Lords Sitting of 9 May 1933

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

THE LATE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to your Lordships the following Message from the King:
"I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for a Memorial Tablet to be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Honourable The Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and assuring me that you will concur in giving effect thereto.
"I will gladly give directions for carrying into effect your proposal to do honour to the memory of that eminent statesman and devoted servant of his country."

FALSE OATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a: and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BATH AND BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
RHONDDA PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
House in committee (according to order) on re-commitment of the Bill; Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It represents the last of the long series of distinguished services rendered to the State by the late Lord Chelmsford. The origin of the Bill is to be found in the work of a Committee appointed in 1929 by Mr. Greenwood, then Minister of Health, over which Lord Chelmsford presided. The task of the Committee was in the first instance to consider the consolidation of the law of local government in England and Wales, and to recommend what amendments would be desirable for facilitating this consolidation and for securing simplicity, uniformity and conciseness. After more than two years labour the Committee issued an Interim Report and a Draft Local Government Bill.
The Bill represents an important instalment of the work of consolidating and clarifying the Statute Law of this country. It forms part also of a process of consolidation which has been carried out by the Ministry of Health since the Department was first created; for example, the consolidation of the Poor Law, of housing legislation, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and a number of other Acts. It is a prelude to the consolidation of the law as to public health, a task to which the same Committee will proceed to devote its attention. The prolixity and confusion of the existing law of local government is notorious and has been the subject of frequent comment from the judicial bench and in the public Press. Permit me to cite a single example only. In the case of Field versus the Poplar Borough Council ([1929] 1 K.B. 750) the late Mr. Justice McCardie said:
"I have now completed the somewhat tedious recital of the confused and strangely complex series of provisions which affect the appointment, tenure and salary of a chief sanitary inspector. I venture to express the hope that the day is not far distant

763
when our local government law will pass from the evils of an almost chaotic obscurity into the region of broad and orderly arrangement."
It is believed that this Bill goes a long way to realise this hope.
No one would deny that it is itself a long and complex one, containing as it does over 300 clauses and 11 Schedules. The measure of success which has been attained in simplifying and clarifying the existing law may, to some extent, be judged by the fact that the Bill repeals in whole 47 Acts of Parliament and in part a further 177 Acts of Parliament, and that its 300 odd clauses and 11 Schedules take the place of over 900 Sections and 33 Schedules which are either wholly or partially repealed. As another illustration of the simplification which the Bill effects it may be mentioned that the whole law of local government audit is to be found in its Part X which contains 24 clauses. As will be seen from the marginal references, these clauses represent portions of no fewer than 15 Acts ranging between the years 1860 and 1932. Without desiring to resort to rhetoric it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that if anyone desired to have all the law on this subject ready to hand it would be necessary for him to have a library of books, so many are the Statutes and so many are the volumes in which these Statutes are contained.
It would be unfair to the House to attempt at the present stage to expound in detail the contents of the Bill, but in broad outline its object and effect can be stated in one or two sentences. In the first place it deals with local government in England and Wales; that is to say, the constitution, election and general powers and duties of the five familiar types of local authorities—county councils, borough councils, urban and rural district councils, and parish councils—on whose proper functioning the health and comfort of every citizen so largely depends. It does not attempt to deal with the special functions of these authorities, such as housing, education, and public assistance. Each of these is dealt with in its own particular code and to attempt to amalgamate all those codes into a single whole would undoubtedly be a mistake.
Secondly, the main though not the whole object of the Bill is consolidation: that is to say, to bring within the compass
764
of a single Statute a mass of law now scattered up and down the Statute Book. Much of it is over fifty years old. A glance at the Repeals Schedule will show that the first enactment to be repealed dates from the reign of Henry VIII and that more than a score of the repealed Acts are earlier than the middle of the last century.
But the Bill is not a purely consolidating measure. The prolixity of the existing local government law and its lack of uniformity is mainly due to the fact that different codes were enacted at different dates and in very different language for the several classes of local authority. Thus the borough councils are governed by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, reproduced largely from the similar Act of 1835. The county councils are governed partly by the Act of 1882, which was largely incorporated into the Local Government Act, 1888, and partly by fresh, and in form much more modern, provisions inserted in the latter Act. The urban district councils fall under the Public Health Act, 1875, which itself was a consolidating Act amalgamating legislation going back to 1848. The rural district and parish councils derive their constitution and powers from the Local Government Act, 1894, though the former are also to some extent governed by the Act of 1875. Thus, apart from a mass of subsidiary legislation, there are four main codes: the Public Health Act, 1875, the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894, all of which deal with the constitution and powers of different types of local authority and use language of the most diverse description for that purpose.
It will be clear that if the whole of the provisions contained in these codes had merely been placed in juxtaposition by a consolidating Statute, little or no advantage in the matter either of conciseness, simplicity or clarity would have accrued. The Bill would probably have run into more than a thousand clauses and most of the accidental variations between the language of the different codes would have had to be reproduced. The task of the Committee was so far as practicable to select from these multifarious provisions a single code which could be made applicable to all the five types of local authority. This task neces-

