Lords Sitting of 11 November 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
THE EARL OF LATHOM—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

WICK HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GRANTON HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (NEW WORKS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a and passed.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to County Courts.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("sex") insert ("or marriage")
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("function") insert ("including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords")
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert ("or holding")
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert ("or carrying on")
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after ("sex") insert (''or marriage")
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, after ("made") insert ("providing for and"), and after the first ("of") insert ("the")
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, after ("to") insert ("or continue to hold")
Clause 1, page 1, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("providing for the exclusion of women from admission to") and insert ("giving power to reserve to men")
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after the first ("of") insert ("or posts in")
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, after ("possessions") insert ("overseas")
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, leave out ("the case is heard") and insert ("a case is or may be heard").
Clause 1, page 2, page 2, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given")
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ("that") and insert ("any")
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("exemption") insert ("Rules of Court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries, and the rules may require or authorise the application or any order thereon to be made in interlocutory proceedings.
"Any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.")
After Clause 1 insert the following new clauses:
"Provision as to women who have qualified for degrees at universities not admitting women to degrees.
".A woman shall e entitled to be admitted and enrolled as a solicitor after serving under articles for three years only, if either she has taken such a university degree as would have so entitled her had she been a man, or if she has been admitted to and passed the final examination and kept under the conditions required of women by the university, the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any university which did not at the time the examination was passed, admit women to degrees."
"Power to universities to admit women to membership, etc.
". Nothing in the statutes or charter of any university shall be deemed to preclude the authorities of such university from making such provision as they shall think fit for the admission of women to membership thereof or to any degree, right, or privilege therein or in connection therewith."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving that the Amendments inserted by the House of Commons to the Bill as it left your Lordships' House be now considered, I propose to make only a few brief observations. Almost all the Amendments suggested by the House of Commons deal with points of detail, and having considered them my opinion is that on the whole they may be pronounced to be improvements in the form of the Bill as it left this House. There is, however, one Amendment of considerable substance which will undoubtedly require careful consideration. I refer to the Amendment inserted in the Bill by the Commons enabling Peeresses in their own right to take part in the deliberations of your Lordships' House and receive Writs of Summons. That is obviously a question of great substance, and I shall ask leave to make some observations upon it when that particular Amendment is reached.
There are several Amendments which I shall have to move to the Amendments made in the House of Commons. I express very great regret that it has not been possible to put those Amendments on paper. It was very difficult, in the short time available, to arrange an appointment with the draftsman in order to decide upon the proper form in which purely technical drafting amendments should be conveyed, but perhaps your Lordships will trust me so far as to allow me to indicate, in the course of our deliberations, which of these Amendments are of a purely drafting and technical character; and perhaps you will then be indulgent enough to waive the fact that the substance of an Amendment is not on the Paper. With these general observations I move that the Commons Amendments to the Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that the first of the Commons Amendments—Clause 1, page 1, line 5—be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next of the Commons Amendments—Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("function") insert ("including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords")—is the one of which I have already spoken, and which has as its purpose—in my view imperfectly carried out by the Commons—that of enabling Peeresses to become members of your Lordships' House. I think this Amendment, if I may begin not with the substance of the matter but with its form, has been insufficiently considered by those who inserted it in the House of Commons. It attempts to achieve its evident purpose by removing any disqualification by sex or marriage from sitting and voting in the House of Lords. After giving some little attention to this matter and acquainting myself with such authorities as I am aware of, I must confess that I am quite uncertain what the effect of it would be, or whether it would have any effect at all, if it were passed into law. This, I think, is probably certain, that it would not sit Peeresses in their own right, whether now existing or hereafter to be created. That is its avowed object. Such Peeresses are unable to sit, primarily, not by reason of disqualification which is due either to sex or marriage, but because they do not receive a Writ, and because the Patents which created them do not direct the issue of a Writ in their case. if it is desired that Peeresses in their own right now existing, or ladies upon whom hereafter Peerages may be conferred, should receive a Writ, it would be necessary that it should be stated clearly in the Bill. I have therefore prepared an Amendment, which will only become necessary to consider if your Lordships, on the point of merits, decide that Peeresses shall become eligible for membership of this House. If on the merits the decision of the House be that Peeresses shall become eligible, then I shall ask leave to move an Amendment in the shape of a new clause, which technically, I think, will achieve the result which I am quite clear the Amendment of the House of Commons has failed to produce.
Before that stage, it becomes necessary that your Lordships should reach a decision upon the very important point of principle

169
which is involved. A debate took place when the Bill was in progress through your Lordships' House, and it was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay that the clause which enabled Peeresses to take part in your deliberations should be struck out of the Bill. The argument of my noble and learned friend was this. He reminded your Lordships that under the proposals of the Government of which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition (Lord Crewe) was a distinguished member, there was avowed a clear determination of reforming the constitution of your Lordships' House, and the language in which that intention was expressed was far-reaching in character. Certainly the reforms which in those days we were led to expect were reforms which would have affected fundamental changes in the constitutional functions discharged by this House, and in the sources from which members of this House are recruited. The war and other obstacles intervened, and it did not become possible for that Government to carry out their assurances; and your Lordships therefore will probably think it right and advisable to reach a decision now in relation to assurances and expressions of intention now made by another Government.
In the past the expectations of early and complete reform have proved fallacious, although the assurances conveying that intention were couched in very decided language. They were put forward, at a very early date in the career of the Government which was the author of them, as a matter of honour. I only make that observation because I am desirous of looking at the circumstances from every point of view and of inviting your Lordships to do so. I therefore do not wish to put the intention of the Government higher than this, that I entertain no doubt whatever that the intention is sincerely entertained by the Government, at a comparatively early date or at as early a date as our circumstances and the difficulties with which we have to deal permit, to introduce proposals with the object of reforming the Second Chamber. Such hopes have been sincerely entertained in the past and they have proved delusive. I hope and believe that in this case they will not prove delusive. But any of your Lordships who are naturally in these matters of a pessimistic disposition are, of course, entitled to give indulgence to any apprehensions which you may entertain. I do not share
170
them, but I wish that the matter should be looked at closely and impartially.
If your Lordships are prepared to accept, as most clearly you are, what I describe as the sincere intentions of the Government to reform the Second Chamber, it may be that to some of your minds the matter may present itself in this way. For centuries the constitution of this House has been arranged on a masculine basis. It is now proposed that it should be so altered that Peeresses in their own right should become eligible for membership. I do not pause at this stage in my argument to point out that a distinction could be drawn, if one cared to do it, between the position of a woman who by election is returned to the House of Commons and a Peeress in her own right who enjoys that dignity as the result of a creation made at a time when there was no conception that the holder would become a member of this House. I do not pause to deal with that distinction, but I will develop rather my observations on the principle that I am now submitting.
It may appear to many that having for six or seven hundred years, whatever the precise period may be, existed under a constitution which restricted membership of this House to men, it would be very reasonable if we were hopeful of continuing our existence as at present constituted, to say, "Well, by all means we must recognise these new tendencies, and we must alter our old rules to bring them into harmony with what are usually referred to as modern requirements." I can easily understand a member of the House of Commons—I hope he is not too sanguine—who feels complete assurance that his House will go on for perhaps another six or seven hundred years taking up this attitude, and saying, "Having regard to the change which has taken place in the position, we had better adapt ourselves to what lies in front of us." But we are not quite in that position. We approach those who are good enough to make those proposals to us rather with the melancholy words on our lips, Morituri te salutamus. If we are to be abolished, I think that I would rather perish in the exclusive company of members of my own sex. This question was left by the Government as a free question, open to the decision of private Members of the other House, without the intrusion of the Party Whips. It is naturally and consequentially the intention of the Government to adopt a similar course before your Lordships. I

