§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Women shall not be disqualified from being justices of the peace.
§ 1. A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being appointed or being or becoming by virtue of office a justice of the peace.
855§ LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of Clause 1, to insert "provided she has attained the age of thirty years." The noble Lord said: I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill, to whom I showed my Amendment some little time ago, will be inclined to accept it, on the ground that Parliament in its wisdom thought it right that the Parliamentary vote should be conferred only upon women who had arrived at the age of thirty. It may therefore be fairly argued that if a woman is not qualified to vote in a Parliamentary election she ought not to be qualified to sit as a justice of the peace.
§ I would also remind your Lordships that there is a very strong feeling at the present moment in the country against following the practice of appointing a man directly he is twenty-one years of age a justice of the peace, and I believe that Lords Lieutenant and Advisory Committees are now very disinclined to appoint any young man until he has done some service, and practically until he is of the age of thirty. I think the case of the Parliamentary vote is a very strong precedent, and I find that many members of your Lordships' House rather agree that it is desirable to have some limitation of age, and that comparatively young girls should not be appointed. Your Lordships will remember that the Lord Chancellor, on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he had no intention of being rushed into appointing a large number of women to Benches already properly manned, and I venture to think that it will assist the noble and learned Lord if there is some such limitation put in, because it will stop a number of applicants, provide a limitation, and be of assistance to Lords Lieutenant and Advisory Committees as well as to the Lord Chancellor. Upon general principles I think most of your Lordships agree that the age of thirty is one at which you may say women as well as men are mature, and when they are much more likely to bring a judicial frame of mind to bear when they are administering justice.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, at end add the words ("provided she has attained the age of thirty years").—(Lord Strachie.)
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIEI suggest to the House that this is a very important Amendment to move without any notice being given, and I cannot help thinking 856 that it would be better for a subject of this kind to be discussed after notice that it was coming on. There is no doubt that the question of limitation of the age to thirty in the Representation of the People Bill was the subject of very great controversy, and has been the subject of a good deal of criticism since. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will take into consideration the view I have put forward.
THE LORD CHANCELLORIn reinforcement of what the noble Lord has just said, it is unquestionably the fact that much debate took place in the other House and in reference to another Bill as to the propriety or expediency of drawing distinctions between men and women. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then, and various statements have been made in the course of elections, by persons highly qualified to give pledges, in circumstances which would entitle the public to expect that they would be acted upon. If I remember rightly, one of the pledges was that there should be equality between the sexes, or such equality as can be attained having regard to physical considerations. I do not in the least wish to prejudge the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. but I also share the view of my noble friend that many noble Lords who have left the precincts of the building—and quite a number of your Lordships were in attendance to-day—would have stayed had they known that a subject of this importance was to be considered, and I suggest to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that he might be well advised, if he still desires to obtain a decision upon this point, to put it down on the Third Reading.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI would like to reinforce what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I have two objections. The first is one of form—namely, moving an Amendment to a Bill before your Lordships' House without notice, unless it is of the most trifling character. It is always very properly deprecated that Amendments should be sprung upon your Lordships' House, and that you should be asked to pass an Amendment without having had an opportunity of considering it. The noble Lord will forgive me for pointing out to him that this Bill received its Second Reading no less than a week ago, and that there 857 has been ample time for him to give notice of the Amendment. If he had done so your Lordships' House would have had an opportunity of knowing that the matter was going to be raised. As it is, I join with the Lord Chancellor in deprecating that this Amendment should be sprung upon the House without notice when so many noble Lords have already left the precincts.
I also have an objection of substance to this Amendment—namely, that it creates a further inequality between men and women. There is no disqualification of this kind in the case of men. It is perfectly true that it is very unlikely that a large number of men or women under the age of thirty will be recommended to the Lord Chancellor in the future for this office. It is very unlikely that the Advisory Committee will recommend the names of people of either sex under that age. But I should be very sorry indeed to see the Lord Chancellor and the Advisory Committee restricted in this way in regard to women when there is no such restriction in the case of men. In view of the fact that it would be creating a fresh inequality between the sexes, at a time when most of our energies are directed towards abolishing the inequalities which exist, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment but will be content to withdraw it, or to let it be negatived this afternoon.
§ LORD STRACHIEI will, of course, at once agree to the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor that I should put down this Amendment upon the Third Reading. I may say in reply to his complaint, and also to that of my noble friend below the gangway, that although it is true it is a week since the Bill was read a second time, as this House does not sit between Thursday and Tuesday it is very difficult to put Amendments down. Further, I had not the opportunity in that time of asking noble Lords about the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl would be surprised to know the number of noble Lords who would have supported this Amendment, although they would much rather see the Bill rejected on the Third Reading.
THE LORD CHAIRMANAs one who is very closely in touch with the machinery of the House, I should like to say that there is no difficulty in putting down Amendments on Fridays and Saturdays.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
858§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ Bill reported without amendment.