Lords Sitting of 26 March 1925

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 BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill dealing with circuit courts and criminal procedure in Scotland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BOROUGH COUNCILLORS (ALTERATION OF NUMBER) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (KEIGHLEY WATER CHARGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, there, are three Amendments to be introduced in this Bill, if the House is willing, and I think I shall be able to explain to your Lordships in a moment what the purport of them is. The Amendments in my name all relate to the same point. It appears that this Order was originally drawn with the date of September 30, 1924, in it. Then it was objected to, and therefore had to be submitted to the ordinary procedure of Provisional Orders, and had to be postponed. Then the objection was not proceeded with, and so the Order came before my noble friend the Lord Chairman in the ordinary course as an unopposed Bill. But, in consequence of the delay, he, very naturally, assumed that the date September 30 was altogether out of date, and, as the Royal Assent to this Bill could not be given till April or May of the present year, he thought it was necessary to alter the date from September 30, 1924, to September 30, 1925, and did so. My noble friend reminds me

743
that he was not responsible; it was done at the suggestion of the Government. However, that having been done, it was then discovered that a mistake had been made, and that the original Order ought to have been maintained, and the increased charges dated from 1924 and not from 1925.
I could, if your Lordships wished, elaborate the reasons for that, but it is quite clear that, if every interested body thought that they could, by an objection, postpone the payment of these extra charges for nine months, let us say, everybody would object, and therefore it is necessary to maintain the original date. No doubt, as a matter of practice, where there has been a change of occupation it will not be possible to recover the arrears, which cover the time that has elapsed since September 30 of last year. That is a blemish which cannot be avoided. For these reasons I ask the leave of your Lordships to restore the date of 1924 instead of the date of 1925, as it now stands in the Rill. As these three Amendments are on the same point. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 13. after ("Order") insert ("as amended and")
In the Schedule, page 3, line 6, leave out ("on") and insert ("as from")
In the Schedule, page 3, line 8, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert C"twenty-four").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement
744
of the 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, whichever last happens.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born.
(3) 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.
(4) In this Act the expression "legitimated person" means a person legitimated under this section.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:—"No person, whether living or dead, shall be deemed to have been legitimated by virtue of this Act until his birth has been re-registered as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: The Bill as it now stands provides for two operations, legitimation by Clause I and re-registration by Clause 2. These operations, apparently, have no connection whatever with one another. Legitimation has full legal effect whereas re-registration appears to have none. The less important operation which is re-registration requires evidence, while the more important operation, legitimation, apparently requires no evidence whatever. It is provided in Clause 2 (4) that the failure of the parents to furnish information in respect of any person legitimated by the Bill shall not affect the legitimation of that person, or affect the right of one parent or of any other person to apply for re-registration under this section. The effect of the two clauses as they stand seems to me to be that if a man marries a woman who has illegitimate children, those illegitimate children become his legitimated children, whether they are his children in fact or not. He may be able to prevent their re-registration, but he cannot prevent their legitimation. The object of this Amendment is to bring those two clauses into line and to put a legitimated person in the same position as the ordinary legitimate person, in that the latter is not recognised as being the son of his father unless he is registered as such. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to a legitimated person. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Raglan.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Before the Lord Chancellor replies, I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment. We stand in considerable difficulty this afternoon in regard to this Bill, for the reason which I gave your Lordships on Tuesday last. Unfortunately, the Bill was taken out of the Paper for Tuesday only the night before, with the result that two noble Lords who took a most active part in the discussion of this measure last year—Lord Sumner and Lord Phillimore and who particularly desired to offer arguments on this point, are unable to be present to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lord Phillimore could not come on Tuesday.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I say that he is unable to be present to-day. Lord Sumner was here yesterday, but he is indisposed and unable to be present this afternoon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lord Phillimore told me on the previous occasion that he could not be here.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I have a letter from Lord Sumner regretting his inability to be present because he has been stopped by his doctor in the last few hours. I only mention that because the Lord Chancellor does not appear to accept what is the fact—namely, that we who fought the matter last year and obtained a large majority of your Lordships in favour of a clause on this point, are denied on this occasion the high legal support which we had then.
The Lord Chancellor, in introducing this measure, stated that he was most unwilling to allow the child to suffer if the parents, either from caprice or forgetfulness or for some other reason, should not register parentage within a certain time after marriage, and he said that the Bill would put the penalty on the parents. I think the Amendment as drafted would commend itself to those who took a decided line last year in opposition and had the support of your Lordships. The Bill as drawn in no respect carries out what was the intention of the House last year. It is perfectly easy to say that an illegitimate child has
746
the right to be legitimated by any subsequent marriage of the parents, with the one exception made by the Bill. My contention is that the legitimate heirs have a right to be protected also, and that society has a right to be protected.
If you leave if to the parents to decide whether they choose to register a child or not, you put all other persons in a difficulty. The parents may decide—after all, it is not a particularly honourable record which they wish to preserve—to have their marriage perfectly quietly in some place where they are not well known, and the facts may never be known to the legitimate heirs at all. What does the noble and learned Viscount say? He says: Let them bear the penalty. What is the penalty? The penalty is £10. It is possible if the registrar can discover these individuals, who may not remain in the place they were married for an hour after the ceremony, that he may pursue them and mulct them in the sum of £10. But these children may appear years afterwards and obtain thousands of pounds and, what is more, put the legitimate heir to the expense of hundreds or thousands of pounds in resisting their demand to be considered legitimate. Actually, the noble and learned Viscount's Bill goes on to say that if both parents neglect to do it one parent may do it. In other words, the woman may saddle her deceased husband with the parentage of a number of children with whom he had nothing whatever to do. That is really an outrage that cannot, I believe, be the intention of the Government.
I object also on another ground. It is a temptation to the woman. She probably has equal maternal love for all her children. If she has three children and only one of them has any claim, she has this temptation. Her husband, whom she regards as a wealthy man, is dead and her children will be sharing something which his intestacy will give them. Still more, there is a strong temptation to crime. There is no reason whatever why the wife, who is probably the last person who sees the husband, should not destroy the will in order to create an intestacy by which the progeny she is going to set up would be set up at the expense of the legitimate heirs. That is not at all an extreme view. I hope your Lordships will favourably consider the Amendment which has been

747
moved by Lord Raglan. Unless we are able to arrive at a successful conclusion on that Amendment I would ask you to give consideration to the subsequent Amendment, drawn up by a high legal authority, which deals with this question of intestacy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): No one regrets more than I do that my noble and learned friend Lord Stunner is not able to be here to-day, especially as I feel quite sure I could have convinced him that this Amendment was one that ought not to be supported. This Amendment raises a point which is also raised later on by a number of Amendments and upon which I have no doubt your Lordships will come to a decision on this Amendment. The point is this: Is legitimation under the Act to depend on birth and marriage, or is it to depend on registration? The policy of the Bill is this—and it is the rule of the civil law, the rule of the canon law and the rule in Scotland to-day—that if two unmarried persons have a child and afterwards marry that child is, by the marriage itself, legitimated. That is the old rule. The Church which pressed this rule of legitimation by subsequent marriage at the Council of Merton had its own explanation, that the marriage consecrated, it was said, the previous union. But that is the historical origin of the rule. About the nature of the rule there is no doubt whatever, and no difficulty I think has arisen in Scotland about it.
What my noble friends want to do is to say that the subsequent marriage of these two people shall not legitimate the child unless they think fit to register the child as their child; in other words, it makes legitimation dependent on the will of the natural parents of the child. Noble Lords will form their own conclusion, but I do not think that is fair. Two unmarried people may have had a child and may marry, and may want to conceal the fact, or they may dislike the child and make up their minds not to register its birth, or they may be careless people and not take the trouble to register its birth. If the Amendment passes, in any of those cases the child remains illegitimate, has not the benefit of the Bill, and suffers perhaps throughout its life. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it-ought to be in the option of the parents
748
of these children whether they will make them legitimate or not. Of course, if the House differs from me upon that, they will say so, but for my part I hold this a vital part of the Bill as it stands.
I think there is some misapprehension as to the effect of registration. The legitimacy of a child born in wedlock does not depend on registration. Even if there is no registration, that child is the legitimate child of its parents, and why should the case be different of these children with whom we are now dealing? Registration is imposed as a duty upon the parents, not for the purpose of legitimating their children, but for the purposes of health, of statistics, and to form some record which the child may use when it comes of age and desires to prove its birth. It is for that purpose that the duty of registration is imposed and not as a condition of legitimacy. Nor, indeed, is it evidence of legitimacy. It is here, I think, that the noble Earl behind me is so much mistaken. The mere fact of registration will not prove the legitimacy. False registration may take place in respect of illegitimate children as well as of children born in wedlock. False claims may be made, and are constantly made, by persons to be legitimate children of persons who are dead, and they have to get proof and their claims very often break down when put to the test of proof. So here a false claim of parentage before marriage may be made in the same way, but, if made, it has to be proved, and it is sometimes more difficult to prove that kind of claim than a claim to parentage as the child of persons who are actually married.
I venture to think the noble Lord, on reflection, will not press this Amendment. I have thought a great deal about this. I would like very much, if I could, to find some means of protecting children born in wedlock from claims by other persons having the benefit of this Bill. I have thought a great deal about it and I am just as keen as the noble Lord behind me, but I see no way of doing it so as to satisfy the points which he has made. This Bill is framed absolutely upon the law of Scotland, subject to some additions which are for the protection of persons interested, but all these difficulties which are imagined have not occurred in Scotland. This has been the law there for centuries and we have not had any