765
sarily involves something more than pure consolidation, since if three or four slightly differing codes are to be replaced by a single one it follows that amendments of the law must be made.
The Bill not being a purely consolidating measure cannot be referred to the Joint Consolidation Committee under the familiar procedure which applies to Consolidation Bills. The Government recognise, however, that it would be unfair to expect the House to consider the clauses in detail unless the Bill has first been submitted to a close examination in Committee. They propose therefore to invite both Houses to concur in appointing a Joint Select Committee for this purpose. We hope that this Committee will be in a position to commence its task before the Whitsuntide Recess and that time will suffice to enable the Bill to reach the Statute Book before the end of the Session.
The Bill is in its origin and conception an entirely non-Party and non-controversial measure. It has been warmly welcomed by the great associations of local authorities and in the general and local government Press as a most, valuable measure of legal codification. Its primary object is not to produce a new and perfect code of local government law. That is a matter for subsequent measures, and the preparation of such measures will be enormously simplified and facilitated if the present Bill becomes law. In particular, with a few relatively unimportant exceptions, the Bill makes no attempt to include the valuable suggestions made by the Royal Commission on Local Government over which the Lord Chairman recently presided. Its aim is consolidation, simplification and clarification of the existing law. It is possible that the Bill may be criticised on the ground that, if amendment as well as consolidation is necessary, the more usual course of amending a separate Bill and subsequently consolidating ought to have been adopted. Those interested in the matter will find the point fully discussed in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Interim Report of Lord Chelmsford's Committee.
Put quite shortly, the reason for adopting the exceptional procedure is the same as the reason for amending as well as consolidating the local government law—namely, that to reduce a number of diverse codes to a single code involves
766
So large a number of amendments that the amending Bill would be almost as long as the present Bill and would necessarily be far less intelligible. A glance at the Appendix to the Report will be sufficient to demonstrate the number of amendments which would have had to be included in the amending Bill, and that Appendix does not pretend to be exhaustive, as it omits amendments which, though of a drafting nature, might be held to go beyond consolidation pure and simple. When this Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it may be soon, it will remain a memorable example of present day efforts to reform the Statute Book and to simplify the practice and procedure of the law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that this Bill, besides being a codification Bill, introduces certain new clauses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether those clauses will enable local authorities to reduce expenditure?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to the noble Lord is this: I share his hopes.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move, That it is expedient that the Local Government Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Non-statutory properties and endowments of quoad sacra parishes.
3.—(1) The trustees or other persons in whom any properties or endowments, whether heritable or moveable, of a parish quoad sacra, other than the statutory properties and endowments of the parish, are vested shall, if so required by the General Trustees, convey or transfer such properties and endowments (hereinafter referred to as non-statutory properties and endowments) or any of them to the General Trustees or to any other body authorised for the purpose by the General Assembly, and on their so conveying or transferring the same, such trustees or other persons shall be thereby fully exonerated and discharged of the trust under which the said properties and endowments were held without the necessity of any further release, discharge or exoneration.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (1), after "General Trustees or," to insert "in the option of such Trustees or other persons." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the following one are designed to give any trustees who hold properties and endowments of a parish quoad sacra the option, when the General Trustees call for a transfer of the properties and endowments, of transferring, instead of to the General Trustees, to a body specially authorised for the purpose by the General Assembly or to some permanent local body.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after ("or") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved —
Page 2, line 38, after ("Assembly") insert ("or to a permanent body of local trustees").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("persons") insert ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "shall" ["and shall apply the proceeds thereof"] and insert "to." The noble Lord said: The effect of this
768
Amendment is to enable, instead of requiring, the General Trustees or other body by whom any non-statutory properties may be sold, to apply the proceeds to such purposes as the General Assembly may direct.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out, ("shall") and insert ("to").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The remaining Amendments to Clause 3 are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("that") insert ("the consent of the General Assembly declared by Act of Assembly shall be required to the sale or disposal of any such properties and endowments")
Page 3, line 10, after ("where") insert ("by")
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("held") to end of clause and insert ("the General Trustees or any trustees or other persons holding the same have power to sell or to dispose thereof without such consent ").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Chapels of ease and mission churches.
4. Any trustees or other persons in whom any chapel of ease, mission church or church hall is vested or the General Trustees if the same shall be vested in them shall have power to sell or otherwise dispose of the same and to apply the proceeds thereof for such ends, uses and purposes as the General Assembly may direct. Provided always that, except where the terms of the deed of trust, conveyance or other deed under which any chapel of ease, mission church or church hall is held authorise the sale or disposal thereof, the consent of the General Assembly declared by Act of Assembly shall be required to any sale or disposal thereof.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after "power," to insert "subject to the provisions of any deed of trust, conveyance or other deed applicable thereto." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to ensure that the power given by the clause to sell the subjects referred to is not to override any restriction contained in the titles on which the subjects are held.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, after ("power") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next three amendments are drafting.
Amendments movsd—
Page 3, line 22, after ("that") insert ("the consent of the General Assembly declared by Act of Assembly shall be required to the sale or disposal thereof")
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("held") to end of clause and insert ("the trustees or other persons or the General Trustees holding the same have power to sell or to dispose thereof without such consent").— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Parliamentary churches and manses, etc.
5. Notwithstanding anything in the Act George IV, chapter 20, or in the principal Act, the General Trustees shall, subject to the consent of the General Assembly, declared by Act of Assembly, have power to sell or otherwise dispose of any parliamentary church or manse, or any other subjects connected therewith vested in them under Section twenty-three of the principal Act and shall apply the proceeds thereof for such ends, uses and purposes as the General Assembly may direct. Provided always that no ground used as a burial ground shall be put to any other use.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after "power," to insert "subject to the provisions of any deed of trust, conveyance or other deed applicable thereto." The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to that on Clause 4, the object being to preserve any restrictions contained in the titles to the properties.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("power") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Suppression or union of parishes]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Amendments to this clause are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 13, leave out from beginning to the first ("the") in line 14, and insert ("Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament, decree of the Court of Session or Court of Teinds, or deed of
770
constitution or in the titles2 deeds, or certificates relating to any parish quoad secra or any parish quoad omnia included in the Eighth Schedule to the principal Act")
Page 4, line 17, after the first ("any") insert ("such")
Page 4, line 17, leave out from the first ("parish") to the first ("or") in line 19.
Page 4, line 34, after ("any") insert ("such")
Page 4, line 38, after ("thereof") insert ("or any part thereof")
Page 4, line 41, after ("no") insert ("such").—(Lora Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Application of properties and endowments on, suppression of union of quoad sacra parishes.
8. Upon the suppression of any parish quoad sacra or of any parish quoad omnia included in the Eighth Schedule to the principal Act, or upon the alteration or extension of the bounds of such parish or the uniting of the same with any other parish or parishes by the General Assembly or by such body as aforesaid, whether such suppression or uniting shall have taken place prior to the commencement of this Act or shall take place at any date subsequent thereto, the following provisions shall have effect:—
(1) Any obligation by any third party contained in any bond or other deed or document representing or making provision for part or the whole of the statutory endowments of the parish being a parish quoad sacra, or any obligation at common law for payment of the stipend or part of the stipend of the parish being a parish quoad omnia, shall not be prejudiced or affected by such suppression or union or alteration or extension of bounds, but shall remain in full force and effect unless and until expressly discharged or otherwise dealt with by the General Trustees, and the statutory properties and endowments of the parish being a parish quoad sacra shall be held, or if the General Assembly by Act of Assembly so direct, shall be sold or otherwise disposed of by the General Trustees, and the income of such properties and endowments or the proceeds thereof, if sold or otherwise disposed of as well as the income of such proceeds, shall be applied by the General Trustees; subject to the provisions of Section thirty-six of the principal Act, for such ends, uses and purposes as the General Assembly may direct. Provided always that no ground used as a burial ground shall be put to any other use:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The first Amendment to this

771
clause is drafting and is similar to that made to Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, after (" shall ") insert (" subject to the provisions of any deed of trust, conveyance or other deed applicable thereto ")— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved to insert in paragraph (1) after "Provided always that":

