Lords Sitting of 17 July 1924

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

CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and regulate the law regarding the circuits of the High Court of Justiciary and the holding of Circuit Courts, and to amend the law relating to criminal procedure in Scotland in certain respects; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th of June next." be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question. Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LEGITIMACY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
1.—(1) Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall, if the father of the illegitimate person was or is at the date of the marriage domiciled in England or Wales, render that person, if living, legitimate from the commencement of this Act, or from the date of the marriage, which last happens; and such person is in this Act referred to as a "legitimated person."
(2) This section does not enable a legitimated person to take any interest in real or personal property; which he would not have taken if this section had not been passed.
(3) The Registrar-General may, on production of satisfactory evidence, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
VISCOUNT CAVE VISCOUNT CAVE moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:—
" (2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother

663
was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I have heard with much regret from the most rev. Primate that he is unable, for public reasons, to be here to-day to move this first Amendment, and I have agreed, at his request, to move it. I do not think I need spend very much time in doing so, because it has been so lately debated in your Lordships' House. When the Bill brought in by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, was considered a few months ago, this same Amendment was moved and was adopted by this House by a very large majority, and I certainly do not assume that your Lordships will readily have changed your minds upon a matter of such importance.
The Amendment brings the new English law as it will be set up by this Bill into accord with the Scottish law as it has stood for a very long time. In Scotland, where the process of legitimation by subsequent marriage has long been recognised, the exception has always been made that that result shall not be attributed to a marriage in cases where the child in question was either conceived or born while one of its parents was married to another person. I do not say for a moment that everything which is law in Scotland ought to be law in England, but I do think that when this exception has stood in Scotland for so long and has been sanctioned by Scottish experience and wisdom, we ought to hesitate long before, in adopting in general the Scottish law, we set aside the exception which that law has made. The principle of the Amendment, I think, is that we ought in this matter to distinguish between promiscuous intercourse between unmarried persons and adulterous intercourse between married persons. If you put the two upon the same footing for this or any other purpose you thereby remove one of the things which deter people from committing matrimonial offences and you do, to that extent, weaken the sanctions of the Marriage Laws.
In the case where the mother of the illegitimate child was married when that child was born the case for this Amendment has really been conceded by the noble and learned Lord who is to-day in charge of this Bill, because when we adopted this Amendment early this year
664
I put forward this argument. I said that where a child is born of a woman who is for the time being married it is the presumption of the law that her husband is the father of the child—a presumption which has certainly not been weakened by a decision given in this House since that debate took place. And I said that, that being so, it was most undesirable that any contention should afterwards arise as to whether the husband or some third person was, in fact, the father of the child. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster replied that really the argument was inadequate because the point would never arise. He said, in effect, that it would never happen, that where a child had been born of a mother who was married and the husband died some third person would claim to be the father of the child and to legitimate it under this Bill. But if the case would never arise surely half the argument against this Amendment, is gone, because if the point can never arise in the case of a married woman, at all events, as regards a married woman, no harm is done in passing the Amendment and saying that the Act shall not apply.
Therefore, I deal mainly with the case in which a married man has had intercourse with an unmarried woman and there has been a child as the result of that intercourse. The real effect as the Bill stands is to allow that child to be legitimated by a subsequent marriage between the parents. We argued it out last time. I think it is most undesirable that a married man who desires to corrupt a girl shall be able to say: "True we may have issue, but I will see to it; I will get a divorce from, or I may survive, my wife, and then we can be married and legitimate that child." That would be an argument which might be used by some people with effect, and I do not think it ought to lie in the mouth of anybody to use such an argument as that.
Another point, made by the most rev. Primate on the last occasion with great experience and force, was this. He said that if you allow the Bill to pass without this Amendment then in cases where a man has, besides his legitimate union, an illegitimate connection and by that connection has issue, great pressure will be put upon his wife under an Act which has

665
recently been passed to divorce her husband so that he may marry the other woman and legitimate that child. Great pressure would be put upon her, and it would be very hard and very cruel that she should be laid open to pressure of that kind. I heard no answer to that argument, and I doubt whether any can really be given.
We are always told in these cases: "You must think of the child and of nobody and nothing else." I do not agree with that argument. If you press it to the full we would have to say that every child shall be legitimate, marriage or no marriage. You must think of other considerations. If it be true, as I think it is true, that the passage of this Bill without this Amendment will weaken the sanction of the Marriage Laws and will weaken those deterrents from misconduct which exist to-day, that alone is, to me at all events, a sufficient argument in favour of the Amendment. I think not only of some children, but of all the thousands and millions of future children and wives whose whole happiness may depend upon the maintenance of our Marriage Law. Anything which this House or Parliament may do to weaken the sanctions of that law and to make it less binding and less observed than it is to-day will, in return perhaps for some benefit to some children, do definite harm to many generations to come. I wholly accept the Bill if this Amendment is inserted in it. Without this Amendment I think the Bill may do more harm than good, and I hope that your Lordships will once again insist on this provision being inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Cave.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount. I do so not from any hostility to the Bill as a whole, which I welcome as removing a real stigma in many cases. I can well remember in my parochial experience cases where marriage had been fully intended and then, either through unemployment or removal from the town, the marriage had to be postponed and the child was born shortly before the marriage. Sometimes the fact that the child was illegitimate was not known by himself or his brothers until he had
666
reached manhood. But we must be very careful not to create a fresh wrong in removing what is a cause of suffering. I am afraid that if this measure is passed without this Amendment real suffering and hardship may be caused to innocent women. In the case of a man who desires a child, who has not one by his wife and who has grown not perhaps hostile to her but indifferent to her, he might be tempted, when he knows that he has a child by his mistress since his marriage, to bring very great pressure upon his wife to divorce him. Pressure might he brought by relations and the woman herself might be in an extraordinarily difficult position as to what her duty was—whether she ought to divorce her husband or not so as to allow him to legitimate the child. It is for this reason that I am supporting the Amendment which has just been moved.
I do not believe for a moment that this measure will encourage or create vice—vice of this kind s not a matter of calculation—but I am afraid that when a wrong has once been done it will lead to the possibility of mother wrong, namely, pressure brought upon a wife to divorce her husband even when she, if left to herself, would be perfectly prepared to forgive him for the offence which he has committed. I listened on the last occasion to the very moving appeal, made, by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, to think of the children. I should have liked to vote with him on that ground, but we are bound to think of the wives and of the harm which might be done and the suffering which might be caused to those who are innocent.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I paused before dealing with this Amendment because, as has been said to your Lordships, this matter has already been very fully discussed in this House at no very distant date, and I was anxious as to what would necessarily result if the speech made in answer to the first Amendment gave opportunity to others to use the privilege of Committee to make repeated statements upon the same question. The Amendment proposed is confined to this. If a child is born while one of its parents is married to a third party that child shall be excluded from the benefit of the Bill. It does not apply, as your Lordships will notice, to a child

667
who was born before the marriage of one of its parents and whose mother afterwards is married to one of the people who had already contracted a lawful alliance. That is important in relation to marriage and I will deal with it later on.
But the Amendment as it stands is supported by arguments which, I admit, leave me completely unconvinced. It is true that your Lordships, by a sufficient majority—when the noble Viscount talks about a very great majority, I have forgotten whether it was eighteen or twenty, but it was something of that kind; at any rate it was a sufficient majority—did accept this Amendment. But when you are aware that the same Amendment has been rejected by an overwhelming majority in another place, at least it is fair to say that no considerations of Party whatever can have entered into the expression of that view. Those people, with their experience of life, have expressed an opinion the exact opposite of that which is entertained by your Lordships, and at least I think that that is a reason why this matter needs to be reconsidered. Now, when it is reconsidered, what are the grounds upon which this Amendment is recommended? If I were to take the grounds of the noble and learned Viscount in order, he began with a reference to Scotland. I feel sure that some of your Lordships will understand me when I say that on a Bill like this I hear a reference to Scotland with a feeling which nearly approaches resentment. Whenever I argued my Divorce Bill before your Lordships and attempted to point out that one of its fundamental principles is nothing but the establishing in this country of a law that has remained unchanged and unchallenged in Scotland for years, I was not listened to by the very people who support this Amendment to-day. I am told by the rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, that you could not consider the temperaments of the two countries the same. Be it so. I say the analogy of Scotland has no application whatever to this Bill unless you are going to accept it in its application to the other.
The next point he made was that, without this Amendment, the Bill might result in some removal of restraint upon ill-deeds done by husband or wife. That again always appears to me to be one of
668
those arguments addressed to a world of people who do not live, and the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the last occasion, with his customary fairness joined with me in saying that such an argument completely ignored the forces which really were the determining cause of these acts of misconduct taking place. I heard with gratitude the most rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark make the same statement to-day. That argument, at least, has not got the undivided support of the noble Viscount's own supporters. Then he says that, after all, half of the people will not be affected if this Amendment be introduced, because a child born of the adulterous intercourse of a woman living in wedlock is presumed to be the husband's child. I agree, but does the noble Viscount really suggest that cases of misconduct committed by the man and the woman are equal, and that for every man who commits adultery there is a woman who does the same?
Once more I say that is contrary to the experience of life. It is not of the least use pretending that these things are the same, more particularly as once more we were told, when one of these Bills was before your Lordships' House, that an act of adultery on the part of a man was a thing that was not measurable with that act on the part of a woman. There will, no doubt, be cases of women whose misconduct will have resulted in illegitimate children. That is quite true, but by far the greater part of these cases, and I am satisfied the most rev. Prelate will agree with me, are the result of men's misconduct and not of women's. Therefore the whole case has to be considered from this point of view; that not half of the people but practically the whole of them will be affected.
Then what is the reason why the children of these relationships shall be utterly excluded from the benefit of this Bill and set apart in a class in which they are not to be legitimated, but are to be branded for all time as the result of adulterous intercourse? You add a grievance by this Amendment. At present there is only one class of illegitimate children. If this Amendment passes these children are to be set apart as a class of children peculiarly obnoxious to the law because of some added sin on the part of their parents which they were wholly unable to prevent. It is also said:

669
"Oh, but this is going to induce men to get their wives to divorce them in order that they may many their mistresses." In the case of a man who had a child by a woman before he married, if his own marriage was infertile, exactly the same argument applies. But the Amendment does not cover that if those really are going to be the influences that are going to operate on men and women after the passage of this Bill. Not one of you can possibly say more than this, that that is what you think may happen, because no person can say it will happen. It is a poor case, and for that case you are going to do a very definite wrong to these unfortunate children.
Finally, have your Lordships considered this? As the law stands to-day a woman who is deserted by her husband, and cannot tell whether he is alive or dead, frequently contracts an alliance with another man, and not infrequently solemnises it with a marriage, believing her husband to be dead. She has children. Her husband comes back. What is the result? These children are all bastardised. Surely if there was a case where a child ought to get the benefit of the Bill it is a case of that kind.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Those children will be presumed to be children of the marriage.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I apologise. It is my own fault that I have utterly failed to make myself plain. I am assuming this case. A woman is married. Her husband has deserted her, and is away so that he is not near her for, say, six or seven years. She then goes through a form of marriage with another man, believing her husband to be dead. The husband returns ultimately. She divorces him, or he divorces her, and she really marries the man with whom she has been living. That case has nothing to do with what the noble Viscount proposes, and that is the case which this Bill would exclude. Or take another case. Take the case of a man who is permanently mad and living in a lunatic asylum. The time has gone that made it unfair to quote special instances. I say that if an eminent novelist lived with an eminent man, and had a child while that man's wife was, as we know, permanently mad, and afterwards married him, it
670
would be the height of injustice to exclude the child of that union from the benefits of this Bill. No one denies it is unjust. All that has been suggested is that you must perpetrate this injustice because you believe if you do not, in some remote hypothesis, in some infinitely small number of cases, a wrong may possibly happen. The noble Viscount positively asks your Lordships to accept this Amendment because of the millions of women and children who are concerned in it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I said nothing of the kind.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I beg your pardon; you may have forgotten it. If you desire to withdraw I shall give way. Those are the words which I put down. I felt certain when the noble Viscount was using such arguments that his zeal had got the better of his judgment. I say the issue is a very simple one. On the one hand, you have the hypothetical grievance; on the other, it is for you to decide which cause you will espouse.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): It is right I should say a word at least to indicate the opinion which we hold on this Bench on this subject. When the question was before your Lordships on the last occasion we supported the principle of the Bill, and were opposed to the Amendment on the ground that the primary interest with which we were concerned was that of the children. We do not dispute that there is weight in the considerations which have been urged by the noble and learned Viscount opposite about the Marriage Laws, but we say that this is a Bill brought in for the benefit of innocent children who had no part in the sin of their parents, and for that reason we took the view which has to-day been expressed by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster. On the present occasion the position is strengthened because public opinion has been expressed by a large majority in the other House. That House took the view which we took on a previous occasion. I need say no more. It would be a repetition of arguments with which your Lordships are familiar if I stated in further detail the reasons for this view. Therefore, what I have to say is that if a Division takes place I shall support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My noble and learned friend does not often misrepresent his opponents, and if he does so it is not intentional. But I think he has done so this afternoon. I did not say that the fate of millions hung on this Amendment. What I said was that the fate of
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate an illegitimate person whose father or mother has after the birth of the illegitimate person, married a third person and has issue of that marriage living at the time of the marriage to the parent of the illegitimate person."
672
many generations, and possibly millions, hangs upon the continuance of our Marriage Laws.
On Question: Whether the new subsection shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Vane, E (M. Londonderry.)

Charnwood, L.

Westmeath, E.

Danesfort, L.

Bath, M.

Darling, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Astor, V.

Desborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cave, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Emmott, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Erskine, L.

Balfour, E.

Forester, L.

Bathurst, E.

Novar, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Hastings, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hawke, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Younger of Leckie, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Cottenham, E.

Knaresborongh, L.

Coventry, E.

London, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Denbigh, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

MacDonnell, L.

Devon, E

Rochester, L. Bp.

Meston, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and
Queensberry.)

Sheffield, L. Bp.

Monson, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Mostyn, L.

Grey, E.

Phillimore, L.

Lindsey, E.

Aberdare, L.

Raglan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Armstrong, L.

Redesdale, L.

Manvers, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rowallan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Avebury, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Midleton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Morton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Shandon, L.

Onslow, E.

Barrymore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sydenham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Joicey, L.

Churchill, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Rutland, D.

St. Davids, V.

Leigh, L.

Meldrum, L. (M Huntly.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Arnold, L.

Morris, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Ashfield, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Askwith, L.

Olivier, L.

Buxton, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Boston, L.

Riddell, L.

Harewood, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Mayo, E

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Terrington, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

Russell, E.

Gorell, L

Wester Wemyss, L.

Strafford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wharton, L.

The noble Earl said: I feel that I owe some apology to your Lordships for raising again the question involved in my Amendment, for it was discussed in your Lordships' House but a short time ago. Your Lordships will recollect that in the early part of this year, when a similar Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, was discussed in your Lordships' House, I moved this Amendment. I may briefly describe the Amendment as being designed on behalf

673
of the rights of the children, although perhaps my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, would not agree. This Amendment is entirely on behalf of the rights of the children, but it is on behalf of the legitimate children as against those who are legitimated by the marriage of the father with a previous mistress.
We have heard a very great deal, in the course of the debates on this Bill and on the previous Bill, as to the rights of the children. I confess, with all respect for my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, that I do not care for this Bill at all, because I think it is one of those Treasures which have become very common in these days and which, while seeking to redress a wrong, in reality inflict another wrong. Let me explain very briefly the object of the Amendment. Supposing a man has lived for a long or short period with a woman by whom he has illegitimate issue. He then marries a third person; that is to say, he contracts a regular marriage, and has issue. His wife dies and he then marries the woman with whom he had previously lived before his first marriage. From that moment the children born of his illegal connection with this woman become legitimated, and they share the father's fortune with the children of the first wife. Upon the last occasion my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, said that I had misread the Bill, and, in fact, that I did not understand it. He said that the rights of the legitimate children were protected, and he adduced various arguments to show that under settlements and so on, the legitimated children need not come in. I agree, but the legitimate children are not protected inasmuch as the legitimated children take a certain share of their father's fortune in the case of intestacy, and so forth, and, as years go by, they will take a further share.
It is really a question of the claim of the legitimate children, the children of the marriage, that I am asking your Lordships to consider this evening. I believe it was the old canonical law that subsequent marriage to a woman legitimated the children of an illegal connection. No doubt the moral was a good one, the assumed intention being that the man meant to marry the woman with whom he was living. But how can it be said that he ever intended to marry that woman when
674
in the interval he has married another woman? His wife might have survived him by many years, and he would not then have had an opportunity of marrying the woman with whom he previously lived, it is said that the question of adoption becomes more important every day. Men who are childless often like to have a house made bright by the presence of children, and consequently, if there are no children of the marriage, a man has still the right to marry his mistress with a view to the children born out of wedlock becoming legitimate. They do not compete with legitimate issue, because there is none. I have distinctly put that proviso in my Amendment. It is only where there are children of the marriage that subsequent marriage shall not legitimate.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time at this hour of the afternoon, when there are other things to be done, by arguing the point any further, but I should like to give another instance. We often hear quoted the example of other countries. We are fold that we ought to do this or that because other countries—it may be Scotland—do it. This argument is sometimes used in the case of Prohibition and other matters. May I draw an analogy from the law existing in another country? I believe that in France it is impossible for the parent of a family entirely to deprive his children of their rights to a certain share of the family fortune. That shows the position of legitimate children in France, and it would surely be very much better if we protected legitimate children in this country from being deprived of a share of their father's fortune, rather than make them share it with children of an illicit union who are brought in after many years. It is a blow at the sanctity of family life.
I hope I have succeeded in making my object clear and in obtaining some sympathy with the rights of legitimate as against legitimated children. I will put only one other point, and then I have finished. Suppose the case of a man who has lived with a woman and had children by her. He then marries another woman by whom he has a family. Suppose that in the interval, perhaps an interval of many years, that woman has been living with one, two, three or more men, and has had children by them.