171
therefore enjoy the privilege which any private member of your Lordships' House possesses, and in order that I may exercise that privilege I beg, for reasons that I have briefly indicated, to move that your Lordships disagree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, as I opposed woman suffrage in the other House of Parliament for a great number of years, I venture to intrade for a few moments in the debate which has just commenced. May I begin by saying that I think the House generally is greatly indebted to the Lord Chancellor for the extremely conciliatory and reasonable tone which he has adopted with regard to the Amendment that is before us. I confess that when I knew what business was to come before us this afternoon the first impression in my mind was that there was very considerable substance in this second Amendment, for the reasons which have already been stated.
Over and over again we have been promised reform of the House of Lords. A leading member of the Government, who is still I suppose leader of the Unionist Party in the other House, has given undertakings that the reform of the House of Lords shall be taken up within a reasonable time. I happened to be the mover of a Resolution at the last general conference of the National Unionist Association calling upon the Government of the day to introduce a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords before that Parliament concluded, and the Resolution was sent to the Government, and, I always understood, was favourably received by them. It is quite true that a Committee has been appointed to consider the question of your Lordships' House, but so far as I am concerned, having given my best attention to the consideration of its Report, I confess that it is wholly unsatisfactory to me. The Lord Chancellor, by the way, has himself observed that a promise had been given that the reform of this House should be introduced as early as possible. That phrase has really had no meaning up to the present, and he did not give us hope that there would be any speedy fulfilment of that promise.
172
No one, I think can deny that this question of admitting Peeresses to sit and vote in their own right in this House ought to be one that should come under the consideration of whatever Government has to undertake the passing through Parliament of a Bill for the reform of your Lordships' House. That appears to me to be obvious, and I should doubt if any opposite opinion to the one I have just expressed will be offered by any member of your Lordships' House. In those circumstances I am afraid that I am quite impenitent on the subject of women taking an active part in either House of Parliament. I hope that the day may be long distant when it will be the practice of women to sit in as large a number as possible in Parliament. That, I think, is also the opinion of the great majority of the women of this country themselves, as is shown by the fact that, although women have a large majority of votes at present, only a single woman was returned at the last General Election, and she is a lady who I suppose must be called a rebel, and has never attempted in consequence to take her seat in the House of Commons of which by law she is at present a member.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to draw the attention of the House to the real question which is before us. I think it is not the question as to which your Lordships have some apprehension—namely, that you are being asked to reverse the decision come to by this House when the Bill was here. You have only to look at the nature of the Commons Amendment to see what it really is. All it proposes to do is to include in the repeal of the general disability of sex and marriage the case of sitting in the House of Lords.
If the clause which we passed, and to which no exception was taken here, became law, even without this Amendment any woman could become at any rate Speaker of the House of Lords (if it did not involve being a member of this House), or Archbishop of Canterbury, or anything else, provided that the authorities of the day chose to nominate her to that post. It was a clause which was inserted in the Bill simply for the purpose of getting rid of the common law disability which is imposed under the Constitution of this country upon women. That, as we all know, has been whittled away, and this Bill was meant simply to get rid of the rule which had been laid down by the Judges that a