"(a) Any bond of annual rent or other heritable security permanently provided or secured for the maintenance of the church or manse of any parish quoad sacra shall, if such church or manse is sold or otherwise disposed of, be discharged by the general trustees as regards the subject so sold or disposed of, quoad the obligation for such maintenance, unless the debtor in such bond or other heritable security consents to such obligation remaining in full force and effect; but that without prejudice to any obligations for payment of stipend or otherwise contained in such bond of annual rent or other heritable security such as aforesaid, or for the maintenance of any church or manse remaining unsold or undisposed of and falling to be retained for any ecclesiastical purpose; and

(b)." The noble Lord said: Under a number of old Scottish Acts alterations in parishes could be effected by uniting them or disjoining parts of one parish and annexing those parts to another parish. The matter was carried a stage further by the New Parishes (Scotland) Act of 1844 which enacted that when any persons had built or undertaken to build a church application might be made to the Teinds Court for permission to make such church into a parish church and to designate a district to be attached to the church known as a quoad sacra parish. The Teinds Court was authorised to grant the application provided that the titles to the church were in order, that provision was made for the maintenance of the fabric of the church, and that a stipend of £100, with a suitable manse, was secured to the minister, or a stipend of £120 without a manse. These endowments were known as the statutory endowments of the parish. Not only fee simple proprietors but also heirs in entail could burden their estates for the purpose of endowing a quoad sacra parish. The endowment was effected by granting a bond on the property. The bond might be granted for the purpose of paying the minister's stipend or with
772
object of providing a certain sum annually for the maintenance of the manse or the church or both.

Clause 8 of this Bill provides that upon the suppression of any quoad sacra parish any obligation by any third party contained in any bond making provision for part of the statutory endowments of a quoad sacra parish shall remain in full force and effect unless, and until, discharged by the General Trustees of the Church. The clause also provides that the statutory endowments may be sold or otherwise disposed of by the General Trustees and the proceeds may be applied by the General Trustees to such purposes as the General Assembly may direct. The object of my Amendment is to give a heritor whose estate is charged with a bond of annual rent for the maintenance of the church or manse of a quoad sacra parish the right to have that bond discharged quoad that obligation if the church or manse is sold or disposed of. This Amendment has been agreed to by the Scottish Land and Property Federation and also by the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland, and I hope my noble friend will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38, at end insert the said new paragraph — (Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That will mean that the proviso at the end of line 38 will come in as sub-paragraph (b).
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential on a previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("that") insert ("the consent of the General Assembly declared by Act of Assembly shall be required to the sale or disposal of any such properties and endowments")— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next three Amendments are also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("where") insert ("by")
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("held") to end of subsection and insert ("the General Trustees or any trustees or other

773
persons holding the same have power to sell or to dispose thereof without such consent")
Page 6, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions of any deed of trust, conveyance or other deed applicable thereto").—(Lord strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Rights of superiors and others]:
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON had given Notice to move the insertion of the fallowing paragraph—
"(2) Where any ground has been feued for a nominal feu-duty for the site of the church or manse of any parish and where nothing is stated in the feu charter, feu contract or other deed under which such ground is feued as to the feu-duty which is to be payable by the vassal in the event of the church or manse being sold or disposed of for other than any ecclesiastical purpose, the feu-duty to be payable for the said ground after such sale is effected shall be such sum as shall be agreed upon between the superior and. "he general trustees or such sum as, failing agreement, shall be determined by an arbiter to be appointed by the sheriff."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is. Moved in order to get over a difficulty which may easily arise if a church or manse is sold. In many cases of quoad sacra parishes the ground which is to be used as the site of the church or manse has been feued by a superior for a nominal feu-duty. The ground according to the feu charter was feued for the purpose of providing a site for the church or manse as the case might be. If the church or manse is sold or otherwise disposed of, what is the legal position of the feu right, and what feu-duty should be payable in future to the superior when the ground is no longer so used? To avoid such a difficulty or doubt, the Amendment provides that in all such cases the feu-duty to be payable for the ground is to be such sum as shall be agreed upon between the superior of the ground and the General Trustees of the church, or such sum as, failing agreement, shall be determined by arbitration. I hope that the noble Lord will also see his way to accept this Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Government is prepared to accept this Amendment subject to the insertion in the third last line, after the ward "trustees," of the words "or other
774
vassal." I understand the noble Lord himself has agreed to this. This would enable the agreement as to the amount of the feu-duty to be made by the landowner and the person to whom the church sells, if that should be more convenient.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I shall put the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
(" (2) Where any ground has been felted for a nominal feu-duty for the site of the church or manse of any parish and where nothing is stated in the feu charter, feu contract or other deed under which such ground is feued as to the feu-duty which is to be payable by the vassal in the event of the church or manse being sold or disposed of for other than any ecclesiastical purpose, the feu-duty to be payable for the said ground after such sale is effected shall be such sum as shall be agreed upon between the superior and the general trustees or other vassal or such sum as, failing agreement, shall be determined by an arbiter to be appointed by the sheriff.")— (Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Vesting of stipends of ministers of burgh churches, etc.]:
LORD STRATIICONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("hereinafter mentioned") and insert ("of the passing of this Act").— (Lord Strathcona and Mount-Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is of the same character.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, leave out from (" incumbent ") to end of clause and insert:
" Provided that the minister of any such church as aforesaid, being the incumbent of the benefice at the date of the passing of this Act, or where an assistant and successor has been appointed to such minister, either the minister or the assistant and successor, with the consent of the assistant and successor or of the minister (as the case may be), or failing such consent, with the authority of the presbytery, may elect, by intimation in writing addressed to the General Trustees, that the provisions of this section shall apply to his stipend, and in such cases the benefice shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed

775
to have become vacant as at the date of the said intimation."— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Vesting of glebe feu-duties, etc.]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to add the following proviso:
"Provided however that the minister being the incumbent of the benefice at the date of such transfer, or where an assistant and successor has been appointed to such minister either the minister or the assistant and successor, with the consent of the assistant and successor or of the minister (as the case may be) or, failing such consent, with the authority of the presbytery, may elect, by intimation in writing addressed to the General Trustees, that the provisions of this section shall take effect as if a vacancy in the benefice had occurred, and in such case the benefice shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have become vacant as at the date of the said intimation."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment is similar to that on Clause 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Notarial execution by minister of wills, etc.
13. A minister of the Church of Scotland acting in any area or district to which he has been appointed without limit of time or for a period of years to officiate as minister shall, in such area or district, have the like power as regards the notarial execution of wills or other testamentary writings as is conferred by subsection (1) of Section eighteen of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, on a parish minister acting in his own parish, and any reference in the said section to an assistant and successor shall be deemed to include a reference to a colleague and successor.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out from ("Scotland") to ("has") in line 28 and insert ("who").— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is also a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, after ("appointed") insert ("to a charge").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("such area or district") and insert ("any parish in which such charge or any part thereof is situated").— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out all words after "own parish" and insert the following new subsections:
"(2) A certificate by one of the principal clerks, or the principal clerk if there shall be only one, of the General Assembly, stating the parish in which the charge of any such minister is situated shall be accepted as conclusive evidence thereof.
(3) In the foregoing provisions of this section the expression 'minister' shall include an assistant and successor or a colleague and successor of such minister.
(4) Any reference in subsection (1) of Section eighteen of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, to an assistant and successor shall be deemed to include a reference to a colleague and successor."
The noble Lord said: This clause enables a minister of any charge in a parish to execute in the parish a will on behalf of a person unable to write. The Amendment makes provision for a certificate by the clerk to the General Assembly that the minister's charge is situated within a particular parish, a matter which might not be generally known.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, leave out from the second ("parish") to end of clause and insert the said new subsections.'— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (LORD IRWIN): My Lords, the Bill of which I now have to move the Second Reading is a Bill, as your Lordships will have observed, that provides for the payment to the Rubber Research Association by every manufacturer of rubber of a contribution proportioned to the amount of raw rubber delivered to him. The rate of contribution is to be calculated to produce the annual sum required for the purposes of the Research Association—namely £15,000—and I am advised that on the 1931 and 1932 consumption figures this would require a contribution of more than one-forty-fifth of one penny per lb. There are clauses which deal with the method of collecting the contributions, the maintenance of secrecy as to manufacturers' consumption, etc., Clause 6 requires a report by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the work of the Research Association to be made to Parliament within five years, five years being the limit of the duration of the Bill; and, further, lays it down that such Report shall not disclose any confidential matter without the consent of the Association.
The Research Association, of which mention is made in this Bill, and to which the money found by the Bill is to be paid, has, as some of your Lordships know, a large and, I think, comprehensive membership in the various branches of the rubber industry. It is one of the co-operative research associations which were formed under the Government scheme of 1918 for the purposes of which Parliament granted a sum of £1,000,000. The particular Research Association that deals with rubber was formed in the year, I think, 1920, and since that time has been responsible for providing and equipping its own workshops, laboratories and library. During the first five years of its life it received grants substantially on the basis of £ for £—£1 for every £1 contributed by the industry— and it was, I suppose, at that time hoped that in due course the industry would become so convinced of the value of their co-operative research organisation that after the first five years no further financial assistance would be required from the State. That hope, unfortunately, has suffered disappointment, and the Government grant, which was decreased after the fifth year, has now definitely ceased, and, at the
778
end of February last, owing to lack of funds, the greater part of the Association's staff was dismissed and their premises were placed on what, I believe, in the Navy is termed a care and maintenance basis.
The Bill that I bring before the House this afternoon is no new one. In one form or another it has been introduced by private members in another place four times. First in 1927 when it had the support of members of all Parties, and again in 1928, when the then President of the Board of Trade, now Colonial Secretary, spoke in favour of it. In 1930 it secured a Second Reading by 148 to 10 after being supported in speech by the representative of the Board of Trade in the then Labour Government, but was again held up by congestion of business. Finally, last December, the Bill was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule but its Second Reading was blocked by several private members, and accordingly the Bill was withdrawn last month in order to give an opportunity to the Government to introduce it in your Lordships' House.
The reasons that have led the Government to take that course are shortly these. I am advised that if the Bill is not passed by the end of the Session there is, in fact, no alternative but the closing down of the Rubber Research Association for lack of funds. That, in the view of the Government and in the view, I think, of those who are best qualified to judge from knowledge of the circumstances of the industry, would be in the highest degree unfortunate. The adoption of the Bill, therefore, by the Government is due to these exceptional and urgent circumstances, and must not be taken to indicate that the Government will be prepared to adopt a similar course in regard to other Bills dealing with the interests of particular industries. Indeed, one reason for making an exception in this case would be to give an opportunity for a trial of this new method of raising funds for industrial research associations. Your Lordships will observe that the Bill as drafted is due to expire at the end of 1938.
In making themselves responsible for the Bill the Government would not have decided upon that course if they had not understood that the overwhelming majority of the trade are in its favour. I believe, indeed, that it is no exaggeration

