, His Majesty in Council may order and direct that such appeal shall be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the said Judicial Committee shall make report to His Majesty in Council thereupon and may propose to His Majesty in Council to affirm, vary, or dismiss the scheme certified by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or to return the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for alteration or amendment and His Majesty may affirm, vary, or dismiss the scheme accordingly or return the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be reconsidered as to any parts thereof.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess might be well advised, if he is interested in the point which he indicated a few moments ago, to consider with some of his friends the exact wording of this Amendment in relation to any claim made by the Schedule. I merely throw out that suggestion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to insert a new clause after Clause 8. The noble Earl said: I have been asked to move this Clause by my friend the Bishop of Ipswich. He gives me as an instance where the Clause would be useful the following. He says—
"We have a scheme in Ipswich to take an old city church, with no population, for diocesan purposes; the nave to be our diocesan hall and the chancel to be a kind of Bishop's chapel for intercession, institutions, private confirmation and the like."
And in a further letter he also refers to the fact that this Amendment was suggested to him by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I believe that the right rev. Prelate in chargeof the Bill is not unfriendly to the objects aimed at in this new clause, which, there is a general feeling, would be in the direction of giving facilities. If the right rev. Prelate does not like the wording of this clause, I would not wish to press it.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Provision as to church within united parish and not being parish church.
"9. In respect of any church left standing within the united parish and not being the parish church, the scheme may provide that the same, except the chancel, may, with the consent of the bishop of the diocese within which the united parish is situate, be used for any ecclesiastical, educational, or charitable purpose in connection with the Church of England."—(Earl Grey.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: There is not the slightest objection to this clause; in fact, there are one or two churches which are being used in this very way now in the Diocese of London to the benefit of every one.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I do not oppose the inclusion of this clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I move my first Amendment to the Schedule. I do so as the result of the speech made the other day by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, when he expressed some hesitation as to the desirability of taking power to pull down churches. Your Lordships will observe that the Amendment limits the power of pulling down churches to those situate in a city or municipal borough. We are all aware that in a good many cases it may be desirable to pull down a church in a large city in order to secure the vacant space for a public garden or some other necessary object. In the country the position is different, and I readily accepted the suggestion made by the noble Viscount in the direction of safeguarding country churches. Under the existing law there is provision made for pulling down country churches, and that law will not be disturbed.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("omitted") insert ("and the following words shall be inserted: Provided that no scheme made under this Act shall authorise the pulling down of any church not being situate within a city or municipal borough").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved to omit from the Schedule the
612
following word, from "16" to "sinecures"—

Act.

Section.

Marginal Note.

Modification.

Union of Benefices Act, 1860

16

Appeals and protests against scheme.

For "benefices" there shall be substitutel "benefice or benefices, sinecure or sinecures."

The right rev. Prelate said: This is what I may call a consequential Amendment to Clause 5. Now that the details of the appeal have been explained, and being arranged as they are according to the Bill, it has become unnecessary to leave this clause in the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, leave out from ("16") to ("sinecures") in line 21.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE HOURS OF SITTING.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he would be prepared to recommend the House to advance the hour of public business so that it shall begin as soon after four o'clock as the necessities of private business will permit.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Question which. I put to my noble friend the Leader of the House, will want very few words from me to recommend it to him. The truth is that the amount of business which is likely to bespeak your Lordships' attention in the coming months will probably very much exceed that to which we have recently been accustomed. I earnestly hope that it may reach us in good time and I am sure after what has passed in the House that the noble Earl will do his utmost to expedite that part of the business. The earlier it comes the more necessity there will be for ample time to be provided soon for the proper discussion of this business. The business is likely to be of an extremely interesting character, and, as I said on a previous occasion, the responsibility of this House in the existing circumstances may be very important indeed.
This being so, some of us have been led to consider whether we could not have a little more time in which to carry out the consideration of important matters. Under the present system, as your Lordships are aware, the House meets for public business at half-past four o'clock, and there is really only a rather briefly limited time before the hour approaches when for certain domestic reasons the House generally thins a good deal. Indeed, it is not really possible for us to keep a house in ordinary circumstances much after seven o'clock—that means about two and a half hours. In former times, of course, the House sat much more frequently after dinner, and I dare say that may be necessary again. But recently the habits of those who take part in our debates have become such as to make it very difficult to sit after dinner as a common occurrence.
But though our hours have therefore been curtailed, I am not sure that our speeches have been curtailed. So that what happens is that the speeches of those of your Lordships who engage the attention of the House are as long as they used to be, but the time at our disposal is considerable shorter. That produces not only an unfortunate effect, but in point of fact it limits the opportunities which the House has of hearing as many of your Lordships as it would desire to hear. In looking at the arrangement of our business one cannot help being struck by the fact that, even after the House has formally assembled, there is considerable delay. When prayers are said in the afternoon, it is at 4 o'clock or a few minutes after. Private business begins at a quarter-past four, and a great many valuable minutes are expended without any particular result.
LORD FINLAY: Prayers are at a quarter-past four.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I was wrong in regard to a few minutes. There appears to be good reason to think, therefore, that we can save that quarter of an hour and perhaps a little more. I understand that judicial business finishes at a quarter to four. If the House could begin its other business at 4 o'clock, or as soon after as possible, that would appear to be the most economical use of our time that could be made. Speaking generally, prayers are said in the morning when
614
judicial business begins; but on Wednesdays, when there is usually no judicial business, prayers are said in the afternoon.
The form of the Question is not intended to be very precise. If we make some change in our Standing Orders the words, no doubt, would have to be carefully considered; but what I contend is that, unless there is private business, the House should begin effectually to do its work at 4 o'clock. That does not seem to be at all an unreasonable proposition. If prayers have to be in the afternoon, I imagine prayers would be said just before 4 o'clock, and that would only be on Wednesdays, when there is no judicial business. On the other days, prayers being earlier, there would be no question of their interference. Therefore we could then begin our business effectually and effectively at 4 o'clock. That is the very moderate and modest proposal which I venture to make to your Lordships.
We should be most unwilling, of course, to interfere with our other great, functions—namely, our judicial functions. That would be a very strong measure to take, and therefore when it was suggested, as it was by certain noble Lords, that we should sit at 3.30, we felt that it would be asking rather too much of the legal side of our functions. Sitting at 4 o'clock ought not seriously to interfere with the legal side, and it will give us an extra valuable half-hour. Therefore I cannot help thinking that we should be well advised, in view of the heavy burden of work which is likely to come upon us, if we made this moderate alteration in our procedure.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me an opportunity both of replying to the Question and of adding one or two other observations upon the subject of the procedure of the House a matter to which attention was pointedly called the other day by Lord Burnham, and about which I have since had an opportunity of consulting several members of great experience of the proceedings of your Lordships' House.
In order to understand exactly what, is proposed and what it is possible to do, and in what respects our present procedure is deficient, if it is, let us have a very clear understanding of what are the actual re-

