Lords Sitting of 21 February 1929

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

PARLIAMENT SQUARE AND OTHER STREETS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at length in regard to this Bill, which is entirely un-controversial. This ground has been the subject of numerous Acts of Parliament, starting from 1536, when the limits of the King's Palace at Westminster were expanded to cover the extensions being built, by King Henry VIII, until the Crown Estates Paving Act was passed in 1851, under which the powers and duties of paving, lighting, watering, cleansing and regulating the streets in question were vested in the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings. Owing to the development of modern traffic, it is desirable that the responsibility for maintaining the roads, dealt with in this Bill, should now be transferrred from the Commissioners of Works to the road authority for the area—namely, the Westminster City Council.
The Commissioners of Works, not being a highway authority, are unable to claim any contribution from the Road Fund, and the entire cost of maintaining these roads has therefore had to be borne on money voted from public funds. The Westminster City Council will be under no such disability. Your Lordships will observe that Clause 1, subsection (1), paragraph (a) of the Bill, reserves all the existing rights and privileges of the Crown exerciseable by the Lord Great Chamberlain or by any other officer of State. The financial effect of the Bill will be to relieve the Crown of the cost of maintaining the roads, and the Westminster City Council will recoup themselves by charging the full rate generally applicable. Hitherto a reduction of 1s. in the £ per annum has been enjoyed

1023
by the ratepayers affected, in view of the fact that the Council did not maintain the streets in question. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I apprehend that, so far as this is a Financial Bill, we have no power to amend it. I should like, however, to have the position made perfectly clear. Will the effect of this Bill be to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a further pocketful out of the Road Fund at the expense of the Petrol Tax payers?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I hardly think that the suggestion that the noble Lord has made is correct. It is merely a question of transference from the Office of Works, who have hitherto maintained these roads, to the City of Westminster, who are the highway authority; and as the Government are the chief ratepayers in this district, it really means that the money which has hitherto been spent by the Office of Works will be paid to the City of Westminster, who will keep up the roadways in question.
LORD OLIVIER: It will be paid out of the Road Fund, instead of out of the Treasury?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY indicated assent.
LORD OLIVIER: Yes, I thought so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which is to extend for two years the period in which guarantees may be given under the export credit guarantees scheme to September, 1931, and the period during which the guarantees already given may remain in force up to September, 1936. This is in accordance with a statement which the Prime Minister made in another place last summer in the course of a debate on un-
1024
employment. It is no new subject to your Lordships. It has been thoroughly debated in connection with the Trade Facilities Acts, and on other occasions within the last few years, and I do not think I need explain to your Lordships the genesis of the scheme. The principle has received favourable consideration from your Lordships, and the present Bill was also favourably received in another place and passed without a Division.
The facilities now offered by the Department are based on the recommendations of the Credit Insurance Committee. They enable exporters to ensure the payment at maturity of a proportion, not exceeding 75 per cent., of bills of exchange drawn by them upon approved importers overseas in respect of goods wholly or partially manufactured in this country. That is practically an insurance business. It is carried out under what is known as Contract A, and it insures the exporter against bad debts. There is a new contract, Contract B, which now extends the cover provided by Contract A to any bank discounting the bills and thus enables the exporter to discount at favourable rates. The contract was prepared in close consultation with the banks who have given the utmost assistance, not only in bringing it to the notice of their customers, but in closely co-operating with the Department. I do not think there is anything further of interest that I can tell your Lordships now, but if any member of your Lordships' House wishes for more information I shall be very glad to furnish it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, on this side of the House we shall certainly not oppose this Bill; we shall support it. Indeed, it is a novel and somewhat refreshing experience to find this Government doing something to help our export trade. I noticed that in a speech two days ago, Lord Hugh Cecil said that of all the failures of the present Government that which was most disastrously and lamentably disappointing was its failure to economise. I am not sure that that was its worst failure because there are so many. But one of the very worst undoubtedly has been the

1025
cumulative effect of their policy upon the export trade of the country. Only the other day it happened that I was reading a letter from the chairman of a very big concern, complaining bitterly of the harm which had been done by the policy of this Government as regards the export trade. In fact, how little importance the Government really attach to the export trade was seen not very long ago when they proposed to abolish the Overseas Trade Department altogether. That was a ridiculous decision, made in response to Press clamour, and it had soon to be reversed. Even so, the Overseas Trade Department is handicapped.