675
Does this Bill make it perfectly clear-perhaps my noble and learned friend will tell us this—that the children born of that woman by other men are not going to have the benefit of legitimation by subsequent marriage? I should like to hear the noble and learned Lord's view on that point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I can assure the noble Karl that nobody will be legitimated under this Bill except the illegitimate child of a man and a woman who subsequently marry. That, I trust, will relieve his anxiety concerning some aspects of the matter. As for the rest, the last Amendment was at least supported by the consideration that the illegitimate child who was to be excluded from the Bill was the result of an adulterous intercourse, and it was this consideration, I think, that influenced a very considerable number of your Lordships. The unfortunate child to be excluded under this Amendment is not excluded because it is the result of adulterous intercourse, but as being the result of an act of misconduct between a man and a woman who were not married at the time, and it is said that the subsequent marriage of either of the parties is to prevent the possibility of that child ever being made legitimate. I ask again, is that fair?
Let me assume that a man seduces a woman and leaves her. He goes away and marries. He may not even know, and in some eases he may not even care, what is the result. The woman whom he marries dies, and he comes back and finds that the other woman has borne him a child. Surely his right course is to marry her, and. if he marries her, why is not the child to be legitimated? What is there that takes that particular child out of the general category of children whom this Bill is designed to affect? If it be that your Lordships are to be influenced by that which you did on the former occasion, I will remind you that you unhesitatingly rejected this Amendment, and I trust that you will do so again.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am sorry that I cannot support this Amendment. The reasons for it have been put with great force by my noble friend behind me, but, after all, I think the case for this Amendment
676
is very different from the case for the last Amendment. In the ease here put, the parents of the child were person who, at the time of intercourse or at the birth of the child, could have married, and should have married. A marriage has intervened and has borne fruit, but I think that makes no difference to the general principle that when those people afterwards come together and marry this Bill ought to apply.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: After what has fallen from my noble and learned friend, Lord Cave, unless there is a strong feeling in the House that a decision should be taken, I do not propose to go to a Division. I have only one reply to make to Lord Buckmaster. He said: Consider the case of a woman who has been seduced by a man. I would remind him that there are many instances where very young men have been seduced by a woman. Our sympathies must entirely depend upon the merits of each case.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Does that make any difference to the case of the child?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No, except that I was dealing with the case put by the noble and learned Lord However, I do not propose to ask the House to go to a Division.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The Amendment I have now to propose is practically a drafting Amendment. As the Bill stands subsection (3) reads "satisfactory evidence," and my Amendment is to substitute "such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory." It must be satisfactory to somebody, and the Registrar-General is the only person. If the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, is carried this Amendment may not be necessary, but for the moment, whether the noble Earl's Amendment is passed or not. I submit that the alteration which I propose makes the clause more reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out (" satisfactory evidence ") and insert (" such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory ").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The next Amendment, also in subsection (3), is obviously drafting.
Amendment moved —
Page 1, line 22, after (" manner ") insert (", on such information ").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment to add at the end of the clause the following subsection:—
" (4) No person shall be legitimated, nor shall the birth of any person be re-registered under this Act, unless both parents shall avow in writing at or before the date of the marrage, the paternity of such person, and the regulations to be nude under this Act by the Registrar-General shall make provision for such avowals."
The noble Earl said: I make no apology for asking you to consider this Amendment. The course which this Bill has taken is perhaps known to some members of the House. We considered a Bill on these lines introduced by Lord Buckmaster, and it was sent to another place. The present Bill was taken up in another place without regard to the measure sent down by your Lordships, but as a matter of fact thirteen provisions in the Bill sent down by this House were novel inserted in this Bill in another place. The Amendment I propose was brought forward here, discussed fully, a protect was made by the noble and learned Lord, and the Amendment was inserted without a Division. In another place, a very eminent King's Counsel rose to pro pose the same Amendment. By a procedure which is, I believe, novel, the Speaker in another place has the power, when time is short, to select such Amendments as he thinks most necessary to be discussed, and this Amendment, amongst others, was ruled out as being one which must be passed over. In consequence, it was never discussed in the House of Commons at all, and the very obvious facts with regard to it were never put before the House of Commons.
What are those facts? As matters are now, two persons marrying, even after a long period of years, legitimate any previous offspring of their connection, and that offspring then ranks with the legitimate children of a previous marriage for the purposes of intestacy, or in any case where money has been left equally between all the children of a testator. Surely the least that we have a right lo ask is that those who come forward to redress a wrong shall not create a further
678
wrong. What can be harder than for the legitimate offspring of a marriage to find that, subsequent to their mother's death, their father has re-married, without indicating what offspring he had before he married their mother, and that, on his death, they are forced to contest at law-claims which they have no means whatever of identifying, which they never had had put before them, and which were never, perhaps, advanced before their father's death.
It may be true that one child may be the offspring of the previous illicit connection. It may also be true that the same woman may have had three or four children by another man, never having seen the man whom she ultimately marries in the interval. The man may nor be aware of her relations with other men, and until his death the claims will never be made. Then will ensue a struggle between the legitimate heirs and persons who claim to be legitimated, and as to which evidence may not be forthcoming. In such a struggle the estate will be frittered away by the lawyers, I think the least we can ask is that those who seek to redress a wrong should make a clear statement as to who is involved in that wrong.
It has been pointed out to me that the wording of the clause, although drawn by high legal authority, does not provide for the case of those married in anticipation of this Act. or before the Act, and I propose to add at the end of my Amendment these words:—
" Provided that persons who have married one another before the passing of this Act may make their avowal in writing at any time within six months after the date of the passing of this Act. A provision for this shall be made within the regulations."
That, I am advised, will fully meet the case of any person married before the passing of the Act, who will then have six months in which to declare and reregister children registered in another name, so that evidence may be forthcoming as to what children are admitted by the parents as being children of their previous union. I trust your Lordships will give my Amendment the same consideration as you gave it before the last Bill left this House.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert:
(" (4) No person shall be legitimated, nor shall the birth of any person be re-registered

679
under this Act, unless both parents shall avow in writing at or before the date of the marriage, the paternity of such person, and the regulations to he made under this Act by the Registrar-General shall make provision for such avowals.
" Provided that persons who have married one another before the passing of this Act may make their avowal in writing at any time within six months after the date of the passing of this Act. A provision for this purpose shall be made within the regulation ").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: Naturally I would rather have my Bill as drawn, taut I know quite well that when this matter was before your Lordships on a previous occasion you took the view that something to this effect should be introduced into the Bill. It is obvious from what has taken place this afternoon that your opinion has not very materially altered from what it was then, and I do not desire to provoke a needless Division; but as the Amendment stands, even with the proposed addition, I cannot accept it. I hope, however, the noble Earl will be able to see that he can accept what I propose. If the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, will preface his Amendment by the words "In the case of the parents of an illegitimate person marrying after the passing of this Act," that will cover all the cases, after this Bill is passed, where marriage takes place.
The noble Earl's provision which is intended to meet that is not satisfactory to my mind, and for this reason. There is an obvious tendency whenever any matter is discussed to see how it bears in relation to your own immediate knowledge and experience, and you think of the people about you, and what they would do if they wanted to avail themselves of the privileges of this Bill. But the truth is that this Bill is only going to touch in the most remote manner possible people who are well-to-do. The people whom it is going to affect are the poor. It is among those people that you find the largest number of illegitimate children, due to a great variety of reasons. If the noble Earl's Amendment is accepted, even with the proviso that he has added, it will require that these people who have had illegitimate children, and have, married, shall within six months go and make an avowal before the registrar. But they may know-nothing about it. The idea that these Acts of Parliament are instantly known
680
in every cottage is a pure fallacy. And they will find, after the six months have elapsed, that they are completely excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Where a man has actually married the woman he has done all he can, and yet if he does not make this avowal within six months the whole thing will be in vain. If the noble Earl will confine his Amendment to those who are married after the Act is passed then there is a distinct event, and it will be quite easy for them to discuss the matter with the registrar, and they can then make an avowal. Frankly I would rather not have this Amendment, but, if the noble Earl will meet me, I will meet him, and accept his Amendment with the addition of the words which I have suggested, which, I submit, are essential in the interest of poor and ignorant people.
LORD ASKWITH: I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord has made a move towards what the noble Earl has proposed. I have supported this Bill through all its stages, but on this point I think that the noble Earl has put forward a very reasonable point. The suggestion of the noble and learned Lord is that it should not be retrospective. There is a good deal to be said for that, and also for what he says that many of the people for whom this Bill is intended will not know anything about it. I would suggest, therefore, that the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord should consider together, before the Report stage, what should be the exact wording of the Amendment. The noble Earl's proposal, as it appears on the Paper, does not satisfy me at all as to its drafting. It seems to me very cumbrous, and it also implies the principle of retrospective action from which your Lordships' House is very averse.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hope no one will think that this Amendment is in any respect hostile to the principle of the Bill. But I do not think that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, covers all the ground. The noble Lord who has just spoken says your Lordships are opposed to retrospective legislation, but this Bill is retrospective legislation. The noble and learned Lord's speech seems to me to be founded upon this fallacy, against which I hope always to have the