615
gulations and practice of the House. We ordinarily meet here on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in the week. Some times, but more usually later in the session, we meet also on Mondays and Fridays. On Tuesday and Thursday Bills have precedence of all other Notices upon the Paper. Wednesday is the private members' afternoon, and Bills on that afternoon are only taken after other business. Your Lordships' House meets for the discharge of judicial business on four days of the week—namely, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 in the morning, and, as a rule, concludes those proceedings at 3.45 in the afternoon, although sometimes for the convenience of an argument, or a speaker, the time of rising is slightly postponed. On Wednesday the House does not meet for judicial business at all. On the days on which the House sits for judicial business prayers are read, not at the afternoon session, but at the morning session before judicial business, and therefore on those days we are dispensed from reading prayers in the afternoon.
Now what is the object of the noble Marquess's Question? It is, as defined by himself, to allow of greater time being found within the limits of our ordinary procedure for the despatch of public business; to permit and indeed encourage more noble Lords to take part in our discussions than do now—although I was rather sorry to note that my noble friend held out no prospect whatever of any reduction in the length of the speeches to which we sometimes listen; and, indeed (what my noble friend has in view and what we all have), to give to the public at large a correct impression of the seriousness which characterises our proceedings in this House. He therefore proposes that we should on every day in the week meet as nearly as possible at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, instead of at 4.30.
Let us see what exactly happens in practice. I have already pointed out that the House separates from its judicial sittings at 3.45, or thereabouts. There is then half-an-hour before the hour of 4.15, when Parliamentary business is taken. In that half-hour the re-arrangement of the House has to be made—it has to be converted from a judicial tribunal into a legislative chamber. At 4.15 the Lord Chancellor takes his seat upon the Woolsack, and then ensues an interval of a quarter-of-an-hour in which, broadly speaking,
616
the following operations either do or can take place: Peers are introduced or take the Oath, Bills are read a first time, private Bills receive their Second or Third Reading, Questions are put by private notice and addressed to the Front Bench, and at 4.30 public business commences. The noble Marquess says, Cannot we contract or put back these proceedings, and commence not at 4.30 but at 4 o'clock? I dare say that the mechanical procedure of re-arranging the House could conceivably be effected in the interval between 3.45 and 4 o'clock, although it might be running it rather fine.
But we have also in the matter to consider with due respect the convenience and interests of the Lord Chancellor. On these days, Tuesdays and Thursdays for instance, the Lord Chancellor has now an interval between 3.45, when the Court rises, or it may be later, and the meeting of this House for other business at 4.15, to make those changes in his costume which render him an object not merely of dignity but of charm to your Lordships' House. He has to transact whatever business comes before him in the interval, and to sign documents which may be submitted to him. Indeed, these are some of the few moments of the day when he can perform any duties outside those of sitting as a Judge or as a legislator in this House. I think we should respect those necessities. I have taken the opportunity of consulting both the present Lord Chancellor and his predecessor upon the Woolsack, and I gather from both of them that it would be an inconvenience amounting to hardship to compel them after a long session, terminating at 3.45, to perform the various duties to which I have referred and again sit at 4 o'clock. Therefore as regards Tuesdays and Thursdays I should not like to hold out to my noble friend any encouragement that I would recommend the course which he has suggested.
I think, however, that on those days we should do well to follow his suggestion in one respect. He has spoken, quite correctly, of the apparent waste of time involved in the spectacle of the House sitting here, with the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, from 4.15 to 4.30, when there is no private business to be taken and nothing to prevent public business being proceeded with, and when an air of dignified but impotent leisure pervades the scene. I see no reason why on such occasions public business should not be proceeded with in the absence of

