HL Deb 11 November 1919 vol 37 cc166-90

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 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 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 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.

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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. "(a) prescribing the manner in which jurors are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel; and
  2. (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for reasons of health unfit to attend; and
  3. (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 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 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 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.