Lords Sitting of 8 July 1930

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

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper be agreed to.
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 24th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2ª accordingly.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed.

STANDING ORDERS: AMENDMENTS UPON THIRD READING.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the next Motion standing in my name is that Standing Order No. XXXVII be amended by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:—
"No Amendment shall be moved upon the Third Reading of any Public Bill unless notice of moving the same be given to the Clerk not later than the day preceding that on which the Amendment is to be moved in sufficient time to enable the Amendment to be printed and circulated to members of the House in the form in which it is proposed to move."
314
I do not think I need detain your Lordships at length in moving this Motion. I move it, of course, after consultation with the Leader of the House (Lord Parmoor), who has been good enough to suggest that I should do so owing to the fact, I suppose, that I sat as Chairman of the particular Committee.
The Amendment has been drafted in order to illustrate the existing practice. This, I think, has always been the practice. Like many of your Lordships present I had my apprenticeship in this matter under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Halsbury when he was Lord Chancellor, and I shall never forget the good-natured wigging I received from him when I once tried, without Notice, to move an Amendment on Third Reading to a Government Bill of which I was then in charge. That lesson sank deep, and I have never forgotten it, just as I have never failed to realise that the noble Lord was perfectly right and I was entirely wrong. Therefore, in moving this, I feel I am moving the establishment of what we always have done and what I believe we always should do. The Third Reading stage is so very important that it is obviously undesirable that anything should be done on that stage, when your Lordships part with the Bill, without full Notice.
I think I ought to say one thing further after consultation with your Lordships' authorities. The new Standing Order indicates that Notice must be given the day preceding. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mentioned that the day preceding would mean that if your Lordships were sitting Notice might be handed in during the sitting, but that otherwise it would be sufficient if Notice were handed in by four o'clock in the afternoon of the preceding day. I believe a little point has arisen in some of our friendly discussions as to whether Amendments are moved upon the Third Reading or after the Third Reading. Strictly speaking, they are moved after the Third Reading, but the phrase used has always been "upon Third Reading." I have in my hand a couple of Notices taken at random—"Marshalled List of Amendments upon Third Reading," and similarly on Report it has been our habit to use that phrase. It is one which everyone understands, and although I would not quarrel with any one

315
on a question of English grammar, I think it is better to stick to the language we all know and understand although sometimes it may be a little illogical.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXVII be amended as folows:—
At the end of the Standing Order insert the following new paragraph:—
No Amendment shall be moved upon the Third Reading of any Public unless notice of moving the same be given to the Clerk not later than the day preceding that on which the Amendment is to be moved in suffisient time to enable the Amendment to be printed and circulated to members of the House in the form in which it is proposed to move.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as your Lordships know, or at any rate as those who take a constant interest in the proceedings of this House know, there have been one or two little difficulties in the past on this question, and if the noble Earl the Lord Chairman will allow me to say so, I think we have agreed to a very happy solution of the difficulties which have arisen. This House is quite properly very jealous of every liberty that it is in possession of, and I think it would be a great pity if we were to depart from some of the liberties we have at the present moment. This Standing Order, for which I shall certainly vote, is only of a tentative kind and if it is found inconvenient in the future there will be opportunity of changing it to something more convenient. As it stands, it is in the very strictest form that is possible. There is no sort or kind of alleviation possible, supposing it to be to the convenience of your Lordships House and nobody objects. All these qualifications are swept away and the rule is laid down in the future without any sort or kind of deviation.
I have no criticism to make on that point, but what I would like to refer to is something that arose the other day in regard to an Amendment to a Commons Amendment. Now it is perfectly true, as the noble Earl the Lord Chairman said, and as I think was said in debate in the House by the noble Marquess beside me, Lord Salisbury, that it is most important on such occasions
316
that the Amendment should be quite clearly before your Lordships' House in printed form so that we should know exactly what we are dealing with. Everything which can be said about that with regard to this Standing Order on Third Reading can be said with regard to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments. That equally is the last opportunity your Lordships may have of dealing with a Bill. If we are to tie up our proceedings with regard to the Third Reading, surely it is just as important that we should tie them up in regard to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments on any Bill that comes before us. I would venture to say that every argument that can be brought forward in support of this particular Standing Order can be brought forward in support of a similar rule dealing with Commons Amendments to any Bill that comes before your Lordships' House.
The matter arose the other day when an Amendment was moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to an Amendment which I think he himself had on the Paper. I am not quite sure of that, but somebody bad it on the Paper. An Amendment was moved without Notice having been given. It was handed in in manuscript form. I have no objection to offer to that, but I would say that I look forward to the occasion when the noble Marquess himself, whether sitting on this side of the House or the other, next year, five years hence or ten years hence, will find that the Standing Order is itself inconvenient and will perhaps find that it limits his own authority. In that event he may wish to relax its strict provisions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I find myself compelled to take a rather dislocated line of argument in answer to the noble Earl, because, although I am not able to agree with him that the Standing Order is too strict in its reference to the Third Reading, yet paradoxically enough I cannot go with him in his wish to extend the same principle to the consideration of Commons Amendments, in such a case as happened the other day. As regards the Third Reading, the thing is quite simple. As the Lord Chairman has said, we in the Select Committee have only put into drafting form what has been the practice of your Lordships' House at any rate