617
private business. That would mean that we should commence our ordinary proceedings as nearly as possible at 4.15 instead of at 4.30. As regards Wednesdays, when there is no judicial business, I think we may go, if your Lordships approve, not only the whole way that the noble Marquess desires, but even a little further. I have had the advantage of speaking on this matter to the Lord Chancellor, and I think I carry his consent with me when I make the suggestion that the House should meet on Wednesdays at 3.45; that, at its meeting at that hour prayers should be read and private business should be taken; and that, this being completed, public business should commence as nearly as possible at 4 p.m. That would mean a definite gain of at least half an hour, and I will show presently that I think it might be a great deal more on Wednesdays, Which are par excellence the days when private members do their work.
A further suggestion I venture to make for economising our time is this. We are all familiar with the picturesque ceremony by which noble Lords are introduced into this House or are advanced from one stage of the Peerage to another. What exactly its symbolism signifies probably none of us understands, but it is one of those survivals of the past which we cherish and from which I believe we would not readily part; but there is no reason whatever why a Peer should not be introduced in these circumstances on any day at any time that he likes to seek to arrange. All I understand that he has to do is to communicate with the Lord Chancellor in advance and fix a day by arrangement with him. Communication is then made to Garter King-at-Arms and the Clerk at the Table and the whole machinery is set in operation. The consequence is this, that this very dignified and, to the individual concerned, very important proceeding takes place without any notice given in advance, in a House that is sometimes wholly empty, frequently in the absence of the Leader of the House, commonly in the absence of the friends, unless they have been warned, of the noble Lord who is principally concerned. Would it not be an advantage to all parties that this procedure should as a rule take place on the Wednesday of the week? In other words, when the Peer who seeks introduction or who has been advanced a stage in the Peerage makes his communication to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord, Chancellor would see fit to advise him to arrange for
618
this procedure to be adopted upon Wednesday. We should then know where we are; a number of people would assemble to welcome the noble Lord; the Leader of the House would, on many occasions, seek to be present himself; and we should be spared the diffusion of the ceremony over this or that day of the week, when, as we have often had experience, it may seriously interfere with public business. I have been present on occasions when there was a large House waiting to proceed to important matter. Very likely there has been some little bit of private business, and, in addition to that, ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes have been taken up with the ceremony to which I alluded. No alteration is required in any Standing Order to produce this change, which is one, I think, that will be to the general advantage.
So much for the question of providing more time at the beginning of our proceedings. I wonder if we can do anything at the other end. The noble Marquess alluded to the difficulties that have attended our sittings after dinner, and he mentioned that in the old days after-dinner sittings were much more frequent. No doubt the diminution of the practice has been largely due to the special circumstances created by the war. When there was great difficulty in providing the requisite refreshments in another part of your Lordships' House, when there was practically no means of obtaining vehicular conveyance through the streets of London, when the streets themselves were ill-lighted or not lighted at all, it can well be understood that it was a matter not only of discomfort, but even of worse, to noble Lords after a long session here to find their way home at eleven or twelve o'clock at night. Therefore, the practice of after-dinner sittings, except in a few rare cases, has fallen into desuetude. I do not know that it is necessary as a universal course, as a uniform procedure, to revive it; but I should like to feel that whenever we are in Committee on an important Bill your Lordships will regard it as part of the natural and inevitable order of things that you will sit after dinner for the purpose.
Then there is another aspect of the same problem. It was alluded to, I think, by the noble Marquess. It is the question of the hour at which we adjourn, supposing there be no after-dinner sitting.

619
I think it is desirable that in such cases we should continue to sit as nearly as possible until eight o'clock. I mention that hour because I have noticed lately that the practice has grown up in the case, let us say, of some important discussion, which is sometimes adjourned from day to day, even from week to week, that a noble Lord who may have been speaking resumes his seat at approximately half-past seven. Thereupon another noble Lord who desires to resume the discussion, and who is somewhat chilled at the prospect of a speech to a rather empty Chamber and has considerable doubt as to the reception his speech will meet with in the Press Gallery, proposes the adjournment of the debate to the next or a later day. With all respect I do not think that is quite fair. I think that we ought to be able to continue our proceedings at least till 8 o'clock, and in so far as I am concerned—occupying the position that I happen to do—I will always make it my duty, as far as possible, to provide speakers, if Government speakers are required, to fill that interval; and I should like your Lordships, if you agree with my argument, to take the general line that on the whole it is reasonable that instead of adjourning at half-past seven we should sit till 8 o'clock. In that way we should gain on many occasions half an hour at the end of our proceedings as well as the half-hour which I have endeavoured to save at the beginning.
Will your Lordships bear with me while I say a few words about the difficult matter of Questions?—because Questions, and the treatment which they receive in your Lordships' House, are the source of a great deal of the irregularity and mischief of which some complain. It is rather a remarkable thing, if you look at the Standing Orders of the House, that the word "Question" except in its connotation of a subject, does not occur there at all, and when the Standing Orders were drawn up it cannot, I think, have been contemplated that Questions should assume anything like the place they now occupy in the attention of your Lordships' House. Questions are, from one point of view, our most cherished privilege, and I am certain your Lordships would not wish to forego their full and legitimate exercise, but it is also true that they are the case in which our regulations are most consistently and flagrantly violated.
620
Let me read to your Lordships Standing Order No. XXVII, which deals with this matter. It runs as follows—
"No Lord is to speak twice to any Bill, at one time of reading it, or to any other proposition, except the Mover in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced), and that not without the leave of the House first obtained."
Thus your Lordships will see that under the Standing Order a noble Lord is subject to four limitations as regards his second speech. In the first place, he cannot make it at all without the leave of the House; in the second place, it must only be in explanation of something that he has said before; in the third place, the explanation must relate to some material point of his former speech or argument; and, lastly, he is not at liberty to introduce any new matter. I am making no revelation when I say that those rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. What do we see? Scarcely a day passes in your Lordships' House in which a noble Lord who has put his Question on the Paper and made his speech does not think it necessary to get up and make a second speech later on. Sometimes it is a mere courteous expression of thanks to the Minister who has answered him. Even so, it is out of order. Sometimes it is a deliberate attempt to answer and to criticise the Minister who has given him the reply, and sometimes it is an entirely new speech supplementary to the first, and indeed on occasions wholly distinct from it.
Let me take as an illustration the last occasion on which your Lordships met and of which I have the printed proceedings, March the 6th. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale made a very characteristic and excellent speech about the treatment of horses in the streets of London. He was replied to by the Earl of Jersey on behalf of this Bench, and then my noble friend proceeded to make a second speech. First, he thanked the noble Earl for the reply he had given. That was all right although it was superfluous; and then he proceeded for a column and a half to make an entirely new speech not arising out of anything which had been said in reply, and not in explanation of anything that had been said by himself. Everybody, gratified at the incursions of my noble friend into the debate, witnessed this disorderly proceeding with perfect composure. The next Question was one by Earl Fortescue. He inquired about