173
woman cannot occupy any public position or perform any public function.
All that is done by the Amendment which the Commons have put in is this. It. says, You (the Lords) have laid down that as the rule; we agree with you, and all we wish to make clear—because I think it really is a question rather of making clear than of putting in words which are obviously necessary—all we wish to make clear is that among the things which a woman may do is to sit in the House of Lords, if she is nominated by the Crown to sit in the House of Lords—if she is called, in other words, to the Peerage with a seat in this House.
If this Amendment is accepted it does not enable women who are Peeresses in their own right to take their seat in this House; they can only do that if the terms of the Letters Patent or of the other document creating the Peerage prescribe it, and also if a Writ of Summons is issued. It may or may not be necessary, if we admit the principle, that some Amendment may be required for the issue of the Writ of Summons. But at any rate we are not discussing that now. I assume for the sake of argument that it is so, and it rather strengthens the view I am putting before your Lordships if it is so. All we are asked to do now is to say that the principle that we all accept, which has been passed by enormous majorities in the House of Commons, and which is the principle accepted by public opinion, has not an exception in the capacity of a woman being called to sit in this House. Why should it? The Commons have opened their doors to women; why should not we open our doors to women?
On the last occasion an Amendment was moved to the Bill which went further than the question we are now discussing, because it was an Amendment directly addressed to what the Lord Chancellor spoke of when he referred to the purposes of those who brought this matter forward. I only know their purposes from the words that are in the Amendment before us, and in the Clause as it will stand if amended. They do not propose in anything that is before us to go so far as that. All they ask is to remove the general disability of which I have spoken, and to remove it in a fashion which makes clear the right to take part in the deliberations of this House as well as of the other House. If that is passed,
174
then it may be that it will be within the power of the Crown to issue a Patent of Peerage to a woman, or it may be that when a woman has a Patent of Peerage a Writ can be issued. I am not sure of that. All I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that a great deal of water has to flow under the bridges before a woman can sit in this House if the Amendment is passed in this form.
It has been suggested by my noble friend that we are a dying House; that we are a body of people expectant of death. I rather expected my noble and learned friend to say that he wished to see the gentle touch of ministering angels about us at the moment that that extinction came. He did not say that. On the contrary, he desired to have the ruder company of his own sex. However, that is a purely academic question, and if any illustration of its academic character was required it was to be found in the speech of the noble Viscount who sits beside me (Lord Chaplin). The noble Viscount said he had heard a great deal of the reform of this House for a long time, and the last Report which was made on the subject was very unsatisfactory. Well, we had a debate on that Report, and it was tot homines quot sententiœ. I never witnessed such a division of opinion as I saw in your Lordships' House on that occasion. There was not the least agreement as to how this House was to be reformed, nor any indication that the proposals of the Report were likely to be accepted. Therefore I should be willing for a small premium to insure the political life of my noble friend so far as membership of this House was concerned, and I trust also so far as the present position is concerned:
I think we must take it that this is a real substantial question with which the Commons Amendment deals. This House is likely to go on for a considerable time, as far as I can see, and as it is at the present moment. Therefore to ask us to except from a general principle which we have taken to ourselves, just as much as the Commons have taken it, the position of sitting in this House, and make it a thing by itself unlike anything else is to do what, I think, is not only altogether illogical but altogether contrary to the tendency of public opinion to-day, and for my part I hope that your Lordships will not disagree with the Commons Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just sat down has put a somewhat new colour upon this question. I confess that when I saw that this Amendment had been moved in another place I conceived that it had been done in a rather jocular spirit—almost as jocular as if the National Debt had been the subject of discussion there; and that it was done with a view, perhaps, to place your Lordships' House in a somewhat absurd and anomalous position. But my noble and learned friend who has just sat down tells us that this is a most serious proposition in order to maintain the logic of the situation, and that we should therefore be wrong to leave this House as the only place in which a sex disability still existed.
I am no authority on Peerage Law, I need not say, though I have no doubt my noble and learned friend is, but I should have supposed that if this Amendment were carried and were made effective by such Amendments as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has indicated, every Peeress in her own right would be exactly in the same position for claiming a Writ of Summons as those noble Lords who are Barons by Writ—a great many of them having succeeded in the female line, who are precisely as much entitled to claim a Writ of Summons as any of those of your Lordships who are here in virtue of your Patents. As I understand, it is not within the power of the Crown to refuse for an arbitrary reason the issue of a Writ of Summons. And, with all respect to the superior knowledge of my noble and learned friend, I should have supposed that these ladies would find themselves in precisely the same position.
Much has been said of the reform of the House of Lords. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke with perhaps a note of justifiable irony about our former attempts to forward a measure of that kind. But neither he nor any of your Lordships will dispute that it has been the desire of the House, and indeed of all the Governments concerned, to take the matter seriously. That was proved by the appointment of the Joint Committee over which Lord Bryce presided, and which, as the House will remember, made certain recommendations, but in its Report also indicated the various alternative methods of forming a Second Chamber, and stated its reason for preferring those which it recommended.
176
The one thing that your Lordships' House has done is solemnly to assert that in the opinion of the House the possession of an hereditary Peerage ought not of itself to give a claim to a seat here. That is the definite, and so far as I know the practically unanimous, opinion of your Lordships' House. What is desired by this Amendment is to contravene that principle by saying that the possession of an hereditary title by a woman shall give her a seat here. I am entirely in agreement with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that so long, at any rate, as there is any prospect of the reform of your Lordships' House—and I altogether decline to believe that there is no such prospect—we ought not to attempt to alter the existing constitution of the House in this way. I sincerely trust, therefore, that the House will disagree with the Commons Amendment.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I think the House must have been struck by the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane in supporting the retention of the Commons Amendment. He said that there was a good deal of doubt as to what its effect would be, but he added that it should be inserted as the assertion of a principle. I think that a matter of this kind should not be dealt with except by a piece of well-considered legislation, where the thing has been thought out and the House is prepared to say what it considers is the proper solution of the question. I strongly deprecate the throwing out of a broad principle the application of which those who support it say may be doubtful. The matter should not be handled in that haphazard way. If the principle is to be established, let it be established as part of a well-considered scheme for carrying it into effect.
My noble and learned friend referred to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and said that he had spoken of this as a dying House. Unfortunately I was not here when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke, but I should have been surprised to hear him speak of this House in such a way: on the contrary, I should have thought that he looked forward to a new lease of its life under possibly changed conditions. I suppose no one who has thought about the subject at all can doubt that a change of an important character in the constitution of this House may be contemplated, but is it not very

177
inopportune to rush a broad principle of this sort into this Statute, and that, instead of leaving it as in the natural course of things it would be left, to this House itself to initiate a proposal with regard to its own constitution, it should appear as an Amendment to a Bill which has gone down from this House to the Commons and been sent back by them to us? I do not say that there is anything unconstitutional about it, but as a matter of courtesy between the two Houses I think that the initiation of this matter ought to be allowed to rest with your Lordships. On these grounds I shall certainly vote for the Motion proposed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I crave your indulgence for a minute or two because I had charge of a Bill which unfortunately did not reach maturity but which contained a clause to give Peeresses in their own right the right to sit in your Lordships' House. The Bill of the noble and learned Lord came on the day before mine, and the position was very difficult for me because the noble and learned Lord attacked my Bill which was to come on the day after, and I had to defend it. The noble and learned Lord recommended me to withdraw my Bill, and to be busy (I think was the expression he used) with Amendments. I put down an Amendment, and then a terrible catastrophe happened—your Lordships sat at three o'clock. I did not know that the House was going to sit at that hour, and a good many other people also did not know. My noble and learned friend Lord Reading did not know, because he did not appear in time to move his Amendment; if my memory serves me right, the noble Lord asked Lord Muir Mackenzie to move the Amendment standing in his name. The fact is that this House changes its time of meeting, and many Peers did not know about it. However, I happened to be on a Bill Committee upstairs and when a question arose as to whether a witness should be heard after luncheon it transpired that the House met at three o'clock, and that is the reason I was able to be present that day. There were not more than sixteen persons in your Lordships' House, and when I moved my Amendment the noble Lord said he sympathised with it but asked me whether there were enough Peers in the House to divide upon it. To use an unParliamentary
178
expression, the whole thing "fizzled out." The Bill went eventually to the House of Commons and they have put in the identical Amendment that I proposed to insert in your Lordships' House.
It is very difficult for me to follow the legal arguments of the noble and learned Lord because I am not a lawyer, but I. understand that you are asked to-night to vote only on the principle of whether you wish a Peeress in her own right to sit in the House of Lords. After all, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord who objects to the House of Commons interfering with our constitution, because we interfered with the Constitution of the country when we altered the franchise. I can remember that when I was quite young a Bill altering the franchise was thrown out, and then brought in again by my father. You cannot alter the franchise of this country without the leave of the House of Lords, and I do not suppose (though I may be wrong) that you can alter the constitution of the House of Lords without the leave of the House of Commons. It would have to be done by a Bill accepted and passed by both Houses.
Now comes the question whether you accept the principle of Peeresses in their own right sitting in the House of Lords. How on earth can you resist it? I was one of those who voted to give women the right to sit in the House of Commons, and, curiously enough, a Peeress in her own right can sit in the House of commons if she is elected. It is natural, of course, that provision of some kind should be made that a Peeress cannot sit both here and in the House of Commons, because otherwise she would be in a better position than we are. But I believe that, if you pass this there can be no objection to that Peeress having a Writ, and if she cannot have a Writ it would be easy to pass an Act saying that she should have one. You give women the right to sit in the House of Commons, you give them the right to legislate in the House of Commons, you give them the right to vote in the House of Commons on Bills which come up here; why on earth cannot you give them the right to sit in your Lordships' House? I believe there are only forty-two Peeresses in their own right altogether.
With regard to the prospect of this House being reformed—well, that may be so, with a great many other things also. Governments come in and promise a good