749
more trouble in Scotland in cases of this kind than we have had in England in cases of claims to legitimate birth. I come back to the point at which I started. I do not think it is fair to make legitimation in case of subsequent marriage, depend upon the good or ill will, or upon the caprice, of the parents of the child. I think that here, as in Scotland and as in all countries in which this law applies, the fact of subsequent marriage ought to be enough, by itself, to make the children legitimate under the Bill. I hope the House will hesitate long before they accept this Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Your Lordships passed the Second Heading of this Bill, if I remember rightly, without Division. Why? Because you were satisfied that the present law worked grave injustice upon illegitimate children whose parents subsequently married, and this Bill was passed with the prime object of removing that injustice. If this Amendment be accepted you will restore it in another form, because you then will make the legitimacy of the child dependent, not upon the conditions which by the Act of Parliament you have declared are the conditions that establish legitimacy, but by the act of people over whom the child who is to be legitimated can have no possible control. I know noble Lords ask why, if the parents will not take the trouble to register the child, should it have the benefit of the Bill. My answer is this. Why should the child be robbed of the benefit of the Bill because of the negligence or carelessness of people who will not discharge their duty towards the child?
That really is the fundamental question, and when the noble Earl who spoke before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, suggests a long dismal trail of wrong and crime that may result if this Amendment is rejected, I find myself quite unable to follow him. There are many inducements to-day for people to destroy wills, but it is the rarest thing in the world for that to be done, and the idea that a woman who has not taken the trouble to register her child as legitimate would destroy a will entitling other people to the property is, to my mind, something that is quite outside the ordinary bounds of human experience.
750
Those people who support this Amendment overlook the very important fact to which the Lord Chancellor referred, but which he did not, in my opinion, emphasise enough. It is this. One of the advantages that legitimation confers on a child is the right to inherit property or take it under a will. That is one of the main values of the Bill. If the child is registered he is able to prove his legitimation in the usual way, but not, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, by the mere production of a certificate. That proves nothing. Your Lordships cannot prove birth by producing your certificates in a court of law. The certificate per se is not evidence of your birth. You have to prove that it is; the certificate of the person who produces it and identification is therefore required as well.
The legitimation of a child in the absence of registration can only be established in one way and that is by proving it to the Courts. The Courts are most jealous on the question of proofs. It is one of the most, difficult things in the world to establish, and you may be quite certain that the Courts would exercise a far more severe scrutiny on the claim of a child than would a registrar. A child that is not registered will suffer a disability; it will be; subject to a strict, rigid and severe proof. Surely that is enough. You want to take away with one hand benefits you give with another. I have always thought that if legislation is going to be passed for the purpose of remedying a wrong you should remedy it with both hands, and not give with one hand and take back with the other. That is the effect of the Amendment, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will not accept it.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say one word on this Amendment. I entirely confirm the opinion expressed by the Lord Chancellor. He stated quite clearly what the canon law is. Legitimation there depends on the subsequent marriage of the parents. The occasion he referred to happened, I think, at Northampton, and the opposition to the legitimation of children born before the parents were married was raised on that occasion by the temporal Peers and not by the spiritual Peers. It was on that occasion that the temporal Peers used the phrase Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari, because they were afraid that the title to their estates might be in perll. I think the

751
Lord Chancellor is wholly right. That is the whole principle underlying this Bill. The noble Earl and Lord Raglan have entirely exaggerated the meaning and intention of registration. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, that to consider a matter of this kind before a registrar, instead of having it proved if it is called in question and ascertained in the legal manner, would be a disadvantage so far as illegitimate children are concerned. I think you create a difficulty which is not just cither to the legitimate or illegitimate children. I entirely agree with the view of the Lord Chancellor.
LORD SHANDON: It is with great diffidence that I disagree in the slightest degree with the views which have been put forward by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Buckmaster. My reason for supporting the Amendment is a very simple one. It may be wrong; but I think it did commend itself to your Lordships on a former occasion. Notwithstanding the very high authority of the noble and learned Lords who have opposed the Amendment, I still retain my old opinion; and it is this.
I do not deny—it would be absurd to suggest the contrary—that the rule of canon law depended solely upon the fact of the marriage for the purpose of legitimating children. But at the time when these rules grew up society was in a very different and more primitive condition than it is now. People did not migrate from one district to another as freely as they do to-day. They generally lived, married, and died within the radius of a few miles around the town or village in which they were born. If illegitimate children were born then, in ninety-nine eases out of one hundred, in those days, there was no doubt as to the fact that the illegitimate children were the offspring of a man and woman living in that small community. There was no system of registration in those days. It was not needed for any purpose. It was not needed for the purpose of births, marriages, deaths, or legitimation.
In proposing to put in force a rule, which is a departure from the well established rule in England, we must remember this. It cannot be denied that legitimate children are deserving of such protection as the law can give them.
752
They should be protected against claims which will result in imposing people who may be strangers in blood upon them by means of false declarations. They are entitled to protection. I think the Lord Chancellor would, if he could find means, be most glad to incorporate it in the Bill. There are two conditions of things. There is one in which we wish to legitimate the offspring of these irregular associations when the parents marry. On the other hand, we must protect, so far as we can, the legitimate children. Where legitimation is allowed on the Continent in these circumstances it is necessary to have some record by the parents that these children are their children. I admit that it is very hard to find a solution, but if we cannot find any solution except that of registration, that, after all, is the method adopted in Continental countries, it is the method which certainly seems to me to be the best in modern conditions, changing populations and matters of that kind, and for that practical reason I shall certainly support Lord Raglan's Amendment.
LORD DARLING: There can be no doubt, I think, that the position taken up by the Lord Chancellor does explain the difference between the legitimation by marriage and the producing of certain consequences by registration of the birth of the child. There can be no doubt that it is marriage which legitimates the child, but, if I quite understood the Lord Chancellor, I am sorry that I cannot agree with him when he says that the registration of the child by the parents is not evidence of the legitimacy of the child.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? I did not say that it was not evidence: I said that it was not proof. And it only becomes evidence, I think, after the death of the parents.
LORD DARLING: That is what I thought the Lord Chancellor must have meant, and if I did not catch his words exactly I apologise to him. I was going to say that it is evidence. It is not conclusive evidence, but, if there were a legitimacy case in the Courts, then the fact that the parent had registered the child as his or her legitimate child would be part of the evidence. It would not of itself prove the case, but what one fact in a case ever does prove it? You have

753
to give many facts in evidence in order to win a case, and you do not always win it then.
I do not know that I should trouble very much about this particular Amendment, because I think that a more important Amendment stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, lower down upon the Paper, an Amendment which has to do with the passing of property to a person who is born out of wedlock and is legitimated under this measure. As Lord Parmoor said of the, Barons, who apparently all spoke Latin, the reason why they were unwilling to change the laws of England was that they feared that if they changed them it might affect the holding of their properties and the devolution of their properties to their legitimate children. They were entitled to that view and it does not seem to me that it was an unworthy motive. It is a very worthy motive in a man that actuates him to make such provision, and the Barons of England, to my mind, were perfectly right to raise such a claim, because it would affect property which was theirs and which would devolve upon their successors.
I do not care so much about this Amendment as about the other Amendment which the noble Earl will move presently, and I do not know that I should have troubled your Lordships upon this Amendment if I had not been emboldened by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Shandon. We heard against the Amendment the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord who has been Lord Chancellor quite lately, and I do not know that I should have interfered or entered into combat with two such eminent legal authorities had not the noble Lord from Ireland risen. I then said to myself:
"Look here upon this picture, and on this.
The counterfeit presentment of two—cases."
What the noble Lord who was Lord Chancellor in Ireland said seemed to me of the greatest weight and should command our approval. He gave real reasons why this Amendment should not be rejected. I do not know how far the House will agree with him, but I think he has also greatly supported the case for the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, will move presently.
754
The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, contemplates with an enthusiasm which I can barely understand the putting of these illegitimate children into what seems to me to be a privileged position. There are people who have had a large number of bastards, and I can imagine his reading the history of Augustus the Strong, King of Poland, with delight, for that King had three hundred and fifty-four, according to Mr. Carlyle, whose authority is good enough for me. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said, as he has said before, on the Second Reading of this Bill: When we are giving things to the illegitimate child do not let us be niggardly; give with both hands. I do not mind his giving with both hands if he is giving what people ought to have, but what I do object to is his taking away the legitimate patrimony of a person who is entitled to it with one hand and giving it with the other to the person who was never intended by his own father and mother to have any of it. Consequently, I should support this Amendment, although, to my mind, it is not nearly so important as the next one which the noble Earl will move.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I rise for one moment only to answer two remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord in front of me. He asked two questions which I think answered themselves. He asked why the case should be different as between the illegitimate child and the legitimate child. There are, perhaps, obvious reasons for that, but I ask him in return: Why should the illegitimate child fare better than a legitimate child? The noble and learned Lord puts it that the proof is the same in both cases. Can that be true in the case of a legitimate child? Nothing is easier to prove than the fact whether the parents have or have not been married, unless they have been married at some obscure place. But how on earth are the legitimate heirs many years afterwards to disprove the statement of the mother if she claims that these children were born of a certain parent? How are they to disprove the concubinage at that particular period? You are giving to the illegitimate heirs an advantage over those who are in a legitimate position.