621
the search which had been made in Germany for prisoners of war. To this a full reply was given by Lord Newton. My noble friend Earl Fortescue was not satisfied, and he jumped up again and said—
"May I ask the noble Lord one further question, Can be tell us anything about the prisoners in Turkey?"
—a wholly different subject, no hint of which had appeared on the Paper. The next subject dealt with was a discussion on the food situation in Central Europe, raised by Lord Wimborne. He made his speech, and was replied to by my noble friend the Earl of Crawford. Other noble Lords took part in the debate, and in the course of the discussion try noble friend Lord Harris having fallen upon Lord Parmoor who had spoken, up jumped Lord Parmoor and made a second speech in defence of himself. And finally at the close of the proceedings Lord Wimborne diffused a genial atmosphere by getting up and thanking everybody for all that had been said and poured compliments on this Bench. That is merely a casual illustration of our ordinary procedure. I think it cannot be doubted that it is quite out of accord with the Standing Orders.
Next let me take the second class of Question which we constantly have in your Lordships' House. These are the Questions which terminate with a Motion for Papers. I take it—the Clerks at the Table will correct me if I air wrong that when Notions are dealt with in the Standing Order it was never contemplated that Motions for Papers should lie made with no idea of haying Papers, but simply for the opportunity of giving the noble Lord who makes the Motion a chance to reply. But that is the way in which it is now interpreted. Any noble Lord who has not sufficient confidence in the generosity or patience of the House in allowing him to speak a second time, and who wants to be sure of his second speech, simply has to add to his Question a Motion for Papers. That, again, has admitted of an extension, or rather an abuse, which I think will not excite general sympathy. A noble Lord sometimes now puts down his Question on the Paper ending in a Motion for Papers. He rises in his place; he does not state the case at all, but merely says to the Minister on this Bench, "I put the Question that stands in my name." The Minister replies, and then the noble Lord, utilising the power of reply given him by the Motion
622
for Papers, gets up and makes a slashing attack on the Minister who has given the Ministerial defence. That is exactly what happened last week in the case of Lord Ampthill. He put down a Question relating to the treatment of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant. The least that could be expected was that he would make his statement when he put his Question, but he simply put the Question and consequently reserved his right of reply. Later in the evening he made a second speech, which I venture to think that he ought to have delivered as his first. Here I cannot do more than ask noble Lords to be sparing in the use of the privilege which the Motion for Papers places in their hands.
There is another difficulty that applies to both classes of Question. It is one which particularly affects and afflicts the occupants of this Bench. It is this. When we see a Question down on the Paper we have, except by personal communication with the noble Lord who puts it clown, no idea at all whether the Question is intended to be merely one for the eliciting of information, or whether it is intended to be the peg on which is to be hung an extensive debate. Let me give two illustrations, one past, the other prospective. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, the Leader of the Opposition, had down the other day upon the Paper a Question relating to military operations in Southern Persia. He put that Question, and the remarks he had to make with strict relevancy to the Question on the Paper. But so little was I conscious that the debate would be confined to that matter, so likely did it seen; to me that it would cover I lie whole field not only of Persian politics but much more, that I took the trouble in advance to prepare myself to make a statement, should it be so required, on the whole Persian situation. It was not required, and I was fortunately excused from the duty. On many other occasions out of a narrow Question has arisen a debate in which noble Lords have taken part wit) great authority and have expected fall replies.
I will give another illustration which is prospective. On the Order Paper is a Question down for Thursday of this week in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. It relates to the position in Poland. The Question is put in categorical form. If that Question were put in the House of Commons one would know exactly what it meant, and prepare the reply, which would be delivered by the Parliamentary under

623
Secretary. Indeed, in the Foreign Office the officials who are responsible for the preparation of answers, mistaking the Question for a House of Commons Question, submitted to me a reply which, had I read it in this House, would have occupied about one and a-half minutes of time. What guarantee have unless I can trust to the courtesy (if the noble Lord to inform me, that he is not going to speak for half an-hour about, Poland, that he is not going to raise the whole question, and that other noble Lords will not raise questions not merely about Poland but about Russia, about the Baltic States, about Yugo-Slavia, or anything that enters into their heads. Then, it the Minister here is not prepared at once to embrace this wide sphere of public interest, he is supposed not to be paying sufficient respect to your Lordships' House.
One other illustration will bring this home to your Lordships. We had in the last session of Parliament numerous debates about our prisoners of war in Germany, and on more than one occasion I was reproached by noble Lords opposite—Lord Beresford and Lord Devonport—because on those occasions no expression of general interest or sympathy had been received from this Bench on the matter of our prisoners abroad. The charge happened to be untrue, because on two occasions I had taken advantage of the opportunity to speak. But, my Lords, on none of those occasions had we any indication that a general debate was going to be raised. Suppose that the Question was put to Lord Newton. Lord Newton gets up and replies to it. Following upon that a number of noble Lords get up, in the exercise of their rights, in all parts of the House, and a debate, very likely occupying two or three hours, takes place. The Minister has already replied and exhausted his right to speak, and if the Leader of the House is not here to give some general expression of sympathy on the part of the Government—though we had no reason to suppose a debate was going to take place at all—he is liable to censure by some members of your Lordships' House.
How is it possible to escape from this difficulty—because, believe me, it is a genuine one, as anybody who has sat upon the Front Bench in this House knows? I venture with all diffidence to submit to your Lordships a suggestion. In another place there are two classes of Questions.
624
There are Questions which are put but answered upon paper, not put in the House; and there are Questions which are put in the House and answered by Ministers from the Front Bench. I would not propose any such differentiation here, but I would like to suggest to your Lordships that you should be willing to put your Questions in one or other of two categories. If you desire to put a Question for information, and you seek a reply only to the Question upon the Paper, I would suggest to your Lordships that in handing it in you should be willing to put it into a category confined to Questions of that nature, to which an asterisk might be fixed, and which might be taken in the order in which they are handed in, at the commencement of our proceedings. The Minister concerned, whatever Department he represented, would then know the kind of ordeal which faced him. He would know he had to supply information in reply to that Question, and was not expected to prepare himself for a general debate.
There arises upon this the matter of dealing with supplementaries. It may be said, How would you curtail supplementary Questions? Unfortunately we have not in this House the protection that exists in another place by the presence and the experience and authority of Mr. Speaker in the Chair. The Lord Chancellor is not permitted from the Woolsack to be the custodian of the order of our proceedings. The House is the custodian of its own order, and in this, as in all other cases, the only way to prevent disorderly or irregular proceedings is for the House to decide that they shall not be allowed. I think it is quite in the power of your Lordships' House, if a supplementary Question is put that is reasonable, to allow it to be put, and to suffer the Minister to reply to it; if it is unreasonable, to support the Minister in declining to reply. That is what is constantly done in another place. If a supplementary is put which ought not fairly to be put, a Minister asks for notice and declines to reply at the moment. That is a suggestion which I venture to submit as regards Questions put for information only.
But as regards Questions that are intended to be the subject of debate, whether they end in a Motion for Papers or not, how can we secure greater regularity? Only by strict adherence to our own Standing Orders. Here again I must re-

