Lords Sitting of 21 July 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD BUCKLAND.
Henry Seymour Berry, Esquire, having been created Baron Buckland of Bwlch, in the County of Brecon—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Brought from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, when I spoke yesterday on the subject of business with a caution which I hope has become habitual with me, I did not speak with absolute certainty as to what was in store for us. I am sorry to say that since I spoke information has reached me that the Mining Industry Bill will not be finished in another place until Tuesday, instead of Monday, the very last day on which I thought it was reasonable to expect it would be finished. Since it cannot reach us till Tuesday it is evidently impossible that we should take the Second Reading on Tuesday, which had been the design to which your Lordships assented. I have taken all the steps in my power to consult influential Peers in different quarters of the House and I find that it would be convenient if the Second Reading is put off until Thursday of next week and I propose that that course should be adopted.
The Bill will be received on Tuesday and if we are still sitting we can read it a first time then, but there will be no difficulty in reading it a first time on Wednesday if we are not sitting when it reaches us on Tuesday. Then, on Thursday, we will take the Second Reading. That will make the interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage very short. I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that I wholly

111
disapprove of these short intervals, but I find it is convenient to your Lordships that the arrangement which I foreshadowed so far as the later stages of the Bill are concerned should be adhered to. Therefore, unless I hear some strong expression to the contrary, I propose that the Committee stage should be taken on Monday, August 2, as arranged previously, and that the remaining stages of the Bill should be finished in the course of the early part of that week so that the adjournment can take place at the end of the week, according to the intention of the Government.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, those who sit with me on this Bench will offer no opposition to that course because, obviously, the noble Marquess cannot control the wind and the tides in this encounter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Or the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The only thing we should ask for is that steps should be taken so that the Bill may be circulated on Wednesday morning. There is sometimes a little delay in its coming from the office and we should be glad if it could be in print so that it might be circulated to the members of this House on Wednesday morning.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper with reference to this Bill.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice that in the event of the Bill being committed, he would move to resolve, That it be an instruction to the Committee to
112
which the Bill shall be referred, page 70, line 11, after "may" to insert "with the consent of the local authority concerned subject to the right of the Corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a. Motion on the Paper that an instruction be given to the Committee with reference to the Bristol Corporation Bill, but I am given to understand by the Chairman of Committees that it is desirable that my instruction should be moved at a later date—that is to say, after the Third Reading of the Bill. I am quite ready to agree to that suggestion. Owing to circumstances over which I have no control my instruction only appeared on the Paper to-day and that is very short notice. Therefore I shall not now make this Motion, but I shall move it after Third Reading, though it may be in a different form to that in which it now appears on the Paper.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting me in this matter, as he does in all these matters, if I may say so. I ought to tell your Lordships that the question in which the noble Lord is interested is raised in a Petition against the Bill, and I understand that the Committee will sit on Monday to enter into the question raised, though not, on behalf of my noble friend. It is raised by parties other than my noble friend. Of course he is not going to be heard before the Committee and his position, as he has been good enough to indicate that he will postpone moving the instruction till a later stage, is unaffected by that postponement. He is unprejudiced by any discusion that may take place before he raises the matter again himself. I always prefer this procedure—that we should have a discussion on Third Reading after the promoters have given their evidence. That evidence, of course, will be printed and will be available to all of us. I would like to mention one other point, without prejudicing myself or announcing whether I am in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend or not. I am a little anxious about the actual wording, but as he has not persisted in moving it to-day that gives a little more time to consider the matter.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise with the greatest diffidence for the first time to address your Lordships' House well knowing that there are others very much more competent to move the Second Reading of this Bill. This is a Bill which is designed to remove an anomaly which has grown up in our law. It is a Bill which started as a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons. I do not want to exaggerate the case for the Bill in any shape or form. I think I can prove to your Lordships that it did not encounter any hostility from His Majesty's Government; indeed, I can even go further without exaggeration and say that it met with approval from His Majesty's Government. It passed through its last stage in another place on June 18 of this year.