This Bill does not go far enough. Let us take the overseas trade in relation to the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, or at any rate the administration of the Bill, the way in which the Government are to administer it, means that a very big market, a very important actual and still more important potential market is not receiving, so far as the Government are concerned, the help it should receive for our trade; I refer, of course, to Russia. The Government will not extend export credits to Russia. They will not even allow an application for export credits for Russia to come before the Advisory Committee. Not only so, but not very long ago they broke off relations with Russia, which, of course, has been a very damaging thing so far as our trade is concerned, and has meant a free gift of trade to Germany and the United States of which those two countries have not been slow to take advantage. In particular I would make this point because it comes closely to the provisions of this Bill.
Germany is liberal in its export credits for Russia. Your Lordships may remember that in one of the last speeches which the late Lord Emmott, who was a very experienced business man, made in this House on this very point, he urged the Government to extend export credits to Russia and pointed out the great help which German traders received from their Government for trade with Russia. Your Lordships will remember that Lord Emmott was not a man who was particularly friendly to Russia. I heard him make very adverse speeches regarding that country and its government; but he was a business man. He was chairman of a very big company,
1026
which was suffering severely in its export trade. He wanted something done, but the Government would not do it.
The noble Earl said that if there were any questions asked he would be pleased to reply to them and what I would like to know is this. Assuming for the sake of argument what I should think is extremely doubtful, that this Government are in office in a few months time, is their policy to continue to be one of embargo with regard to export credits to Russia? That is the question I should like to ask. Is this embargo going to be removed? What conditions do they require to be established before they will remove what I call the embargo? That is to say, what conditions would they wish to be established before these exports credits can be extended to Russia? Many of their followers have now come to see that efforts should be made for further trade with Russia. It is not very long since the Parliamentary Secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pleading for some better arrangement on this important matter, and we all know at present that there are other negotiations afoot with a view to bringing about a better state of things.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl said that it would be within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister referred to this matter in relation to unemployment. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister did refer to it. We have now nearly one-and-a-half million of unemployed. I should have thought that one of the most disastrous failures of this Government was their failure to deal with unemployment. Here is an opportunity of doing something—not very much, but something to help those 1,500,000 unemployed, something to alleviate this great tragic national problem. What I want to know is, what are the Government's future intentions regarding this matter? Are they going to continue permanently so far as they are concerned, and if not, for what length of time do they intend to continue, this withholding of export credit facilities to Russia? If this matter were settled it might lead, I think it almost certainly would lead, to some very valuable trade for our manufacturers, and particularly for some of those industries which at the present time are suffering most. It is in the interest of

1027
those people that I venture to make these few remarks, and to put forward this plea. If the Government can give us any more satisfactory reply on this matter than has hitherto been given either here or in another place, I for one shall be very glad.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is possible to have a very great dislike for the system of government that exists in Russia—I have personally a dislike for it as great as I have for some of the systems of government in other European countries—but that ought not to affect our judgment when we are dealing with trade in this country. One's political prejudices need not get in the way of one's trade. I would remind your Lordships that the weekly newspaper Punch, which is not, I think, particularly a supporter of those who sit on this side of the House, had a cartoon the other day, which your Lordships may have seen, in which John Bull is shaking hands with the Soviet emissary and is saying: "Now let us talk business." Why do the Government deliberately put a spoke in the wheel of this attempt to talk business? Why do they not allow this credit to be used in such cases in Russia? It is not a case of saying there is no security or anything of that sort because, as I understand it, the attitude is a flat refusal even to look into the matter. I do hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will tell us what possible justification there can be for an attitude which certainly cannot help in reducing the amount of unemployment in this country.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, as no other speakers apparently desire to address you on this stage of the Bill, I will briefly answer my two noble friends opposite. What they have said about Russia is something similar to what has been said by them whenever the subject has been brought forward on past occasions, and I am afraid the answer of the Government is now the same as it was then. It is that the policy of the Government, in refusing credit facilities to the Soviet Government, will last until the Soviet Government itself establishes such conditions in the treatment of debts or compensation for confiscated property as will restore confidence and command credit. Noble Lords lay great stress upon the credit facilities restoring to us a large amount of trade
1028
with Russia, but I would respectfully point out to them that there is nothing at the present time to stop anybody trading with Russia. I may add that many of the biggest traders with Russia, such as the United States, have no agreement at all and no system of credit, and other countries which are supposed to be taking away our trade with Russia equally have no credit facilities.