625
spectfully ask noble Lords to assist the Leader of the House, whoever he may be, in the matter. I think that it ought to be a common understanding, when the first; speech has been made, that the noble Lord who makes it is not at liberty to make a second, except within the narrow limitations that are enforced by the Standing Orders. It may be that you would require some slight exception to be made in the case of Ministers, not because a man is a Minister, but because further information may be sought from him which the House would desire to receive, and if it be the desire of the House to receive further information it will naturally be the desire of the Minister to give it. But, apart from that exception, I would earnestly ask noble Lords in the first place to be more scrupulous in their adherence to the Standing Orders, and I would ask the House in the second place to support the Government in making this appeal. It is perfectly in their power to do so, and I will indicate how. When first I attended your Lordships' House I remember speaking from that Bench and rising, in the course of the speech from this Bench which was delivered in reply to me, to interrupt the noble Lord who was replying.
I was greeted with loud cries of "Order, order," from Lord Rosebery. I said afterwards, "Why did you cry 'Order, order'?" He said, "Because you were speaking a second time. You had no right to speak a second time." The old rules of the House were implacably opposed to anything of the sort.
It is difficult for any individual noble Lord to move in the matter. It is true that we have had from time to time one or two noble Lords of great experience and standing who were in a certain sense the watch-dogs of this House. Lord Camperdown was one, and sometimes my noble friend Lord Harris assumes the functions. But it is a very difficult thing for any one man to get up and call attention to a breach of order, and it, is still more difficult—although I have heard it done—for a noble Lord to get up and move that another Peer shall no longer be heard. That has been done, but it requires great authority and sonic courage to do it. Where I think your Lordships can help is, on those occasions when rules are being disobeyed, to indulge generally in the cry of "Order, order" all round; or, if your Lordships would support those of us who
626
sit on this Bench in an incipient cry of "Order, order," I think that even the most ardent of your Lordships, greeted with a fusilade of that sort, would presently desist from the operation which he had in hand. That is a suggestion which I venture to make as regards Questions.
There is another small matter about which I am not quite clear, because it rests upon an interpretation of the Standing Orders. It sometimes happens that there are three or four Questions or Motions down on the Paper as to which, under the methods that I have described, we are absolutely in the dark whether the third or the fourth, let us say, will be reached at 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock, or not at all. And yet noble Lords may have come down here, on the one hand to put the Questions, on the other hand to answer them or to listen to the answers. The other day we had the case of my noble friend Lord Bryce, who came down to put an important Question upon Armenia. He was unable to put it until half-past seven, because there were other Questions which had priority, although they might have been of less importance. Under Standing Order XXI I think it would be open to the House to deal with a case of this sort, because that Standing Order provides that the House shall always proceed with Notices in the order in which they stand upon the Paper "unless the Lord who shall have given any such Notice shall withdraw the same, or shall, with the leave of the House, consent to its postponement." I wonder if on some occasion when there is a Question of importance coming on late in the afternoon it might not be possible—only of course with the consent, on the one hand, of the noble Lord who has priority, and, on the other hand, of the House to agree to the postponement of the Questions standing first and second on the Paper in order to admit a Question that stands later being taken in advance of them. You would have, of course, to rest assured that that privilege, if granted, was not abused, and I think that the guarantee would be found in the fact that for it would be required both the consent of the noble Lord chiefly concerned and of the House at large.
I apologise for having addressed you at length on this matter, but this is a matter of importance, not merely to ourselves but in the effect which our debates produce upon the public outside. I have not proposed the alteration of a single Standing Order.