681
opportunity of protesting in this Rouse, that you make people moral by passing an Act of Parliament to say that they are. He says: "Consider the poor people whom you want to make legitimate." For what reason does he want to make them legitimate? In order that they may succeed to property. It is that which is important, not the removal of a stain. I should scorn the idea, if I were a child of a poor person, that an Act of Parliament should be passed to say that in future I was to be deemed legitimate. Morality does not depend upon Acts of Parliament. The whole purpose of a Bill of this kind is really to deal with legal lights and legal property, and there is just the danger, which the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, has pointed out, that cases may be trumped up afterwards. The matter is the more important now that the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, has withdrawn his Amendment—more important because a man who has quarrelled with his son by a legitimate marriage may wish to injure that son by marrying his mistress and rehabilitating her child. It is to deal with the retrospective cases that a retrospective clause is wanted, and I submit that the form proposed by the noble Karl, Lord Midleton, is a better form than that of the noble and learned Lord.
VISCOUNT CAVE: This Amendment has been very reasonably met by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, but I am not convinced that the words which he suggests are free from real difficulty. After all, the one danger is that years hence, when both the persons in question are dead, somebody may rise up and say: "I was an illegitimate child of those persons," and, if you have not got the word of one or both of them, you may find false claims made which it would be very difficult indeed to set aside. That danger would not be met by the words which the noble and learned Lord has suggested. At the same time I can see that what he says deserves consideration, and, in particular, I think that it might be right to give more time than six months for this avowal to be made. You might possibly give a year, or even a longer time. That is a matter well worth consideration. I suggest that you should take to-day the Amendment of the noble Earl, as he has moved it, and that
682
between now and the Report stage he should consent to confer with Lord Buckmaster, and see whether the form of the Amendment can be improved.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: After the advice of the noble and learned Viscount I propose to press the Amendment now in the form in which it is down on the Paper, subject to what has been added. I would most willingly confer with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, to see that we are really meeting the case. But I would point out that this is a question about which there is an enormous amount of public interest and public knowledge. Questions of marriage are read and considered by the public a great deal more than some other questions that may arise in this House. And therefore I have no fear that there will be a general ignorance of the state of the law which would prevent the Act being taken advantage of, as the noble and learned Lord fears. I would ask your Lordships, then, to accept the advice of the noble and learned Viscount to insert this Amendment, undertaking that we will consider with the noble and learned Lord before the Report Stage what course should be taken.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That places me in an extraordinarily difficult position because if I accept the Amendment as it stands all that is left is the discussion between the noble Earl and myself. Although I have no doubt that the discussion will be a pleasant one I am by no means sure that I shall find him amenable to my view, and the result will be that I shall have the Amendment which I do not like recorded against me. I wish it were possible for the question that I have raised to be considered and discussed here to-day. I cannot see why people should apprehend all these difficulties, because when the noble Viscount says that people might arise in the future, people arise, to-day. There is scarcely an inquiry which takes place in the Court of Chancery to-day concerning the demise of an estate in which the same question does not arise, and I cannot see why it should not be possible to trust the Courts to fulfil the duty which they now discharge, of determining whether or not A is the child of B and C. It will end there, and I should have thought that was an abundant and sufficient safeguard. I do not believe that any human being has

683
ever been so profoundly misunderstood as I have been by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. The idea that I suggested that you can make a man or woman moral by act of Parliament is one of the most astonishing perversions of my belief that I ever heard in my life.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Right of issue of illegitimate child dying before marriage of parents.
4. In the event of an illegitimate person dying before the marriage of his parents leaving any children or more remote issue then, whether such death occurred before the commencement of this Act or occurs thereafter, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of his parents have been legitimated by this Act, such children or more remote issue shall have the same rights under this Act of taking interests under any intestacy or disposition or of succeeding to an estate tail or other entailed interest as they would have had had the illegitimate person died immediately after the marriage of his parents, and that person shall for the purpose of the transmission of such right as aforesaid he deemed to be a legitimated person within the meaning of this Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 4. The noble Lord said: I desire to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Clause 4 says:
" In the event of an illegitimate person dying before the marriage of his parents leaving any children or more remote issue then, whether such death occurred before the commencement of this Act or occurs thereafter, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of his parents have been legitimated by this Act, such children or more remote issue shall have the same rights under this Act of taking interests under any intestacy or disposition or of succeeding to an estate tail or other entailed interest as they would have had "—
and so on. I do not quite know how the noble and learned Viscount will support this clause after the Amendment which has just been put into the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. That Amendment, as I understand it, makes it necessary that the parents shall say that the child is really their child.
What will happen if Clause 4 remains in the Bill? A person living with a woman has an illegitimate child by her and that illegitimate child grows up. He may become a person of not very good character and may live with
684
another woman and have an illegitimate child by her. That person dies and after his death his parents marry. Then the child of the woman with whom he had been living, and who may have been living after that with other men and have had other children, can come forward—or even more remote issue still—and be legitimated. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer—I often regret it—and therefore I cannot always understand the intricacies of Bills, but as I understand this clause it is in absolute contradiction of the Amendment which we have just accepted. It would be impossible at any rate for one of the parents, if he or she was dead, to say that the child was really his or her child by the other parent. The clause seems to me not only to be extraordinarily vague but extremely dangerous. The words "leaving any children or more remote issue" may entail any number of Tichborne cases and cases of people coming forward and making claims to estates.
What is the object of it all? Merely because certain people have been immoral and have done wrong the noble and learned Lord conceives that in the interests of the children you ought to do something. You might just as well say that when any illegitimate child is born the parents ought to marry and the child be legitimated. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will accept my Amendment, which really does not hurt the rest of the Bill but makes it a measure which is not so harmful as it would be if the clause were left in.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 5 to 19, leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. This is a very simple clause. It provides that the marriage of the grandparents shall legitimate their child so that the grandchildren might not suffer. It is merely the logical consequence of, and is consistent with, the rest of the Bill. As for supposing that it would interfere with the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, or that his Amendment in any way interferes with this, that is an entire mistake.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I, too, hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It is certainly remarkable to what a confusion

685
of ideas this little measure of mine has given rise. I cannot help thinking that there is some unhappy influence exuding from this Bill. If you look at the clause you will see what it does. It is the simplest thing in the Bill. It provides that if a child who is dead would have been legitimated had he lived his children shall none the less stand in the position in which they would have stood had he been alive and been legitimated. Is not that fair? If you are going to legitimate children at all, surely it is a most unjust thing that the mere death of the parent who was himself illegitimate and would have been legitimated had he lived should adversely affect his children.
VISCOUNT CAVE: This Bill gives rise to confusion, I believe, because the basis of it is that that shall be deemed to have happened which has not happened but which ought to have happened. But I agree with him that this clause is consistent with the principle of the Bill and is not affected by the adoption of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. There will still have to be in these cases an avowal by the parents that the child is their child, and that avowal still has to be made within the proper time. If that avowal is made then the consequences laid down in the clause will follow. I hone that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not sure whether I thoroughly understand what the noble Lord has said, but I gather from him that the Amendment of the noble Earl does make some difference. In those circumstances, unless I receive some further support, I shall not press my Amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Savings.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise a legitimated person or his issue to take by descent under an estate tail or other entailed interest created before the commencement of this Act.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation or construction of any will (including a codicil) coming into operation before the commencement of this Act, or of any settlement or other disposition (not being a testamentary disposition) made before such commencement.
LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "before," to insert "or after." The noble Lord said: I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, after the generous way in which I accepted his view two moments ago, will now meet me and accept my Amendment, which really is a very simple one. The words in the subsection are:—
" Nothing in this Act shall authorise a legitimated person or his issue to take by descent under an estate tail or other entailed interest created before the commencement of this Act."
I desire to insert, after "created before," the words "or after" the commencement of this Act, and I will explain why.
As I understand the Bill, and I have taken the precaution of asking the opinion of some one learned in the law, the result, unless my Amendment is put in and also the subsequent Amendment in my name which deals with the same point, will be this. I make a will, and I leave what estate I may have to my legitimate children. I may have made that will two or three years ago when I had no conception that a Bill of this sort would be introduced. If I had died then, or if I had died yesterday, or if I die before this Bill is passed, that will is legal, but if I succeed in living until after this Bill is passed then my will and my wishes are disregarded. In order to ensure that which I desire taking place I shall have to go to my solicitor, who probably will have to take the advice of a counsel learned in the law, and I shall have to make a new will. I do not see that anybody is going to gain any advantage from that, except the lawyers. Although I have a great respect for lawyers, I do not see that there is any advantage in giving them extra work.
All I ask, therefore, is that where a man has made a will, and has declared that his estate is to go to certain people, this Act shall not override his will. All I ask the noble and learned Lord to do is to allow a will which has been made to stand. Supposing I have changed my mind, having been converted by the noble Lord's eloquence to believe in this Bill, which at present I consider a bad one. I can go then to my lawyer and change my will if I am still of the opinion that I was two or three years ago. But why should I be put to the expense of going to a

687
lawyer and changing my will? I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, after (" before ") insert (" or after ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Lord cannot expect me to accept this Amendment, though he may hope that I will do so. Let us see what it is that he wants. This Bill provides that existing wills shall not be touched by the passage of this measure, but, after this Bill is passed and children are legitimated, why in the world should they not get the full benefit of this Bill and succeed just like legitimate children? That is what this Bill is for. The noble Lord seems to have fastened on to an estate tail, which he seems to think has some mystery or dignity attached to it, and to think that it ought to be the kind of estate in respect of which, if created after the passing of this Act, the descendant should be excluded from the benefit of the Bill. May I suggest to him this? If he really wants to save the expense of a lawyer let him simply put on the codicil of his will: "No person legitimated under the provisions of this Act shall take any estate under the terms of this will." He can then sleep in peace and save his costs. Really that is the whole thing, and no person who is going to make a will after the passing of this Act need be under the least doubt or apprehension. If he wants to exclude people half a dozen words will do it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I remind the noble and learned Lord what he said a few moments ago? He said there were a large number of people who would not know anything about the provisions of this Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Poor people, and they have not estates entail.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I accept that. There are a great many people who, at the present time, have estates but are poor. I think that, as a matter of fact, they are poorer than those to whom the noble and learned Lord alludes. Let me thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice. It is always welcome. I only used my case as an illustration. I have had the good fortune to
688
sit in this House and listen to the noble and learned Lord, and therefore I know what is going on, but there are a very large number of people who do not know what is going on. They do not see the reports of our debates, and they will not in the least know that they have to go to their solicitor and make a codicil such as the noble and learned Lord has suggested. Consequently their children may find that, contrary to the wish of their parents, some illegitimate children have succeeded to their property. I do not know what view your Lordships take of the Amendment, but I earnestly hope that you will endeavour to persuade the noble and learned Lord to accept it, or, if he does not, carry it on a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN 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. (Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Penalties.
4. Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to substitute "four months" for "three months." The noble Lord said: On the face of it, this Amendment is merely to make the maximum period of imprisonment which can be inflicted under the Bill four months instead of three. The real object, and the real effect, of the Amendment is to give the defendant in these cases an absolute right to be tried by a jury. I put down the Amendment in order to carry out the wishes of many noble Lords in this House and to give effect to a suggestion made by Viscount Cave in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill,