779
to say that the Bill has the support of almost the whole of the rubber industry. It is, of course, true that a petition against its provisions that I hold in my hand and which your Lordships, I think, also have received, has been signed by a number of firms, but I am informed that very few of the firms signing that petition are rightly classed as large consumers of rubber. On the other hand, as against that, the Bill is endorsed most warmly by such organisations as chambers of commerce, various scientific bodies, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and, lastly, the Board of Trade.
I may perhaps quote a sentence or two from the Report that was made by the Balfour Committee on Industry and Trade in 1929, which is relevant and I think your Lordships should have present to your minds. The Committee stated:
" We have watched with interest and sympathy the steps taken by the rubber industry to secure the necessary funds for the operations of the Research Association through a small levy on imported rubber. We hope that this scheme will receive legislative sanction, and that it may serve as an example to other industries to adopt measures, suited to their special conditions, for placing the finances of their research associations on a permanently satisfactory basis."
It is the hope of His Majesty's Government and I think of all who are interested in the project that discussion in your Lordships' House may perhaps disclose the ground on which any opposition to the Bill may be based. If such opposition exists it may be possible to meet it by explanation or by amendment of the Bill, and in that case the Bill should not occupy any long time either in this House or in another place. There are others here who are better equipped than I am to speak of the valuable work done by the Rubber Research Association. I understand that we shall have the benefit of hearing on this point the testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Rutherford, who, as your Lordships are aware, is Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
It is not necessary for me to emphasise to your Lordships, even were I competent to do so, the importance of research in industry in these times of intense and concentrated international competition. I have seen it stated, with with what truth I know not, that prac-
780
tical development of, and demand for, the industrial products of rubber have outstripped the scientific knowledge on which improved production and commercial development must ultimately take place. It may interest your Lordships perhaps to have one example, and one only, of the kind of point to which I am advised the development of commerce makes it desirable that research should be applied. That example is research into the changes that occur in vulcanised rubber from the influences of such factors as heat and light and long storage. Obviously that becomes a matter of first-rate commercial importance when sending rubber, whether in the form of motor tyres or in any other form, to oversea markets. I am quite sure that I shall carry the assent of all your Lordships when I say that research is perhaps even more important now than before owing to the recent changes in fiscal policy. The nation has decided to afford to industry a measure of protection in the home markets which postulates and demands increased vigilance for the maintenance of efficiency so that the public may reap the full benefit of such technical advances as may be made.
It may be asked why, if such support for research is forthcoming in the rubber industry itself, the Research Association should not be continued on a purely voluntary basis. The answer that must be made to that is that, in fact, that has not proved possible. I am advised that a minority of firms remain obdurate against subscribing to the Association and that the great majority prefer the methods of levy proposed in this Bill to any other method of contribution. I think your Lordships will recognise that in a case like that of research, the benefits of which are equally open to all those engaged in the industry, it is only fair that the expense of conducting that research should be shared equally among all those concerned who will benefit by the positive results achieved. That is the Bill, and I hope I have said enough to put your Lordships in possession of the reasons that have led His Majesty's Government to introduce it in this House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Irwin.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that on this occasion I do not quite see eye to eye with the noble Lord the President of the Board of Education. I was the Minister responsible in 1914 for securing a promise from the Treasury to help research work. The Treasury undertook at that time to provide £1,000,000 per annum to help industry, and I explained at that time that the money was very much required in the interests of the country and in the interests of industry to help forward scientific investigations in connection with a great number of processes. The contribution then promised did not materialise until 1918. It was one of the things connected with my humble administration of which I am most proud that I was able to help research through a Government grant, but I always intended that there was to be a necessary accompanying contribution from industry. I wanted to secure co-operation of a voluntary kind and not of a compulsory kind between industry and the State. I think it is a bad principle to compel by Statute everybody nolens volens to contribute to a fund. If there is an overwhelming number of individuals in an industry who believe in research work they ought to be prepared to put their hands in their own pockets, and I am not in favour of the Government withdrawing their support from the fund or attaching a condition that everybody in the industry shall pay whether they like it or not. I do not think that is a sound principle. If you want to get the best results from research work you want those who contribute to it to be supporters of research and believers in it.
There are only two precedents that I know dealing with contributions from an industry. One is the case of the cotton industry where a contribution was raised by Statute from the industry in order to promote the growing of a commodity. There is nothing really comparable to that in this proposal, because we all know that not only is the production of rubber adequate but there is surplus production. The other precedent is one with which I am very familiar. That is the welfare contribution exacted from the coal trade. Everybody knows that that has not been altogether an unqualified success. There is a great deal of waste of money, and if people are compelled to contribute to an organisation such as is proposed in this Bill I am afraid there
782
will be waste again. Where the law enforces it I think enthusiasm for research is probably diminished. I for one object strongly to compelling everybody whether they like it or not to contribute. At the same time I am fully in sympathy with the main object of the Bill, which is to promote research work and the advance of science and the advance of the discovery of processes in connection with the production of rubber.
LORD RUTHERFORD OF NELSON: My Lords, the Bill before us, which I am glad to support, raises some very interesting questions regarding the relations between research and industry. I would like first of all to mention some general considerations on the problem of the organisation of the technical resources of this country in order to obtain the maximum efficiency in industry, a problem which I am sure your Lordships will agree is one of importance if we are to hold our own in the international competition of to-day. Since the War there has been a growing recognition of the importance of research in industry. As your Lordships know, a number of research organisations have been founded. A few have been under the control of the State, but the great majority of which I wish to speak to-day are the result of voluntary co-operation of the firms in individual industries. These bodies are known nowadays as research associations and the Rubber Research Association, with which we are dealing, is one of many examples.
As Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research I have had many opportunities of getting some insight into the working of these associations and I can unhesitatingly assert that they have done work of very great value to in dustry. Of course it is very difficult to assess the cash value of the results obtained, but I think it is clear that the value of the accumulated effects of these research associations amounts to several millions annually. As an example I might take the case of the successful Research Association of the British Electrical and Allied Trades, where it was estimated in 1929 that the saving that had accrued to the user from the work of the Association amounted to a million pounds annually; and in later reference to this the President of the Association

783
stated that if an estimate were made today that sum would be even greater.
At this point I would like to emphasise not only the value of research associations to the respective industries, but the services these associations render in a wider sphere. It is true that an association must be judged primarily by the results it obtains for the industry and for those firms which provide the funds for the support of the association. But we must not, therefore, regard these research associations as isolated units working in watertight compartments. We must recognise that they have very many points of contact with other organisations of a similar type. There is a constant exchange of information about ideas and methods. In looking at the research associations, therefore, we should not regard them as a number of isolated entities, but rather as a network of organisations which strengthen one another and which collectively form an exceedingly important part of the superstructure of industry to-day. In another direction, too, these associations are of great importance. By contact with their member firms, by the study of the literature of the world bearing on their problems, and still more by continuous research, they acquire an experience, a knowledge and an authority which allow them to give a representative opinion on subjects connected with their sphere.
This point of view can be very well illustrated by the Rubber Research Association. This Association stands between the grower of rubber and the user of the manufactured article. In both of these directions the Rubber Research Association has established close contacts. On the growers' side the Association is in close touch with the Joint Advisory Committee which has been formed in London by the Malay and Ceylon growers. In addition the Federated Malay States through the Rubber Growers' Association have given a grant to the Association with the view not only of extending the uses of rubber, but of finding new applications for this substance. On the users' side I might refer to the important question of standardisation. This Association has co-operated with the British Standards Association in preparing a number of new specifications and amending others. I could, also, if there were time, give a number of interesting examples, taken from
784
a recent Report of the Association, especially in connection with the technical advice which has been given to Government and other Departments. It may no doubt be said that you might get this information by consulting individual firms, but it is obviously a great advantage to have this information concentrated in a single central institution where consultation is more rapid and also more effective. Such a central organisation, it seems to me, is of very great importance to the industry as a whole.
I think sufficient has been said to indicate the importance of this Robber Research Association not only to 'the industry itself, but on account of the general services which it renders to the community as a whole. The disappearance of this Association, with which we are threatened, would be a great loss to the industry and would make a gap in the industry which it would be very difficult to fill. The work that it does is, it seems to me, of such national importance that it is essential it should continue. This adds force, I think, to the contention of those in the rubber industry who desire that the cost of this research should be equitably distributed throughout the whole industry. It must be borne in mind that all the firms that have supported this measure have been themselves generous contributors to the Research Association in the past.
Now I come to another question— namely, the method of finance proposed in this Bill. As has been pointed out, this is the first time with regard to research associations that the voluntary principle has been departed from. However, the idea of a general levy to support the research associations has been mooted from time to time, and during the last year or two the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has considered the question of the possibility of a general Enabling Bill, under which Orders in Council could be made authorising a particular industry to have a compulsory levy, provided that the great majority of that industry are in support of such a measure for raising funds. We took the opinion of industry as a whole through the research associations, and while the answers were various the general result of the replies obtained were against such a proposal. It was clear