Your Lordships must be aware that the general idea of prison discipline has grown up, broadly, on two lines. One is a discipline which was suggested by a short and sharp sentence which might meet certain offences. Another system of discipline grew up, that of penal servitude, which was designed for long sentences. Again I say I do not want to exaggerate my case in the least. During recent years these two systems have grown very much together. Thirty or forty years ago it was considered that a
114
sentence of two years hard labour in a local prison was sufficient to break a man both physically and mentally, and the Courts shrank from imposing such a sentence. They shrank still further from imposing a longer sentence than two years. That has entirely altered now. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in another place, pointed out that the whole system had changed in the last thirty or forty years, but nevertheless the two systems never can be the same.
There are one or two reasons, which I will point out to your Lordships, why they never can be the same. This dual system has worked very well on the whole, but there is one case with which it does not deal, and that is the case of a man who has been guilty of a series of offences and has lived a persistent life of crime. It is obvious, I think, that in some of these cases a short sentence would be quite inadequate for the offences that he has committed. Then comes this dilemma: How are you going to treat him? If, as you can according to the present law, you sentence him (as in fact you must sentence him) for each crime, if you make those sentences consecutive he is going to get a long term of imprisonment under conditions which are not proper for a long term of imprisonment. If, on the other hand, you shrink from doing that, you sentence him to a term which is totally inadequate for the crimes he has committed. If he has been guilty of crimes which are punishable by penal servitude the system works well enough. If it is thought he must be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, he will endure that sentence under conditions which are framed for a long term of imprisonment. The question, therefore, would not arise in that case. That course was followed in a certain rather famous case, that of the Tichborne claimant, who got two consecutive sentences of seven years penal servitude. Whether that was too long or not does not touch this point, as he served fourteen years under discipline which was framed for a long term sentence.
But now we come to a case in which a man has been guilty of a number of crimes for which he can only be sentenced to terms of imprisonment, with or without hard labour. There is very little difference in practice whether he is

115
sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour or without hard labour, but he is then kept in a local gaol and that is most unsatisfactory. A case arose a short time ago, as your Lordships are aware, of a man of considerable wealth and position, who was leading a life in which he had committed a number of outrages on young children. He was convicted on a number of counts. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour to be followed by one year's imprisonment without hard labour. That sentence was considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal. On the whole the Court of Criminal Appeal were of opinion that it was a proper sentence in the circumstances, but nobody suggested that it was a really satisfactory sentence.
I should like to quote from a speech made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was speaking on this Bill in another place. He said:
"The question has arisen out of a case which came before the Lord Chief Justice, and the Government are bound to take note of the statement of the Lord Chief Justice when he quite definitely said:
"'It could only be hoped that before a case of this dimension should come again for trial the Legislature would have removed a blemish from penal legislation, and have given a discretion where a multiplicity of offences of a certain kind had been committed, to impose a sentence of penal servitude.'"
The last impression that I wish to give is that this Bill is being introduced merely because of that case. It is quite true that some of the most flagrant cases that will come up and will have to be considered if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament are sexual cases, but it is by no means to deal merely with sexual cases that this Bill has been introduced. There are many others.
One of the commonest is the case of a man who has been preying on the commercial community for years; and then there are cases of obtaining credit by fraud, and cases; perhaps, of carrying out a particular system of fraud by offences under the Bankruptcy Act, of any one of which a man can be convicted and, if convicted, sentenced to imprisonment for two years with hard labour. I hope that I can convince your Lordships that it would be more convenient and more proper that, instead of having a number of consecutive sentences, he
116
should be given a sentence of penal servitude. Consecutive sentences to imprisonment are not common, and I think that one of the reasons is that the view has grown up among His Majesty's Judges that a sentence of imprisonment is a very terrible sentence. But this, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department pointed out in another place, is no longer the fact. To some extent it is still the fact, since, owing to the way in which the organisation of local prisons and penal establishments is conducted, you cannot get the same conditions in both.