689
that this right to be tried by a jury if he so desires should be given to a defendant. Many of your Lordships thought that cases might arise in which it would not be easy for a bench of magistrates to decide even with the safeguard of an appeal to Quarter Sessions, and there were others, including the Lord Chancellor, who thought that it was only reasonable in the interest of the defendant himself to give him a light to be tried by a jury if he so desired. The effect of the Amendment making the maximum period of imprisonment four months will give him that right automatically.
This right to be tried by a jury arises under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, Section 17, and I will read the Section from Stone's Justices Manual, 1922 edition, page 44, where the words of the section are correctly reproduced. The section reads thus:—
" A person when charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence, in respect of the commission of which an offender is liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months, and which is not an assault, may, on appearing before the court and before the barge is gone into but not afterwards, claim to be tried by a jury, and thereupon the court of summary jurisdiction shall deal with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an indictable offence and not with an offence punishable on summary conviction, and the offence shall as respects the person so charged be deemed to be an indictable offence …"
There is a subsection in this Section 17 with which your Lordships are probably familiar. The effect of it is that the defendant is entitled before the charge is gone into to be informed of his right and to be told that if he chooses he can be tried by a jury instead of being dealt with summarily, and if he desires to be so tried he is so tried.
The Amendment anticipates and meets the desire of Earl Russell who has a similar Amendment on the Paper, not, I think, quite so satisfactory in its terms. I think he will agree that this Amendment meets his views. It will certainly remove the main objections to the Bill which were urged by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Council on the Second Reading. I should be very sanguine if I supposed that it would remove all the objections of the Government to the Bill, but I trust better counsels will prevail. Be that as it may, I
690
hope the Amendment will recommend itself to the majority of your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, line 22, leave out (" three ") and insert (" four ").—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: This Amendment, as I have been advised, does meet objections that were taken to the question of conviction on summary trial. That is to say, it gives the defendant an absolute right to trial by jury, which is one of the points desired. The noble and learned Lord is quite right, in thinking that it by no means removes all the objections to the Bill. in my opinion, it still remains an extremely foolish measure and one which I am satisfied is much more likely to do harm than good. The Amendment, however, removes the objection that you are changing the law. You are not now substantially changing the law; you are not depriving a prisoner of a right which he had before. I agree that my Amendment is not couched in words of art. The noble and learned Lord's Amendment is much better and I am quite satisfied with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to add to the clause the words: "and the provisions of Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall apply." The noble and learned Lord said: It appears that the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, does not apply to Scotland or Ireland. It is my desire, and I think the desire of your Lordships, that this Bill, if passed, should apply to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, and therefore as the Act of 1879 does not apply to Ireland and Scotland I propose to put in the words of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert (" and the provisions of Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall apply ").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DUNEDIN: My Lords, in 1905 I was appointed Chairman of a Royal Commission to inquire as to whether the law of Scotland could be amended cither by introducing registration of title—the present arrangement in Scotland being registration of deed—or in other ways. That Commission sat and we made a Report, which advised two things—First, that a certain experimental trial of registration of title should be made, and, secondly, that a great deal could be done in the direction of the simplification of conveyancing. That Report had the fate which I think has been common to many Reports. Everybody approved of it and nobody did anything in consequence of it. In 1911, after six years more, the Lord Advocate of the day appointed a Committee of eminent Scottish lawyers, unconnected with politics, to see what measures they could recommend for the general improvement of the law of Scotland. That Committee, composed of Sir George Paul, Mr. Chree, and Mr. Prosser, has worked continuously ever since, and I think Scotland owes them a great debt of thanks. Several of the Bills they have produced have become law, and this Bill is their Bill.
This is the second edition of the Bill. It has been subjected to heavy criticism. and a good many alterations have been made in it. I cannot, say that opinion is absolutely unanimous, because there are some in Scotland who are against it, but they are only against it on this point—namely, that they would rather like, instead of amending the law, to make a clear sweep and begin from the beginning. That is a proposition which is rather hard and obviously prevents improvement. I have said this because I wish it to be understood that I am not in any way responsible for this Bill. I am not its parent in any sense. I was not consulted about it, and I should not have taken the responsibility of bringing it before your Lordships unless I had looked carefully into it and could say that I thought it was a thoroughly good Bill. The reason why I have taken this position is, in the first place, that I had that far-off connection with it in 1905, and, secondly, that the Bill is so technical that if any of your Lordships are of a curious turn of mind I really believe that I am the only man in the House who could answer the conundrums that you might put.
692
The Bill itself can be described in a very few words. First of all, it does away with the cumbrous form known as the notarial instrument. In very many ways it shortens this. Then it deals with, and very much simplifies, the method of finding out and commuting rights of terce and courtesy. Those are the rights which a husband and wife respectively have in the estate of a deceased spouse. Last of all—and probably this is the chief improvement—it reduces the prescription of heritable rights from twenty years to ten. What is more, it reduces the present searches to a period of five years. I may remind your Lordships what a search means. If you are getting an estate from anybody, in order to see that the title is good you have to have a search in the register to see that there are no burdens affecting it. The result of this will be a great cheapening, because the search will be so much shorter. I really think that your Lordships may safely give a Second Reading to the Bill, seeing that it has passed the inquiry which was directed to it in another place.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dunedin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has said that he is not directly responsible for the initiation of this Bill. That is quite true, but the fact that he has taken it up and has expressed his full approval of it will have great weight with your Lordships' House. My noble and learned friend's experience is unrivalled, so far as Scottish law is concerned, and when he comes here with his great authority and says that this is a Bill which we ought to pass, and gives reasons for that advice, that is a consideration to which we will attach great weight. It is true that opinion in Scotland has not been unanimous regarding this Bill, but the reason has been, not that the Bill is regarded as a bad one, but that something larger was wanted. I do not myself see any immediate prospect of that larger measure being brought in and passed. I hope it will come, but I cannot say at what period the Government will be ready to introduce such a measure, or to go into the details that have to be examined before it can be fashioned.
This Bill effects what I believe to be very substantial improvements in the Scottish law of conveyancing The Government is not responsible for it, but

693
it has been examined by the Lord Advocate and scanned closely, and the Lord Advocate, who is also a great authority upon the law of Scotland, agrees with my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin, that this is a Bill which ought to pass. It has the good fortune to have passed the House of Commons, and now it comes here. Speaking for the Government, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' attention, and I think that it should be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Bead 3a (according to Order).
Valuation and surrender of teinds.
15.—(1) After the passing of this Act the provisions set out in the Sixth Schedule to this Act which relate to the obtaining of valuations of teinds and the surrender of valued teinds shall have effect for those purposes and the present law and practice relating thereto shall cease to apply but without prejudice to any proceedings taken before the passing of this Act or to any proceedings which may be taken within twelve months after the passing of this Act for the approbation of reports of sub-commissioners relating, to the valuation of teinds.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years." The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time, and I will be as brief as I can. The question with which I have to deal is somewhat complicated, though very important. It will affect a large number of people unless it is put in a satisfactory position before this Bill becomes an Act. I think I should say again that there have been considerable difficulties in dealing with this Bill owing to the delay which has taken place in printing the Bill after its various stages in this House. For instance, I may say that the reprint of the Report Stage of this Bill, which was taken last Thursday, was, I think, issued only yesterday, and at any rate did not arrive in Scotland in time to allow one to put down an Amendment after having an opportunity of reading the reprint. I had to put down the two Amendments which stand in my name before I had
694
been able to see the revised Bill as reprinted after the Report Stage.
The Amendments which I have put down practically amount to the same thing. I will be as brief as I can, because I understand that the Government, though they will not be able to accept the Amendment, will consider whether they can deal with the question when this Bill reaches another place. Under the existing law and practice, a heritor whose teinds were valued in the seventeenth century, by a Report of Sub-Commissioners appointed in 1617—your Lordships will sec that this is very ancient history—to carry out the valuation of these teinds, can have them approbated. Until they have been approbated in the Teinds Court, these sub-valuations are not legally binding, though in most cases they have been acted upon. One difficulty is that it is not known how many of these valuations require approbation, and apparently there is at present no means of ascertaining this. The danger is that if, after this Bill passes into law, insufficient time or opportunity is given to the heritors to obtain approbation, they may be put to very serious loss, and very heavy burdens may be imposed upon them which do not now exist.
I may give your Lordships one instance. I know one property on which, under the old valuation, the teind is somewhere about £10 per annum, but I believe that if it were valued now the teind would be something like £240 per annum, or twenty-four times as much. The question of these approbations was raised towards the end of the discussion on this Bill which took place between representatives of the heritors and representatives of the Church, but the point was discussed in connection with Clause 7 of the Sixth Schedule, and all the parties, including the Teinds Clerk, who is practically the only man who really knows this question, came to the conclusion that the Bill did not take away the right to approbate. It had been overlooked, however, that Clause 15 of the Bill expressly provides that the present law and practice relating to valuation and surrender shall cease after the passing of the Act. It is true that this provision is declared to be without prejudice to any proceedings taken before that date, and the point is whether approbation proceedings taken,