LORD ARNOLD: Does the noble Earl say Germany has not credit facilities with Russia to-day?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: No, I do not say that. As noble Lords have said, Germany has an agreement but the United States, which is a very large customer of Russia, has no agreement, and as far as my information goes several other countries that trade with Russia equally are not protected by agreement, I am sorry to say I cannot give noble Lords any hope that the Government have changed the policy which has been laid down on several other occasions.
LORD THOMSON: Is the noble Earl aware that since 1925 our export and re-export trade with Russia had fallen from £19,200,000 to £11,320,000? That information was given in an answer by the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons not very long ago and shows that there is some trade to be done with Russia. Is the noble Earl aware that during the period 1924–7 the export trade of the United States with Russia increased from £9,500,000 to £13,500,000? These are figures we cannot get away from. If there is no trade to be done with Russia of course there is no necessity for trade facilities, but the figures I have given show that there is a large amount of trade to be done with Russia, and that trade is being taken away from us by Germany, which has given facilities by Government action and by indirect action, while the United States also are getting Very great facilities. One has only to talk to people who are trading with Russia to know that. The point of our argument is that trade could be stimulated by these facilities. There are a great many merchants up and down this country who are complaining bitterly that this is not done and it seems to me to be a great pity the Government should adopt the attitude indicated by the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I am afraid at first sight it might seem as if I was embarking on a formidable task. The Bill contains 384 clauses occupying 236 pages of printed matter and 12 schedules which occupy nearly another 60 pages, but fortunately, as your Lordships will see by looking more closely into the title of the Bill, it is not necessary for me to ask you to become acquainted with its contents because the Bill is a Consolidation Bill pure and simple. Therefore, if your Lordships see fit to give it a Second Reading, it will go to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which is so ably presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Muir Mackenzie. That Committee will occupy itself with the determination of the question as to whether or not this is in fact a reproduction of the existing law.
The history of the matter can be stated in a few sentences. Last Session Parliament passed the Companies Act of 1928, which embodied a number of alterations in the law, many of them recommended by a very expert Committee presided over by an eminent lawyer, Mr. Wilfred Greene, K.C., and when that Bill was before your Lordships' House I undertook that it should not become operative until this consolidation had been undertaken. In pursuance of that undertaking there has been a great deal of work devoted to the consolidation of company law. Apart from certain enactments scattered over various Acts of Parliament there are four Companies Acts—those of 1908, 1913, 1917 and 1928. Of these, the 1913 Act consists of only one clause and of the 1917 Act there only survives one subsection, so that substantially the law to be consolidated consists of the 1908 and 1928 Acts. The process of consolidation, as your Lordships will appreciate, is not a mere matter of scissors and paste, the bringing together of different pieces of
1030
different Acts of Parliament, but involves a very close study of the law and the reproduction in different language of a combination of two or three sections of different Acts of Parliament. In that process there emerged, as was only to be expected, certain difficulties and certain inconsistencies in the law.
I hope very much that the Joint Committee when it embarks upon its labours will be able to resolve these difficulties and go a long way to clear up those inconsistencies without departing beyond the legitimate limits of consolidation. It may happen that there will ultimately appear to be necessary some amendment of the law as it is declared in the Bill when the Committee have finished with it. It will in that event become the duty of the Government to introduce some amending legislation in order to get rid of any difficulties that may appear. That can be done, of course, by the process of letting the present Bill drop or bringing in an amending Bill in some future Parliament and then a fresh Consolidation Bill, which will embody both the Amendments and the results of the labours of the present Committee. It can, I think, be preferably done, unless the Amendments are numerous, by passing this Bill, as it is ultimately amended by the Committee, into law, but to postpone the date of its actual coming into operation until such Amendments as are necessary are cast in some ensuing Parliament. These Amendments can be passed in what is known as a printing clause—a clause which will provide that the Amendments will be printed with the Bill. In that way the Act, as amended, will appear as containing the whole code of law.