755
One other point. The noble and learned Lord asked why legitimation should depend upon the will of the parent, and suggested that this was not fair. Why do these people marry at all? They marry surely in order to regularise the status of the mother and in order to legitimate the children. But when it comes to asking them to take the most ordinary step, and one which is forced upon the parents of legitimate children—namely, that of registering their children, which is conclusive evidence—the noble and learned Lord says that you are asking too much, and he asks why should legitimation depend upon the parents being unselfish enough to take that step. I do not know what course Lord Raglan will take, but I trust that this will not be treated simply as a legal question, but as a matter of common sense.
LORD RAGLAN: I understood the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to say that if parents failed to re-register a child that child would remain a bastard for the rest of his life. Surely that is not so, for subsection (4) of Clause 2 lays it down that re-registration can be applied for by any other person, and Clause 3 provides that a person claiming that he or his parents, or any remoter ancestor, was legitimated by virtue of this Act, may present a petition to the Courts for a declaration of legitimacy. Therefore I do not see how there can be any great hardship such as the Lord Chancellor suggests.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very unwilling to rise again, but really it is a pity that such arguments should not be answered. The noble Earl said I suggested
that it would be too great a hardship upon the parents to require them to register. I said nothing of the kind. We do ask them to register, and, so far as possible, compel them to do so. All I have said is that if they do not choose to register, then it is hard to put the disability upon the child. With regard to what Lord Raglan has said, I will ask him to think for a moment, and, if the parents do not choose to register, to see how difficult it is for the child, perhaps twenty years afterwards, to bring before the registrar evidence sufficient to induce him to register. We have required the registrar before registering to demand such evidence, and I do not see how a child whose parents have neglected to register will ever succeed by himself. I am very reluctant to insist upon the point, but I really think I must do so. If the noble Lord presses and carries his Amendment, then I shall have to consider what steps must be taken.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think the noble Lord wholly misunderstands Clause 3 if he says that it gives an alternative relief. Clause 3 says this:—
"A person claiming that he or his parent or any remoter ancestor was legitimated by virtue of this Act may, whether domiciled in England or elsewhere and whether a natural-born British subject or not, present a petition under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858."
But if this Amendment is passed he will not be legitimated by virtue of this Act, and any petition under Clause 3 would not be of the least use to him.
On Question, Whether the new subsection shall be there inserted, Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29; Not-Contents. 65.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Falkland, V.

Decies, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Forester, L.

Hood, V.

Hindlip, L.

Bristol, M.

Newton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Avebury, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

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

Plunket, L.

Biddullph, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

Haddington, E.

Carson, L.

Shandon, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Midleton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Darling, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave. V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Beauchamp, E.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Caithness, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Clarendon, E. [Teller]

Bath, M.

Queensbury, M.

Eldon, E.

Lovelace, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Onslow, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Russell, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Olivier, L.

Sandwich, E.

Clwyd, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Stanhope, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Danesfort, L.

Parmoor, L.

Allendale, V.

Desborough, L.

Plumer, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Haldane, V.

Dormer, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

St. Levan, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Sempill, L.

Peel, V.

Emmott, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Gage, L. (V. Guge.) [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Chelmsford, L. Bp.

Gorell, L.

Southwark, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Strachie, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Aberconway, L

Lambourne, L.

Templemore, L.

Arnold, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomson, L.

Atkinson, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER moved to add to subsection (2) the words: "and has later issue of that marriage." The noble Lord said: I rise with a sense of great personal disadvantage because I am moving an Amendment that practically seeks to upset, with one exception, the principle of a clause which has twice been accepted, by your Lordships' House, on the last occasion on the Motion of the Lord Chancellor and on the previous occasion on the Motion of the most rev. Primate, and I am a man who is much impressed by authority and both the noble and learned Viscount and the most rev. Primate are men for whose deep humanity I have the greatest respect and appreciation. If I now set myself against the view which they argued on those occasions, I can assure them that it is not because I do not recognise that the considerations which they put forward are in themselves very weighty and moving, but because it did not appear to me that they were relevant to the case which they were arguing.
What I am proposing to do with this Amendment is practically to say that (he subsequent marriage of two persons who have had a child while one of them was married to another person shall legitimate the offspring born of that union except where there has been subsequent issue of the actual marriage. What I have in mind is that if there has been a temporary breach of the marriage contract but that contract is definitely and distinctly renewed by subsequent off-spring it is certainly a very hard thing
758
to argue that you can have an alternate status of marriage existing between the parties. I fought the Bill in the form in which it was introduced last year by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master—that is to say, that the fact that the child was horn while one of its parents was married—an adulterous union—should not of itself prevent the legitimation of that child. That was argued against by the Lord Chancellor and also by the most rev. Primate and the Bishop of Southwark, and the Lord Chancellor used an argument which I think we may now trust is finally disposed of.
The noble and learned Viscount argued that it might conduce to an immoral union between a married man and the girl whom he desired to corrupt if he could say to her: "Oh! it will not matter whether we have a child or not because we will afterwards get married and legitimate that child." I think that, having regard? to a case in which the noble and learned Viscount sat for a considerable time not very long ago he will recognise that under the present conditions of society that is hardly a cogent argument. People who are prepared to go so cold-bloodedly into the question of whether they would have children or not are quite prepared to avoid having children if they think it would be inconvenient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not sit in the case.
LORD OLIVIER: I beg the noble and learned Viscount's pardon. But he will see the intention of my argument which is this: that I cannot conceive of any

759
human beings who are drifting into adultery dealing with the question of their union on these terms, and if they do I think it is very much better that they should enter into a union in good faith and with the intention of accepting, all the consequences of any kind of conjugal union. But the argument that it would conduce to immorality was frankly abandoned later by the Bishop of Southwark and I think it was also abandoned by the most rev. Primate, who said he did not desire to argue the clause on those grounds. Consequently I do hope that we have heard the last of that kind of argument against the clauses of this Bill.
But it was further argued that the fact that a child had been born illegitimately, of an adulterous union, would cause pressure to be put on the wife or the husband who had remained faithful to induce them to divorce their partner so that that child should be legitimated, and that that would cause hardship. That is an argument which I think is irrelevant in ordinary circumstances. With regard to matrimonial conditions, we have two schools of thought. One of them is the school which has a very simple view indeed, the view of the Catholic Christian Church that any kind of commerce between the sexes otherwise than under the sanction of marriage is a deadly sin, and concurrently with that, that a conjugal union once contracted and sanctioned is firm and cannot in any circumstances be dissolved. But the school represented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster and by those who wish to reform the Divorce Laws, desire that that the institution of marriage should merely record the spiritual meaning and intention of marriage as conceived by the Christian ideal.
I am instancing the latest reform of the Marriage Law which gave the wife of a husband who had been unfaithful the right to divorce him on the ground of infidelity alone, which had been given only to the husband before. It is the recognised right to divorce. But that addition to the recognised right of divorce which gave, the wife the right to divorce her husband, was really a concession to the strong feeling of women that adultery unfaithfulness, is in itself an act of dissolution of marriage, that the marriage is
760
dissolved and broken when one of the partners has become unfaithful, that it was the same with regard to one partner as with the other, and that the law should recognise that the marriage had been broken and formally dissolved. If, therefore, the marriage has been broken by infidelity and one partner has found another partner then, if the guilty partner remains contumacious and refuses to return to co-habitation, to conjugal union, it is only reasonable that after he or she has been divorced or the other partner has died, the adulterous couple should be able to legitimate their children, because they had entered into a real bona fide conjugal union.
But I feel the force of this consideration which underlies my Amendment—that if, after a marriage has been broken, it has been repaired and the erring partner has returned to his or her original consort and has resumed cohabitation and conjugal union and there has been a reconstitution of the family and further issue, then it would be an unjustifiable and a very difficult thing, I should say, to contend that the previous offspring could be regarded as legitimate, because that would be tantamount to arguing that a man could have two wives, or alternate wives at different times. Therefore, my Amendment practically amounts to this—that where there has been obviously no intention of marriage, but an intention and desire to re-establish the broken union and to resuscitate it, it would not be fair, possibly, and there is a difficulty in agreeing that the child of an adulterous union should be legitimated. But in any other case I really cannot see that there is anything to be said for the clause as it stands, because the argument used by the most rev. Primate and the noble and learned Viscount that it was a hardship to the virtuous partner to be placed in a position where pressure may be used to induce him or her to divorce the erring partner, is not really, as it seems to me, relevant to the argument upon which this Bill is founded.
The principle upon which this Bill is founded is that two persons who have had an illegitimate child and who desire to marry and legitimate that child shall have the right to do so, and that the child shall have the right to be so legitimated. Those considerations can stand by themselves. They are good and

