Lords Sitting of 9 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we proceed to public business perhaps your Lordships will allow me to ask my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can state what arrangements the Government propose for next week, or the early part of it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I expressed the hope yesterday that we might secure the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill on Monday, but representations have been made to me which, I regret to say, have dispelled that expectation. I fear, therefore, that the Third Reading will have to be postponed till the following day, Tuesday the 14th. I had hoped that we should begin the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill on that day, but if the Third Reading of the Home Rule Bill is postponed until Tuesday and takes some little time I am afraid that we shall not be able to take the Agriculture Bill on that day, and will have to begin it accordingly the next day, Wednesday
2
the 15th. Should that be so, I suggest that the latter part of Tuesday's sitting should be devoted to the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill, which I understand passed through the House of Commons last night, and to clearing up any outstanding Orders and Questions which may be on the Paper. It is clear to me that we shall have to sit on Friday the 17th, either to conclude the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill, or possibly to deal with the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments on the Home Rule Bill, if the House of Commons will have had sufficient time to deal with them in that interval. But for the moment I cannot say anything about to-morrow week, except that it appears to be almost inevitable that your Lordships will have to meet on that day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his statement. The proposals that he makes, as far at any rate as the beginning of next week is concerned, seem to be entirely suitable. As regards Friday the 17th, it is a little early to say anything, but I agree that your Lordships ought to be prepared to sit on that day if it is required. Whether it will be possible to deal with the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Home Rule Bill by then, I cannot say. I am afraid it is asking too much of us to see so far ahead as that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I quite agree that it is too far ahead to foresee, especially as we do not know on what day the House of Commons will be able to deal with the Government of Ireland Bill; but I may remind your Lordships that there will be a Committee stage of the Ministry of Health Bill, which also might be suitable for the Friday.

WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the main object of this Bill is to enable the British Government to ratify the International Conventions which are set out in the Schedule of the Bill, and which were adopted at Washington by the International Labour Organisations of the League of Nations, in regard to the employment of children in industrial undertakings, to work by young persons, work by women, and the employment of children at sea.
The acceptance of these Conventions makes little practical difference as regards employment in this country. As to the employment of children in industrial undertakings, the Education Act of 1912 prohibits the employment of children under twelve and of children under fourteen in factories, workshops, mines, and quarries. The employment of children between twelve and fourteen years of age in industrial undertakings which are outside the Factory and Mines Act is not at present prohibited by law, but the requirements of the Education Act that children shall attend school full time to the age of fourteen prevents their regular and continuous employment. Therefore the extension involved by the Convention is small. The Bill does not affect the employment of children as errand boys and messengers.
As regards night work by young persons, the provisions of the Factory Act and Mines Act are similar in the main to the provisions of the Convention, but the Convention applies to certain industrial undertakings—for example, works of construction—which are not covered by these Acts, and to this extent therefore the Convention imposes additional restrictions. The employment of women at night in factories and mines is forbidden by the existing
4
Acts, but is not prohibited in other classes of work to which the Convention applies. In practice there is not much employment of women and young persons in works covered by the Convention, but it is necessary to prohibit such employment by law in order that we may carry out our obligations in ratifying the Convention. That is, as regards Clause 1.
In Clause 2 there is a provision permitting the employment of women and young persons on a two-shift system, and perhaps that requires a little more detailed explanation. By the Factories and Workshops Act, which provides for a fixed daily period of employment, the two-shift system is practically prohibited for all women and young persons, but during the war the provisions of the Act of 1901 were modified by Emergency Orders and women were employed on the shift system. When the Armistice was signed it was decided by the Government, on the recommendation of a strong representative Committee, that there was justification during the transition period for the continuation of these shifts, but of course when the war is legally at an end the power to continue the shift system will lapse. Therefore, having regard to the recommendations of the Reconstruction Committee and the representations of Factory inspectors and others who are interested as to the difficulties which would be caused by the abolition of this system, a clause was introduced into this Bill providing for its possible continuation, but in another place the clause as originally drafted met with considerable opposition and a Departmental Committee was appointed by the Home Office to report upon the whole question. That Committee, which was presided over by Mr. Inskip, examined all the evidence on the subject and reached a unanimous conclusion that the Home Office should be allowed to have power to sanction the employment of women and young persons on the two-shift system between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., subject, of course, to such conditions as the authorities might consider necessary for safeguarding the welfare of the workers. Furthermore, the Committee recommended that these Orders should not be extended to those under the age of sixteen, and that the power should be granted for five years in the first instance; that is to say, a limited period might be fixed in order that the scheme might receive a proper trial.