317
for the last thirty or forty years, and, I dare say, for the last three or tour centuries. At any rate, so far as we know, it has never been different. It is not permitted to move an Amendment on Third Reading except after Notice.
The noble Earl says: "How rash of you to be so unqualified in your adhesion to this doctrine! Surely, there ought to be some means of escaping from it." All these desires to escape from it have a tremendous danger. It is assumed that those present in your Lordships' House may unite in saying that they do not want the rule enforced. If, of course, all your Lordships always attended debates there might be something in that, or even if a large number did so. But what very often happens is that, upon that particular stage, there are very few noble Lords who think it necessary to be present. Seeing that there are no Amendments on the Paper for the Third Reading, and being perhaps in favour of the Bill as it stands, noble Lords absent themselves and do not think it necessary to come. Then down comes the noble Earl, perhaps, and says that he thinks an Amendment should be put in. Only a few of your Lordships are here, the rule is relaxed and the Bill finally emerges from this House in a form quite different from that which was intended by those who were not present for the Third Reading, and had no reason to be present because they did not expect any Amendments at all. Therefore I am not in favour of anything except the bare statement of the rule as it has always existed, of course without qualification.
Then the noble Earl says: "You are most inconsistent. Here you are making this tremendous fuss about the Third Reading, and yet when Amendments come from the Commons and you want to deal with them you do not insist upon Notice." In the first place, that stage, especially in a Bill of any importance, is a stage that makes so much stir that it is likely that there will be a very considerable House to deal with it. But the real argument against extending the rule to Commons Amendments is that very often a matter has to be decided in a violent hurry. I have had a great deal of experience—not more than the noble Earl; indeed, I think not so much—and he knows quite well that the general rule is that a Bill comes from the Commons
318
in the dying days of the Session and an arrangement has to be made. Your Lordships either give way, or stand out or make a compromise; but in any case a decision has to be come to immediately, and you cannot therefore exclude the expedient of manuscript Amendments. It may be the only thing to be done. A Prorogation may be immediately in sight. Accordingly it is impossible to make a rule. Of course, if the noble Earl says to me: "Do you not think it would be, in an ideal state of things, by far the best method?" I agree with him. I think it does involve a certain risk that we sometimes have to deal with Commons Amendments without Notice, but it is because I think it is impracticable that I am not able to agree with the noble Earl's suggestion, not because I differ from him as to its theoretic value.
Then he says that sometimes noble Lords change the side of the House on which they sit and, when they have changed the side of the House, take a different view. That may be so with some noble Lords—I will not lay down the law—but, so far as the humble individual who is now addressing you is concerned, I enforced that rule quite as rigidly when sitting on that side of the House as on this.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Against me, you mean.
THE MARQUESS OE SALISBURY: Even against my noble friend. Does that not show how distinterested I was? I remember, on a Government Bill, using all my influence to prevent the consideration of an Amendment designed by the Department of one of my own colleagues, because no Notice had been given on the Third Reading. As a matter of fact, the Amendment was not moved and the Bill, so far as your Lordships were concerned, passed without it. As regards that particular shaft which the noble Earl aimed at me, I therefore have been able to cut it out without any wound. I venture to think that your Lordships will be well advised to pass this Amendment of the Standing Order. It has been very carefully considered by an influential Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and it really only seeks to put into form what has been the immemorial practice of the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I desire very heartily to support the proposed Amendment of the Standing Order. I think we shall all agree with the noble Marquess that, whatever may happen on other occasions, so far as the traditional rules or Standing Orders of the House are concerned it makes no difference whatever on which side of the House we are sitting on a particular occasion. When this matter first arose there was a desire to make a very slight Amendment to an Amendment proposed after the Third Reading of a Bill, and on that occasion the noble Marquess took strong objection, as he was of course entitled to do, and said that in his view the traditional rule of the House was that no such Amendment could be made, for the reason which he then stated, that it was necessary on the last stage of the Bill in this House that all members of the House should have information if some change that might be of a vital character was to be made. On that particular occasion the Amendment was of a slight character—I need not go into it—but I heartily support the proposal to put what is the traditional rule of the House into the form of a Standing Order, in order to prevent any question of a similar kind arising in the future and to put the matter beyond all controversy. On principle, I am bound to say that the liberty to amend after Third Reading might be abused if, without Notice, some Amendment, possibly of a very vital character, could be introduced.
In regard to the consideration of Commons Amendments I think that different considerations arise. On the ground of convenience I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has said, but we have to consider with what we are dealing. We are considering whether we shall insist upon our Amendments as against Commons Amendments, or how we shall deal with questions of that kind. Your Lordships have to recollect that, unless the matter is rather carefully dealt with, a Bill may be lost, although it is desired to make an Amendment rather than a direct negative to a particular Commons Amendment at that stage. I recollect perfectly well—I think the noble Marquess and the noble Earl will remember it—that when the ques-
320
tion of Proportional Representation was before the House, had not that liberty been preserved a very important Amendment moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne could not have been moved, and instead of the Bill going on for discussion and ultimate settlement it would have ended, because the particular proposition would have been twice rejected. There is another reason. I understand that no such rule has been applied traditionally.
A strong argument, I always thought, of the noble Earl and the noble Marquess was that so far as the matter has now been dealt with by Standing Order, as regards Third Reading, it is merely putting into standard form an admitted traditional rule. I dare say other matters may come forward and have to be considered on their merits, whenever necessary, but at the present time I think the Amendment proposed is properly limited to the matter under discussion, and that we ought when altering our Standing Orders to have the particular matter properly threshed out and considered, in order that we may make no mistake in carrying out our duties in this House. I hope the Amendment will be unanimously accepted.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ESSEX) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (TORQUAY AND WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BOGNOR REGIS AND CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER AND SEVEN-OAKS WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEVON, CREDITON EXHIBITION FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