761
are admitted in the principle of this Bill, The exception taken to them is that because one of two persons whose union has been temporarily broken is liable to be put under somewhat distressing pressure to allow the union to be declared legally broken, therefore out of consideration for the rights of other persons the rights of the child must be set aside. It is illegal, no doubt, that the partner who has remained faithful shall be exposed to that distressing dilemma: but it is a dilemma which is to be got over purely by arguments directed to their own feelings and the feelings of the erring partner. It is not a position which can be properly affected by referring to the outside considerations of this question of legitimation.
Although the case put by the most rev. Primate and the noble Lord is, no doubt, a distressing one, it is not one which is really relevant to the principle of the Bill and, consequently, as regards the general clause, I am against it, but as regards the particular cases I have given, where the union has been resumed and evidence has been given by the resumption of that union that there has been condonation and that the marriage union has not been broken and a new marriage union formed—in that case this exception should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("and has Inter issue of that marriage").—(Lord Olivier.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I could not possibly advise the House to accept this Amendment, It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the Amendment runs counter to a decision which your Lordships have twice taken—namely, to confine this Rill to the issue of persons who were unmarried and not to extend it to the issue of an adulterous union. I hope I shall not be asked to argue that general point again to-day, but my own feeling is just the same as it always was and I do not think the principle I have laid down is directly attacked by any of the Amendments. But even assuming your Lordships to be doubtful about and, indeed, to be opposed to the subsection, I do not think your Lordships will accept this Amendment. Its operation is so capricious that I cannot think the House will agree to it.
762
Just let me put two simple cases to which this Amendment would apply. A married woman has a child by her paramour and afterwards survives her husband and marries the paramour. This Amendment would have the effect that, if after the birth of the child of herself and her paramour she continued to live with her paramour, that child would on her subsequent marriage be legitimated: but if, after the birth of this adulterine issue, she goes back to her husband and has children by him, then the child of herself and her paramour is not legitimate—a result so capricious and absurd that I cannot really think that the noble Lord fully intends it.
Let me put the other case. A married man has two establishments. He has a wife and a mistress. He has children by both, possibly born about the same time. He afterwards survives his wife and marries his mistress. Under this Amendment the status of the child of the mistress would depend upon whether it was born before or after the child of the wife. If it happened that the child of the mistress was born first and the child of the wife later, then the child of the mistress would not come under the Act. If it happened that the child of the wife was born first and that of the mistress afterwards, then that later child would come under the Act. I do not think the House can possibly contemplate such a result, I hope, whatever you may think on the general question, your Lordships will not accept this particular Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: As your Lordships know, I have to the best of my power opposed the principle that is found in the subsection, but your Lordships have unequivocally decided against the view which I still strongly hold. I thoroughly appreciate the support of those views that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has given this afternoon, but I will ask him to consider whether it is worth while asking the House once more to repeat the decision which they have given without any hesitation and which I have been compelled more than once, with great reluctance, to accept. Unless there is some chance of reversing the result of the past, I see no reason for submitting this matter to a decision again.
LORD OLIVIER: I should like to say with regard to what fell from the noble

763
and learned Viscount, as to the case of the woman who had a child and who reverted to her husband and had further children, that that is not in my opinion, an anomaly. In that case the woman has gone back. She has said: "I repent of my relapse. I did not intend, and I do not intend, to contract a marriage or to found a family with my paramour. I go back to my husband and I recognise that my only legitimate children are those of my husband and myself, of our marriage." I do not regard it as a paradox or an anomaly. I regard it as a precise instance of truth. I was asking that where a marriage has not actually been permitted to be broken, where there has been repentance and where the marriage state has been resumed, there you could not ask that the legitimation of the outside family should take place. I accept, however, the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and in the circumstances ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved to leave out sub-Section (3). The noble Lord said: I move the omission of this subsection because it-does not appear to have any effect. If it has any effect I should like to know what it is.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 18 to 21, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Raglan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This subsection has an effect. The first clause of the Bill deals with status and status only, and not with property. Property is dealt with by the later clauses to which we are coming. The only effect of the subsection is to confine Clause I to status and not to make it extend to other matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2:
Re-registration of birth of legitimated persons.
(2) It shall be the duty of the parents of a legitimated person, or, if one of the parents is dead, of the surviving parent, within the time hereinafter specified, to furnish to the Registrar-General information with a view to obtaining the re-registration
764
of the birth of that person: that is to say:—

(a) If the marriage took place before the commencement of this Act. within two months of such commencement;

(b) If the marriage takes place after the commencement of this Act, within one month after the date of the marriage.

(4) The failure of the parents or either of them to furnish information as required by this section in respect of any person legitimated by virtue of this Act shall not affect the legitimation of that person, or affect the light of one parent or of any other person to apply for re-registration under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "two" and insert "six." The noble and learned Viscount said: It was suggested during the Second Reading of the Bill that the period of two months, which was allowed by subsection (2) (a) of Clause 2 for registration after the commencement of this Act, was too short and that people in that short period might not become aware of their rights. Therefore I propose to substitute six months for two months. As regards the next Amendment, I am not sure that I ought to move it unless your Lordships think right that I should do so. People who marry after the Act comes into operation ought perhaps to register their child as soon as possible after the marriage. However, I will leave that until we come to the Amendment dealing with it. I move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("two") and insert ("six").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: May I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that he should move the next Amendment also? After all, three months is not a long time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, on paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "one" and insert "three." The noble and learned Viscount said: I did not intend to move this had I not been pressed to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to omit from subsection (4) "or affecting the right of one parent or of any other person to apply for re-registration under this section." The noble Earl said: This Amendment raises the question which we discussed just now; therefore I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with more than a few words upon it. The object of the registration is to furnish some proof. If the registration is by both parents undoubtedly that object is attained, but if the registration is by one parent alone, the mother, there is undoubtedly a danger that from maternal solicitude there may be false registration. Registration will form a considerable part of the evidence that will have to be given to a Court subsequently, and for that reason I hope the learned Lord Chancellor will see his way to meet to some extent the very genuine fears that are felt upon this point. I cannot see why you should have three procedures. You have one procedure of registration afforded by this Bill. If that is not adopted you have the right of a child, although unregistered, to prove its legitimacy—an exceedingly difficult thing. Why have another procedure? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("person") to the end of subsection (4).—(The Earl of Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel it very difficult to deal with this Amendment otherwise than I dealt with that which the House has just rejected. If failure to register does not affect legitimation—and we have passed those words—why should it affect the right to apply for registration? Registration is not an essential of legitimation. It is for the convenience of everybody that the facts should be set down in proper order, and I really do not see why registration should not be obtained even at a late period if it has not been made in time. I can only assure the noble Earl that I have considered, and I will consider again, what he has said to us and see whether I can suggest anything which would in any way meet his views, but I cannot accept his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to add to subsection (4) "but such legiti-
766
mation shall not entitle any such person to share in any intestate estate as one of the next-of-kin" The noble Earl said: This raises the point touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Shandon and Lord Darling, who expressed their strong opinion upon it. Your Lordships, therefore, will forgive me if I say only very briefly what seems to me to be the danger. Failing registration, and failing any action on the part of the parents, to lay down what children may be legitimated seems to me to be absolutely wrong according to common sense and extremely dangerous in law. To lay down that, after a long period of years, those who legitimately have regarded themselves as their father's heirs should have the task of disproving a set of assertions which are supported by the word of one of the chief actors and in reference to matters into which they could not possibly search, is imposing an impossible task. It seems to me so inequitable that I urge your Lordships to reconsider the decision you reached a few moments ago and in the more limited scope of this Amendment give me your support.
Amendment moved—
Line 34, at end insert the said words.—(The. Earl of Midleton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I find it a little difficult to understand the meaning of this Amendment after what has taken place. The object of legitimation is not merely to give the legitimated person a civil status, but to enable him to share in a disposition by will with those children who are legitimate. The noble Earl has, for some reason or another, selected the question of intestacy, and his Amendment proposes that subsequent legitimation "shall not entitle any such person to share in any intestate estate as one of the next-of-kin." Why he has done that he has not told us. Why does he not say that he shall not share under any disposition by will? Why has he limited it to the next-of-kin? It seems to me an Amendment that has no logical foundation at: all and is in direct conflict with the logical consequences of the provision your Lordships have just passed.
LORD DARLING: The noble and learned Lord has done less than justice to the argument of the noble Earl. It seems to the noble Earl that intestacy might well be selected, and is selected by

767
him for this reason. Ex hypothesi you have hero a person who is a bastard. His parents marry, but they do not take the trouble of informing the world by registering the legitimation. They do not take any means to inform the world that he really is their legitimate offspring. His father or his mother, in making a will, may put him in and leave him whatever they like, but they do not take the trouble to do that. What is the view of any sensible person with regard to it? Is it not that they do not desire to acknowledge him by even putting his name down in the registry office and that they do not desire him to share in the property? If he does share—and this is the real point—it will diminish the portions of the other children, and will certainly diminish the share of the next-of-kin. The noble Earl says that if the child's own parents are so indifferent to him as all this, why should the noble and learned Lord opposite adopt him. I think this Amendment is deserving of support, and if the noble Earl goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am a little astonished at the argument to which we have just listened. This is a Bill which proposes to enact a principle, a principle which is in force in nearly every civilised country in Europe except our own—the principle of legitimation by subsequent marriage. The House assented to that principle on the Second Reading, and it has just assented to it on several clauses which have been discussed. Here we are dealing, not with the principle at all but with a subsection which refers to legislation only, and we have already decided that the status of the child is not determined by registration but by the subsequent marriage. Here is an Amendment which suddenly, in the middle of a clause dealing with registration, puts in a provision that the legitimated child, because of the subsequent marriage, is not to be entitled to share in any intestate estate as one of the next-of-kin. Whether you share as the next-of-kin depends on whether your parents have been married or whether you are legitimated in some form. The Bill proposes to make people legitimate, and thereupon they get the ordinary title that belongs to their status as part of the next-of-kin. Why should the noble Earl say that if parents do not take trouble the children are to suffer? We are not concerned with the
768
parents but with the children, and the whole purpose of the Bill is to get some justice for the children. This is a wrong Amendment and I am wholly unable to support it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to take any question of form, but to begin with, this Amendment is plainly in the wrong place. The clause which deals with succession to intestacy is Clause 4, and what the noble Earl should do is to vote against that clause. But I really do not understand the meaning of the Amendment. It says "such legitimation shall not entitle any such person to share in any intestate estate." What is the meaning of "such legitimation"? Does it mean any legitimation under this Bill? I do not know. Does it mean only the legitimation of a person whose parents have not furnished information as required by the Bill? One would like to know what it means before voting upon it. I do not understand why it has been confined to next-of-kin.
But I do not want to dwell on these formal difficulties. We are really arguing the old point. If your Lordships are agreed that subsequent marriage shall result in legitimation I do not see how you can reject Clause 4, which says that a legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring after the 31st day of December, 1925—as it will be—be entitled to take any interest in real or personal property in like manner as if he had been born legitimate. If a parent wants to cut a child out he can do so under his will. If he does not and makes a will leaving his children to inherit it is not unnatural to assume that he would like his inheritance to go to all his children, to those who were born in wedlock and also to those who have become legitimated by marriage.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am sorry to have to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. This Amendment was drawn by my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner to meet those specific cases where parents did not take the trouble to acknowledge a child and make a will. For that reason I must ask your Lordships to divide.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Falkland, V.