5
The Report of the Committee has been laid before Parliament, and in pursuance of the Report an amended clause was added to the Bill, the effects of which are in the first place that an Order allowing the two-shift system in a particular factory or group of factories can only be made if the employers and the workers in those factories agree by asking for it. Secondly, if the whole of the industry concerned of which that factory or group of factories forms part object to the two-shift system; and the employers and workers in the industry at large make a joint representation to the Home Secretary no more Orders can be made for that industry, and those which already have been made will lapse. It will be seen, therefore, that the clause does not impose the two-shift system on the workers, but merely enables it to be adopted if the workers and employers agree in asking for it. That seems to be consonant with the spirit of the Whitley Report—that any question affecting any industry should be settled by agreement between the employers and the employed.
As I have already mentioned, the two-shift system has been in use during the war and in certain factories it is still employed. Therefore I think your Lordships will see that if it were suddenly abolished a number of women would be thrown out of work. Moreover, its continuation helps to absorb the surplus of trained female labour. If your Lordships will peruse the Report you will see it points out that production is increased thereby, since it is possible to use the same machinery for longer hours with a consequent reduction of overhead charges. Lastly it affords a passage, perhaps, to the adoption of shorter hours. I do not think there is any necessity for me to make any further remarks, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has alluded to the acute controversy which took place over this Bill in another place and also outside. This is a matter that may come up again, but as it is at present a matter of compromise after that acute controversy I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that you should pass this Bill without any substantial Amendments. The two-shift system is very much objected to in the
6
textile trade as a reintroduction of the system of long hours and early morning hours which formerly existed, particularly for women and children in those trades. As one of the industries connected with this two-shift system exists in Lancashire—namely, the glass industry of St. Helens—Lancashire was very much perturbed at the idea of the two-shift system being brought into that county again. But the Home Secretary has announced his intention of not applying it to the textile trades, and of only applying it to other industries upon representations from factories or groups of factories and without opposition from the industry itself. The industries to which it would apply are chiefly those that have arisen during the war, particularly the manufacture of cotton-covered wire. If that industry was stopped at the present time it would not only prevent the production of goods which are eighteen months in arrears for the Post Office, but it would also throw a very large number of women and from 15,000 to 20,000 men out of employment. Women's work—which it appears that men cannot do—is so bound up with this particular industry that it would be a most serious matter for the production of electrical work if the two-shift system was not allowed to continue. But the Committee, under the learned chairmanship of Mr. Inskip, a man well versed in industrial affairs, unanimously passed a resolution that the two-shift system was in an experimental stage, that it should not continue beyond five years, that it should be given a trial, and should be the subject of a considerable number of restrictions. In those circumstances it appears to me that it would be unwise to disturb the arrangement which has been finally come to and which is clearly in the nature of a compromise, and that this trial of the two-shift system should be made in the interests of the industry concerned. I am informed that there are only about 15,000 women now employed on this two-shift system, and therefore in relation to the interests of the nation as a whole it is a comparatively small matter unless it is the introduction of the thin end of the wedge, and it is a very small matter indeed compared with the general contents of the Bill, which are to ratify an arrangement of an international character arrived at at Washington.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole house.

MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Interest on compensation awarded.
4. Where a decree is made against a county council after the passing of this Act for compensation for criminal injuries, the amount recovered (excluding therefrom any sums recovered for costs or expenses) shall carry interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum from the date of the service of the preliminary notice of application upon the secretary of the county council where the compensation is awarded in respect of a murder or maiming, and from the date of the decision of the county court in other cases, and payment of such interest may be enforced in like manner as if it were part of the amount recovered.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to leave out "maiming," towards the end of the clause, and to insert "criminal injuries to the person." The noble Lord said: The word "maiming" was inserted, I think, as the result of an Amendment in another place, and it has, I am told, a technical legal interpretation which would not protect the person to the same extent as the words which I suggest should be substituted for it. In every other instance in the Bill the words "criminal injuries" occur, for instance in Clause 6 (3) which reads—
"Where an application is made in respect of a murder or other criminal injuries (whether to person or property) …"
I believe I am right in saying that the Government do not object to this alteration.
8
Amendment Moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 39, leave out ("maiming") and insert ("criminal injuries to the person").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am prepared to accept this Amendment, and also the second Amendment on the Paper, provided that the noble Lord will grant me permission to look into the matter closely between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply also in the case of decrees made before the passing of this Act for compensation in respect of criminal injuries, whether to person or property committed or inflicted at any time after the first day of January nineteen hundred and seventeen, but only as respects so much of the amount recovered as shall have remained unpaid at the time of the passing of this Act."
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 3, after ("recovered") insert the said words.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUOHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to try matrimonial causes at assizes.
1. Any commissioner acting under a commission of assize or any other commission granted under section twenty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, shall, subject to rules Of court, have power to try and determine matri-

9
monial causes of any prescribed class and any matters arising out of or connected with any such causes, and shall for that purpose have all such powers and duties as are vested in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court under the enactments relating to divorce and matrimonial causes.
For the purposes of the foregoing provision, the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Lord Chancellor by order made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice of England and the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court.
THE EARL OF READING: My Lords, I desire to offer some observations on Clause 1 of this Bill, and more particularly to direct the attention of your Lordships to the true effect of the clause, which I think has been subject to some misconception outside this House. May I say that I am in complete accord with the Lord Chancellor as to the provisions of this Bill. He has called me into consultation on various occasions in respect of matters that more particularly appertain to the King's Bench and generally to the administration of justice, and the only remarks that I intend to make upon this clause are to correct what I cannot but think is a possible misconception.
As I understand the object of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in Clause 1, it is not at this moment to transfer matrimonial causes to the Assizes for the purpose of trying them at Assizes, but it is to give power to the Commissioner, acting under a Commission of Assize, to try such causes of any prescribed class its shall be transferred; and then occur these words—
"The expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by the Lord Chancellor by order made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice of England and the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court."
In the present state of the lists in the Divorce Division it is obvious that the President, will naturally be desirous of having these causes transferred, so that they may be disposed of elsewhere and that the congestion in his Courts may be relieved, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would also naturally desire to give the President that assistance; but it cannot be done under this Bill unless there is the concurrence of myself as the Lord Chief Justice. I ant very anxious that it should not be thought that this concurrence is a mere matter of form. On the contrary, before the Lord Chief Justice could concur in transferring these causes to Assizes he must be satisfied, first, that the
10
condition of business at Assizes will enable the causes to be sent there without unduly prolonging the stay of Judges on Circuit, and consequently their absence from London, where there is already a very congested list awaiting trial.
I would make one further observation upon it which I trust your Lordships will bear in mind in case it becomes necessary on a later occasion to introduce further legislation—namely, that I do not think it ought to be assumed that Parliament should impose upon the Judges of the King's Bench Division the duty of trying matrimonial causes unless the Judges of the King's Bench Division are willing to accept that jurisdiction. There are many (I am not speaking for a moment merely of judicial persons) who object, of course, to divorce. There are Judges who will most certainly have a dislike to trying divorce cases on Assizes. The Judges of the King's Bench Division are not appointed for that purpose; it is not part of their work. When a member of the Bar has accepted the position to which His Majesty has appointed him as Judge of the High Court, King's Bench Division, it is no part of the Judge's duty under the law as at present constituted to try divorce cases, although it is perfectly true that during the congestion that has existed for some time some of the Judges have been ready to lend their assistance and have, at the request of the Lord Chancellor and with my concurrence, transferred their services to the Divorce Division.
I do not desire to say anything further upon it beyond this, that I do not think this duty ought ever to be imposed on the Judges unless the Judges are themselves willing to undertake it. When I say that I am reminded that the Lord Chancellor at one period did say that in a certain limited class of case the Judges had expressed their willingness. It was perfectly true, because I myself communicated it to him as the result of a meeting of the King's Bench Division when we were considering the position of poor persons who were in the difficulty that they could not very often provide money to bring witnesses from Lancashire and Yorkshire to London to have their case tried. In order to meet the case of poor persons. which was the matter under discussion, the Judges of the High Court did express their willingness to try these causes if it became necessary and if the state of