  SALFORD PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, these two Bills on the Paper are a week or two later than the date mentioned in the Order with respect to the Second Readings, and therefore I must first move the Motion on the Paper that the Order be dispensed with.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 24th of June next," be dispensed with.—(Earl Russell.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Marriages Provisional Order Bill deals with a subject which frequently comes before Parliament. It refers to cases in which, owing to an accident, a marriage has been celebrated with sonic small irregularity. In one or two instances, I
322
think, either the person who performed the marriage did not happen to be authorised or there was not a registrar in attendance. The Bill relates to eleven, cases, and the Order has been made by the Secretary of State, under his powers, to remove any doubt, if there be any, as to the validity of the marriages so performed. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.

SALFORD PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary of State on April 8. It is due to the fact that a section of the Salford Corporation Act, dealing with penalties for keeping obscene literature and pictures and so on, expired, and the Salford City Council asked for an extension without limit of time. That was refused by the Secretary of State, but since then a similar provision has been granted to Bradford, without a time limit, and the Secretary of State thought it right to accede to the application of the Salford City Council and continue the provision without any limit of time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.

POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. I will only do so formally. Its object is to make better provision for the defence of poor prisoners in criminal cases. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that the Bill was prepared about eighteen months ago, and received the approval of Sir William Joynson-Hicks, the then Home Secretary. It was brought in as a Private Member's Bill in November-last and passed through all the procedure in another place. It then came before your Lordships and it has passed

323
through this House with one or two very small Amendments without any Division.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.