It is quite true that at the present time the food is largely the same and that a considerable amount of the work done in the penal establishment is also done in the local prison. But the converse is not true. In penal establishments like Dart-moor and Parkhurst you do not have the necessity of keeping the men, the whole time that they are going through their sentence, within the four walls of the prison. They can get out from time to time, and that is much more apt when you are dealing with a prisoner who is undergoing a long sentence. Again, it is true that the present rules regarding conversation among prisoners are theoretically the same, but in a penal establishment the prisoners do get an opportunity of working in gangs and there is much more intercourse in practice, though not in theory, than takes place in the various local prisons. Those are two points that make a difference. There is a third point which is not to be ignored. Under a term of penal servitude, if a man is of good behaviour he can get off one-quarter of his sentence. Under a term of imprisonment, he can get off only one-sixth.
Another matter that has to be taken into consideration, quite apart from the point of view of the prisoner, is the question of organisation and administration. It is undoubtedly easier and better to have the people who are serving long terms of imprisonment in an organisation that is organised for long terms, and it is inconvenient to have them in local prisons where, in fact, most of the prisoners are in for short periods. They cannot be in for longer than two years on any one crime, and in practice most of them are in prison for not more than three months. It is highly inconvenient,

117
if, for instance, a man is sentenced to three terms of two years to run consecutively, that you should have a six-year prisoner in an organisation that was organised for short term prisoners. For that reason again I suggest that this Bill is a convenience.
There is one point about the Bill that I entirely dislike. I say quite frankly that I think the title of this Bill is the most unhappy one that was ever invented. This is said to be—
"An Act to increase and extend the powers of the court to inflict punishment in the case of certain crimes."
It does nothing of the kind. In terms the Bill says that no prisoner can be deprived of his liberty for longer than is possible under the present state of the law. All the Bill says is that, if it is thought proper that he should be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, a term to which he can be sentenced at the present time, then that imprisonment should take place under the discipline appropriate to the longer sentence and not under the discipline appropriate to the shorter sentence. I hope that, if your Lordships see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading, when we come to a later stage the title may come under amendment.
That shortly, is the scope of the Bill. There is only one other point about which I might say a word, and that is subsection (2) of Clause 1. It was thought, I understand, by the friends of the noble and learned Viscount sitting opposite that it would be well if it were made quite clear that—to use what is an inaccurate term but a comprehensive one—political crimes were not included in this Bill. I cannot quite conceive how any of these political crimes ever would, under a sensible Judge, be brought within the ambit of this Bill, because it is a discretionary Bill and, furthermore, it is a little difficult to see how a person can be living a life of crime by carrying on secret riot or anything of that kind. One would think that all the types of crime referred to in subsection (2) would be found out at once and that the question would not arise. However that may be, if the noble and learned Viscount desires to keep these types of crime quite clear of the Bill—though I might point out that this will leave to the worst cases a rather harder punishment than would
118
come to the criminal if he were left under the Bill—there is no reason why this should not be done.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: May I ask the noble and learned Earl a question? To whom is he referring? I have expressed not the slightest opinion about this clause, nor has my noble and learned friend beside me (Lord Parmoor).
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I shall probably have to apologise to your Lordships for my ignorance of procedure. I had made certain inquiries and found that certain events had occurred in another place. Perhaps I had no right to refer to them, and if that is so I must apologise to the House. I understood it was the desire of the friends of the noble and learned Viscount that this clause should come in.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I said nothing about it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I will leave it at that. That is all there is to be said on this Bill, except this one thing, that it is clear that in the passage I have read the Lord Chief Justice of England, who is head of the administration of the Criminal Law, has asked for these powers from Parliament, and, again without desiring at all to overstate my case, I think I am entitled to say to your Lordships that you would not do well to refuse to give the powers which the Lord Chief Justice has specially asked for. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps it would be to the convenience of the House if I were at once to state the view of the Home Office on this matter. The Home Office regard this Bill from a position of benevolent neutrality, and they propose to watch its progress through Committee, to prevent the insertion of any objectionable Amendments and to ensure that it shall be capable of being worked with ease and clearness.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rather regret to hear what has been said by the noble Lord who represents the Home Office. Surely a Bill of this kind, if it

119
is to take a final form and to find its place upon the Statute Book, ought to be carried through under the authority, and only under the authority, of the Department which deals with questions of this kind—namely, the Home Office. I was certainly hoping to hear Lord Desborough say that the Home Office were prepared to take charge of the Bill and to be responsible for it in its final form, whatever that form may be. I only want to say a few words about what was said by the noble Earl, who addressed your Lordships in such an admirable manner on what he told us was the first occasion that he had spoken in this House. Let me congratulate him most heartily upon his speech. We remember, of course, the name of the noble Earl in this House—a name of great honour—and we hope we shall often hear him in the same eloquent terms as those in which he has addressed the House this afternoon.