785
that the majority of the associations valued their independence and their wide powers of autonomy under the voluntary system, and were a little alarmed lest, if they came under a compulsory levy, their independence might be to some extent jeopardised, and the interest of some of the now enthusiastic workers might wane, and there might in consequence he a loss of close contact between industry and the Research Association.
Naturally, when we consider that these views come from those who have taken a prominent part in developing these associations, they must be regarded with respect, but I am not at all sure that the objections are as strong as are supposed. However, the Advisory Council felt that under the conditions they could not take any further steps; but this does not preclude them from supporting a case like the present, where a practicable scheme for a statutory levy has been worked out and has the support of a large majority of the firms in the industry concerned. I think I am voicing the views of the members of my Committee in saying that we whole-heartedly support the enactment of this measure, especially when we consider that the alternative is the disappearance of this Association, which has done such valuable work for the industry.
I would now like to say a word on research in rubber, with which your Lordships are, no doubt, all quite familiar. You will be aware that rubber is remarkable not only for the variety of its uses but for its possibilities in the future, and from the scientific point of view it is of extraordinary interest in all its aspects. When we consider the extent of the production of the raw material in our Empire, and when we also consider the wide use and possibilities of this remarkable material, I think we would all agree that some form of scientific organisation to deal with research on this subject would have to be originated if we had not already a research organisation for the purpose. I think it is clear that there must be, in whatever way it is obtained, a strong central organisation for carrying out fundamental inquiries as to the applications of this protean material, and research free from the restrictions inevitable in research work in a works laboratory, where there is pressing need for prompt practical results.
786
At the same time I would like to state that the Advisory Council do not underrate the importance of the voluntary principle in financing these organisations. I think we all agree that it is of very great importance that the Research Association should be deeply rooted in the industry; that it should be governed by councils elected by the industry, and should, in fact, be an integral part of the industry itself. It seems to me, however, that the departure from the voluntary principle in the case we are dealing with to-day is more apparent than real. It is not a case of a Bill which is foisted by an arbitrary Government on an unwilling industry, but it is a proposal matured within the industry itself, and which has the support of a great majority of the industry. The industry now asks in this case that legislative sanction should be given the levy. As has been pointed out this Bill is for a limited period of five years, and there is then a possibility of reconsidering the question. It has been mentioned that there is a possibility of the Research Association losing contact with the industry under such a compulsory levy, but I am quite sure that the Research Association will pay even more attention to the industry than before when its own continued existence depends upon the extent and value of its contributions.
In supporting this measure we know that the great majority of the industry are behind it. It is true that there is a small minority against it, but it seems to me it would be very unfortunate if the existence of a small minority should wreck such a promising movement for the consolidation of the research interest in the rubber industry. The point before us to-day may seem a small one, but viewed from the, wider aspects it is a question of great importance for the future, and in a sense it is a test of the attitude of the representatives of this country to research in industry. As a man of science I have had opportunity of seeing, and have seen, the remarkable effects of the application of science to the improvement and development of industry. I am convinced that research is one of the most potent of weapons for combating the evils of waste and inefficiency in industrial production, and I hope that this House in passing this Bill will show unmistakably

787
its belief in the application of scientific methods and scientific knowledge, as an important aid in keeping this country in the forefront of progress.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not doubt that the noble Lord who has just spoken is perfectly right in everything that he has said about the value of this Association, but I am a Conservative and, being a Conservative, I am in favour of freedom, and I hold that you have not the right to go to any ordinary citizen who is not a criminal or who has not done anything against the criminal laws of the land, and say to him: "You have to subscribe to something which we think you ought to subscribe to. You have got to conduct your business in the way we think you should." That, to my old-fashioned Tory ideas, is quite an extraordinary proposal, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Irwin, in his new-found zeal for compulsion, will not bring in another Bill of this kind.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment in support of this measure to say that I agree very much with what the Government propose and disagree very much with what has fallen from the noble Lords, Land Banbury and Lord Gainford? It seems to me that they are both prepared to allow any members of the industry to subscribe, and to take Government money in addition, to support research in the rubber industry, and they are prepared to allow the slacker members of the industry to get off scot-free. That seems to me a very unjust proposal. I cannot see why, if they are prepared to take Government money for this purpose, they should not be prepared to take the money of those people who are directly interested, and who will otherwise get off without paying a penny. As for compulsion, after all, we have all seen a great many new things done in the management of industry in the last few years, and we shall probably see more, and not less, compulsion in the future. We cannot altogether avoid that, and I have never thought that it was against the principles of good government to compel people to do things that are obviously fair, obviously just, and obviously sensible. In this case, in addition, they are desired by the majority of the industry.
I hope that in similar cases in other industries, if this proves, as I am sure
788
it will prove, a success, the same thing may be done again. I hope that the Government will not be alarmed by any of these cries of compulsion and lack of freedom, and will not be afraid, in order to assist industry, to bring into line the small minority of very conservative people who are not prepared to help their own industry by means of proper research. No one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Rutherford, that in modern science small quantities of impurities will prevent a proper reaction from taking place, and will destroy much valuable work. The same principle seems to me to apply in political and national affairs, in which small bodies of people should not be allowed to hold up the obvious and correct direction of progress.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I need hardly say that I go a very long way with my noble friend Lord Gainford, who was, as he reminded us, principally responsible for the initiation of Government assistance for research work, in his suspicion of the element of compulsion. I do not know, however, that I need say a great deal by way of reply to him because it has really been said by Lord Melchett. I would admit, of course, that on principle a great many of us would feel some reluctance to apply compulsion to minorities, but it is really, I should have thought, all a question of degree; and the noble Lord who spoke second, and who intervenes all too rarely in our debates, seemed to me to provide the conclusive answer when he pointed out that the Bill is really a departure from the voluntary principle more in appearance than in fact. I cannot, of course, pretend to go quite so far in Conservative principles, as he would regard them, as my noble friend Lord Banbury. I have learnt a great many of my Conservative principles from him, and I am afraid that since the time when we were associated in another place he has somewhat departed from, the doctrine that he used to preach to me there.
The noble Lord, Lord Rutherford, rightly I think, reminded your Lordships that this proposal does, in fact, command the overwhelming support of the industry concerned; and I confess that, if it is thought right in these days to apply the principle of compulsion in such a case, for example, as the prohibition upon individuals from growing a certain acreage of hops, which your Lordships thought

789
it right to approve last year, I cannot sea why it is improper to take steps to ask all users of rubber to make this infinitesimal contribution towards work of which they will all enjoy the benefits. Having regard to these facts, and to the fact that there is a time limit on the Bill, and for the reasons given, I hope that your Lordships will agree to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I apologise for troubling the House again. I think the purpose of this Bill is sufficiently plain to demand only a few words, but I might perhaps say that the section of the Government of India Act referred to in the Bill has three provisos, and read the relevant words:
"Every Governor's Legislative Council shall continue for three years from its first meeting:
Provided that—

(a) The Council may be sooner dissolved by the Governor, and

(b) the said period may be extended by the Governor for period not exceeding one year by notification in the Official Gazette of the Province, if in special circumstances (to be specified in the notification) he so thinks fit; and

(c) after the dissolution of the Council the Governor shall appoint a date, not snore than six months, or, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, not more than nine months from the date of dissolution for the next Session of the Council."