Carson, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Argyll, D.

Hood, V.

Darling, L.

Forester, L.

Bath, M.

Avebury, L.

Harris, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Shandon, L.

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L (E Galloway.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Haldane, V.

Hemphill, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Peel, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wellington, D.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Northbourne, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Olivier, L.

Aberconway, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Queensbury, M.

Arnold, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Atkinson, L.

Parmoor, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Plumer, L.

Bradford, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Caithness, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

St. Levan, L.

Eldon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Sempill, L.

Lovelace, E.

Danesfort, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

Sinclair, L.

Onslow, E.

Dynevor, L.

Somers, L.

Sandwich, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Southwark, L.

Stanhope, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Stanmore, L.

Emmott, L.

Strachie, L.

Allendale, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Templemore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Terrington, L.

Burnham, V.

Gorell, L.

Thomson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Declarations of legitimacy of legitimated persons.
3. A person claiming that he or his parent or any remoter ancestor was legitimated by virtue of this Act may, whether domiciled in England or elsewhere and whether a natural-born British subject or not, present a petition under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, and that Act, subject to such necessary modifications as may be prescribed by rules of court, shall apply accordingly.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved to leave out "or any remoter ancestor." The noble Lord said: The chief object of this Bill is to remove the stigma on illegitimate persons. It is ridiculous to suggest that a person suffers from any stigma because his grandparents were illegitimate. And the only thing is that in certain cases people might be able to take property not claimed by their parents or grandparents. Now the words "or any remoter ancestor" in Clause 3 are no doubt put in to balance
770
the words "or more remote issue" in Clause 6, but if your Lordships look at the two clauses you will see that they do not correspond. Clause 6 is of general application, whereas Clause 3 only applies to persons whose identity has hitherto been unrecognised. I thank persons whose identity has not been recognised for three generations had better be left in obscurity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("or any remoter ancestor").—(Lord Raglan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Really the noble Lord does not fully understand the meaning of this clause. It deals with this case: Supposing a person legitimated under this Act has a legitimate grandchild, which may happen next year or may be the case when the Act passes, and supposing that legitimated person dies, the grandchild would in the ordinary course succeed to the property, and this gives the right to the grandchild to assert the legitimacy of his grandparent This case may arise the day after the Act takes effect and this clause only deals with

771
applications to the Courts. Why should not any person who claims that his grandfather or grandmother had become legitimate under this Act have the right to apply to the Court for a declaration to that effect? I see no reason whatever for confining it to the case where the status of the father only is in issue. I do not see why it should not apply to every generation.
LORD RAGLAN: The noble Viscount himself said that it is almost impossible for a child to prove the legitimacy of a person who died many years ago, and I think it applies to this case.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Intestacies.
4.—(1) A legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, be entitled to take any interest in real or personal property in like manner as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) This section does not affect the descent of an estate tail or other entailed interest in real or personal property.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the substitution of "nineteen hundred and twenty-five" for "nineteen hundred and twenty-four."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11. leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("twenty-five").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "whether created before or after the commencement of this Act." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is only intended to make the clause more clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, at end insert ("whether created before or after the commencement of this Act").—(Lord Raglan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Future wills, settlements and other dispositions.
(5) This section shall take effect subject to any contrary intention expressed in the disposition.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (5), after "expressed," to insert "or implied." The noble Lord said: It seems to me that in some cases the clause as it now stands might lead to the frustration of the clearly implied wish of the testator, and I therefore move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, after ("expressed") insert ("or implied")—(Lord Raglan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am rather afraid of inserting the words "or implied," and I prefer the clause as it stands, but I will consider between now and the Report Stage whether I can suggest some recognised form of words which will satisfy the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider very carefully. We have trouble enough, sitting in this House judicially, in deciding the meaning of the word "expressed," and to put in the words "or implied" is to open up a sea of trouble for us.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Savings.
8.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment on the Paper has at any rate the merit of being perfectly simple. The subsection which I desire to strike out is curious in several respects. It is perfectly straightforward. It excludes from the operation of this Act the holding of any title or dignity of honour. The purpose of my Amendment is to leave out that subsection and to give more practical effect to what I understand to be the principle of the Bill—namely, that where parents have married subsequently to the birth of the child that child is legitimated. The definition of legitimation has been often given, and perhaps never more clearly than by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in reply to the first

773
Amendment on the Paper to-night. This subsection cuts right across the principle of the Bill. It removes for certain purposes those who, for the rest of the purposes, are declared to be legitimate. In fact, it is totally contrary to the spirit of the Bill as set forth in Clause 4 (1), where, again, the words of the noble and learned Viscount, in reply to Lord Midleton's last Amendment apply absolutely, word for word, in opposition to the principle of this subsection.
I ought to say that a year ago I did make the same Motion to omit this subsection, but I cannot think that because of that I am asking your Lordships to traverse again old ground. Last year there was practically no discussion. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, merely stated that the omission of this subsection would give rise to difficulty. He did not go on to explain how the difficulty would come about. The Bill at that time was not sponsored by the Government. It was a Private Bill sponsored by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who, when I moved the omission of the subsection, said he was wholly in favour of the principle, but his attitude was one of benevolent neutrality, because, knowing the pitfalls that beset Private Members' Bills, he was not willing to do anything to make the passage of his Bill more difficult. The position is now different. This Bill is sponsored by the Government. There is scarcely a doubt chat it will pass into law, and there is no need to fear that an Amendment will make it more difficult to carry the Bill. I therefore venture seriously to ask your Lordships, on what is probably the last occasion, to consider the effect of this subsection.
There is one further difference. During the time which has intervened between last year and now I have spoken to a number of your Lordships, and others, as to the effect of this subsection, and with hardly an exception I have found that no one is willing to defend this subsection. Some have only said that they felt very uneasy about its inclusion while others have gone so far as to term it absolutely ridiculous. I would ask you to consider what exactly the effect of the inclusion of this subsection is. It puts a distinction between those who are titled and those who are not titled, and it would
774
have this effect. Supposing there were two people, each of whom had a son and then married the woman by whom he had that son. One of them in later years prospers and becomes a knight; he dies, and his son is legitimated for all purposes. The other is even more successful, as these things go, and becomes a baronet. Then he dies, aid his son is in a very curious position. By many of the clauses of this Bill he is legitimated. By this subsection he is not legitimated for the purpose of succeeding his father; he is a hybrid, neither legitimate nor illegitimate.
We have heard on other Amendments this afternoon the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, suggesting that legitimation should not depend upon the will of the father, but here it is a case where it would depend on whether the father had, subsequently, say, to the birth of his child, become a baronet or a member of your Lordships' House. That seems to me to be totally contrary to the principle on which this Bill is founded. On other matters we have been told that difficulties of proof arise, but here there could be no difficulty of proof. Before the legitimated son could in any way succeed his father he would have to bring full proof of the marriage of his parents subsequent to his birth.
In fact, only ore answer has ever been given as to the reason why this subsection should have been inserted—namely, that otherwise there would be difficulty over the matter of patents. The words in the patents, as your Lordships are aware, are, "issue lawfully begotten, or to be begotten." But the whole purpose of this Bill is to assume that those who are the children of parents subsequently married are lawfully begotten. It is a legal fiction. And the law already overrides a difficulty of the same kind. For example, supposing that a baronet or a member of your Lordships' House were to have a son one day after marriage. That son would be declared to be lawfully begotten. The whole world would know that he had not been, that he must have been begotten seven or eight months at least before the marriage of his parents, but the legal fiction would hold that he was lawfully begotten. Why should a distinction over this matter be introduced between one who, say, is begotten seven or eight months before the