There are certain re-arrangements which it may be thought desirable to make in the form of the Statute. The 1908 Statute was based upon the original 1862 Statute when joint stock companies' limited liability was in its infancy. The result is that there is a good deal of confusion and unsuitable grouping to be found in the 1908 Act, a matter which has been commented upon by lawyers more than once. Those difficulties and that confusion became apparent when the process of consolidation was embarked upon, and the attempt to squeeze into the framework of the 1908 Act the alterations of the 1928 Act made the difficulties even more apparent. Accordingly those who have

1031
framed this Bill have thought it better to re-arrange the law, and your Lordships will find that Part I of the Bill deals with the incorporation of companies, Part II with the share capital and debentures, Part III with the registration of charges, Part IV with the management and administration of companies, Part V with the winding up of companies, grouped under winding up by the Court, voluntary winding up and, finally, provisions applicable to every mode of winding up. The remaining Parts follow generally the arrangement of the 1908 Act, with the alterations made necessary by the 1928 Act.
I think those who practise in the Courts and those who are called upon to deal with company matters will find the new arrangement far more convenient as well as more logical. Indeed I may say that some of those best qualified to judge, including one of the Judges of the Chancery Division of very great experience, have been consulted upon the form of re-arrangement, and have been good enough to express the opinion that not only was re-arrangement necessary, but that the actual way in which it has been done is a very great improvement and is satisfactory. I mention the rearrangement now so that those of your Lordships who busy themselves by looking at the Bill in its present form may not be confused or discouraged if they find that some sections with which they are familiar do not appear quite in the expected place. I am, of course, ready to answer any questions which your Lordships may think fit to ask, but I hope the explanation I have given as to the reasons for the Bill, and the way in which it is brought before your Lordships, will be sufficient to justify your Lordships' House in giving it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, some reference has been made to the fact that it has been my duty and privilege for some time past to deal with Bills that are brought in for the purpose of consolidation. I now rise only to say on behalf of the Committee over which I have the honour to preside how grateful we are to the noble and learned Lord for having provided so much occupation for our future meetings.
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buck-master.)
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, before the Question is put to the House I would venture to make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord to allow the Committee stage to be adjourned for a few days. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill was read a second time on Tuesday and this is only Thursday. It is, I think, an unusually short interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. I know that the Amendment which my noble and learned friend, Lord Darling, wishes to move has been notified quite late because of that short interval. I have only just seen it, and I suppose hardly any other member of your Lordships' House has seen it or knows what it is. I think that a Bill of this kind, however simple it appears in the form which received almost universal approbation after the eloquent speech which the noble and learned Lord made in introducing it, deserves a little time for consideration. I hope he will not think I am opposed to the principle of the Bill. Exactly the contrary is the case. But I think it is possible that there may be some subsidiary provision which it might be desirable to insert, and it is really owing almost to the simplicity of the Bill that there is a danger that something may be overlooked.
Speaking for myself, so far as I shall be able to take any part in the matter, I should like to have a little time to consider it, because the last thing that one wants is to pass anything which would either wreck the object of the noble and learned Lord or raise questions with which the House ought not to be troubled. It is on that ground only that I make this appeal. It cannot really affect seriously the passing of the Bill, in whatever form it emerges into law, nor affect it

1033
so far as its coming into operation is concerned. I really think a short delay would not ultimately injure in any way the object which the noble and learned Lord has in view, which he expounded to us so eloquently and which I honestly desire to carry into effect. It is because I feel entirely with him on the principle of the Bill that I submit that we ought to have a little more time for consideration.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I will tell the noble Earl quite frankly that it appeared to me, and still appears to me, completely impossible for anybody to want to put down Amendments to this Bill when they have approved—even with cordiality—what is the whole provision of the Bill, that marriages between people under the age of sixteen shall be void. The noble Earl says it makes no difference to me if the Committee stage is postponed. Of course, were that so, I should postpone it at once, but in my view it would make a great deal of difference. I am not without hope that if this Bill gets speedily through your Lordships' House it may receive some consideration in another place. I am well aware that every week—I might say every day—by which you postpone its passage will hinder the prospect of that. It is on account of that, and that only, that I am so anxious to proceed in the matter. I feel quite sure that, although the noble Marquess who leads the House has never promised that the Government would entertain this Bill, he would agree with me in saying that the possibility of its being able to be done would largely depend upon the time in which it passes.