627
The other day I suggested that we might perhaps have a Committee of your Lordships' House to consider alterations in Procedure, but I placed myself in the hands of the House and was willing to receive any suggestion that emanated from it. I have had conversations with noble Lords but no definite suggestions as to Procedure. I have wondered, therefore, whether it might not be possible by these methods of accommodation, adjustment, the reasonable interpretation of our own Procedure, to effect some improvement in these respects. I cannot force any ideas that I have put forward on the acceptance of your Lordships' House, but I submit them to your favourable consideration, asking you to believe that they are designed only to improve the efficiency of our business and the standing in the country of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the views of the noble Earl have been expressed with his usual clearness, and he has stated his ease with extreme moderation. I merely desire to make one or two general observations on certain points which he mentioned. In the first place as regards the hours of attendance, I think the house was convinced by the statement which the noble Earl made that it would hardly be possible on every day in the week to carry out the desire of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that public business should begin at 4 o'clock. I quite appreciate that on the days when your Lordships are sitting judicially some interval may be required before we meet for public business. I think, however, that the suggestion which the noble Earl made that on ordinary days where there is no private business of moment public business should begin at a quarter past four will prove to be for the general convenience—that is to say, that the noble Lord who has the first Motion on the Paper will have to be in his place by a quarter past four instead of now probably only thinking it necessary to come down at half past. In ordinary times private business often takes up the intervening quarter of an hour, and sometimes overflows long past the half hour. Of late years we have scarcely known cases of that kind, but it may often happen in ordinary circumstances that public business cannot be begun until some time after half past four.
Then as regards the time of adjournment
628
and the possibility of sitting frequently after dinner, I may remind your Lordships that the adjournment for dinner is an institution of quite modern growth. I do not think that until some ten or twelve years ago the House ever adjourned. It was found on the occasion of carrying through some heavy Bills in Committee that it was very hard upon the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to have to sit continuously; but even after the change was made in respect to those particular Bills it was always understood that a Second Reading, or a debate on foreign policy or on some general subject, was carried straight through without any adjournment, for dinner. And now when newspapers go early to Press—far earlier than they used in those days—I cannot help thinking that it would be a positive advantage for some noble Lords to be able to speak at 8 or half past, instead of having to put off their oratory till half past nine or ten o'clock, when there is no chance whatever of its being reported in the Press. I hope the noble Earl will bear in mind that when evening sittings are required, except when a big Bill is in Committee, it may be found more convenient to sit through the dinner hour instead of adjourning for it.
The noble Earl spoke of the habit of closing debates at a quarter past and half past seven instead of sitting on till 8 o'clock. Of course, if he is prepared to provide a Government speaker to fill up the interval it would often undoubtedly meet the case. But I am afraid it will be found in these days, when so many noble Lords have to depend on their two feet to get them home, that by about half past seven, supposing a noble Lord desires to return home to dinner, the House would begin to empty, and the eloquence of the noble Lord who filled up the breach to the hour of eight is likely to have but few auditors. I quite agree that if it is possible to get the House to sit later oftener, as the days get longer, it will be all to the good. I do not know that I should altogether agree as regards this House with Moore's lines that—
"The best of all ways
To lengthen our days
Is to steal a few hours from the night."
On the contrary, I believe half an hour at the beginning of business is worth an hour or two later in the day. But all these devices, I think, ought to be adopted with a view of saving our time.

629
There is one point, however, to which the noble Earl drew no attention. It is a new thing that we should sit only three days a week; it is certainly only since the war, and I am not quite sure that the practice even began with it. Ever since I have known your Lordships' House, Monday has been one of the regular sitting days and was often given up to important business. Therefore if we find that we are really getting short of time I hope the noble Earl will consider whether we ought not to return to four days a week; and if four days. I sincerely hope the fourth will be Monday and not Friday, which I think will probably suit the convenience of the majority of your Lordships, although some of us may not be affected by it. So much for the hours and days of meeting. Then as regards the possible alterations in debate—
EARL CURZON OF KELDLESTON: I wonder if the noble Marquess approves of the suggestion I ventured to put forward about Wednesday. He has not mentioned that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think that, so far as Wednesday is concerned, so long as the House is not sitting judicially the proposal of the noble Earl will be found very useful. The noble Earl will remember, of course, that although the sittings of your Lordships' House in their judicial capacity do not in any way depend upon the rising of the Courts in the Long Vacation, yet when the judicial business of the House is completed, as often happens, in the course of the Parliamentary session, then the House ceases so to sit, and all days will then be alike. But if and when that happens then no doubt the noble Earl will be prepared, if necessary, either to apply the Wednesday procedure to other days or to make some other modification as circumstances may demand.
Now as regards the procedure in debate, of which the noble Earl spoke. I think, if I may say so, that he adopted the right course in not attempting to amend the Standing Orders in any respect. Some years ago we had a close examination of the Standing Orders relating to business with the same view of seeing if our procedure could be in some way modernised and accelerated, but the results of the examination were rather disappointing, and in the end only some quite minor changes
630
were made. I think the noble Earl is right in depending upon something like a change of attitude in your Lordships' House generally for the occasional curtailment of debate, and also in enforcing adherence to the particular point under discussion. Certainly your Lordships have grown either very much kinder or very much more slack in those directions since the days when I joined the House. In those days it was the commonest things for the speaker. I will not say to be shouted down, because that would not be the proper expression, but to be made to see that the desire of the House that he should not continue his speech was so marked that, unless he was an in usually thick-skinned person he was apt to start his peroration long before it was due; and without going to the extreme length of moving, "that the noble Lord be not heard," which I myself only remember to have heard moved on three occasions, it is possible to make tip indications which I have described.
Whether it is that the assuaging of the Party spirit generally and the absence of questions of acute political interest has somewhat dulled the interest in your Lordships' House from the Party point of view, I cannot say, but the fact undoubtedly remains that speakers are far less interfered with than they used to be many years ago. One result is that the average speeches on important natters are far longer than was the case when I first came to the House. It has always been a subject of regret among the older members of the House that more of those who have recently come to the House do not take part in the discussions. But that has been a matter of regret ever since those of us who have been here the longest can remember the House. It is very difficult, as those who have sat on either Front Bench will agree, for the Front Bench Peers not to take up too large a portion, as they feel, of the time in debate; but circumstances make it very difficult to avoid it on many occasions, and all that any of us can do is to encourage in every possible way other noble Lords who are willing to try their wings in debate.
Then on the point which the noble Lord raised of the uncertainty which a Minister feels, when he sees a Question on the Paper, as to whether it is merely a Question or intended as a peg on which to hang a long speech leading to a long debate, my recollection is that on a great many