179
deal, but to the end of their lives it is very much like the last words of Cecil Rhodes—"So much to do; so little done." I am an old man; I shall be seventy-one in a few days' time; but I question whether any one here in this House will live to see the House of Lords reformed. It is a very difficult thing. There are certain Peers here whose wives are Peeresses in their own right, and I think it will be rather hard if the House is reformed and the Peers do perish that in death they should be divided. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be accepted. If there are any Peeresses here who will sit when your Lordships at some future date are reformed, surely it will be well, if they can sit in another place and reform your laws and Constitution, they shall also sit to assist your Lordships in reforming the House of Lords.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, when this matter was before your Lordships on the previous occasion the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and other noble Lords said it was not a suitable time to discuss such a far-reaching Amendment in connection with this particular Bill, and I am very glad indeed to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Lord opposite reiterate those views, because I have asked myself, What has occurred meanwhile to alter the position? Surely a vote given elsewhere does not affect the main principle. If this matter was out of place in the month of July, surely it is equally out of place now. At the same time, it is a very poor compliment to ask your Lordships to pass a proposal in such circumstances—a proposal which was negatived in this House without a Division.
We have often been told that we should hesitate before we differ from views expressed in another place. I cordially agree with that, and I know that many views which may be sent to us from another place deserve the fullest possible consideration. But, if I may say so without disrespect, this particular proposal is on a totally different footing. We all know that your Lordships' House has not got the same final decision in legislation that it had in years gone by, but we are entitled to be arbiters of the constitution of this House. It seems to me that that is a prerogative that ought certainly not to be lightly abrogated, and if any innovation such as this is to be
180
brought about, are we not entitled to claim that it should originate in this House? I would ask your Lordships to consider what the position would be, if your Lordships now decided to accept as an Amendment what was rejected as a substantive Motion only a few months ago. What would have been a very gracious and courteous act would now be done grudgingly and of necessity, in response to advice from another place, if not really in accordance with instructions sent to your Lordships.
I trust that your Lordships will not place yourselves in that position. If this innovation is to take place I hope your Lordships will adhere to the advice given and deal with it at the proper time. I am sure I shall be exonerated from any intention of discourtesy to those ladies who are desirous of gracing this House with their presence, if any such there be, when I appeal to your Lordships, whatever your views may be on the particular question, to decline to accept the Amendment sent down to this House from another place in the circumstances in which it is now before the House. For that reason I shall most unhesitatingly support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the purely legal point which has been raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, it may perhaps not be inconvenient that I should say that technically, of course, the noble and learned Viscount is entirely right when he says (if I may paraphrase his language) that the effect of the Amendment is to create a panel of ladies who will not by the mere creation of that panel become eligible to membership of the House, but will or may become so eligible only if the will of the Sovereign so operates—I avoid technical language—that a Writ issues to them. That is perfectly true. But in my judgment your Lordships would be most unwise, if I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Viscount, to attach the slightest importance to that, because the object of those in the Commons who moved the Amendment was not in the least merely to create such a panel. I have refreshed my memory on the subject, and everybody who spoke in favour of the Amendment in that House meant one thing only, and that was that women should immediately become eligible for membership of your Lordships' House.

181
If we accept the Amendment sent forward to us from the House of Commons in that spirit, I should think it only respectful, both to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, to put down, as I have put down, a later Amendment which will carry out what the House of Commons really intended. My noble and learned friend said that I spoke of this as a "dying Assembly." I guarded myself rather carefully. I avoided expressing my own opinion on the point, and I thought I had done so not without skill. I contented myself by pointing out that two Governments, whose honesty had not been impeached except by their opponents, had announced repeatedly and over a long period of time their intention to reform your Lordships' House. I take the view that when any Government announce that they intend to reform the Constitution, we are entitled to accept that which they profess at the face value, and we are entitled and are bound to believe that they intend to reform the House. The only submission I venture to make is that accepting the intention of the present Government, as I accept and as I hope your Lordships will accept it, to reform this House in this Parliament, can they be reasonably asked now to accept this Amendment.
Motion put—That this House doth not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The rest of the Amendments on Page 1 are either purely technical or drafting Amendments If any of your Lordships desire me to refer to any particular Amendment I will do so. I think that in many cases they are improving Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the remaining Amendments in Clause 1, page 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As your Lordships will see, the first of the Commons Amendments in Clause 1, page 2, are in lines 1 and 2. Upon this Amendment a point arises which is not quite technical. Your Lordships inserted a provision in the Bill which secured that any Judge might give certain directions as to the sex constitution of a jury on conditions
182
which had regard to "the nature of the case and the evidence to be given." The object of that is perfectly clear. There are cases so grossly indecent that it was left not conducive to the efficient administration of justice if women sat on the juries, or if they were dealt with by mixed juries. The Amendment which was inserted by your Lordships, and which the Commons propose to omit, indicated the considerations under which a Judge might act. The House of Commons have left out the words, "having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given." The result of that is that a wider discretion is given to those who draw up the panel of juries. There is a great deal to be said for it. They say, You must trust those who have to exercise this duty to use the same discretion in dealing with women as they have been in the habit of using in dealing with men. Take the City of London Court, or any Court in which commercial or technical cases are heard. It is desired that the authorities, to whom this discretion is given, should not be limited in their decision in favour of men or women by considerations which are exclusively based on the nature of the case and the evidence to be given. I think, on the whole, there is a good deal to be said for the view of the House of Commons, and with the object of eliciting the views of your Lordships on this matter I propose to move that the Amendment of the House of Commons be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF READING: My Lords, as I was responsible for this Amendment in your Lordships' House—it was moved in my absence by Lord Muir Mackenzie—I desire to say that I should have preferred to keep the words in the Bill as they were introduced in this House, because they did indicate to the Judges that they were to follow the principle of the Bill, but nevertheless in those cases in which they thought the evidence to be given and the case to be discussed made it inconvenient, if not impossible, to discuss it adequately with men and women sitting on the jury, the matter was left to their discretion. I do not think the omission of these words makes any substantial difference to the clause. I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it does give a rather wider discretion, because you have not in