775
marriage, and one who is begotten ten months or a year before? There can be no question as to any interference with the true descent of the blood, because, under Clause I (2), it is clear that the legitimated son would be of identically the same blood as the second son born after the marriage of the parents.
I do not wish to press this matter unduly, but I have made inquiries, and I gather that no real difficulty would be created by the omission of the subsection, and that even if there were, even if ambiguity might arise if this subsection were struck out, surely it is not consonant with the dignity of Parliament to say that we must leave this subsection in because if we take it out there would be difficulty. It would be perfectly easy to devise words which could be introduced on the Report stage which would meet the difficulties, and I for one would, of course, raise no possible objection to any form of words to meet any ambiguity that might be considered by legal minds to have arisen on the excision of this subsection, provided that those words were consonant with the whole principle of the Bill, and that they make this Bill apply to all, whether they be members of your Lordships' House, or baronets, or not.
I cannot conceive how it can be a defensible position to pass a Bill applying in its entirety to knights, squires, and artisans, but with a definite excision for this purpose of members of your Lordships' House or of baronets. It is far from my wish to press any personal feeling of mine on your Lordships, and unless I receive support I shall not go further than I have done in calling your Lordships' attention to it, but I have been given to understand that a number of your Lordships are uneasy on this matter. The subsection is clearly based on class distinction and on nothing else, and I hope there may be others who will rise to protest against its inclusion.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 39 to 42, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Gorell.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Before the noble and learned Viscount opposite answers, I hope he will give close consideration to the question which arises here. The Amendment of my noble friend behind me is confined to subsection (1). Subsection (1) does no less than this: it drives a hole into the
776
principle of the Bill. If the Bill passes with this subsection in it then it will be said all over the country: "Oh, you are legitimated if your parents married subsequent to your birth, excepting in the House of Lords." I do not think that a desirable state of things to create. We do not wish to claim in this House exceptional privileges and exceptional status.
Why should not the descent of a dignity stand on the same footing as the descent of an estate? There is no difference in law between them. A dignity is an incorporeal hereditament, and descends in the same way. It seems to me that my noble friend is right in saying that you cannot present what subsection (1) proposes in any other light than in that of a hole driven into the principle of the Bill. It does not necessarily follow that the noble and learned Viscount would wish to answer upon this point at once. He may wash to see that guarding words are put in so as to save the disturbance of anything in a writ of title. I express the hope, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will give careful consideration to this. It may put your Lordships' House in an invidious position in the country.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have listened to what has been said by the two noble Lords, suggesting that this makes a distinction between members of your Lordships' House and others, but, as I read the Bill, there is another exception. Clause 4 (2) applies to property. The whole clause runs as follows:—
"(1) A legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, be entitled to take any interest in real or personal property in like manner as if he had been born legitimate.
"(2) This section does not affect the descent of an estate tail or other entailed interest in real or personal property"
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this excepts also from the provisions of this Bill estates that are entailed, and that a legitimated person would not succeed. If I am right therefore it is not only a case which affects legitimated persons who might succeed to Peerages or baronetcies, but also those who might succeed to an estate tail.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: An estate tail descends by the form of the instrument. It gives its origin to an ancient Statute,

777
the Statute De Donis on which my noble friend opposite, I think, is laying somewhat violent hands, with my full approval. But it does descend according to the terms of the instrument, and therefore it is not a question of inheritance.
LORD RAGLAN: The noble Viscount is a member of the Socialist Party. As I understand, it is one of the tenets of the Socialist Party that they are averse to people holding hereditary titles. It is rather surprising, therefore, to find the noble Lord supporting a proposal which will certainly add to the number of people holding such titles.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a remarkable thing that in every one of these Bills which have hitherto come to this House, not only the one moved some time ago by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster but the Bill which came up to us from the House of Commons, these words are found, and this is the first time I remember that it has been proposed—unless it was done by the noble Lord last year—to omit the words. My noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne is, of course, right. It is not the only exception from the Bill. There is the estate tail to which he refers. There is another exception in Clause 5 and there are others to which I need not refer, but I think they all rest upon the same principle as this.
It is a principle to which my noble and learned friend opposite, Lord Haldane, has just referred. It is that we do not propose to disturb the effect of any instrument. As he says, the exception of the estate tail is founded upon that principle. I was not responsible, by the way, for attacking the Statute De Donis. That was done by my noble friend, and again by the noble Lord opposite; but I accept the result. Still, that is the meaning of that exception—that you respect the form of the gift of the estate tail. As I read it, this exception rests upon the same principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, has truly said, all these titles are conferred upon a person and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten. That is the established and consecrated form, and unless you are to alter the descent under that form this provision, or something of the same kind, must be retained in the Bill. I am bound to say that even if this subsection were out I am not
778
satisfied that the effect would not be the same, because I do not find in the earlier clauses anything which would alter the descent of a dignity or title of honour. Still, I always think it is better if these matters are clear, and I hope that the House will adhere to the decision at which it arrived on the last occasion to keep this clause in the Bill.
LORD GORELL: The Lord Chancellor has not answered one question that I raised—namely, whether the whole purpose of legitimation was not to declare a person lawfully begotten. Of course, if it is not, then much of the purpose of the Bill seems to me to be gone; but if it is, I cannot see how it cannot be held to affect this subsection. In many other parts of the Bill it is true there is an express intention that it should not interfere with any Act now in operation. But by Clause 8 it is so for all time, even, for example, as affecting patents to be created in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I did not answer the noble Lord on that point. It is said that there is one thing an Act of Parliament cannot do; that is, to make a man into a woman. There is one other thing which it cannot do; that is, to turn a person not lawfully begotten into a person lawfully begotten.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Right of illegitimate child and mother of illegitimate child to succeed on intestacy of the other.
11.—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, the mother of an illegitimate child dies intestate, as respects all or any of her real or personal property, the illegitimate child if surviving shall be entitled to take any interest therein to which he would have been entitled if he had been born legitimate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "if surviving" and insert "or, if he is dead, his issue," and after the first "he" to insert "or such issue." The noble and learned Viscount said: I think this is really an omission in the Bill. The effect of Clause 11 is that when the mother of an

779
illegitimate child dies intestate the child shall or may become entitled, in default of any will, to her property or some share of it. It may happen that the child is dead and has left issue, and I think that ease ought to he provided for in the same way as for legitimate next-of-kin. The words proposed provide for that contingency.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("if surviving") and insert ("or, if he is dead, his issue")
Page 6, line 8, after ("he") insert ("or such issue").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

MONEYLENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carson)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move to leave out all words after "That" in his Motion and to insert "it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament." I understand that my noble and learned friend has no great objection to this course being adopted provided that it is not of a shelving nature. Although I cannot give him any definite date when the Bill in the other House is likely to he taken, I can assure him that the Government are anxious that both Bills shall be referred to a Joint Select Committee as the quickest way of arriving at some solution of this difficult matter.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, my only desire is that the Bill shall be proceeded with. I believe there is a growing feeling
780
in the country that it is a measure of a very pressing nature. I wish that somebody else had received all the correspondence on the subject that has come to me. I am entirely in the hands of the Government because, even if your Lordships pass the Bill, I have no way of bringing it forward in another place unless the Government are prepared to support it. What I would like my noble friend to tell me is whether the Government will give facilities in the other House for a Second Reading of the Bill which is already before that House, or are we to wait while that Bill is blocked night after night until it gets through by some fortuitous chance, or are the Government themselves making a Motion in the other House to refer the Bill which has been introduced there to a Joint Committee without waiting for Second Reading? And are they prepared forthwith to take such steps as will enable the Joint Committee to be set up? that is all I want. When that is done I shall be perfectly satisfied with the offer that has been made in the Motion of my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend for the courteous way in which he has received the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Desborough. My noble and learned friend is aware, I think, that the Government are very anxious that this Bill and the Commons Bill should be referred to the same Committee: indeed, it is a matter of arrangement in another place that the Bill which is pending there should be referred to a Select Committee. I cannot give my noble and learned friend any more definite assurance than that, but that is the state of the case. I would like to remind him, however, of something he knows very well and which I may be permitted to recall to your Lordships. By the action which the Government are taking in asking that this Bill should be referred to a Joint Select Committee they are not prejudicing him in the least. Supposing my noble and learned friend went on with this Bill, his great position in your Lordships' House would enable him, no doubt, to pass it through this House. It would then go down to another place, but it would get no further unless special measures were taken to assist him.

781
Therefore, by referring it to a Joint Committee we are giving it the very best chance we can.
If he is prepared to do that upon a matter which is very greatly interesting the public, and to fall in with the arrangement which has already been come to in another place, he will have a much better chance of passing his Bill and dealing with this most intricate subject than he would in any other way. It would not be in order, nor would it be decorous on my part, to compare the two Bills, but I have such confidence in my learned friend that I expect his is the better Bill of the two. I confidently hope that he will allow us to pass this Amendment.
LORD CARSON: I did not quite understand whether my noble friend said that there has been an arrangement made with the other House. I thought he said so. All we want to do is to expedite the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble and learned Lord press his Motion to go into Committee to-day? If so, I must put it.
LORD CARSON: No, I am prepared to fall in with the request of my noble friend, because the Government has the whole conduct of the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

LAW OF PROPERTY (CONSOLIDATIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
SETTLED LAND (CONSOLIDATIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
TRUSTEE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LAND REGISTRATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LAND CHARGES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the remaining stages of the Bill.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MARKETING OF FOOD PRODUCTS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given notice to call attention to the terms of reference of the Imperial Economic Committee and to the exclusion of British home produce from participation in the annual grant of £1,000,000 for the better marketing of Empire produce in Great Britain in con-