631
occasions when I was a Minister and the latter result was intended noble Lords informed me beforehand that it was desired to raise the whole subject, and very often they mentioned the specific points upon which it was intended to dwell. My impression is that the noble Earl himself, when he was on this side of the House and I was on that, has on several occasions favoured me with that courtesy; and I am only sorry that on the particular occasion which he mentioned—that of the quite narrow Question as to operations in Southern Persia which I put down on the Paper the other day—the noble Earl should have supposed that had I intended to raise a debate on Persia generally I should not have informed him that that was the purpose of my Question.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have no complaint against the noble Marquess. He would have undoubtedly done so. But the weak point in the position which he is taking up is this, that the action of the noble Lord who puts down the Question, and who has the courtesy to give notice to the Government, does not govern anybody else who rises to speak. In my own knowledge there have been frequent occasions when, Questions having been put by a noble Lord with proper explanation, that has not prevented half a dozen other noble Lords from getting up and converting a Question of minor importance into one of major importance.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In cases of that kind I think a Minister has this defence. When he sees that the subject is spreading like a drop of oil upon water, when he sees that it is beginning to assume a larger aspect, it is within his power to rise and stop the discussion by saying that he is not prepared to proceed with it on those lines, and asking other noble Lords to give notice by putting separate Questions on the Paper. That is a course which I have seen pursued, and which I imagine I have myself pursued. It is a safeguard of which I think the House would certainly approve. The noble Earl, I think, did not tell us how he proposed to meet the difficulty which he mentioned of those noble Lords who finished off a Question with a Motion of some kind, either for Papers, or a Motion, not seriously intended, for reference to a Committee. Those cases are, as I think the noble Earl told us, very
632
difficult to meet. It is hard to curtail the liberty of the house in that matter, and I very much doubt whether the House at large would agree to have its power of making Motions curtailed in any respect. Therefore if noble Lords persist in putting down Questions with Motions tied to their tail, with the object of being able to make a second speech, I confess I do not see what there is to be done, except to return to our primitive methods and express the disapprobation of the House at the time by vocal means.
I think it would be a desirable thing that the rule of limiting speeches altogether, where there is no Motion, should be strictly enforced; that where a noble Lord puts a Question on the Paper it should be understood it is a Question and a Question only, and even though, according to the long-standing liberty of your Lordships' House, he is able to make something of a speech when putting the Question, in no circumstances should he be able to reply. Also in those cases no other noble Lord ought to be allowed to intervene in the debate at all, and in cases where there is no Motion no other noble Lord ought, according to the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders, to be allowed to take part. If that was understood it would not be necessary to star Questions, because a Question would simply be a Question, and a Motion would be a Motion, with all the freedom and even laxity which so far as I can see must attach to the making of Motions, unless the liberties of the House are to be curtailed in a way to which it would probably not consent.
I think those are all the points which the noble Earl mentioned. I am very glad that he raised the matter, and I hope, although the House was not very full, that the speech of the noble Earl will be read by many noble Lords in the OFFICIAL DEBATES, because it is upon a general appreciation of the difficulties, and of the effect upon your Lordships' credit in the eyes of the country, that the importance of this matter depends. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, is not in his place, because I had hoped be might have been able to give us the benefit of his advice as a former Leader of the House. I think, however, that what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite has obtained the general agreement of your Lordships.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, say one word only in reply to, the observation of the noble Marquess towards the close of his speech. I hope he will not too hastily condemn the suggestion of starred Questions. His alternative, I think, was this—that cute is to assume that a Question in future, starred or unstarred, is a Question only, and that if a debate is to arise the Question should always terminate in a Motion, which would indicate that a debate was going to be raised, and this only in the latter case would any speech other than that of the mover be permitted. I am not certain that in practice that would not be a little harsh. I think I have known occasions on which a Question put for the purpose of information has quite legitimately provoked another Question or Questions arising out of it, put by other noble Lords; and when I suggest asterisked Questions I do not mean in all cases that Questions of that sort which are in their essence supplementary should not be put. There is also this point, that we might tempt noble Lords on a larger scale to terminate with Motions. That is a consequence which I think is not desired. Therefore I should like the House to make the experiment of starred Questions, and see how it works. If it is a success, it can be continued; if it is not a success, we can introduce some modification.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Is the proposal then that if a Question is starred all the noble Lords in the House can make a speech on it?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I certainly do not propose that; but I do want to lay down the rule, which I thought the noble Marquess had suggested, that the only occasions on which anybody other than the mover should say anything was when there was a Motion.
LORD SOUTHWARK: With regard to starred Questions, I do not know whether it has occurred to your Lordships that there are a great number of noble Lords who seldom attend this House. If we had starred Questions it might be that those noble Lords would write out Questions, send them down as starred Questions, and then ask other noble Lords, in their absence, to be good enough to put the Questions. I only throw out the suggestion
634
that you might be manufacturing a large amount of work for the different Departments, because we all know—as an old member of the House of Commons I know—that a Question which looks very simple on the Paper may cause a large amount of work in the Department. I suggest that before you adopt the starring system there should be rules and regulations in connection with putting the Question, and that the noble Lord who stars a Question, should himself put it.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, as my Question of Thursday has been referred to, I wish to show the courtesy due to the noble Earl who leads the House by saying that I have taken perhaps the unusual course of putting in the most specific shape all the interrogatories to which I hope an answer will be given. I admit I have done so in the expectation that the usual consequences will follow. I also adroit I have tone so, I will not say in the expectation, but in the hope that the noble Lord who answers the questions will answer them all and will not retire behind a smoke cloud of ambiguity. In respect of any question he does not answer, all I can say is that if the noble Lord will frankly tell your Lordships it is not in the public interest that it should be answered I should be the very last to complain.
LORD ST. LEVAN: My Lords, I wish to call attention to one point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in connection with Monday sittings. It would be very difficult to get to London on Sunday from a long distance. I do not know how noble Lords who come from Scotland and Ireland would be affected, but I can say that so far as I am concerned it would be impossible for me to leave home on Monday and get here in time for a debate in this House. I mention the fact as I hope it may receive consideration when a decision is taken.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, as one who sometimes asks Questions I should like to associate myself rather with the noble Earl the Leader of the House in the suggestion to star Questions, and not with what was said by the noble Marquess on the Front. Bench below me, I think the House itself would probably regret that any Questions which did not conclude with a Motion should be limited merely to the observations of the questioners. We have often seen a debate arise, and there may be four