183
the clause words which point to the actual considerations to be present to the mind of the Judge.
It is essential that the Judge at the trial should determine whether or not it is a case in which men only, or women only, or men and women together, should sit on the jury. There can be an application by the parties, or he may do it at his own instance. I have not entirely in my mind the consideration of women—that is to say, the difficulties that might occur with regard to them. I am speaking to some extent from the point of view of men, either the Judge who is trying the case, or the women who are sitting on the jury, or the men of the jury. I can conceive that there are numbers of cases in which it would be absolutely impossible to discuss the details of the case by men with women present, involving the consideration of masses of detail such as we are accustomed to, unfortunately, in the Courts.
As I read the Bill, the principle is made perfectly clear, and no Judge who exercises his discretion will fail to have regard to the principle of the Bill, which is that, generally speaking, women should serve on juries just as men. Still, it does give a Judge a discretion, which I submit must be left to him, to say when it is wrong that women should sit on a jury with men. I am quite convinced that the Judges who have to exercise their discretion will always exercise it having regard to the principle of the measure which has been so clearly stated in the Bill. For these reasons I would accept the Amendment which the House of Commons have inserted. I do not think it changes the clause as it was introduced.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Earl, and would prefer the words as they stood in the Bill without the House of Commons Amendment. The effect of striking out the words "having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given" is to leave an unfettered discretion without reference to any one. A Judge may say, "This is a case where men and women are equally eligible, but I do not like women." Another Judge might take the opposite view. I agree that the Judges will look at the nature of the case; and it is to be observed that this discretion is to be exercised by the Judge who tries the case. He may be the Recorder, or the
184
Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He must be in that position, and I think we may rely on the Judge to exercise this discretion sensibly. I quite agree that, if I were considering this de novo and not on a question of disagreeing with the Commons Amendment, I should have preferred the words as they originally stood in the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment on line 6 to leave out "that" and to insert "any" is purely a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment on line 8 requires a little more explanation. The House of Commons have proposed to insert a provision which I think I had better read in its entirety. It is as follows—
"Rules of Court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries, and the rules may require or authorise the application or any order thereon to be made in interlocutory proceedings.
"Any order in Council made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
This Amendment appears to me to be a meritorious Amendment so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The House of Commons have dealt with a point which should have been dealt with in the Bill, and I accept the responsibility for the omission.
It is quite obvious that the Rules of Court cannot be left in the terms of the drafting now before your Lordships. In the first place, it is necessary to make provision much more clearly for the summoning of juries. It is at present very doubtful whether the provision of the Juries Act, 1825, which requires a ballot for Jurors, refers to criminal cases at Assizes as well as to civil cases. At any rate, I am clear that it does not refer to criminal cases at

185
Quarter Sessions. It is obviously desirable that there should be no complaint in the future that preference has been given by the summoning officer to men or women on any particular jury. Therefore rules must be made governing and to some extent controlling their discretion. It is proposed, therefore, in the Amendments which I will explain presently, if your Lordships will agree to the principle, that the rules to be made, as proposed in the Commons Amendment, should extend to the method of summoning and the selection. That, my Lords, is the first point.
The second point is this. There must be some special method of exempting women from service on a jury who, although they may not strictly speaking be entitled to a medical certificate exempting them from attendance on the ground of sickness, are still unable for physical reasons to attend. Take, for instance, a woman who has a child and no nurse. If she has a small baby she can hardly be expected to leave it at home, nor can it be expected that the presence of the child in the jury box would be either welcome or correct. It is therefore proposed that power be given to exempt women who are unfitted for medical reasons, and the method by which it is to be done shall be prescribed by rule.
In the third case the Commons Amendment requires that the matters dealt with by it should be prescribed by Rule o f Court. The Rules of Court might have effect so far as the Assize Court is concerned, but they do not affect the procedure at Quarter Sessions. It is therefore proposed in my Amendment that the making of rules in respect of any criminal Court shall be in the Committee set up under the Indictments Act, 1915. I think we are very fortunate in having available for this task a Committee which is so obviously and specially qualified. It consists of the Lord Chief Justice, a Judge of the High Court, a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, a Clerk of the Peace, and another person having experience in criminal procedure. If those three Amendments are acceptable to your Lordships it will then read as follows:—"Rules of Court may be made"—and I am about to propose that your Lordships accept the Commons Amendment down to the word "made," and then I am going to propose an addition to be inserted after the word "made" to this effect:—(a) "prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; (b) exempting from attendance
186
as jurors any women who are for reasons of health unfit to attend, and (c) as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries." If your Lordships will now look at the terms of the Commons Amendment and consider those three points you will, I think, come to the conclusion that they afford a fairly complete and satisfactory code for the purpose of carrying out what is the intention of the House of Commons and what I certainly assume is equally the intention of your Lordships. I therefore move, with the object of giving effect to those three points, that the Commons Amendment be agreed to down to the word "made."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment down to the word "made."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now have to move to insert, after the word "made," the words "(a) prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any woman who are for reasons of health unfit to attend; and (c) as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this section relating to service on juries"; and that. "as respects any criminal Court in England the expression 'rules of court' means rules made by the Rule Committee established under the Indictment Act, 1915." If your Lordships, or those who have special experience, will consider these Amendments I am sure you will agree that, with the addition of the Commons Amendment, they are a very considerable improvement in the form and procedure of the Bill as it left your Lordships' House.
Amendments moved to the Commons Amendment—
After "made" in line 2, insert—

"(a) prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; and

(b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for reasons of health unfit to attend; and

(c)"

lines 3 and 4, leave out ("and the rules") and insert ("rules so made")
line 4, leave out ("the application") and insert ("an application under this section")
line 5, after ("proceedings") insert ("and shall have full effect notwithstanding any existing rule of law or practice to the contrary.
"As respects any criminal court in England the expression 'rules of court' means rules made by the Rule Committee established under the Indictments Act, 1915").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) Nothing in the statute or charter regulating the widows' fund in connection with any society in Scotland to which women may be admitted in virtue of this Act shall prevent such society from making regulations either excluding the application of such statute or charter or applying the same with modifications in the case of women becoming or seeking to become members of such society, provided always that such regulations shall not come into effect until approved, with or without modifications, by the Court of Session."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now propose is to insert the subsection which stands in my name on the Paper. In Scotland there are one or two societies—for instance, the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Writers to the Signet—to which women cannot be admitted under the existing law and which has widows funds established and regulated by Acts of Parliament. These Acts require members of the Society to make certain payments on admission, annually, and on marriage to the widows funds—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Upon a point of Order. After Clause 1 in the Commons Amendments comes a clause relating to solicitors, and I should have thought that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanmore would come after that, at the end of Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may express an opinion, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to another point of Order. I may have alighted upon what is called a "mare's nest," in which case no doubt the noble Lord will correct me. It appears to me on the face of it that the Amendment which the noble Lord is moving has nothing to do with any of the Commons Amendments. If he can show me that it arises out of the Commons Amendments, then no doubt it would be in order. There is nothing more absolutely settled in the practice of Parliament than that when a Bill has reached
188
this stage no point can be raised which does not arise out of an Amendment of either House of Parliament. I may be wrong in saying that this Amendment does not arise out of any of the Commons Amendments, but if it does not it would be a most improper departure to go on with it. Nothing can be raised upon the consideration of Commons Amendments by the Lords, or of Lords Amendments by the Commons, except what arises out of the previous stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess will agree with the observation that we must first take the Commons new clauses inserted after Clause 1. I would like your Lordships to dispose of them before dealing with the point of Order. I do not think I need say anything about this Amendment. The first of the new clauses is obviously recommended by every consideration, and the words of the second clause explain themselves.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I might now say a word on the point of Order raised by the noble Marquess. I had intended to call attention to this. I am not aware of a case in which, where attention has been drawn to a departure, the proposal has been pressed.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The only thing to be said about it is this. The Commons Amendments have made a number of changes which we do not disagree with, and which relate among other things to admission to any incorporated society. The purpose of the Amendment was to carry that out, and I think the noble Marquess is right that if it is a matter of drafting we should have inserted there the clause which the noble Lord (Lord Stanmore) has moved. That would have been the best place in which to put it, but obviously, for the sake of drafting, you could not put it there. Therefore it has to be at the end of the Bill. The noble Marquess will notice that the disqualification is got rid of for admission into any incorporated society. It so happens that the matter with which the noble Lord is dealing is one that I know a good deal about. There are two or three incorporated