My objection to this Bill is not in any sense fundamental, but this is a matter which could have been put right if the Home Office had taken control of the Bill and put in into more formal shape. My experience is a fairly long one in sentencing for criminal offences—twentyfive years as Chairman of Quarter Sessions is a fairly long period—and I agree that it is necessary, as the noble Earl has said, to bear carefully in mind the conditions of imprisonment and penal servitude. I also agree with him, and with the views expressed elsewhere I understand, that if a long term—I think anything exceeding two years myself—is imposed as a punishment for any crime, it should be in the form of penal servitude and not imprisonment. Although, as he states quite rightly—and I am one of those who are very glad that that is so—the conditions of imprisonment have been enormously improved (if one may use that term) of recent years, still the conditions are such that they are not applicable to long periods of detention, and ought not to be used for that purpose. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, to emphasise what the noble Earl has said as regards the distinction between imprisonment and penal servitude and the obvious corollary that for long terms penal servitude is the better.
My objection to the Bill does not go to the root of the measure. It is this. As regards the first clause it is extremely
120
indefinite. As I understand the argument of the noble Earl, it applies to all cases where there has been a repetition of the offence, whatever the character of the offence may be. Agreeing as I do with the noble Earl, that penal servitude is an appropriate punishment for long periods of detention, I think we ought to have some definition, and ought to know the class of crime to which penal servitude would be, and is intended to be, applied under the terms of the Bill. He has given illustrations of two crimes of a very different character. One of them was the occasion of this Bill being brought forward—repetition of sexual offences. I quite agree with what is said about that. The other was repetition of commercial offences of a fraudulent character. I do not know whether there may not be many other crimes capable of repetition to which this Bill would apply. I should like the Home Office to take the Bill in hand and to consider to what kind of offences penal servitude should be applied in substitution for imprisonment. I also think that not too much discretion should be left to juries, but that the crimes themselves should be catalogued to which this new form of punishment should be applicable.
Subsection (2) is a matter for Committee. There again, I do not see how any private individuals are in a position to say that the exceptions in subsection (2) are sufficiently exhaustive. I am not prepared to say that they are not—I have not sufficient knowledge—but I hope that before the Committee stage the Home Office will be able to assure us that, as regards subsection (2), in their view the exceptions are sufficient. I am not satisfied at the present time, but I think it is a matter with which the Department ought to deal. I think the noble Lord will agree with me when I make that statement. Therefore, subject to what I have said as regards the responsibility, in a matter of this kind, of the Home Office—I think it is a very real responsibility—we at any rate do not offer opposition to the Second Reading, and perhaps I may again congratulate the noble Earl on the admirable speech he made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, it was of course for my noble friend Lord Desborough to state the position of the Government on this

121
Bill, but in consequence of what was said by the noble and learned Lord I would like to say one word from a personal point of view. I think he rather misunderstands the object of the Bill. It is not confined to cases where there has been a repetition of one offence, but rather is directed to cases where there has been a series of offences which may or may not be of the same character. Where this happens, and the man has been convicted of a number of serious crimes, for each of which punishment ought to be indicted, there does occur a very difficult position. He ought, perhaps, to be sent to prison for eighteen months or more for each crime, but if that is done the effect is to send the man to imprisonment, with hard labour, perhaps for three, or four, or five years.