635
speeches, including flee reply, within twenty minutes, and all the speakers may have said things which the House would be glad to hear said. I think it would have the result of leading to more Questions ending with a Motion, which I should deplore.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after what has been said I hardly dare to speak again, but I may say, arising out of the answer of my noble friend, that I would like to ask him how he proposes to proceed after this discussion. Personally, I have been left with rather a vague impression as to the general effect of some of the details of what has been suggested. I am speaking entirely for myself but I should feel much more satisfied if the outcome of this conversation were the appointment of a Committee of your Lordships' House who would draw up a formal Report embodying such of the proposals of the noble Earl as the Committee may think expedient. I think there is general assent to the spirit of the noble Earl's proposals, but if we are to know exactly how we stand it will be necessary to put them in writing, and I see no means of doing that except by a Report of a Select Committee. Therefore I should rather revert to a suggestion which the noble Earl himself made on a previous occasion that a Select Committee should be appointed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, as regards the last suggestion I am really in the hands of the House. I myself a fortnight ago made the proposal of a Select Committee to discuss not merely such changes as I have suggested to-day, but any larger changes which might be in the minds of noble Lords. Therefore I cannot consistently, of course, oppose the idea of a Select Committee. I should like, however, a little time to find out whether noble Lords in general feel that such a procedure is desirable. If there were a general consensus in favour of the not very considerable changes I have suggested to-day, I would point out that it would be quite easy to bring them into practice at once. By "at once" I do not mean to-morrow or within twenty-four or forty-eight hours. All that would be required would be that on the last day that we sit this week it should be moved that the House be adjourned to such and such an hour on the first day on which we meet next week—at 4.15 instead of 4.30—
636
and that on Tuesday when the Motion is made to adjourn, it should be proposed that the House be adjourned till 3.45 on Wednesday. That would be a perfectly simple procedure. It would not require the Report of a Committee or any change in the Standing Order. As to starred Questions, there again I would myself be inclined to trust to the initiative of noble Lords, and that they themselves in going to the Clerk at the Table to hand in Questions, should evince their own desire to have an asterisk prefixed to it. For my own part, I am not disposed to think, if the changes are generally acceptable, that there will be need of a Select Committee. But perhaps I may be allowed to wait a day or two to consult other opinions before coming to a final judgment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask one point in explanation as to starred Questions? Starred Questions would, as I understand, serve two objects. They would meet the convenience of Ministers who have to answer them, because they would be taken before all other business. Even on Tuesdays and Thursdays they would be taken, as I understand before public Bills. That is one advantage, an advantage which chiefly concerns noble Lords opposite. I think that would require an alteration in the Standing Orders, as a matter of fact. That, however, is one proposition, and no doubt would meet very often the convenience of the noble Lord who has to put the Question, and also that of Ministers, whom it is an infliction to keep on the Bench possibly through a long debate before answering a Question. The only other difference, so far as I understand it, would be that the noble Lord who puts the Question would not have any right of reply. In all other respects the procedure would be the same as at present when a Question is asked.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: He would have exactly the right of reply which is given by the Standing Orders now, and which is subject to the four limitations I named after reading from the Standing Order. He will be in the same position as he is now.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the course of the debate shows that it is not easy to keep within the rules of the Standing Orders. We are debating now something which has nothing to do with the

637
words on the Paper, and I venture to remind your Lordships that we have had more than one speech from several noble Lords.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, as everybody is speaking four or five times, perhaps I may be allowed to make a remark. I wish only to take up the statement made by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, which interested me profoundly—namely, that there is always a fervent desire on the part of both Front Benches to encourage back benchers to speak I have been a member of this House for nearly thirty years—that I suppose is longer than the average member—and (I daresay it is my own stupidity) I have never been aware of that desire before. On the contrary, I have always gone away with the impression that speeches by those not on the Front Benches or others who are close adherents of those on the Front Bench were strongly discouraged. It is true that we are invited most cordially to speak to fill up the dinner hour or to pad out a debate in order that some Ministerial speaker may move the adjournment so that he can speak first next day, but not on other occasions. We hear complaints that; the House is badly attended. I join with those who deplore it. But until you do encourage back benchers, and really encourage them, you will not get a good attendance.

SUMMONS AND PROCESS SERVERS FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the administration of war charities in Scotland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOT LAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: I beg leave also to introduce a Bill to amend and regulate procedure under the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act, 1911.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice. It is—
Whether it is the fact that the Home Secretary is going to receive a further deputation from the Police Representative Board tomorrow, and, if so, whether the proceedings will be made public.
In asking this Question, let me say with what regret we have all read in the papers this morning the menacing language of the statement; issued by the officials of the Police and Prison Officers Union. If those officials had wished to justify the statement of the Commissioner that the Metropolitan Police had by their recent action gone far to shake the great confidence hitherto reposed in them by the public, they could scarcely have done so more surely than by the use of such language. His Majesty's Government may feel assured that they have the whole of public opinion behind them both in their desire to place the conditions of service of the Force on the best possible footing and in maintaining its discipline.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: May I first, on behalf of the Government, thank the noble Earl for the statement with which lie concluded his Question, the answer to which is as follows: The Police Representative Board, I through the proper channel, have asked the Secretary of State to receive a deputation upon a matter which lie can properly discuss with them. This is the ordinary constitutional course for the Representative Board to pursue. It will rest with the Secretary of State to decide whether an account of the proceedings will afterwards be made public.

PRIVATE BILLS
[From Minutes of March 6.]
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee to consist of Four Members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bills, and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of their House: The said Message to be considered on Tuesday next (The Chairman of Committees).

BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
CORK HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, viz., That the said Bills be committed to the Joint Committee on Dock and Harbour Bills.

BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.—

M. Bath (Chairman),

M. Linlithgow,

E. Malmesbury,

E. Eldon,

L. Leigh;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 26th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired as also Counsel for the Bills.
House adjourned at quarter past seven o'clock.