783
tradiction f the previous assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Secretary; and to move, That any grants for improved marketing of food-products of the overseas parts of the Empire in Great Britain should be accompanied by corresponding grants in favour of the British home producer.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to a statement made in another place that £1,000,000 annually was to be given to farmers of the Dominions for marketing their produce in this country. How did this arise? So far at I can make out it has arisen in this way. As we are aware, at one of the series of Elections that we have had His Majesty's Conservative Government were beaten when they went to the country upon the question of taxes upon food and Imperial Preference. The country, as we know, rejected the proposal for a tax upon food. The Government had to look to see how they could carry out the pledges which they had made at the last Election that there should be no taxes upon any foodstuff of any kind. They were, however, pledged to give a preference to the Dominions, and, therefore, they were in the very awkward position of either breaking faith with the Colonies or breaking faith with the electorate here.
How were they to redeem the promise which they had made to the Dominions? They hit upon a rather good expedient from their point of view. They thought that they would do what the previous Conservative Government had done, sacrifice the British farmer. What am I referring to? I am referring to the way in which they allowed Colonial cattle to be introduced into this country against the wishes of the agriculturists of the country. During the fiscal debate last December in another place the Prime Minister said that he adhered to the pledge of no taxes on food, but added that it was quite true you could never get a complete system of Preference without thorn. Then he went on to say that at the present moment a tax on food was not a question of practical politics. What did he propose instead? As I have said, he is going to sacrifice once more the British farmer, because he said he was going to give the equivalent of £1,000,000 a year to the Colonies to develop Empire trade, and for marketing in the first place. Observe that he said "marketing
784
in the first place," thereby allowing us to draw the inference that later the farmer of this country is going to suffer in some other way.
The Prime Minister said he would have to set up an Imperial Economic Committee. What are the terms of the reference to that Committee? As given to us later they were these:—
"To consider the possibility or improving the methods of preparing for market and marketing within the United Kingdom the food products of the oversea parts of the Empire with a view to increasing the consumption of such products in the United Kingdom in preference to imports from foreign countries, and to promote the interests both of producers and consumers."
How on earth the interest of the producer is to be protected by making it cheaper to bring over food from the Dominions I cannot conceive.
It was agreed that, in the first place, they should concentrate on meat and fruit. I quite agree that by giving £1,000,000 a year to bring food into this country you may undoubtedly make that food cheaper, but you are certainly not going to help the farmer of this country. Strong Free Trader that I am, I have always been opposed to bounties, and I cannot see why the Government should tax the people of this country, including the farmer himself, in order that he may have competition in meat and fruit from the producers of the Dominions. Those who live in the counties that produce fruit know that those counties suffer very severely indeed under present conditions through the competition of fruit that comes in from the Dominions. I am not complaining of that, but I am complaining that bounties should be given in this way. In New Zealand and Australia the bounties are actually given for the export of meat and other articles to this country, but that is the affair of Australia and New Zealand. If they like to help their farmers in this way we cannot complain, but we do say that the British Government has no business to put taxes on this country for the benefit of producers in the Colonies and to the detriment of the producers at home.
This Economic Committee is very one-sided from the English point of view. There are only four members of the United Kingdom on it, while there are twelve members from the Dominions and one from India. There is also another

785
remarkable thing about its constitution. While there are three agricultural members of the Dominions there is not one from the United Kingdom—rather a curious state of things. Why should this country not be represented on that Committee from the agricultural point of view? In the Prime Minister's speech to which I have referred there is a suggestion that there should be increased facilities in the matter of railway charges and shipping; that is to say, that there should be a subsidy in order to help the Dominions to bring the goods to the various ports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debate seemed rather nervous about this matter, because he said:—
"Great care will have to be taken in the administration of this policy, about which details will be given at a later stage to make quite sure that we do not, in so doing, inflict an injustice on our own agricultural producers."
That is exactly what I am saying, and I am asking your Lordships to express your opinion that some equivalent should be given to British agriculturists.
There is, however, another statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a Question in another place. He said this:—
"The terms of reference to the Imperial Economic Committee do not contemplate the consideration of improved methods of marketing British produce. As my hon. friend is aware, funds have already been provided for assisting by way of loan co-operative enterprises for the marketing of home produce, and the Ministry of Agriculture is carrying out a series of investigations into the marketing problem as a whole The first Report will shortly be published, and it will then be possible to estimate what further assistance may be considered necessary in this direction."
That is no answer at all. It is no answer to say that the British farmer should be perfectly satisfied with what the Government are doing for him. We do not want to be told that because we have obtained some grants already we should be satisfied. I want equivalent terms for the British farmer, who has to withstand great competition. I do not fear competition. Strong Free Trader as I am, I think it is unfair to give more than £1,000,000 a year in order to enable the Dominion farmer to compete in this country and sell his goods at less price than they can be produced here. It is not fair.
I ask this question: Why are we taxing this country in order to help the Dominion
786
farmer to undersell the British farmer? That is what it really comes to. We want equality of treatment, and if we are to have subsidies of any kind—I object to them—why should we not have subsidies for the British farmer as well as for the farmer in the Dominions? If the Dominion farmer is to have marketing facilities why should not the British farmer have the same facilities? I am voicing the opinion of every farmer in this country in saying that it is a, great injustice indeed that this sum of money should be given in order to enable the Dominion farmers to bring their produce here at less expense and compete with our own producers. I have not the slightest objection to competition. We have to stand it, and to meet it, but it is most unfair that a grant of this kind should be given unless an equivalent grant is made to the British farmer. I beg to move.
Moved, That any grants for improved marketing of food-products of the overseas parts of the Empire in Great Britain should be accompanied by corresponding grants in favour of the British home producer.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the only complaint I have to make about the noble Lord who introduced this subject is that in reading the terms of reference to the Imperial Economic Committee he failed to lay stress on the right words, and that makes a great difference to the way that that reference is understood. First of all, there were two inquiries to be undertaken by this Imperial Economic Committee. They were related, although they really were separate and independent inquiries. The noble Lord has given one reference and I only want to read a few words of it again. As regards improving the methods of preparing for market and marketing, the terms of reference said:—
"…. with a view to increasing the consumption of such products in the United Kingdom in preference to imports from foreign countries.…"
In reading it the noble Lord slurred over altogether the words "foreign countries." I hardly heard them. They did not sound resonant enough, and that is really the whole point. The statement ends up, as the noble Lord said, with the words:—
"It has also been agreed that the Committee should concentrate its attention first on meat and on fruit."

787
With regard to the second inquiry I shall have to ask the House to allow me to read a statement:—
"It has further been arranged that the Committee should be invited to make recommendations to the home Government regarding schemes upon which useful expenditure might be incurred out of the £1.000.000 a year which is to be devoted by the home Government to securing for producers in the oversea parts of the Empire a larger share of that portion of the United Kingdom market in foodstuffs which has to be supplied by importation from abroad."
I call the noble Lord's attention to this. There again the emphasis is on the competition between foreign foodstuffs and foodstuffs from the Dominions, and not between foodstuffs from the Dominions and foodstuffs produced in this country.
Those two inquiries, with these two special references, had a quite different origin. The first, as regards marketing, comes directly from the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Conference, which preceded the setting up of that Committee, and the discussions which took place at the Imperial Economic Conference itself about marketing these Empire foodstuffs. The second represents the equivalent in money to Empire producers of the Preference proposals which were put forward, as the House knows, when the Imperial Economic Committee was set up, but which, in deference to the pledges and undertakings given by the Prime Minister at the General Election, could not be put into action. Accordingly, these two inquiries have, as I said, a separate and a different origin. That £1,000.000 a year, therefore, is a part of the Preference proposals and must be devoted to the task of achieving the same end as the Preference proposals themselves—that is to say, the encouragement of the consumption of Empire foodstuffs and products in the United Kingdom in preference to foreign productions and foodstuffs.
Accordingly, the Imperial Economic Committee will make recommendations on both those subjects, but, of course, it docs not at all follow that the recommendations made on the one subject—that is to say, as regards marketing—will necessarily be accepted in connection with the other. The Committee will probably indicate to the home Government which of their recommendations regarding marketing of foodstuffs are suitable for consideration in connection with the
788
spending of the £1,000,000 a year, but the spending of this money will, of course, remain wholly in the hands of the British Government. The Imperial Economic Committee is only an advisory Committee which can make suggestions but cannot take any executive action, and, if the Committee were to recommend schemes which were contrary to the interests of agriculturists in the United Kingdom, then the Government at home would have absolute power to veto those recommendations or not to carry them into effect. The home Government, therefore, retains entirely in its hands the power of dealing with this matter in the interests of this country and of the agricultural community.
But if we look at the probabilities, it will be seen that it is not likely that this Committee will bring forward any such recommendations, because their terms of reference specifically order them to devote their attention to substituting Empire foodstuffs for foreign imported foodstuffs, and the Committee thoroughly understand the attitude of the home Government towards the home producer. This is perfectly clear from the statement made by the Chairman at the first meeting of the Imperial Economic Committee. Sir Halford Mackinder then said that
"the terms of reference of the Committee had been so drawn as to indicate that the chief question with which the Committee was concerned was the foreign food supplier and not the home producer in the United Kingdom. The Committee would therefore aim at endeavouring to secure that the foodstuffs of this country came so far as possible from inside the Empire, produced either on this island"—
I would call the attention of the noble Lord to those words—
"or in those parts which lay overseas."
That statement shows quite clearly that the Chairman of the Committee had in his head all those difficulties which have suggested themselves to the noble Lord, and that these difficulties have been by no means overlooked by the Imperial Economic Committee.
The position of the home producer is protected or safeguarded—I ought perhaps to use the word "safeguarded" rather than "protected" nowadays—in two ways. The Committee is in no doubt whatever as to the scope or nature of its task, and the home Government has complete control of the allocation of the