Your Lordships will see, therefore, that it follows from this that the lifetime of a Provincial Legislature is three years from its first meeting, but, this three years may be extended by the Governor to four, and that, whenever a Provincial Legislature comes to an end, there must be a General Election to produce a new Council at most nine months after the expiry of the old one.
The existing Legislature in Bengal first met on July 1, 1929, and in the normal course would therefore have come to an end on June 30, 1932; but, for local poli-
790
tical reasons, in Bengal the Governor, Sir John Anderson, considered that it was undesirable to hold a General Election in Bengal at that time and extended the life of the Council by one year; that is to say, up to June 30, 1933, which was the limit of his powers. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Governor of Bengal, and other Governors who will shortly find themselves in a similar situation, to continue their present Legislatures for a period sufficient to bridge the gap between the present time and the emergence of the new Councils in whatever form the final consideration of Parliament may give to them.
The short argument in favour of the course that this Bill recommends is, as your Lordships will be aware, that a General Election in any Province throws a considerable burden on the provincial revenues, involves not a little dislocation of ordinary provincial administration, and, unless it is unavoidable, expenditure for this or any other purpose cannot be justified in present circumstances, and would, I think, be specially unjustifiable if the Council which would result from it were unlikely in the normal passage of events to be able to look forward to enjoying what would normally be its full term of life— namely, three years. It may, of course, be argued, by way of objection, that discussion of these matters will not proceed so expeditiously as in fact to curtail the life of any new Council that might be elected. But His Majesty's Government hope that that argument will, in fact, not turn out to be well founded, and, if it does in fact turn out not to be well founded, then we should clearly be subjecting the Provinces to an unnecessary, disturbing, and expensive dislocation by the creation of a Council that could only be short-lived.
It is not without interest, as the noble Marquess will remember, that the Governor-General has, in fact, to-day these powers which we seek to extend also to the Governors, regarding the Central Legislature. The Governor-General has the power to-clay to extend the life-time of that body without any time limit such as that which stands in the way of the Provinces, and your Lordships will have observed that the Governor-General has, in fact, recently

791
announced his intention of postponing the General Election for the Legislative Assembly, which would in the normal course have been due to take place in January next. He has postponed it for such time as in the light of circumstances and other considerations at the time may seem expedient— in other words, until it is possible for him, for India, to see what course Parliament finally decides to take on the constitutional proposals now under consideration. I suggest that on this ground also it is desirable to harmonise practice between the Centre and the Provinces so far as to give to the Governors in this matter power that the Governor-General in fact enjoys to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Irwin.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, we on this side of the House fully appreciate the reason, and indeed the necessity, for bringing in a Bill of this nature, but in a few words I would like to press on the notice of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill the advisability of some time limit being put in. It appears to me that, although this may be within the power of the Viceroy, it is not desirable in the present circumstances to allow the liberty to the Provincial Governors; that is to say, the postponing of Elections sine die. If a time limit were put in, say of one or two years, His Majesty's Government could again come to this House to renew this power, or a time limit could be put in mentioning the promulgation of the new Constitution and fixing the limit at so many months or a period of a year after the promulgation of that Constitution. But to introduce a Bill giving this power, without any time limit being mentioned, seems to us, at first appearance of the Bill, not to be perhaps quite the best way of dealing with this question.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I gather from what my noble friend has just said that he is not really opposing this Bill. The point he is putting is one rather for the Committee stage than for the Second Reading, and therefore I do not propose to take any time in discussing it. I would, however, suggest to him it is very necessary that we should have a Bill of this kind in order that you may get the same kind of procedure both as regards the Central Legislature and
792
the Provincial Legislatures. The object is, in both cases, to enable them to proceed without the unnecessary expense of General Elections when there is this matter now under discussion in regard to the new Constitution. It does not prejudge anything; it just leaves things as they are for the time being, and enables a Governor to bring himself into line with the Governor-General. With regard to the question that has been raised by my noble friend, I do not wish to say anything more now, because it does not touch in any way the vital point of the Bill— on the contrary, it supports it. It is a question that can usefully be discussed during the Committee stage, and I suggest that the Bill should now be allowed to go through.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend opposite and to the noble Marquess for the support they have extended to the Bill. With regard to the point that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raised, I agree with the noble Marquess that it is rather a point for Committee, but I will, between now and the Committee stage, take steps to consult with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State upon the point raised.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with reference to the words which have fallen from my noble friend in charge of the Bill, I did not rise before, although I entirely agree as to the propriety of this Bill, yet I should be sorry if he adopted the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition as to the form in which the Bill ought to stand. The general form in which the Bill is drawn seems to me a much safer, more stable form than to say, for example, that the operation of the Bill shall continue until the promulgation of the new Constitution. That was a suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is much too early days to discuss when the promulgation of the new Constitution may be, and it would involve an assumption which might turn out to be not fully justified. General words are much safer, and I hope my noble friend and the Government will adhere to them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUDICIAL VACANCY.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying this His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of Section 11 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The position under that section is that if within one year of any such Address as is prescribed by the Act a vacancy occurs in the judicial Bench, it can be filled up in a normal way. If, on the other hand, a vacancy occurs after the lapse of a year, a Resolution of both House of Parliament is required to enable the vacancy to be filled, provided the Judges are not reduced below the number of fifteen. Your Lordships on the 16th February of last year passed such a Resolution, which had already been agreed to in another place, and had the present vacancy occurred before the 16th of February of this year, it would not have been necessary to trouble your Lordships, but as the vacancy now under consideration happened on the 26th April, the necessary Resolution must be forthcoming to enable the late Judge's successor to be appointed.
I should like to say how much both on public and on private grounds the tragic passing of Mr. Justice MacCardie is regretted. He had been on the Bench nearly seventeen years, had shown himself to be a great master of case law, and had, by his personal charm, endeared himself to a large circle of friends. His untimely death being the reason for the Motion, permit me to point out to your Lordships why it is necessary to fill the vacancy. Although the Court of Appeal, the Chancery and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divisions are well abreast of their work, there are unfortunately considerable arrears in the King's Bench Division where the vacancy exists. A steady increase of such arrears has occurred in the last three years. On the 31st December, 1930, they amounted to 1,150; in 1931 to 1,189; and in 1932 to 1,253; although in this last year, as your Lordships are aware, Mr. Justice du Parcq was appointed as an additional
794
Judge. Over and above that Commissioners were appointed to deal with much of the heavy work on circuit. As a result many more cases were tried— 1,372 in 1932 as against 1,071 in 1931. At the same time more cases were settled out of Court— 1,392 in 1932 as against 1,314 in 1931. Notwithstanding, therefore, the great increase in trials, and notwithstanding the increase in settlements out of Court, which in my view arise largely by reason of the long delays in trial, the arrears thus continue to mount. These figures not only show the aid given by the appointment of an additional Judge early in 1932, but also the imperative necessity of maintaining the number of Judges as it was until recently.
Let me now give the position of the King's Bench Division at the end of April. There were 227 special jury cases standing for trial. Special jury actions being tried last week were set down for trial in June last, and as far back as June of last year there were 404 common jury cases standing for trial. Cases in the list being tried last week were set down in November last. There were seventy-four non-jury cases standing for trial. Cases being tried last week were set down for trial in February and March of this year. Many cases from this list were taken last sittings by Judges of the Chancery Division and cases from this list have also been taken by the New Procedure Judge and by the Commercial Judge when they had not any new procedure or commercial cases to try. There were 119 cases in the New Procedure list. Two of these are special jury, one is a common jury and 116 are non-jury actions, none of these 119 cases being included in the figures I have given to your Lordships. There were 53 cases in the Crown Paper. The Court is now sitting and the cases now being heard were set clown for hearing as far back as October last. There were 77 cases in the Civil Paper. Cases now being heard were set down as far back as November of last year. Two Courts heard Civil Paper cases during part of last sitting. Finally, the criminal appeal lists are fairly well up-to-date, but it is to be observed that the number of criminal appeals has increased considerably in recent years. Last year there were 703 persons who wished to appeal to the Court; that is, almost