695
let us say, in 1925, on a sub-valuation made as far back as 1629, are a continuation of proceedings taken before the passing of the Act or not.
My Amendment is designed to give sufficient time for people to get these approbations through. The difficulty is that very few people know what is entailed. A great deal of search is required and, what is a still greater difficulty, the whole of these cases have got to go through the Teinds Office. As these people cannot possibly be allowed to go through the Teinds Office, if there are a great many of them, and I suppose there are a great number, it is impossible within the time allowed to get the business through. In that case, there might, be a great burden and injustice, which I know the Government do not intend to put upon the heritors. I put down my two Amendments really as alternative Amendments, but I have had an opportunity of consulting the Government. I believe they are rather averse to the Amendments. I believe that they agree that it is a reasonable and right request, but their objection is one of form. The Amendment increasing the period to three years probably gives sufficient time, but it is undesirable to delay bringing the Bill into operation a day longer than is necessary, and if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gives an undertaking that this question will be thoroughly looked into and put right in the House of Commons, so that there will be no injustice inflicted, I would not wish to detain your Lordships any longer with a further explanation of this very complicated subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has been good enough to communicate his Amendments to me at an early stage, and I have had an opportunity of considering them with the Lord Advocate. We fully appreciate the point that he has made. It is a reasonable point, but one which requires consideration. It does not go to the root principle of the Bill, but only to the machinery of it. Looking into it, we think probably we can meet the wishes of the noble Duke, although the form of the required Amendment needs consideration by those having full technical knowledge. I am prepared to undertake that when the Bill goes to the Commons the matter shall be fully considered. It is impossible to say more at 696
this moment, or anything else except that we will do our best to meet what seems to be a reasonable desire on the part of the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I would like to thank the Lord Chancellor, and in these circumstances I will not move my Amendments.
Privilege Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, may I rise to a point of order of which I have given private notice to the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill? The point of order is this: I submit that the Bill which the noble Viscount proposes to read a second time deals entirely with the Prerogative of the Crown, and therefore can only be considered by the House if introduced by a Minister of the Crown. Your Lordships are all aware of the form which the Patents we so often hear read at the Table take. His Majesty confers a certain title of "His special Grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion," and there are limitations to every honour which he confers. In most cases it is conferred upon an individual with remainder to his heirs male, and those heirs male are given a right to a seat and voice in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In some cases there is remainder to the daughter of the person, and in that case the Patent specially omits to confer on that lady the right to a seat and voice in Parliament.
May I read to your Lordships the Patent conferred recently on the late Lord Rhondda? It confers upon him the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Viscount Rhondda of Llanwerth, with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten, and in default of such issue remainder is given to his daughter Margaret Haig Mackworth, who is to have and to hold the name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Viscountess Rhondda of Llanwerth. The patent proceeds:—
" … willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors

697
that the said David Alfred Baron Rhondda and his heirs male aforesaid and in default of such issue the heirs male of the said Margaret Haig Mackworth and every of them successively and respectively may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
As your Lordships will see the lady is omitted.
I submit that this Bill is an attempt to deal with the Prerogative of the Crown, and I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the House, it has not been the habit in the past, to deal with such matters only when the measure is introduced by a Minister of the Crown. I believe it has been nearly always the custom when dealing with the reform of this House to deal with it first by Resolution, and I believe that was the case when Lord Lansdowne introduced a series of Resolution". I therefore desire to put this point of order.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, on the point of order I should like to say just one word, if I may be allowed to do so, although I have no claim to speak with any kind of authority. I have just looked into the authorities on the point, and as I understand the rule of Parliament it is this: that if a Bill is introduced which affects the Prerogative of the Crown, before the House parts with it—that is, before the Third Reading and before the Motion "That this Bill do pass"—there must be the consent of the Crown signified by a Privy Councillor. That, I understand, is the practice of Parliament. It is not the case that it need be introduced by a Minister of the Crown. So far as I know that only applies to measures to increase taxation, which are introduced in the other House, because we cannot impose taxation.
If I understand the law rightly as stated in Sir T. Erskine-May's Parliamentary Practice, at pages 542–3, the position is as I have said, and I find that in a Bill which was discussed, it is true in the other House—but in this respect the practice of the two Houses is practically the same—which proposed to restrict the number of Irish Peers, and therefore was a very clear interference with the Prerogative, the Second Reading was moved without objection, but just before the Question was put the point was raised that it was a matter on which the Prerogative
698
of the Crown ought to be safeguarded by the Assent of the Crown, signified by a Privy Councillor. Thereupon Mr. Gathorne Hardy, the Home Secretary at the time, said this:—He believed the practice was settled and although this Bill might be come to the last stage without receiving the Royal Assent it could not go beyond that stage. He did not think it was a measure that was at all pressing in its character, and could not undertake to advise Her Majesty as to its progress. Considering, therefore, the great pressure of other and more important business, he appealed to the hon. and learned baronet not to proceed with it. In other words, he announced that in no circumstance" would the consent of the Crown be given, and it was not worth while pressing the Second Reading. It was not suggested that there was anything out of order in proceeding with the Second Beading. Therefore, before the House parts with the present Bill, I think the consent of the Crown should be signified through a Privy Councillor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, even in the event of this being a Bill which goes a long way to alter the law, and even if, on the hypothesis of the Prerogative being affected, there is a doubt about whether what the noble and learned Viscount has laid down is sufficient to cover the case, I do not think any real question arises. This is, in effect, a Bill to take away a disability which prevents a woman from availing herself of her Peerage to claim a Writ to sit in this House. Your Lordships decided, through the Committee for Privileges, on a claim of the Baroness Rhondda, that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act did not cure that because it gave her no affirmative right. It was treated as not extending so far as to enable the Baroness Rhondda to claim. But there were certain things about which I think your Lordships were all agreed, even then. One was that since the Earl of Bristol, in the reign of Charles I, established that every Peer had a Common Law right to a Writ of Summons the granting or the withholding of the Writ did not depend upon the Prerogative at all, but depended upon this, that when a man has a Peerage he has a right to claim a Writ and to sit in this House. It is not the words

699
in the Patent, but it is the status belonging to the Peerage which gives the right to the Writ.
Your Lordships held that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act had not altered the disability of a woman to perform a public function as a Peeress in this House, and accordingly the Committee for Privileges advised that the Baroness Rhondda had not made out her claim. Rut that was not on any ground relating to the Prerogative. That was because the Common Law of the land disqualified Baroness Rhondda as being a woman. This is a Bill to enable a Peeress to be qualified to sit here. If she becomes qualified then she would be like anybody else, and could claim her Writ as a right, as was done by the Earl of Bristol in the time of Charles I. It is obvious, if that be true, that this is not a Bill which takes away any Prerogative of the Crown. It is a Bill which leaves the Prerogative of the Crown exactly as it stands, the Prerogative to create Peerages. If Peeresses are created then the persons created would have the full status of a Peerage ex debito justitiæ. Therefore it appears to mc that this is not a Bill cutting down the Prerogative of the Crown at all, and, accordingly, that the difficulty that has been raised is not a formidable one.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I had not been apprised beforehand that this point was going to be raised, but I should like, if I may, to say a few words upon it. I am not sure that I go the whole way with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. That is to say, I am not sure that this is not a Bill to alter Patents and to enable a Peeress, who by her Patent is not entitled to be called to sit in Parliament, to receive her Writ of Summons. That being so, I think it may well be, with great deference to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that at some stage of the Bill the question may be raised whether the Assent of the Crown, through a Privy Councillor, should not be given to the Bill. Exactly what that stage is I would rather not say without further considering it. At all events, I am satisfied of this, that there is nothing whatever to prevent a Second Beading of the Bill being moved and debated, as things now
700
stand, and the matter might well be further considered at a future sitting of the House.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, you have to-day discussed a variety of different subjects, contained in different Bills, and you have displayed a great measure of agreement on those subjects. I trust that I shall find the same measure of agreement indicated towards the Bill to which I am now formally asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam has a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill. If I did not see his name down to such a Motion I should feel, as a friend, some degree of anxiety lest his accustomed vigour was being diminished.
The Bill of which I am moving the Second Reading is quite a short one. it contains three clauses. Clause 1 proposes that Peeresses in their own right should be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to Parliament, and to sit and vote here as if they were men. Clause 2 enables Peeresses in their own right to be entitled to vote at Elections of Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland, and also to be elected to represent cither of those two countries. Clause 3 deals with an amendment to the Representation of the People Act. At the present moment a Peeress is allowed to vote at an Election. A Peer, as your Lordships know, has not that privilege. Clause 3 proposes to put Peeresses in their own right on exactly the same footing as a Peer. Your Lordships, some two years ago, had before you a Petition, moved on behalf of Lady Rhondda, that she should receive a Writ of Summons. The history of that Petition must be fresh in your Lordships' memory. It was decided by the Committee for Privileges that Lady Rhondda was not entitled to receive a Writ of Summons. That point was settled. This Bill recognises that there is no such right, and it asks your Lordships to make an alteration in the law on the lines which I have indicated. It is a totally different point which is before your Lordships to-day.
I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I do not look upon this Bill in any way as an attempt to reform your Lordships' House. It affects a very small number of persons—less than two dozen Peeresses. It is not contemplated that