The maximum punishment by way of imprisonment is two years, and for this reason, that imprisonment with hard labour is an extremely trying punishment which tells severely upon a man's physical health. The confinement, the silence, and other attributes of imprisonment, if continued for a long time, are really more than ought to be imposed upon anybody, and in the days when I had sometimes to pass sentences of imprisonment I often felt embarrassed by the position to which the noble Earl referred in his speech. Three years or four years imprisonment is really too long. It is far better, for the man himself, to be sentenced to a term of penal servitude, where conditions are not so trying, and where, as the noble Earl pointed out, there are mitigations which cannot occur in an ordinary prison. So, from a personal point of view, I say that I thoroughly approve of the proposals of this Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
May I add a word about subsection (2) of Clause 1? The noble Earl, by way of using a short expression, spoke of exempting political crimes. I do not think there are such things as political crimes. A crime is a crime, by whatever name it is called, and I have never been able to make a distinction between that species of crime and other offences against the law. It seems to me that to exempt from this Bill those particular offences against the law is to deal very hardly with those who are guilty of those offences, because it really is a benefit to
122
the prisoner that he should come under this Bill, and a hardship to him to be exempted from it. Therefore I hope that no attempt will be made to extend the category of offences in subsection (2). If it were possible, and if it were generally agreed, I think it might be well to consider whether the subsection should not be omitted altogether. It does not much matter, because I agree that it is very unlikely that for an offence of this character a long Imprisonment would be imposed. As regards the title of the Bill, I entirely agree with the noble Earl. May I add an expression of agreement with what my noble and learned friend said, that we are all very glad to hear the voice of the noble Earl in this House, with which his name has been so long and so honourably associated.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I think there is something in the point to which the noble Lord opposite has called attention. I do not think it is quite clear to what class of crimes this Bill is intended to apply or rather to what circumstances at the trial it is intended to apply, but perhaps the Home Office will look into that. I ought to say, perhaps, that when the noble Lord opposite was sitting as Chairman of Quarter Sessions I was going circuit as Judge of Assize with the noble Earl as my marshal, and that accounts for his extraordinary familiarity with the Criminal Law.
The ordinary case in which one, as Judge, felt the difficulty, was this. It generally happened in sexual cases, where a man was convicted of having committed a great many crimes, generally with regard to young children, and the utmost you could give for each case was two years. It might be that the one case, the first case, in which he was convicted, was a case in which he should, by all right and justice, have had a sentence of two years, but it might be that there were several other cases, and what was the position of the Judge then? Certainly, when I was first a Judge, it was notorious that a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour was a very, very heavy sentence. For the equal period of time it is a far heavier sentence than penal servitude, and what Judges felt was that, even when the law allowed of consecutive sentences, they could not give three or four years imprisonment with hard labour, or ten

123
years, it might be, and so the man received a sentence of two years with hard labour, which everybody in Court felt was far less than he deserved. It was given simply because the Judge could not send him to penal servitude. That is the ordinary case to which I think this Bill will apply.
There are other cases to which the noble Earl has alluded—those cases where a man makes it his business to go about swindling people, or, perhaps, to become bankrupt time and again—a luxury which some people do allow themselves. The difficulty is to know what to do with that sort of person. Two years is not enough, and the kind of imprisonment—the solitary confinement, and so on—makes it inappropriate that he should have three or four years imprisonment, and you cannot give him penal servitude.
One aspect of the matter, into which I hope the Home Office will look, is this. It is a point in regard to which the noble Lord opposite did indicate a difficulty in administration. The words of the Bill are—
"Where a person is convicted on indictment of two or more offences to which this Act applies. …"
The indictment would only include crimes which fall into the same category. You would not, for example, put into the same indictment sexual offences and bankruptcy offences or embezzlement. That is where the difficulty may arise. I do not think that under this Bill you could say: "Here is a man who has been convicted several times of sexual offences, and several other times of fraudulent bankruptcies. Two years is not enough for him, I will give him penal servitude." It seems to me that great care must be taken to see that the considerations as to whether he is to have imprisonment or penal servitude must all arise with regard to the same indictment, which ordinarily is, and should be, for the same class of offence, because it is very difficult for a man to defend himself upon an indictment which would charge him with all manner of heterogeneous crimes. I absolutely approve of the Bill, if my approval matters anything, but I do hope that the Home Office will display something more than a benevolent neutrality towards this Bill, and will consider it with some sort of benevolent partiality.