189
societies in Scotland the constitution of which imposes disabilities that would prevent women from being admitted, and unless these disabilities are got rid of the insurance provisions, the widows funds, and other things which are essential to the conditions of entry into these corporations would prevent women from coming in; consequently it would be necessary in a Bill of this kind—and it ought to have been done in the Commons Amendment—to put in something specifically dealing with it. The noble Lord obviously is doing it for the purpose of amendments in the law which are required for Scottish purposes as distinguished from general purposes here, and the Amendment is one which, within my own knowledge, is required to enable the, admission into the incorporated society that was referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord is wholly out of order. It is connected with the. Commons Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was careful not to deal with the merits of the clause on which the noble and learned Lord is a great authority, because that would not have been germane to my observations. Mine is a pure point of Order, and I respectfully invite your Lordships to be quite clear upon it. This is a matter which ought to have been dealt with either during the stages when the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House or when it was before the House of Commons, but once the Lords have expressed their full will and the Commons have made any amendments in the decisions of the Lords which they think fit, no point can be raised that has not been raised in the House of Commons, though of course in one sense you can attach any point to any other point by a little straining. Yet that would be to defeat the recognised practice of Parliament. This would be a most important precedent if we made it, because it, would practically mean that there would be no end to the Amendments which may be placed in a Bill when it is passing to and fro between the two Houses of Parliament. I have been engaged—perhaps for my sins and at any rate to my great discomfort—in many controversies between the two Houses of Parliament over Amendments, and of this one thing I am absolutely certain, that nothing can be done on consideration of Amendments—the stage we are engaged in to-day—which has not been touched by the other House.
LORD STANMORE: After what the noble Marquess has said, I will not proceed further with my proposed new subsection.

SUPERANNUATION (PRISON OFFICERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships with any long remarks upon the subject of this Bill, to which I ask you to give a Second Reading this afternoon, because two Papers have been presented and circulated among your Lordships, one the Report of the Prisons Superannuation Committee and another a Memorandum on this Bill, which I think will give all the information that your Lordships may naturally desire to have regarding the provisions of the Bill. Briefly, special provision is asked for in this Bill with regard to the retiring age and superannuation allowances of warders in prisons and attendants in criminal lunatic asylums. The evidence that was brought before the Committee appointed to consider this matter was to the effect—and this will be easily appreciated by your Lordships—that the work, under difficulties and hardships I might almost say, to which prison warders and attendants in criminal lunatic asylums are subjected is such that it was deemed only fair by the Committee that men of this class should be allowed to retire on superannuation at an earlier age than is the case with other civil servants. If your Lordships will glance at the Bill you will see that Clause 1 substitutes the age of fifty-five years for that of sixty as the age of retirement at which, without a medical certificate, superannuation allowance may be granted. It certainly appeared evident to the Committee that in many if not most cases, in view of the very difficult duties to which I have alluded which cause so much strain to the individuals concerned, it was only fair that the men should be entitled at the age of fifty-five, if Parliament so sanctioned, to the superannuation allowance. Briefly, that is the effect of the Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL of CRAWFORD): My Lords, the House will remember passing a Bill dealing with the Police in England and Wales. This Bill extends the principles of that measure to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I need say little about the Bill, because it is virtually identical with that which your Lordships passed last summer, except in so far as the constitution of the Irish Police Forces makes differences in details necessary. In this country there are something like 280 separate Police Forces; in Ireland there are only two. That, in a way, makes the Irish problem more easily encompassed, and this Bill acts accordingly, sets up police bodies to represent these two great groups of police and constabulary, and goes on, having constituted the new representative bodies, to prevent Police being members of trade unions.
The latter part of the Bill corresponds with the increased emoluments which were provided for the Police of England and Wales last summer. Roughly speaking it establishes a certain parity in the increases which are allowed. The outlay is considerable, but I feel that it will not be grudged by the country as a whole for two reasons. In the first place, the Irish Constabulary will now, for the first time, receive an official and a recognised privilege of discussing all matters relating to their welfare and to their efficiency with duly constituted authorities and with representatives elected by themselves. Secondly, it increases the allowances and emoluments of these forces, which from all accounts was overdue. I commend the Bill to your Lordships with great confidence that you will look upon it as an act of justice to a most remarkable body of men whose loyalty and whose fortitude, often in circumstances of the very greatest difficulty, cannot be too highly commended.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, this Bill, which is in a sense a minor Bill, is one to which the Board of Agriculture attaches the very greatest importance. I trust, therefore, that it will commend itself to your Lordships' House, and that you will give it a Second Reading this afternoon. It is a Bill which is supported by nearly all responsible authorities, and which has met with comparatively little criticism in its passage through the House of Commons.
The Bill may be a small one, but the damage which is done by rats and mice is certainly not a small matter, and, whilst I am not prepared to commit the Board of Agriculture to any of the estimates which have been made and publicly stated of the monetary value of the damage which has been done, there is no question whatsoever that it is enormous, and has considerably increased during the war. There was a Bill introduced in your Lordships' House last summer by Lord Aberconway which was withdrawn in favour of the Government Bill. I only mention this in order to remind you that the matter has been before your Lordships already in the present year, and that some noble Lords—Lord Chaplin and Lord Lambonrne—issued a joint appeal with regard to this matter about a year ago. They expressed the opinion—and I am sure their opinion is entitled to special weight—that the damage done by rats and mice annually in this country amounted to as much as £40,000,000, that the number of rats was at least equal to one per head of the population of these Islands, and that ten rats between them consumed as much bread stuffs as a man and his wife under the bread ration. I do not vouch for those statements, but they give some indication on authority of the extent of the evil.
There is no question whatever that the combination of human enterprise with human negligence has disturbed the balance of nature in favour of the rat, and has given an artificial protection to its natural enemies. In consequence rats and mice are absorbing far more than a desirable share of the world's supply of food stuffs, and in many ways man is providing even travelling facilities for this exceedingly dangerous