701
there would be any large addition to your Lordships' House. I say quite frankly that I have always been in favour of what is known as the reform of the House of Lords. I am in favour of that because I am in favour of having two Chambers. I contemplate the time coming when your Lordships may have to take a firm and definite stand, and, if and when that occasion ever arises, I want your Lordships' House to be in as strong a position as possible. I think there is a measure of common agreement between representatives of all Parties that some reform is necessary. If I were bringing this Bill forward as a measure of reform it would be more far-reaching and far more drastic than is this small Bill.
I suggest to your Lordships that we cannot possibly postpone or reject this Bill on the ground that the point ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive measure of reform. Keen though I am on the reform of this House, wholeheartedly though I support that general idea, I am convinced that the reform of your Lordships' House is very far distant. I do not see any possibility of a Liberal Government bringing it forward. I do not sec any possibility of a Labour Government bringing it forward, and when, before the Election of 1922, my late leader. Mr. Bonar Law, made a public announcement that if returned to power his Government would not in the first year of office attempt to reform your Lordships' House, I realised, with great regret, how far distant was a measure of reform.
I suggest that your Lordships cannot postpone this particular question or wait until it is possible to deal with a general scheme of reform, but that until we do get that reform your Lordships' House should more accurately and fairly reflect those eight million women voters who now exist in the country. I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that on a large number of questions there is, undoubtedly, a woman's point of view. Many men cannot understand the woman's point of view. Many men differ from the woman's point of view. But that there is such a point of view is unarguable. In my opinion the point of view of women is necessary and it is desirable that we should have it. It is a good point of view on a large number
702
of questions. Your Lordships have to consider and to pass legislation dealing with problems affecting children, women, morality, and the employment of both sexes. It is essential, I think, that your Lordships should have the woman's point of view put at first hand before your Lordships' House. It may be a right or a wrong point, of view, but at all events it should be heard. I feel that it is impossible for a man to put it with as great conviction and as much comprehension as it would be put by a woman.
I am not going to take up any great amount of time in arguing the competence of women to act as legislators. Had I been introducing this Bill before the year 1919 I should have felt bound to argue that point and to indicate why I thought that women were qualified and competent to act a; legislators. I should have had to recall to your Lordships' memory the fact that England's fame was never greater in the past than when she had a Queen. I should have had to recall the fact that when Elizabeth came to the throne England was a third-or fourth-rate Power, and that at the end of her reign England occupied a position of far greater distinction in Europe. It is not necessary now for me to make out a case that women are qualified to legislate and to be members of a House of Parliament. In 1919 the first woman representative was elected to the House of Commons. That lead was followed about two years latter. Plymouth led the way and took the first plunge. Plymouth's lead was followed by an agricultural constituency, and the agricultural constituency was followed by an industrial constituency in the North of England.
I think that the representation of women in another place has proved itself to be an enormous success and I will tell your Lordships why I think so. In the course of less than five years the representation of women in another place has been increased eight fold. At the last Election Scotland followed the lead and every Party now has its women representatives in the House of Commons. The only country which is not so represented is Wales. We find in another place to-day that there is a woman occupant of the Ministerial Front Bench. In this House we deal with all subjects, except the

703
question of finance. It seems impossible and ridiculous to argue that a woman can discuss finance in another place but is not competent and qualified to come to your Lordships' House and assist us in our deliberations and in our legislation on questions of morality and child welfare and questions affecting the employment and the position of women generally.
One interesting fact has come to light recently. That is the special faculty with which members of your Lordships' House are endowed for selecting as their mates for life ladies who, apparently, are selected subsequently by the electors to represent them in the House of Commons. I do not know whether that has anything to do with our being hereditary legislators, but it is an interesting fact. It seems ridiculous that a lady who has no particular knowledge of legislation or of administration should be qualified to be returned by a constituency to another place, while the daughters of your Lordships in certain cases, having all these advantages of contact with legislation and administration which come from their family, should not be qualified to sit in your Lordships' House.
One of the most notable happenings m the world recently is the advance in the position of women. Women are now taking an active part in the law and an active and able part in the conduct of business. Women are occupying positions of distinction and responsibility in the Civil Service. I understand that a woman holds the rank of Assistant Secretary at the Treasury, Recently the Government has always been represented at the League of Nations by a woman. The position of Deputy Chairman of the London County Council has been held by a woman. It seems to be impossible to say that a woman shall be competent and qualified to represent this country at the League of Nations, to occupy one of the highest positions in the Civil Service or on great self-governing local bodies and to sit on the Front Bench in the House of Commons, and yet shall not be competent and qualified to assist us in our deliberations in this House.
I can see no constitutional, historical or logical objection to the proposal which I am now making to your Lordships' House. This House has played a great part in the history of this country. It has always attempted, I think, to act justly and
704
fairly. It is in that spirit that I hope your Lordships will deal with this Bill this afternoon. I venture to suggest that if we do not take this small step forward we shall be very largely stultifying ourselves and showing that we are out of touch with opinion in the country at large. This is a small and moderate Bill. It is a genuine attempt to bring your Lordships' House into relation with the aspirations and the point of view of nearly half the electorate and more than half the population. That is the aim of the Bill, and that, I believe, will be its effect if your Lordships pass it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill has a very curious history. Two years ago Lady Rhondda applied to the Committee for Privileges in this House in order to enable her to take a seat in your Lordships' House. She founded her claim, entirely upon the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919. As the noble Viscount who has just sat down said, your Lordships refused that claim. The first Committee, consisting I think of eight members, agreed to the claim, but your Lordships referred it back to a larger Committee consisting of thirty members, and that Committee, by twenty to four, rejected Lady Rhondda's claim. There were on that Committee a number of learned Lords, and I find that the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Finlay, Lord Cave, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Parmoor, and Lord Carson all found that her claim was unfounded, and the only two noble and learned Lords who voted for her were Lord Haldane and Lord Wrenbury. That is a very strong consensus of legal opinion—eight celebrated law Lords against two equally celebrated.
My noble friend Lord Astor says that Lady Rhondda fully recognises what took place, and he now brings forward this Bill, as I gather, on other grounds. I have taken the trouble to read the very voluminous document containing, if he will allow me to say so, the extraordinarily eloquent judgment delivered by the Earl of Birkenhead, and I found this. I find that your Lordships' Committee

705
rejected Lady Rhondda's claim on the ground that in her Patent she was expressly disqualified from taking a seat in your Lordships' House. The question was raised as to whether other Patents of other Peeresses, being Peeresses in their own right, contained the same provision, and Lady Burdett-Coutts' Patent and Lady Beaconsfield's Patent were produced, and they both had the same provision. The promoters of this Bill are perfectly well aware of that, as is proved by Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill says—
" A woman being the holder in her own right of any Peerage, other than a Peerage of Scotland or Ireland, shall, if otherwise qualified, be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to Parliament and to sit and vote in the House of Lords as fully as if she were a man and notwithstanding that the loyal Charter or Letters Patent (if any) creating such Peerage do not expressly confer upon her the right to hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in Parliament."
Therefore, your Lordships must see that the promoters of this Bill are attempting by an Act of Parliament to alter a Patent given by His Majesty. If Peerages were conferred by Act of Parliament I should have nothing to say, but Peerages are not conferred by Act of Parliament; neither are Patents given by Act of Parliament.
I am only a very recent member of your Lordships' House, but I remember standing only a few months ago at that box while the Clerk read out my Patent before I was admitted a member of this House in order to see whether ray Patent entitled me to sit in this House. If there had been anything in my Patent which had prevented me sitting in this House no Act of Parliament could have given me that privilege. Therefore I say that if you pass this Bill you will set up a precedent by which a Patent can be altered by an Act of Parliament. If this Bill was carried there would be nothing to prevent me bringing in an Act of Parliament to say that in the event of my grandson dying without issue my granddaughter should sit in this House. Without going into the merits of whether or not Peeresses should sit in this House, with which aspect of the matter I will deal shortly, I venture to say that your Lordships will be committing a very great error, even if you are not doing something which infringes the Royal Prerogative, if you pass a Bill of this kind.
Let me now deal with the question of whether or not it is advisable for Peeresses to sit in this House. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill gave us the history of certain lady members of the House of Common, and he alluded to the three lady members with whom I had the pleasure of sitting during the time that I was in that House. He said that one represented Plymouth, and one represented some other place, and another represented a constituency in the North of England, but he forget to mention the very extraordinary history of their election. They were all elected because their husbands had to give up their seats. Lady Astor was elected because the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, came to this House. Mrs. Wintringham was elected because her husband died in the House of Commons. Mrs. Philipson, who is a Conservative—and this is the most extraordinary election of all of them—was elected because her husband, who was a Radical, was turned out of his seat for corrupt practices. The constituents having lost a Radical Member, returned his wife as a Conservative Member to the House of Commons. Surely there is no argument founded on those elections that can be brought forward to show that there was any great desire on the part of the constituents in this country to return women to the House of Commons.
In view of what I have said in regard to the Royal Prerogative, I very much doubt whether a Bill of this sort ought to be brought in by a private member. Ought it not to be brought in by the Government? I was in the House of Commons with these lady members. I have not been in the House of Commons with the other five who have been added, but my experience—and the noble Viscount was not in the House of Commons with these ladies—is different from his. I do not know about the Labour Party, but I never met any one else who did not regret that we had women in the House of Commons. Over and over again honourable Members have said to me: "We made a great mistake when we admitted women to the House of Commons." I do not ask your Lordships to accept my statement about that. It may be said that I am prejudiced. Though I am a great admirer of women, I do not like them in the House of Commons. I wall give your Lordships the opinion of one of the ablest men in the