LORD PARMOOR: May I, as a representative of the Home Office is here, say one word in explanation, having regard to what the noble Lord has said? I understood at one period during the discussion that the phrase "convicted on indictment of two or more offences" might mean offences charged on different indictments, and convictions on different indictments. I agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that you could not deal with criminal matters in that way, nor could you put into the same indictment fraudulent matters and sexual matters. I hope the noble Earl who is promoting the Bill and the Home Office will consider this difficulty.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not feel that I am really entitled to take up your Lordships' time any further, but I appreciate the difficulties that have been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite and also by the noble and learned Lord on this side of the House. What I rather feel about it is this. I cannot at this period appeal to the House, but I think I may respectfully suggest that it is not a matter for Second Reading, but for the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it falls to my lot to move the Second Reading of a Bill which, if passed, will make a considerable alteration in the law of this country as it is at present in force, and which I think I can explain very briefly. The Bill owes its origin to a practice of adopting children, which is growing greatly among all ranks. For many years it has been a very common thing for poorer children to be adopted by their kinder neighbours where the parents have died or the children cannot be properly looked after in existing circumstances. The practice has certainly spread very much of late years in all sections of the community, and it has long been felt that it was necessary to regularise the practice and to give it some legal sanction. A large number of societies who

125
take a great interest in this matter and look after children have for long been asking for some law under which they can act legally. The practice is common in many European countries and in the United States of America and our great Dominions, where children can be adopted in accordance with the law.
The matter has been most carefully considered. Two Committees, appointed under different Governments, have inquired into it, one in 1920 under the Chairmanship of Sir Alfred Hopkinson and the other in 1924 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Tomlin. The Government are very deeply indebted to both of those Committees for the extraordinary care with which they examined the systems prevailing in many countries and for the conclusions at which they arrived. Both Committees reported unanimously in favour of some system of legal adoption. The second of the Committees is, for the moment perhaps, the more important as it is certainly the later. It is important from the fact that under Mr. Justice Tomlin it practically drafted the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time.
This Bill was received on all sides and by all Parties with appreciation and very few Amendments were made in it during its passage through another place. There was, however, a good deal of dispute as to the exact process by which these orders for adoption should be obtained. Under the Bill three Courts are sanctioned for the purpose—the High Court, the County Court, and the Magistrates' Court. The first questions which naturally arise for consideration by these various Courts to whom application may be made are: Is adoption in the interest of the child? Is it in the interest of the parents or guardians of the child? And is the adopter, the person who wishes to adopt the child, a suitable person?
When these questions have been asked and answered, it is natural that there should be certain safeguards for the guidance of the Court, and such safeguards are to be found in the Bill. First of all, it will be necessary to obtain the consent of the parents or guardians, as the case may be. Then, the difference in age between the adopter and the adopted should be a suitable one. An unmarried man, except in very exceptional cases, is not to adopt a female child. The adopter
126
shall receive no payment for the adoption except with the sanction of the Court, and in all cases under the Bill a guardian ad litem will be appointed to represent the interest of the child. The Court will also be able to draw up the conditions of the adoption and an interim order can be made without making the order absolute, so as to give, as it were, a trial trip.
Turning to the question of rights, the rights in these cases of legal adoption will be transferred to the adopter who is really taking the place of the parent. An important point which was discussed a good deal in another place is the right of the child to succession in case of intestacy. That matter is not dealt with in the present Bill, which is merely designed to make adoption a legal process. It is likely that the Bill will have to be supplemented later on, but, as I say, the question of succession in case of intestacy is not dealt with.