11
business in the King's Bench Division permitted it. Save in that respect I trust it will not be thought that the Judges have undertaken the duty, although they are always ready and willing to consider any representations that may be made by the Lord Chancellor and will naturally give every possible consideration to them with the desire of facilitating any course he may suggest; and I need not say that I shall always most willingly concur if concurrence is possible.
The last observation I want to make on the state of the Lists is this—it may not be known, and I think it necessary I should state it—that at the present moment the number of causes entered in the King's Bench Division (that is to say, the number of causes awaiting trial), is much larger than it has been for any period during the last ten years, and this notwithstanding the fact that appointments were made in consequence of the power given by Resolution in your Lordships' House and in another place to appoint two new Judges. The moment those two new Judges of the King's Bench Division were appointed I rejoiced at the prospect of having them added so that the arrears could be got rid of. But one was immediately borrowed, by virtue of some arrangements under an Indemnity Act, to preside over the War Losses Commission, and the other has been lent ever since to the Divorce Division. Your Lordships will see that although two new Judges were appointed to the King's Bench. Division their services have never yet been given to the King's Bench Division. I trust that this will be remembered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRRIENHEAD): My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Earl has said as to the present state of the Lists. It is causing me anxiety, as it must be causing him anxiety. It is perfectly true that whereas Parliament gave me the power of creating two new Judges some months ago their efforts have not been available to assist the noble and learned Earl in his duties in the Courts of Justice; and it is a very serious circumstance that what was justified and intended by Parliament to go in relief of the arrears in the King's Bench Division should not have been available for that purpose. I am carefully watching the state of the Lists and the work also upon Circuit. It may well be that if the tenure of the services
12
of Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, who was lent to the tribunal which deals with property taken under various war legislation, proves to be of indefinite duration I may have to come to Parliament again and ask that they should make good that which was intended when the two new Judges were appointed.
The state of the Lists is very serious indeed, and it is due, as far as I can judge,, to the circumstance that the conclusion of the war brought about very complicated litigation of all kinds. There were many persons who did not think it worth while, and many who were physically unable, to resort to litigation while the war lasted. You cannot introduce into this or any other country the completely novel code of procedure by which our business arrangements were in many cases governed for five years without making certain that a great crop of litigation will result. Any one who is responsible for the conduct of litigation in this country must at the present moment be feeling very great anxiety.
Let me add a word as to the particular points made by the noble and learned Earl. He called attention to the fact that the Bill provided that it would be necessary for the Lord Chancellor, before prescribing any class of case as one capable of being dealt with on Circuit, to obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Division. When I thus directed that any action by myself in this regard should be made dependent on the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Probate Division, I was fully aware that the concurrence was to be a substantial one, and that it was not in the least likely I should obtain it unless they were satisfied that their own duties rendered it proper that they should give it.
I am not sure that I am able entirely to accept what the noble and learned Earl said as to the position of Judges in relation to the discharge of duties in matters relating to divorce if they should be called upon under the circumstances prescribed in this Bill; but I do not propose to discuss that. No one would ever dream of attempting to make regulations in relation to the Judges of the King's Bench Division, apart from any statutory provision, without the complete assent and concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, who has the primary responsibility, which I have not.

13
The circumstance will not arise. Among the King's Bench Judges, whose devotion to duty is well known, there will be a sufficient number, if it is the wish of Parliament, to undertake these duties.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Trial by jury in the High Court.
2.—(1) Where, in any action or other matter whatsoever requiring to be tried in the High Court, the court or a judge is satisfied, on an application made by either party to the proceedings in accordance with rules of court, that the action or matter cannot as conveniently be tried with a jury as without a jury, the court or a judge shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have power, notwithstanding anything in any Act, to order the action or matter to be tried without a jury:
Provided that—

(a) no order for trial without a jury shall, except with the consent of both parties, be made under this section where the action or matter is one in which fraud is alleged or in which there is a clam in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, seduction, or breach of promise of Marriage; and

(b) nothing in this section shall affect the right of any party under section twenty-eight of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, to insist on having contested matters of fact tried with a jury, or the right of an heir at law, cited to appear in or otherwise made a party to a probate action, to a trial with a jury if he makes an application for the purpose in accordance with rules of court.