The noble Earl assumes—I cannot help thinking he assumes incorrectly—that it is perfectly easy to put this stage down for another day. If the Committee stage is not taken to-day I do not think it will be possible to put it down for a week, or nearly a week. Then you will have an interval before it can be put down for Third Reading. May I suggest to the noble Earl that if he is really anxious to see any Amendments he would have plenty of time, because the Third Reading cannot take place before next Wednesday at the earliest, and between now and then a Bill so pitifully short could be examined and, if he so desired, be turned inside out. There is nothing in the world to prevent a serious Amend-
1034
ment if there be one, but the Amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling—I do not say it disrespectfully to him—seems to me barely serious, and I cannot think that anybody would, or could, put down serious Amendments to this Bill if he were in truth in favour of the provision that I have read, which was received so cordially by the House a few days ago.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, if the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Desart is not adopted, I think I can very soon convince your Lordships, and even my noble and learned friend himself, that my Amendments are very serious indeed. I cannot help thinking that if, before bringing in this Bill, he had considered what would be its necessary operation it would have come before your Lordships in a very different form. I think I can satisfy your Lordships in a few words that upon some of the law which my noble and learned friend stated to your Lordships; he was by no means as accurate as he generally is upon, let us say, equity procedure. What he said really dealt with the Criminal Law, and I think I can satisfy your Lordships that he has not realised all the points that are involved in the Bill that he has introduced.
When I listened to some of the words he used, I thought of getting up at one point to correct my noble and learned friend, but I know that in this House that is never a popular way of behaving in debate, and therefore I allowed the matter to go. His words have appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I must now read to your Lordships what my noble and learned friend said. He gave one or two cases, and then, referring to another case, he said:—
"In that case a child of twelve or thirteen—her exact age is not quite clear—was raped by a man of twenty-nine, and the man was charged with rape before the magistrate. It was then suggested that, if he married the girl, she would be unable to give evidence against him, and he might be acquitted of the charge, and that was done, and this man, who ought to have been sent to gaol for the longest possible period that the law permits, was allowed to enter into a union blessed by tie law with the little creature against whom he had perpetrated this unforgivable wrong."
When my noble and learned friend brought this before your Lordships, he accepted that those who advised the girl

1035
were good lawyers. They were extremely bad lawyers, as I shall show your Lordships. He said that the man was advised that the girl would be unable to give evidence against him, and so this outrage, which my noble and learned friend mentioned as one of the reasons why your Lordships should pass this Bill, went unpunished. But this was entirely wrong and, when your Lordships become, acquainted with my Amendments, you will see that they will do something not only to inform my noble and learned friend but to put his Bill into a much better shape.
It is a longish time ago, but it makes this matter more patent to me to recall that my noble and learned friend and I were both on the Oxford circuit together; and I cannot help thinking that, if he had stayed there somewhat longer, he would have been acquainted with the passage that I am going to read to your Lordships, with your permission, from Taylor on Evidence. I there find, in Section 1370, the following:—
"On the rule which precludes husbands and wives from giving testimony for or against each other in criminal proceedings, a necessary exception has been engrafted at Common Law, when a personal injury has been committed by the one against the other. Were it not for this exception, the wife would be exposed without remedy to brutal treatment."
There cannot be any more brutal treatment than rape.
"If, therefore, a man be indicted for the forcible abduction of a woman with intent to marry her, she is clearly a competent witness against him, if the force were continuing against her till the marriage. Of this last fact also she is a competent witness; and the better opinion seems to be, that she is still competent, notwithstanding her subsequent assent to the marriage, and her voluntary cohabitation; for, otherwise, the offender would take advantage of his own wrong. So, on an indictment for the fraudulent abduction of an heiress, the lady has been admitted as a witness for the prosecution. So, a wife may testify against her husband on an indictment for assisting at a rape committed on her person; or for an assault and battery upon her; or for maliciously shooting, or attempting to poison, her; or, it seems, for any other offence against her liberty or person."