193
pest. As a result the rat has invaded and colonised distant countries where it is not indigenous, and it has become in many parts of the world one of the most serious pests that can possibly afflict humanity. It not only takes a serious toll of human property, but it is a deadly menace also to the public health.
I think it is generally accepted that rats and mice are specially injurious to agriculture and food production. They take an enormous toll every year, not only on farmers, but on millers and grain merchants. In the case of the farmer it has been estimated that the money toll that they take of him frequently exceeds his rent and taxes combined, and they thrive on every food that is valuable both to man and beast. Mice, which are also dealt with under the Bill, are almost equally serious pests. In Australia they have done untold damage to the stores of grain which had been purchased for the British Government during the war, and it is only right that they should be included in the Bill. With regard to disease I would only say that it has been scientifically established that rats and mice, particularly rats, have been responsible for the spread of plague, dysentery, trichinosis, influenza amongst horses, and foot-and-mouth disease. On these grounds alone I think it is necessary to introduce legislation to deal more effectively with rats.
Speaking briefly, the object of the Bill is to hold every individual occupier responsible for dealing with rats and mice on his own premises. It provides penalties for neglect of that duty, arid there is a further provision that in the event of the individual occupier failing to act upon notice given, the State may step in and do the work for him and charge him with the expenses. But the primary duty rests upon the occupier, and included in the term "occupier" are local authorities with reference to premises for which they themselves are responsible. It is obvious to your Lordships that it is not only unfair but useless to rely upon individual, isolated effort in dealing with a pest of this character. If neighbours do not co-operate in getting rid of this pest, the man who does his duty merely creates a vacuum into which the surplus rat population quickly flows. There is a large surplus population, and unless a sustained and universal effort is made to deal with this evil there will be very little real relief. At any rate, in the view of the
194
Government a universal and continuous campaign against this pest is needed, and it is with that object that this Bill has been introduced.
I will not detain your Lordships by explaining in detail the provisions of the Bill. I hope they are sufficiently plain, and they will, of course, be dealt with in detail in Committee. We regard the Bill as urgent because our powers to deal effectively with the matter under the Defence of the Realm Regulations will shortly run out. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, and that it may be speedily passed into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords. I am sure that the House will desire to give this Bill a Second Reading. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture has given us very good reasons for passing speedily into law a Bill which is intended to enable local authorities to deal drastically with the rat pest. My only doubt with regard to the Bill is whether it is drastic, enough and whether sufficient provision is made to enable the Bill to be put into effective operation. Those of your Lordships who have perused the Bill will see that there is no special provision made for any particular person to take the initiative in the putting of the Bill into operation. I can hardly conceive the ordinary county councillor, after having visited certain farms in his district where the corn stacks are known to be infested with rats, coming before his council and advocating drastic measures against one individual farmer. Such a state of affairs can hardly be pictured. On the other hand, in Lord Aberconway's Bill, provision was made for the initiative to be taken either by a War Agricultural Committee—which seems to me to be the most desirable body to be brought into the scheme because it is part of their business to visit farms from time to time in order to see that efficient cultivation is carried out—or for a sanitary inspector, under the special powers given to him by that Bill to visit premises which were suspected of being infested by rats. If it is possible in the Committee stage to strengthen the Bill in this respect to make sure that it will do something effective—which we all desire—I hope the President of the Board will not resist Amendments to that effect.

195
The Bill contemplates in certain circumstances a notice being served by the local authority—so far as the farmer is concerned it would be the county council—upon an individual where he is supposed not to have taken what are described as "necessary and reasonable steps" to destroy the rats (what may be deemed to be "reasonable and necessary steps" I do not know; it might be a matter which would require judicial interpretation, or, on the other hand, where he is supposed not to have taken measures to prevent his land becoming infested with rats. I should like to ask at what stage his land would be held to be infested with rats. In any case I should like to suggest that it is desirable—the President has laid stress on the fact that the rat is a migratory animal—that the Bill should give the necessary powers to local authorities to serve notices not upon one individual who is deemed to have infested premises but upon the whole of the individuals in a certain area where rats are known to be prevalent and to be destroying food, so that whether they have been remiss or not in the destruction of rats there will be concerted action over a special area to enable the rats to be effectually exterminated. I notice that in the interpretation of the word "land" certain underground premises are referred to and certain buildings upon land, but for some reason a cellar is omitted. Cellars are places apt to be infested with rats, and I should like to suggest as a matter of draftsmanship that the word "cellar" be added to the definition of "land." With these few words I hope your Lordships will accept the principle of this Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, this question, of course, has been dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but certainly a Bill of this character is very much overdue; in fact, it has been wanted for many years past. I agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that there is a danger that the Bill may be applied too much to individuals. There is no doubt, as Lord Lee said, that rats are migratory. The two greatest curses of agriculture undoubtedly are rabbits and rats, and as far as my experience goes you will always have a great deal of difficulty in dealing with rats if there are a large number of rabbit holes. If the rabbits are destroyed and their holes stopped up it will be very much easier to deal with the rats. I presume
196
there will be ample powers for various local authorities to combine. In England the area is the county, and in Scotland it is only a district which in most cases compises a very much smaller area. I certainly think that every one interested in agriculture will welcome the introduction of this Bill, apart from the great loss sustained by the nation as a whole owing to the depredations of rats; but I hope that the Bill will not be carried out in such a way as to be oppressive or onerous on the individual. If that is made certain, I think the Bill will do a great deal of good not only in the interests of agriculture, but of the country as a whole.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FRENCH GOVERNMENT MONEY REGULATION.
LORD MARCHAMLEY LORD MARCHAMLEY rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a Regulation of the French Government under which English people returning to England, and having about their persons English money, are obliged by the Custom House authorities to hand over to them all such money in excess of £25; what security there is for the return to the owners of such money; what advantage the temporary possession of the money, if and when returned, can bring to the French Government; and, if the practice is to be continued, whether he will make representations to the French authorities that it should be done with the maximum of civility.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question upon the Paper only in order to draw public attention to the subject. I thank the noble Earl for his presence here this afternoon, and I can assure him that I have no personal grievance in the matter. I do not wish to refine about or to discuss the extent or degree by which British people returning to this country are incommoded by the Regulations now in force in France. I would sooner ask his opinion upon the general principle which underlies the Regulation, and inquire whether the practice that I have sketched in My Question is one which is recognised and permitted between civilised and allied nations.
The House is probably aware that at the present time Englishmen coming to England embarking at ports in France and having about their person English money (not French money) are obliged, under threat of not being permitted to embark, to hand over to the French Custom House authorities all their money in access of £25. I do not think it would be worth the while of the House for me to describe in detail what occurs, but probably the noble Earl is not quite so conversant with it as I am. Passengers are ushered—shepherded, if I may say so—two at a time into the room of one of these Custom House officials. He is an extraordinarily highhanded and autocratic gentleman. He demands that you hand him all the money that you have. You are quite willing to do so, so long as the money is French, because we are all aware that there is a great dearth of coin in France, and naturally the French authorities do not wish that any should leave the country. Then he says, "What English money have you in your purse?" You demur to that, but he says, "Where is your pocketbook? You have one; produce it." If you raise objection, you are told distinctly that unless you do show the English notes or money that you have upon you, you will not be permitted to go on board ship; and. if your impedimenta are already on the ship, it is rather a difficulty to be stranded at Dieppe or other places—I am speaking of Dieppe—without anything. You hand in your pocket-book and he goes through your notes. He extracts £25 and says, "Take these; the rest you must leave here." It is no use urging that you may have a house in France, or a banking account, or that your notes have only been taken over as a reserve and are being brought back in exactly the same condition, bearing the same numbers as when you brought them over. That argument has no weight whatever. He says, "No; my orders are to retain here any money in excess of£25, the equivalent of 1,000 francs, and you cannot take it over."
I most freely admit that in the case of people who have banking accounts in France they are courteous enough to forward the money to those banks, but the majority of people who go there from this country have no banking accounts in France. What is going to be done with their money? How long is it going to be held up—until the stringency and difficulty in French financial affairs is over? If so,
198
I am sorry to say that I am afraid that will be some time and it will be a considerable grievance to a great number of people to leave £20 or £30 or £40 there. They cannot afford to do so. How are they going to recover the money in the end? How are people living in the north of Scotland or Wales to get it? Have they to bombard the noble Earl at the Foreign Office in order to get it? If so, I am afraid the Foreign Office will have more work to do even than it has to do now, and I know that is enormous. If the money is only being kept in France for a short time, what possible advantage can it be to the French Government to have £10, or £20, or £30, or £40, or £500 of English money which they are going to hand back in a fortnight or three weeks? It creates a great sense of grievance. Many persons in France will have their journeys spoilt by this little bit of friction at the end. The whole matter is not worth the candle.
I suggest to the noble Earl that he should make representations to the French authorities that this pinprick should be abolished and the Regulation suspended. I do not want to argue about the details and the amount of inconvenience, but I ask the noble Earl whether it is a recognised practice which is permitted between nations and whether he will give us—I am afraid I can hardly get from him his judgment—but his opinion as to whether he supports and upholds it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the Question which my noble friend has put to me is, it is true, from one point of view rather small, but I can quite understand that it generates a certain amount of friction and discontent which it should be the desire of the Foreign Office, so far as they can, to mitigate if not entirely to remove. The first Question put to me by my noble friend relates to a question of fact—namely, the existence of this Regulation, the reasons for it, and the manner in which it is administered. There is, as he has pointed out, a Regulation requiring British subjects returning from France to hand over all moneys on their persons over and above £25. This exportation of money from France by any person residing in France was prohibited by the Decree of April 3, 1918. By the second Article of that Decree no person residing in France may transfer from that country moneys,