707
House of Commons, a man of great distinction, a man who has been many years in the House of Commons, and a man who is sincere and honest in everything he does, and who has, what is very much lacking at this moment in the country, the courage of his convictions I mean Lord Hugh Cecil.
What did Lord Hugh Cecil say, this year? I have taken the trouble to obtain a copy of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT in order that I may not misquote him. This is what he said on February 29 this year:—
" I did support that [woman suffrage] and I should support it again, in spite of the many follies and excesses which have been associated with the feminist movement. I am sorry it has led to some of the consequences to which it has led. I am sorry we have come to include among our members persons belonging to the other sex "—
and then comes a little qualification, I am most anxious not to cut out anything which is favourable to the noble Viscount's Motion. This is the qualification:—
" but what we have lost in dignity, we may have gained in efficiency."
Your Lordships will mark the word "may." Do your Lordships wish to lose the. dignity of this House, which for centuries has been the model of a Parliament House, in order, perhaps, to gain efficiency?
Before I conclude I should like to read a few words from a letter which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday from Lady Rhondda. It shows really what is at the bottom of all this. It is not a movement on the part of the women of the country. Do you mean to tell me that the women of the country care two-pence whether Lady Rhondda or any other Peeress sits in this House? It is a movement on the part of a certain number of women who have formed themselves into a women's organisation and this is what Lady Rhondda says in her letter. She speaks of:—
" not the non-Party women's organisation only but also that growing body of individual women influenced by those who, while nominally adherents of the Conservative, Liberal or Labour party, are, in fact, most interested in reforms of special concern to women."
Then the reforms are given, and one of them is the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is perfectly clear
708
that there are a certain number of women who are desirous not to put the welfare of the country in the forefront of their object, but some small petty personal advantage which they can gain. One of the reforms is, I think, widow's pensions; another, equal rights. We are all going to be equal, and if widows are to have pensions why should not widowers have pensions as well? Where are you going to stop if you begin in this way? What we desire is not to perpetuate class legislation, but that everyone in both Houses of Parliament should be actuated solely by a desire to promote the interests of the country as a whole.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time, but this is a very important question. I will conclude, however, by summarising my arguments. First, I maintain that this House, by Act of Parliament, cannot interfere with the Patents creating Peers or Peeresses. If it did so, it would be creating a grave precedent which might lead to something which no one can foresee. Secondly, I say that we have done well in the past. Women in the House of Commons have not been a success. You must remember that men and women are different, and you cannot prevent a woman in the House of Commons exercising the privilege of her sex which she has been accustomed to exercise. You cannot treat her as an equal. I do not for a moment say that she, by malice prepense, exercises that fascination which a woman exercises over man, but she does it unwittingly. On these two grounds I earnestly entreat your Lordships to reject this Bill, and to reject it by such a majority that we shall not be troubled with Bills of this sort again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out (" now ") and at the end of the Motion insert (" this day six months ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. I should be astonished, having known the noble Lord for so long, if a Bill upon any subject was introduced in this House without Lord Banbury of Southam moving its rejection. He has said that one of his objections to the measure is that an Act of Parliament cannot alter a Patent of Peerage. If that is so there is no harm whatever in passing

709
this Bill. It may be we do no good, but I prefer to pass the Bill and see whether the legal opinion given by the noble Lord is sound or not. For myself, I prefer the opinion which was given just now by the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord has given no real foundation for his objection. What is it? I think we should look back and consider the past, have some regard to history, and ask ourselves why it was, when Parliament was first summoned, that women were not summoned too. The reason is this. The Barons of that day were summoned. They were people like the noble Lord, strong in the upholding of their own individual and hardly-conquered rights, determined not to share them with other men, and certainly with no women. After a time the franchise was enlarged, and many men were, given the franchise who had not had it before. I am sure the noble Lord never assented to that. But women were not enfranchised.
The noble Lord apparently has been studying the law. Let me ask him this: Does he know that before women were allowed to sit, in the House of Commons they were capable of being Members of Parliament, and were Members of Parliament? If the noble Lord will look in Sir Erskine May's book he will find that Parliament is composed of the King or Queen and the Estates of the Realm, the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled. But the King or Queen is a member of Parliament. There has been a woman member in this very House. Queen Elizabeth was a member, so were Queen Mary, Queen Anne and, last of all. Queen Victoria. I wonder whether my noble friend, when he was a member of the House of Commons, ever came to the Bar and heard the Royal Assent given to a Bill which—I was going to say, which he had helped to pass, but I will not. If he came to that Bar, how horrified he must have been when the last words of all that were said upon it were "La reyne le veult." All the opposition that had taken place, all the assent given in the House of Commons, all the assent given by your Lordships, were useless until a woman member of Parliament, a member of this very House, had said that she consented to it. Then where is the anomaly? Even in those distant times when Parliaments were first
710
established the law was that a woman might sit upon the Throne and might exercise this right.
This is really an attempt to carry into another age that which might have had a very good reason in a time which has long passed away. In the old days women were not trained as they are now. They were not accustomed to take part in sports or public life, as they are now. But now the time has come which was foreseen by the gentleman in "Locksley Hall," when
" Iron-jointed, supple-sinewed they shall dive and they shall run.
Catch the wild goat by the hair, and hurl their lances in the sun."
That is now done by the daughters as well as the sons of "Locksley Hall." Only the other day, under very distinguished patronage at Wembley, there wore ladies—I saw their photographs—taking part in catching the wild goat by the hair. These things were never thought of by ladies in the days of chivalry. They sat down on a dais while the Barons, my noble friend's predecessors, killed one another for their amusement. Times have altogether changed.
What is the reason why a woman should not be entitled to sit in this House? My noble friend seems to think that this is a Bill for introducing Lady Rhondda into this House. I do not agree that it is anything of the kind. He said that it would be a shocking Bill, if we passed it, because we should lose dignity, as the House of Commons has lost it. It is not for me to talk about the dignity of the House of Commons, and I will not do so, but how should we lose dignity by allowing these ladies to come and sit upon these Benches and to vote? Who would they be? I will not mention who the modern ones would be, because they are very well known. There is not only Lady Rhondda, but there are certainly two others whose fathers rendered most distinguished military service to the State. But who were those whose presence here would detract from the dignity of your Lordships' House? They are ladies of the oldest blood in England and Scotland. These Peerages were given to heirs general in the distant past, and those who now

711
inherit them would not, in my opinion, in any way detract from the dignity of this House. Indeed, if I were to express my opinion—well, I will not. I should be glad to know upon what grounds of logic or convenience a lady should be excluded from this House while admitted to the other. As for logic, I have already said that there have been ladies who were members, not only of Parliament but of this very House, and if they may sit upon the Throne, why may they not sit upon these Benches?
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, if there is a question upon which the Party with which I have been identified have differed more than upon any other, it is the question of whether it is desirable or not that women should have seats in Parliament, and it is not my intention to suggest that the Liberal Party are in agreement upon this subject. On the other hand, I think most of us take the view that this is not the light method of raising a subject of such great importance, and that it should not be left to an unofficial member to try to extend to this House the principle of allowing ladies to sit and vote. If such an extension is to be made, it ought to be made on the responsibility of the Government of the day, in the same way as the franchise has been extended to female voters in the country. There is one other reason why most of those with whom I am associated would feel that we are justified in refusing our support to this Bill. The time is not far distant when it will be absolutely essential that the Government of the day shall take up the question of the reform of your Lordships' House. The question now before us is obviously one which should be raised when that reform is discussed, and an attempt should not be made to pass it through your Lordships' House by means of an unofficial member's Bill. For these reasons I, at any rate, am prepared to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Wrenbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT (CO-PARTNERSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had given Notice to draw attention to a disparity between the reports of the Lord Chancellor's speech in the House of Lords, on Monday, July 14, on the question of the Singapore Base, as reported in The Times and Morning Post newspapers of Tuesday, July 15, in which reports the Lord Chancellor is made to say:—
"The Government were endeavouring to keep the Navy efficient, but Singapore went far beyond that, and added a new weapon which it was not good that the Navy should have";
and the report of the speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 58, No. 57, Col. 514:—
"That does not mean that we do not intend to keep the Navy efficient, but it does mean that we do not intend to put a new weapon into our hand which may be looked upon with suspicion by others";
and to ask the Lord Chancellor which of the two reports gives the correct rendering of his words.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess is, I think, under a misapprehension if he thinks that there is any inconsistency between the report in The Times and the OFFICIAL REPORT. Both made it quite clear. What I said was that it was purely on the grounds of general policy, and not on strategical grounds, that I raised any objection to the Singapore base. Indeed, I laid that down in express terms in the earlier part of my speech. There is really no inconsistency between the version in The Times and the version in the OFFICIAL, REPORT, but I prefer the official version, which is a little more explicit.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: By leave of the House I should like, if I may, to say one word. It would be this:

713
that in the minds of many of us there is a good deal of difference between the two forms of words under consideration, and I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that both your Lordships and public opinion outside, and particulary the opinion of the great Service affected-will learn with a good deal of relief——
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Marquess will allow me to call his attention to the fact that he is entirely out of order, because there is no Motion on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I asked leave of the House and if I am allowed I will conclude—will notice with some relief that the noble and learned Viscount has been pleased to tell us that he prefers the official version, and that, indeed, the OFFICIAL REPORT conveys his views upon the matter entirely.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I add a word, because my noble friend who sits beside me is, I think, right in saying that this is a matter of importance? There is a great difference between the two forms of words and I was not in the least surprised to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that the terms in the OFFICIAL REPORT are those which he accepts. When he says he prefers the "official version" I think he is using a wrong expression, because clearly the OFFICIAL REPORT, taken at that Table, gives the words he used, unless he has altered them himself, which is inconceivable. Therefore we assume that he did use the words as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that it emerges that the Report in The Times, whether it does or does not express his general sentiments, is incorrect in its terms.
For my own part I am very glad to hear that that is the case, because when I saw The Times—I was abroad and I could not see the OFFICIAL, REPORT—and read the words attributed to the noble
714
and learned Viscount, "but Singapore went far beyond that, and added a new weapon which it was not good that the Navy should have," they appeared to me to imply a slur upon the Navy, and a likelihood as to the manner in which the Navy would act, which was entirely undeserved, and which, if it came from anybody, ought not to come from a Minister in the position of the noble and learned Viscount. I am therefore glad that attention has been called to the matter, because we now find that the words actually used were those appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that those appearing in The Times and Morning Post were a misinterpretation of what he said, and are a gloss upon them for which the newspaper alone is responsible.
[From Minutes of July 16.]
The Earl of Cottenham—sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday, July 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Wednesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.