(2) Provision shall be made by rules of court for enabling the plaintiff in any action or matter in which an order for trial without a jury may be made under this section to signify his desire to have the action or matter tried without a jury, and for providing, but without prejudice to the discretion of the court or a judge, that where the plaintiff so signifies his desire an order shall be made for trial without a jury unless any party makes an application to the contrary.
(3) This section shall come into operation on the date on which the Juries Act, 1918, expires, or, if His Majesty by Order in Council so direct, on such earlier date as may be specified in the Order, and if any Order is so made section one of the Juries Act, 1918, shall cease to have effect on the date so specified.
THE EARL OF READING: My Lords, I desire to supplement what I said on Clause 1 relating to the state of business in the Courts by directing the attention of your Lordships to the effect of Clause 2, which imposes very limited restrictions upon the right to trial by jury in civil Courts. It is not a subject that it is necessary for me to discuss at this moment. The clause has been most carefully drafted.
14
The language—almost the very words—was accepted by a Council of all the Judges, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, when this matter was considered. It is, perhaps, desirable to notice that there is power under the Rules to make some such provision as this, but it was thought better—and think my noble friend particularly took that view, and I agree with him—that when introducing this restriction on the right to trial by jury it should be done by Statute so that Parliament may have the opportunity of expressing a view upon it, rather than by Rule, which is done by those of us who are members of a Rule Committee, when there is so much less opportunity either for publicity before the Rule comes into operation or for discussion upon it.
The one essential element to consider is, of course, that what is desired is to do the best in the interests of justice, and this limited right of restriction which is now asked is not intended in any way to interfere with that class of case in which above all others juries should always be called. That is, the well-known case of defamation and actions of the same kind in which there are allegations of fraud and where personal character is seriously involved. Of course not. Those are expressly exempted. The limited restriction does not apply to those cases. There the right to trial by jury remains, and is preserved by the proviso to the clause. The clause in itself will apply merely to that class of case where it is found that on the whole the case cannot as conveniently be tried with a jury as without.
I would desire also that those who may hear, or may read, the observations that I have made upon this clause will bear in mind that prima facie the best tribunal to dispose of facts, not only in the opinion of myself but of Judges, is a jury. But you may have cases, and you do have cases, in which, by reason of prolonged investigation, it becomes necessary to try the case by the Judge who has documents before him and who has an opportunity of refreshing his recollection upon the matters from time to time, which a jury has not. I think the clause is most carefully drafted, and, so far as I am aware from such discussion as I have been able to have with those who are interested in it, apart from the litigants themselves, there is a general consensus of opinion that some restriction is necessary if we are to proceed with the

15
trial of our causes as the List at present stands.
May I add further that a Committee—Lord Mersey's Committee—sat on this very matter, discussed this question, and came to recommendations which go considerably further than those embodied in the Bill which my noble and learned friend has introduced. They give a much wider discretion; but it has been thought better, as I gather, by my noble friend (and I agree with it) to give a much more restricted and limited right of curtailment of trial by jury than was proposed by that Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I find it necessary to add hardly anything to the observations made by my noble and learned friend, because I am naturally in complete agreement with them; but it is worth while, I think, to point out—because these matters occasion great interest in the legal profession—that at the statutory meeting of the Judges which I summoned this year, and at which this subject was discussed very elaborately, their assent and approval were given to the proposals contained in this Bill. I need scarcely say that their experience and their advice in such a matter ought to carry the greatest possible weight.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

LITTLE LONGSTONE CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this is one of a small body of Bills of which, at my instance, your Lordships have passed many in the last few years. As your Lordships know, trustees wishing to vary their trusts have to ask for a scheme, and if the scheme of the Charity Commissioners should be outside the powers under their jurisdiction they have to come to Parliament to endorse their action. This Bill and the other two have all found their places in the Report which the Charity Commissioners have submitted to His Majesty, and no objections have been raised. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Rill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which may be described as one of the hardy annuals that come before your Lordships' House in stereotyped form, and I beg to move the 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.

CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY MEASURE.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move to resolve—
That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Convocations of the Clergy Measure, 1920, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I wish to say a very few words of explanation to remind those of your Lordships who may have forgotten the details of the procedure we are now following. We are taking at this moment the first step to give effect in Parliament to the Act which was passed exactly a year ago. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke of it then as being a measure to enable the Church of England to do its work more speedily and better. That is exactly what we shall be beginning to do by passing this Resolution, if the Resolution is similarly passed in the House of Commons, and the Royal Assent, as will then doubtless be the case, is given.
I would remind your Lordships that the constitutional facts of the procedure

17
as laid down in the Act of Parliament are these. An Assembly of Bishops, clergy, and laity is given authority to act in a particular way. When it desires a measure to become law the Assembly, which is a preponderatingly lay body, must first pass that measure through its own Assembly. The National Assembly consists of 291 clergy and 356 laymen, so that it can in no sense be called a preponderatingly clerical body. If that Assembly passes a Bill through its own ranks the Bill is sent, by what is called the Legislative Committee of the Assembly, to the Ecclesiastical Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. That Ecclesiastical Committee consists of fifteen noble Lords appointed from this House by the Lord Chancellor, and fifteen members of the House of Commons appointed by the Speaker. That body now exists and has the advantage of having as chairman the noble Viscount, Lord Cave. To that body the measure which has passed through the Assembly has to be transmitted, and so in this case the Bill has been transmitted. According to the Act of Parliament—
"After considering the measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a Report thereon to Parliament stating the nature and legal effect of the measure and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. The Ecclesiastical Committee shall communicate its Report in draft to the Legislative Committee, but shall not present it to Parliament until the Legislative Committee signify its desire that it should be so presented."
The draft Report agreed to by the Ecclesiastical Committee was, in accordance with the Act, duly sent to the Legislative Committee of the National Assembly of the Church of England. That body considered it and returned it to the Ecclesiastical Committee, with the request that further proceedings should be taken and it should go forward. The Report accordingly lies upon the Table of your Lordships' House and has been circulated to all your Lordships.
The Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee upon what was called the Convocations of the Clergy Measure, 1920—the particular Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to assent to by Resolution of this House—says —
"The Ecclesiastical Committee are of opinion that the Measure carries out t he object required and is a necessary antecedent to the further action contemplated by the Church Assembly under the powers derived from the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, and accordingly
18
they are of opinion that the Measure is expedient. They consider that, inasmuch as the Measure only affects the representation of the Clergy in their own Home, it does not infringe the Constitutional Rights of any of His Majesty's subjects."
That Report is now before your Lordships, and in accordance with what the Act of Parliament provides I proceed to move my Resolution. The provision in the Act is this—
"When the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to Parliament on any measure submitted by the Legislative Committee, the Report, together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith. … and thereupon, on a Resolution being passed by each House of Parliament directing that such measure in the form laid before Parliament should be presented to His Majesty, such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament."
I have mentioned those facts in detail, because this is the first time that, the new procedure laid down by the Act of last year has been put into operation, and it is important, I think, to show that we have punctiliously, and with the utmost care, followed all the steps laid down, and that everything has been done in accordance with the rules which we were told to follow. It now rests simply with your Lordships to give, as I hope you will, assent to the Resolution asking that, His Majesty's Assent be given to the Bill.
I wish to say a single word about what it is that you are being asked to assent to—what it is that the Bill provides. The position is this. For a number of years past there has been a great deal of controversy and a good deal of anxiety felt as to the proper mode of reforming the Lower House of Convocation. The Lower House of Convocation dates back to very early days of English history—to days earlier than Parliament itself it might be contended—practically in the form in which it exists to-day, although the conditions of the Church at the time when the constitution of the Lower House was decided upon were very different from the circumstances of the Church to-day. There has been a long and widely-felt anxiety that the parochial clergy should be more adequately, and in a better manner, represented in the Lower House, but to bring that about has been felt to be an exceedingly difficult matter constitutionally. If, on the one hand, Convocation attempted by itself to make its reform, or if, as is