199
stocks, or securities to an amount greater than 1,000 francs—that is, before the war the equivalent of £40.
On October 23 last the Garde des Sceaux called special notice to this and other cognate laws, and issued a statement to this effect: It is forbidden to export gold or silver money, whether French or foreign, over the sum of 10 francs in value, under penalty of from one month's to two years' imprisonment and a fine of from 100 francs to 50,000 francs and confiscation of the moneys seized. It is also forbidden, without the special authorisation of the Ministry of Finance, the Commission des Changes, for travellers leaving France to remove more than 1,000 francs value in French or foreign bank notes. That is the Regulation of which the noble Lord complains.
In his second Question the noble Lord asks what security there is for the return to the owners of the money involved. I made enquiries in Paris and was informed that the following is the position of affairs. On leaving France, each passenger is required by the Customs authorities to declare what sum he or she has in his or her possession. Where a proper declaration is made, all sums in gold or silver over the value of 10 francs and in notes over the value of 1,000 francs must be deposited in a bank, the passenger being entitled to take a cheque on London for the equivalent. When there is no time for this the Customs take charge of the money, presumably against a receipt, and the passenger has to apply for its return to the Commission des Changes of the Ministry of Finance, naming the bank in which the deposit of the money should be made, the said bank then remitting the money by cheque to England. Further—I am not quite certain that the noble Lord apprehended this—these travellers are entitled to take out of France the money which they brought in, and for this purpose—
LORD MARCHAMLEY: I pointed out most particularly, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, that the notes were all new notes and in numerical sequence, as he can see for himself; and I informed him that I had taken them there and was only bringing them back.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I was not alluding to the specific case of the
200
noble Lord. I was merely stating that the general rule I understand to be that travellers are entitled to take out of France the money they brought in. For this purpose their business is to declare at the Customs on entering the country and obtain from the Customs a receipt to be shown on leaving, as a proof that they are not, in fact, exporting money from France.
The third Question put by the noble Lord is what advantage the temporary possession of this money can be to France. That, I imagine, is in the main a technical matter connected with the technique of finance, on which I am hardly qualified to give an opinion. I imagine it to be connected with the present shortage of silver currency in France and with the exigencies of exchange. The noble Lord asks, Is this an admitted or recognised practice elsewhere? Until he put his Question on the Paper I did not know that it was the practice in the case of France, and I have not pursued my investigations any further. The requirements of France may be peculiar in this respect. I have not heard of the thing happening elsewhere, but I can well conceive that in countries where there is this stringency similar precautions may have to be adopted.
Then my noble friend asks, if the practice is to be continued, whether I will make representations to the French authorities that it shall be done with the maximum of civility. I have not heard that it has ceased, and therefore the presumption for the moment is that the practice will go on. As regards the manner in which it is administered, I made enquiries in the Foreign Office and found that no complaints have reached us there. The noble Lord described, partly I dare say from his own experience and partly from that of others, what takes place, and I can well conceive the situation as described by him as irksome and sometimes unpleasant. These difficulties arise, as any of us who have travelled know, sometimes from ignorance of the language employed. They sometimes arise from imperfect acquaintance with the Regulations that are being enforced. They seldom arise from deliberate discourtesy. I doubt if in this case there is any intention—I am sure there is no intention—to make these rules operate in at all a harshtor impolite fashion. If the noble Lord desires me to make representations

201
I shall be very glad to consider the propriety of doing so upon cases submitted to me. No cases, hitherto, have been submitted; and if he can show me any definite case in which incivility has been perpetrated, or that the manner in which these Regulations are being carried out is a source of serious inconvenience to travellers, or is at all unreasonable, I shall be only too happy to take the matter up. But at present I am without any information except that which has been vouchsafed to me this afternooon, and that which has been the basis of my own reply.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of November 5.]

EDIN BURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure, (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a
202
(The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (NEW WORKS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Greenock Improvernent—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9) read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.