789
money. This again is, of course, subject to the control of the House of Commons, and I should like, if the House will allow me, to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. He said—
"No expenditure can be incurred on this service—
that is to say, the £1,000,000—
"until the necessary Vote has been passed by the House of Commons. When a full schema has been prepared an estimate will be presented, and there will he thus an abundant opportunity for discussion. Meanwhile I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the assurance already given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that great care will be taken in the administration of this policy to make sure that no injustice is done to homo producers"
Now let me say a word about the problem which the Imperial Economic Committee has to face. Take the questions of meat and fruit, which were the first to be dealt with by the Committee in its investigations. I should like to quote some figures showing the percentages of the total consumption in this country of meat and fruit in 1024, taking production at home, imports from British Dominions overseas, and imports from foreign countries. In the case of meat, the home production was 40 per cent., that imported from British Dominions overseas was 17 per cent., and that imported from foreign countries was 43 per cent., showing, of course, that there is a vast margin for the operation of these new proposals in order to withdraw at least some of that 43 per cent. from the foreign to the Imperial producer. Then take fruit: the production of fruit in this country is 44 per cent., the proportion from British Dominions overseas is 16 per cent., and no less than 40 per cent. is imported from foreign countries, showing again that there is a possibility of a very large transfer of importations as between the foreign producer and the Imperial producer.
The duty of the Imperial Economic Committee is to make recommendations which, while increasing the amount imported from the Dominions at the expense of the foreign producer, will take care that production at home does not suffer. I could follow this out—but I do not want to detain the House at this hour—with further figures regarding wheat,
790
butter, cheese and eggs, and it is very easy to show—the figures will be quite familiar to the noble Lord—that the home supply is not nearly sufficient to meet the requirements of this country, so that a large amount of goods must be imported to make up the difference. The task of the Imperial Economic Committee is to ensure that this balance comes as far as possible from within the Empire. Its duty is to conduct on behalf of Dominion producers an inquiry into marketing very similar to that carried out by the Linlithgow Committee in 1023 on behalf of the home producer. This country will have its own representatives on that Committee and it is intended that the Committee shall carry out its duties without any detriment to the home producer.
It is quite possible, moreover, that this Committee will make recommendations which are at the same time advantageous both to imported Dominion foodstuffs and to home-produced foodstuffs. For instance, it might appear as the result of its investigations that the facilities for the carriage and storage of meat and fruit in the United Kingdom were not sufficient or were not situated in the right places, and any recommendation for improvement in this respect would be equally valuable both to the home producer of meat and fruit and to the producer of meat, and fruit imported from within the Empire. If the Committee were to make similar recommendations with regard to the reorganisation of the meat and fruit distributing and marketing centres in this country, both home produced meat and fruit and Empire supplies would equally benefit.
I do not think I need deal with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the noble Lord has already given that to the House, but there, again, he made it perfectly clear that no injustice would be done to the domestic producers. There was, I think, a suggestion that the Farmers' Union should have representation on this Committee, but the reply was:—
"The Committee will be invited to make recommendations in an advisory capacity regarding schemes intended to secure for producers in the oversea parts of the Empire a larger share of that portion of the United Kingdom market in foodstuffs which has to be supplied by importation from abroad; and the Colonial Secretary has no doubt that, if and when any proposals are made which may affect the interests of the home pro-

791
ducers, the Minister of Agriculture will use every endeavour to see that full consideration is given to their position."
There is another statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has been given quite correctly by the noble Lord, although in giving it I did not think he laid sufficient emphasis on what was being done for the farmers of this country, in order to assist the marketing of home produce.
Now, as regards the general scope and duties of this Committee, I must again remind you that it is the outcome of the work of the Imperial Economic Conference. The Committee recommended by that Conference was to have been a permanent body undertaking economic investigations referred to it by any part of the Empire, but the present Committee does not go so far as that. It is limited to the inquiry into the marketing of foodstuffs. I may sum up the statement very shortly by pointing out that the whole work of this Committee, both in its aim and scope, is not to encourage competition at the expense of the home producer, but to encourage such competition between the Imperial producer and the foreigner that a much larger proportion of these imported foodstuffs are produced by and brought to this country from the Dominions.
Let me remind the noble Lord of this second point, that after all the House of Commons, when the Estimates are brought up, will have full control over all these matters, and if there is any proposal which in the opinion of members is in any way dangerous to the interests of the home producer, then their case will be made out. I suggest to the noble Lord that it will be much easier to discuss these matters when dealing with concrete cases than when dealing with rather unsatisfying or general statements, when we do not know what specific proposals are likely to be brought forward on which this money will be spent, Therefore I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurances of the Government that the question of the interests of the home producer will be most carefully looked after and safeguarded, and I hope that the fears which he has expressed will have no foundation in actual fact.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not intend to intervene in the debate for more
792
than a moment. There will be other opportunities, as the year goes on, of discussing these matters, but I would like to ask one or two questions. The noble Viscount tells us that this sum of £1,000,000 is equivalent to the value of the Preference proposals which the Government feel that they cannot implement. Will the noble Lord tell us how that sum of £1,000,000 has been arrived at, or will he lay a Paper to show it? I think it is a fair request, and that such a Paper will be useful in view of the discussions which will arise before very long. If this £1,000,000 is to take the place of these discarded or non-implemented proposals, is it to be divided in proportion to the benefit which would have been conferred if these proposals had been implemented? If it is not, there seems to be a disparity between what the noble Viscount has said and what may work out under the findings of this Committee.
Then we are told that this £1,000,000 is to take the place of the value which the discarded proposals would have been to the Dominions, but the noble Viscount is surely aware that it is one of the first arguments, or at any rate one of the chief arguments, of the Preferentialists, that the preference will improve in value as time goes on. He told us that this £1,000,000 was to serve precisely the same end as the Preference proposals. Is the £1,000,000 also to be increased as time goes on, so that in five, ten or twenty years we shall be paying what the Preferentialists estimate to be the value of preference at that time? If that is going to be done, has any estimate been formed as to what the cost to this country will be? Can the noble Viscount give us any information on any of these points? I shall be very glad if he can, because I think it will be very useful to have more light on these matters than we have now, in view of future debates.
LORD HARRIS: I entirely sympathise with the inquiry of the noble Lord, but perhaps it is hardly necessary to divide the House on his Motion after the explanation of the noble Viscount on the Front Bench. I think that the statement made was, upon the whole, reassuring, and that the Government are quite well aware that it will be necessary to safeguard the British producer. I think we may be pretty certain of this, that the various associations and clubs

793
connected with agriculture will keep a pretty sharp look-out upon the Board of Trade, and I hope also that the Ministry of Agriculture will keep an eye upon the Board of Trade, as to any nefarious ideas which the latter may hold as regards putting up the Dominion producer against the British producer.
At the same time, I do think there are dilemmas about this idea. Take the percentage figures that the noble Viscount has just given us. Obviously the chief competitor both of the British producer and the Dominion producer is the foreigner, and the latent idea is that the Dominion producer should be assisted against the foreign producer. If that means anything at all, it means that the Dominion producer is to have an advantage over the chief competitor that the British producer has got to face, and as we have in many things to accept the market price of goods as produced by the foreigner, we shall have to accept an even lower price from the Dominions. That seems to me inevitable if things are carried out.
It applies now to fruit. Of course, the Dominion taxpayer can do as he chooses, and I believe that, in fact, New Zealand gives a subsidy upon every box of apples sent to this country. I do not carry the figures in my mind, but I was told a year or two ago that they give 5s. a box on every box of apples sent to this wintry. And therefore the New Zealand producer is already competing favourably against the English producer. If he has that advantage, and in addition is to have the advantage of the British producer being taxed in order to assist him to come in, I can well understand that there would be a great deal of grumbling in this country and that the various associations which exist for the protection of agriculture would be a pretty busy nest of hornets round the noble Viscount's head. Therefore I think that on this occasion it is hardly necessary for my noble friend to press his Motion. I was very glad to see my noble friend (Lord Bledisloe) give a nod of acquiescence just now when I suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture should keep a sharp look-out on the Board of Trade.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was quite aware that I was carefully watched by the
794
representative of he Ministry of Agriculture while I was making that statement. As regards the points which were put to me by Lord Arnold, of course these calculations as to the amount of preference must be to some extent estimates, as the noble Lord knows, but I will see whether it is possible to give him any figures which will show exactly how the amount is arrived at. The second point he asked me was whether, as the preference was not going to advantage equally different Dominions, the £1,000,000 was to be spent in the like proportion as the preference would have advantaged those particular Dominions. Of course, I cannot answer that at the present moment, because that will partly depend on the operations of the Imperial Economic Committee.
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, but is it not the case that, unless the matter worked out like that, it is not possible to argue that this million will take the place of the Preference proposals?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that it is extremely difficult at this stage to say that there will be an exact equation between the advantage accruing to every particular Dominion from the Preference proposals which were dropped and the application of this £1,000,000, until we know how it is to be spent. But I would ask the noble Lord to take a wider view and to consider the advantage to the whole Empire and this country, rather than to look too meticulously into the exact proportion of advantage to every particular portion of the Empire. Then he asked me whether, as the advantage under Preference may grow—and I was very interested to hear him make that admission—
LORD ARNOLD: No, no. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I distinctly said in every case that it was the view of the preferentialists.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, at at any rate I think I may tell the noble Lord that there is no intention of giving any more.
LORD ARNOLD: That is the final amount?
VISCOUNT PEEL: £1,000,000 is the final amount.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am not satisfied with the reply given by the Government, because the noble Viscount has most carefully evaded the real issue, Will the Government pledge themselves that if any sum is given to the Dominion producers to enable them to market their goods in this country, a like amount will be given to British farmers in order that they may, under great difficulties from heavy railway rates, have an equivalent help in marketing their goods? In the absence of any such assurance I am bound to press my Motion.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I told the noble Lord that I could not make a statement of that kind at the present moment, for one good reason—that many of these schemes may be of advantage to the home producer as well as to the Dominion producer, and therefore you cannot at the present moment strike an exact equation.
On Question, Motion negatived.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions which stand in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proponed to be made by the Board of
796
Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Biggleswade and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 3rd March and published, be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Welwyn, Knebworth and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 12th March and published, be approved, with the following modifications—
Clause 20, page 9, after the words "transfer shall" insert the words "except so far as such Acts and Orders are repealed or amended and."
Clause 20, page 9, omit the words "continue to apply to the undertaking after that date" and in place thereof, insert the words "apply to the whole undertaking of the Welwyn Company."
Clause 44, page 23, after the words "Section 12 (Power to purchase additional gas leads)" insert the words "Section 15 (Amending obligations as to supply of gas").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.