19
sometimes urged, the Archbishop of the Province were by his own fiat to attempt to make the reform, there are many who would challenge the Act as being somewhat unconstitutional because the thing had been done without the direct and official cognizance of Parliament. On the other hand, if Parliament had done it without Convocation, there are not a few who would say that the constitutional rights of Convocation, which have never been interfered with by Parliament from the time when, Convocation already existing, Parliament first sat, would seem to be interfered with in an unconstitutional manner if Parliament were to enact, without the concurrence or co-operation of Convocation, the changes which we desire.
In these circumstances it has long been felt that what was required was a declaratory Act by Parliament that Convocation has the right to make its own arrangements for its own internal management, but that it should not be done by Convocation without the knowledge and concurrence of Parliament. The Bill therefore is of the simplest possible kind and consists really of one clause, which is as follows—
"It is hereby declared that the Convocation of each of the said Provinces has power, with His Majesty's Royal Assent and Licence, to make, promulge and execute Canons for the amendment of the constitution of the Lower House thereof."
Your Lordships are aware that a Canon cannot be made by Convocation without the Royal Assent having been procured for doing it, and thus a check is placed upon the action of Convocation, which can only be put into operation in this formal and official way by the Royal Licence giving it that authority. If any one can see objection to the Bill on its merits I shall be very much surprised. If any one can challenge the constitutional steps which, in accordance with the law, and in order to proceed with regularity, extreme punctilio, and absolute regard to all the provisions laid down, we have taken I shall also be surprised. I am following exactly what the Act of Parliament describes in moving the Resolution in the words which I do; they are practically taken from the Act of Parliament. I move that this House do direct that the Convocations of the Clergy Measure, 1920, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. I hope I have made the matter clear to your Lordships; I thought it
20
desirable to do it on this first occasion in order to show that we are acting with the greatest care and are following the rules laid down.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Convocations of the Clergy Measure, 1920, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the duty devolved upon me to nominate members from your Lordships' House to serve upon this Committee I conceived it to be my duty not only to inquire into the merits of the Bill proposed but to consider the regularity of the measure having regard to the terms of the Act, and also to consider whether the Resolution was in accordance with the terms of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919. Upon both those points I entertain not the slightest doubt that the most rev. Primate is on very safe ground when he challenges criticism to the constitutionality of this measure.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, as Chairman of the Committee appointed to examine on behalf of both Houses of Parliament measures of this kind, perhaps I may be allowed to say that we did very carefully examine this measure before steps were taken to pass it into law. It appeared to us that both the Act of Parliament and the Constitution of the Church of England had been very carefully held in view, and this measure exactly carries out the directions given in Article 17 of the Constitution. We therefore saw no reason whatever why it should not be presented to your Lordships' House for confirmation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE AERODROME AT HARLING.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to call attention to the present condition of the aerodrome situated at Harling in Norfolk, and to ask what the cost of this establishment has been front first to last both as to personnel and maintenance; what is the personnel now employed there; what is the estimated value of the buildings and plant; and whether any useful purpose is served by its continued existence.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name. The first line is perhaps rather misleading. It is "to call attention to the present condition of the aerodrome situated at Harling in Norfolk." I should like to ask my noble friend to give me that information. I do not propose to supply any myself. If I have been too inquisitive in the public interest I shall quite understand if my noble friend cannot give me a complete answer to all that I have asked, but I should like to know, if it is possible to tell me, what His Majesty's Government intend to do in the future.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY (LORD RATHCREEDAN): My Lords, the Air Ministry, by whom this aerodrome was handed over to the Ministry of Munitions, have undertaken to advise with reference to the first portion of the noble Lord's question. In reply to the second point, the personnel at present consists of one caretaker. When a warrant for stores is
22
issued a mobile gang is sent to do the work. As regards the remaining portion of the Question, it is considered inadvisable in the public interest to give the information for which the noble Earl asks. I have, however, most of the information winch he requires, and I would be very happy to place it at his disposal for his private information.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
[From Minutes of December 8.]

LANARKSHIRE TRAMWAYS ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past live o'clock.