Considerable discussion arose in another place on the question of the best tribunal—on which, perhaps, these two Committees rather differed—before which adoption cases should be heard, and although they were considered originally to be cases for the High Court, the County Court was added and it was thought convenient later on, because of the much smaller expense entailed upon the parties, that application could be made in cases of adoption to Magistrates' Courts throughout the country. From numerous points of view Magistrates' Courts offer many facilities for dealing with such cases. The magistrates are accustomed to holding juvenile courts. They are in touch with the locality. They are also in touch with a great many charitable bodies which look after the interests of children. They are in touch also with the police, who are kindly and have a very good knowledge in many cases both of adopter and adopted.
The Bill proposes that a record should be made of all children adopted under adoption orders. These records will be made by the Registrar-General and Regulations for his guidance are set out in the Bill, as your Lordships will see. These are often very delicate matters, and it may possibly happen that evilly disposed persons may bring up against an adopted child a record of its illegitimacy and so on. But under the

127
Bill the record of the adoption will be accepted instead of a birth certificate.
As I have said, the Bill is not merely the result of the Reports of the two Committees which did such good work in connection with the matter, but of no fewer than eight other Bills which have been introduced into Parliament, including a Bill introduced into your Lordships' House by the Duke of Atholl. I do not know that it is necessary for me to go into the Bill in any detail. I hope, at all events, that I have shown your Lordships sufficient reason for giving it a Second Reading. The details, of course, can be discussed later on. The Bill does not apply to Scotland, where the conditions are different in many cases from those prevailing here, and it would not, therefore, be very applicable. It does not apply to Northern Ireland, which, as your Lordships are aware, has a Parliament of its own which is capable of dealing with these and kindred matters. With these few words I hope I may have given to your Lordships some good reason for reading a Bill of some importance a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Desborough.)
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, there is one matter to which I would like to call attention. It is a point that was raised in another place with regard to safeguarding the religion of any child that is adopted. An Amendment was moved in another place which had special reference to Catholic children, but it was negatived because it was considered too one-sided, and I quite agree with that view. If you have any clause which lays it down that any Catholic child must be placed with a Catholic adopter, you should also safeguard the child of any other denomination. You might prevent a Protestant child being placed with a Catholic adopter. That would be reasonable. I merely mention the fact now because I and those who agree with me attach a considerable amount of importance to this question, and although it was stated that the Court would no doubt have due regard to the religion of the parties, still we should like to see something laid down definitely with regard to it. Therefore I propose to move an Amendment in Committee and I hope it will have the sympathetic consideration of the Home Office.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill. It is not really, in its inception at any rate, a Government Bill and, therefore, I do not feel under an obligation to oppose it. It really represents the fruit of the labours, pre-eminently, amongst other people, of Sir Alfred Hopkinson, whose name has been already mentioned by the noble Lord. I had the interest and privilege of co-operating with him in his efforts during many years and it is a great satisfaction to him, I am sure, and to others who are interested in it, to see the Bill now before your Lordships House, having passed the other House of Parliament with an amount of general agreement which is not often secured, and at the same time with very full consideration and debate. It is not a case which sometimes happens—a case, for example, such as was referred to a few days ago in your Lordships' House, in which it was said that the other House had occupied not more than five minutes upon a Bill. I do not think that is a good recommendation for a Bill. In this case there is no doubt that the other House did at every stage give the most complete consideration to the Bill.
I do not think I need say anything in regard to the substance of the Bill because it has been most clearly and adequately explained by the noble Lord. I can only say that I am very glad that a Bill of which I so strongly approve should be in his hands. When I speak or the Bill with such high commendation, and when I say that I most earnestly hope that it may be considered to be now safe and that it will pass this Session, I do not overlook the fact that there have arisen points, which were debated in the other House fully, upon which differences of opinion may very fairly he held. I will give one or two instances. There is the question as to which is the best Court to consider these cases. There is no question about the High Court; you must have a Court where the proceedings are not so long or so expensive because, as I think the noble Lord said, these questions of adoption affect the humbler classes of the community down, indeed, to the very humblest and it is most desirable that the valuable provisions of this Bill should be available for those classes. Therefore the cheapest good Court that you can get is the right Court to put into this Bill.