If my noble and learned friend had acquainted himself with that passage and the authorities there cited in support of it, he could not, I think, have spoken to your Lordships as he did in the passage that I have read.
1036
It is really with a desire to make this Bill a good one, so far as this can be done, that I have put down my Amendments, which I hope to be able to move. I think it would be entirely out of order if I wore to tell your Lordships what they are. My noble and learned friend has read them, but he has not had a long time in which to consider them. I wonder that my noble and learned friend Lord Desart did not appeal to the noble Earl who leads the Liberal Party in this House to see that further time was given for the consideration of this Bill, for I still remember that, when I had been for a very short time a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl opposite did me the great service of explaining to me how opposed it was to the forms and traditions of this House to indulge in very hurried legislation.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, will see that he has placed us in rather a difficult situation. No one knows better than he how anxious some of us have been for many years to give your Lordships the necessary time between the various stages of Bills in order to consider them thoroughly. The noble and learned Lord, I think, acted very naturally in pursuing the course that he followed in reference to this Bill. He thought that it was practically an unopposed Bill, and he put it down, as many noble Lords have done, so that one stage would follow another as rapidly as possible. But your Lordships have this evening heard two noble Lords learned in the law make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord not to press this stage of the Bill. Personally I do not want to take a very overt part in pressing him, because it would look as if I were in some way opposed to the Bill, which is not the case. Accordingly I am very reluctant to seem—I think he used this phrase—to be putting a spoke in his wheel.
At the same time I should, I am afraid, be hardly consistent if I did not say that, generally at the instance of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, I have very often insisted upon a considerable interval between the various stages of Government Bills—not, of course, of those that were entirely unopposed, but of Bills to which any opposition in

1037
principle or in detail might have been raised. The noble and learned Lord has acted differently. He was, of course, quite unaware that a noble and learned Lord who held the office for many years of Director of Public Prosecutions desired to have a little time in which to consider the Bill, and I am afraid you cannot treat that intervention as trivial. Lord Desart is as much entitled as any man in this House to consider a Bill of this kind carefully. Then we have a noble and learned Lord who has been for many years a Judge of the High Court, who also wishes to raise points. So far as I am aware I have no sympathy with the points which he intends to raise, but I think it would be fairer that your Lordships should have those Amendments before you in print, rather than that they should be moved in manuscript, without, notice. I do not want to put too much pressure on Lord Buckmaster, whose zeal in this matter I admire, but, I leave it to him whether it is really possible to proceed with the consideration in Committee of a Bill to which Amendments in manuscript are going to be suggested, of which we have no knowledge and which we have had no time or opportunity to consider.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, if the noble Marquess had asked me to postpone this stage it would have made my course much easier. If, on the other hand, he had answered my question, whether it was not an urgent matter to get this Bill through, in order that it might have a better chance of passing through another place, he would have made my course much easier. He has taken neither the one course nor the other, but has left me in a position of extreme embarrassment by making a speech which suggests that he wants the Bill postponed merely to have Amendments considered. If Lord Desart had said to me that between now and next Wednesday there is not time for him to consider the Bill, I should have been greatly moved by his appeal, but I feel certain that he would not make such a suggestion, because no one can doubt that there will be abundant time for the purpose. Again, if this were the last stage of the Bill, and it would never be heard of here again, there might be something to be said, but the Bill has to go to another place, and anything
1038
that is needed can be done there. The speech in which Lord Darling urged me to postpone the Committee stage is, I think, unworthy of grave consideration by the House.
LORD DARLING: I did not intend to urge your Lordships to do anything of the kind. If your Lordships desire that the Committee stage should go on I am perfectly willing. I do not desire it to be postponed.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then I find it entirely impossible to understand why the noble and learned Lord made his speech at all. If it were made for the purpose of suggesting that I have, even unconsciously, misled your Lordships, I do not think that the speech was justified by the facts.