129
There are differences of opinion about that. The County Court has, in my Opinion, the highest claim. I have been associated with the administration of the County Court for a great many years. It is impossible to speak too highly of the way in which business is done in the County Courts and of the amount of experience that they have of dealing with cases amongst poor people—cases in which money is involved. If I had to choose between that Court and the Magistrates' Court I think, on the whole, I should be in favour of the County Court. On the other hand, there is no doubt a very strong feeling that the Magistrates' Court is in these days, when magistrates are certainly very carefully and successfully appointed, the court that may almost be called the poor man's court and poor people certainly do resort to that court when domestic differences have arisen. It is also to be remembered, with regard to the Magistrates' Court, that there is now a children's court attached to it and, where there is a children's court, one might naturally think that that was the court to which it was very desirable these cases should go.
What I gather has been done in the Bill, as we now have it, is that there is a sort of compromise, or at any rate that there is access, at the option of the applicant, to any one of those Courts of which I have spoken. I think that something of the same sort was settled in a Committee of your Lordships' House and afterwards adopted in the Guardianship of Infants Bill. The arguments which were used with regard to the Court there probably are very closely applicable to this case and I rather hope that no Amendment will be moved in this House to the clause as it now stands.
There is another point that I may mention on this occasion. It is in reference to what the noble Lord said about the non-application of this Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland. There again, I think, the matter is open to differences of opinion. As I understand it—and I am rather sorry it is so—persons who are resident there (not the infants but the applicants) are not able, under this Bill, to make application, but, as in the other case. I think it is so very desirable that this Bill should pass that, sooner than move any Amendment, or see any Amend-
130
ment moved, I shall be very glad if the House could see its way to pass this Bill in its present form.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to say only one word with regard to this Bill and that is to offer my humble but sincere congratulations to the Government on having adopted it. The noble Lord opposite is perfectly correct in saying that it did not start its career as a Government Bill, but the Government have definitely adopted it, with the result that we may hope to see it made law this Session. From my point of view this Bill has a very serious defect indeed and that is that it does not apply to Scotland, but, for the reasons given by the noble Lord opposite and as the Bill has already gone through another place, it is quite clearly better not to ask the Government to do anything with regard to Scotland in this Bill. But I may, perhaps, express the hope that it will soon be followed by another which will remove that very serious omission. I only wish to say that I shall have one very small Amendment to suggest when we reach the Committee stage, and I hope the noble Lord will give it his benevolent consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill is an old friend of this House, in fact, one might almost call it a hardy annual. In a slightly different shape it has passed this House I think four times, in 1921, 1922, 1924 and 1925. It was not taken up in another place until 1924 and in that year and again last year it was held up owing to strong objections to some of its provisions. The Bill in its original form applied to all chartered associations. Great objection was taken to this by certain non-chartered associations, the most prominent amongst them being the Incorporated Society of accountants. This opposition was directed against the privileged position in which

131
chartered associations find themselves and it led to the insertion in Clause 1 of the words "not being an association representative of any profession or business."
Subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 1 set out in detail exactly what the Bill proposes to do, and it will be seen that subsection (2) of Clause 1 and Clauses 2 and 3 contain ample safeguards that the Bill will not be invoked in an unnecessary manner. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 lays down the penalty for contravention of this clause, and the latter part of that subsection provides for permission to use uniforms and badges in plays and pageants, provided they are not used in such a manner as to bring the uniform and badges in question into ridicule or contempt. This Bill is considered by the promoters to supply a badly-felt want. I may say that it is specially welcomed by such associations as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the University of Sheffield. They are among the bodies who have given their benediction to this Bill. I understand that all opposition was satisfied in another place and that the Bill passed its final stages unopposed. I also understand that the Home Office approve of the Bill. I therefore ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it is quite true, as my noble friend Lord Templemore has said, that the Home Office looks upon this Bill with more than benevolence and neutrality, and, especially after the insertion of two Amendments which were moved in another place, they have reason to give their blessing to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OR LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, and I should like to remind your Lordships that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House intimated yesterday that we should meet at 3 o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.