LORD DARLING: I should not dream of making such, a suggestion.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then the noble and learned Lord's intervention becomes more and more incomprehensible. I cannot possibly let the suggestion go by that even by inadvertence I have said something, which influenced your judgment, which was inaccurate. The noble and learned Lord quoted what I said, and quoted accurately. I said that the marriage took place in order that the girl should be unable to give evidence. The word "unable" is practically true, as she is not compellable to give evidence. How do you expect a child of twelve who has been married to a man of twenty-nine, who has raped her, to be a free agent and to come into Court and give evidence? The real effect is just the same whether you use the word compellable or competent or capable witness. That is the whole thing on which the noble and learned Lord has thought it right to read long passages from a law book on evidence, and to suggest that what I have said in some way or another had influenced your Lordships, so as to justify his Amendments. I am not surprised that he said he would not refer to his Amendments, because the first one is an Amendment which I cannot think that any one who desires this Bill to pass would dream of accepting, and the second Amendment is one of which it is really hardly possible to speak with respect. Unless the noble Marquess asks me to adjourn the Committee stage, and at the same

1039
tells me that the adjournment will not prejudice the passage of the Bill in another place, in my anxiety to pass this Bill I shall ask your Lordships to proceed with it at once.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I am not quite sure what was the appeal that the noble and learned Lord made to me, and I want to make it clear that my reason for asking for this postponement is not any desire to delay the Bill. I have only just seen the Amendments which have been mentioned and if they are taken now they will come before the House without any one having had an opportunity of considering them. For my own part, matters have occurred to me which I think might be cured by Amendment, after consideration, but I am not prepared to deal with them to-day. After reasonable time for consideration I might even decide that it was not necessary to move anything.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I asked the noble Earl if he could not leave these things over till the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would apologise to your Lordships for speaking again, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, made a direct appeal to me. I cannot tell him what is going to happen in another place. I have not the slightest idea as to how any one of the three Parties which constitute that great Assembly will regard this Bill. Therefore I can hold out no hope as to the future of the Bill, but the noble and learned Lord's idea that because we take two or three days more to consider the Bill in this House—which is, after all, our business—his reform will be seriously prejudiced, seems to me to be hardly worth discussing at all. I do not suppose that those two or three days' delay will make the slightest difference one way or another, but really that we should hear from noble Lords on that Bench, who are always asking for more time to consider Bills, that my noble friend Lord Desart, who has made a most respectful appeal to the noble and learned Lord, is to be treated with indifference and told that he may raise the matters on Third Reading instead of during the Committee stage of the Bill, causes me considerable surprise. I am in favour of the Bill and against the Amendments of Lord Darling, so far as I know, but I am astonished that the
1040
noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, should have received an appeal of that kind from Lord Desart, one of the most distinguished members of this House, in the way in which he has received it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to make an appeal. I am a supporter of this Bill, but I ask the noble and learned Lord to take a big view of this subject. At this moment, your Lordships have appointed a Joint Committee to discuss with the other House the difficulties into which we often get owing to the way in which Bills have to be rushed through this House, and I am giving away no secret when I say that in all that controversy I appeal to the Parliament Act, which lays down that a month is a reasonable time for the consideration of a Bill. I am not suggesting that it is essential to the public interest that all Bills should take a month. Having said that, really to show the atmosphere in which I regard these questions, may I add this: Surely, in the case of any Bill in which any of your Lordships are going to take a serious interest, to take the Second Reading on Tuesday and the Committee stage on Thursday is not an ideal way of conducting business. I do hope that, as this appeal has been made, my noble and learned friend will respond to it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: After what has been said by the noble Earl I shall not persist.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only course for the noble and learned Lord to take is to move the adjournment of the debate.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The adjournment might be to a date when the Lord Chancellor is occupied, and the Local Government Bill is coming on. Wednesday, I think, would do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is quite easy to fix a day afterwards if the noble and learned Lord would move the adjournment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Wednesday would do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, this Bill, the purpose of which
1042
is to unify the pension system of the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service, is a Money Bill, the provisions of which I explained to your Lordships on the Second Heading. I do not think there is anything that I can add to what I then said, and I will content myself with moving that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Cushendun.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.