795
double the number of persons who wished to appeal in 1929.
Two Judges are now at Leeds, two at Manchester and one at the Central Criminal Court. To show your Lordships the difficult position we are now in, I should mention that before the end of these sittings some of the Judges will have to leave London for the summer circuits. One Judge goes to Aylesbury next week, and a Judge will have to go to the Central Criminal Court on the 18th May. Another Judge goes on the North Wales circuit on the 24th May, yet another goes on the Western circuit on the 25th May, and still another goes on the South Wales circuit on the 29th May. During the first week of next sittings ten Judges will be away on circuit, and only four Judges will, as at present arranged, remain in London to do the work of the whole of Trinity sittings. While it is easy to criticise the administration of the King's Bench Division, the critics should remember the extraordinary difficulty in arranging the course of business there. To begin with, as your Lordships know, large numbers of the Judges have to go on circuit, and this year the circuits have been of a very heavy character, especially at Liverpool and at Manchester. At the latter town, although a Commisioner of Assize was appointed to assist, the lists could not be finished by Easter and many cases had to go over to the following term.
Your Lordships will agree that this is a state of affairs which rightly gives all those responsible for the administration of the law great anxiety. It ought to be our boast that every subject of His Majesty should have a proper chance, and within a reasonable time, of obtaining his rights in a Court of Justice. As far as the King's Bench Division is concerned, it cannot be said to be in this happy position. It is urged that the practice and procedure of the law is not only too expensive, but that people have to wait for months before their cases are heard. In my view, when a case is ready for trial, that the parties should have to wait ten months before it is reached is something approaching a denial of justice. There are people who purposely obtain an extended credit by taking advantage of these delays.
796
Again, consider the case which is so familiar nowadays, of a motor car accident. It is difficult enough for a, witness to give a coherent account of it within a short period of its occurrence. If he has to wait eight or ten months before he gives his evidence, how can he be expected to remember what has happened? It is perfectly true that he may have given his statement to the solicitor within a fortnight or three weeks of the event, which serves for his examination in chief ten months later, but it is of very little help when it comes to his turn for cross-examination. It is probable that a great deal of the delay in the King's Bench Division is due to these motor car accidents, and the figures, if they were known, would astonish both your Lordships and the public. Of the whole of the special jury cases tried in England and Wales last year, including London, over half— to be accurate 57 per cent.— were in respect of personal injury actions. In the case of common jury cases, the percentage was even higher; seven out of every ten common jury actions were in respect of personal injury. Not only do these cases clog the Courts, but they themselves, by reason of the long delay, do not get the prompt consideration that they ought to receive.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships at the present moment with the remedies for this unfortunate and unhappy state of affairs. In the near future your consent will be asked to the passing of a Bill dealing both with grand juries and with the question of whether the right to a jury in civil actions should be at the discretion of the Judge, and therefore I will not trouble you with statistics at the present moment. Suffice it to say there can hardly be anybody who is not of opinion that some remedy should be found for the present state of affairs. Recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, the Master of the Rolls, has been presiding over a Committee which has made, and is continuing to make, valuable suggestions for the speeding-up and cheapening of litigation, some of which it is hoped will soon be translated into law.
No doubt a large number of people in this kingdom well qualified to judge think that an increase in the number of Judge; is a necessary part of any scheme of legal reform. At the moment your Lordship;

797
will excuse me from expressing an opinion on this, especially having regard to the financial stringency through which we are passing, but it is a matter which some day will have to receive the most careful consideration. Whatever measures, however, may be taken in the future, it is at any rate imperative that the present vacancy should be filled up. The estimated cost of appointing a new Judge is as follows: The statutory salary is £5,000 a year. This has been cut down by the Economy Act to £4,000. To the Judge's salary must be added the salary of the Judge's clerk— namely, £400 per annum, carrying Civil Service bonus. Let me remind you that the Judges, like all His Majesty's subjects, pay Income Tax. I had hoped that the Lord Chief Justice would be in his place in this House to support the present Motion. I have had a letter from him saying he is not able to be here, although he desires me to say that he is in cordial agreement with the Motion. A similar Motion was passed in another place last right without a Division. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I rise to move, That leave be given to the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Constitutional Re-form to lay upon the Table from day to day or otherwise the Minutes of Evidence taken before them and also such other records as they may think fit; that such Minutes of Evidence and records be printed, and delivered out; That, if the Blouse be not sitting, such Evidence and records shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table of the House when
798
delivered to the Clerk of the Parliaments. I need only detain your Lordships for a few minutes in order to explain the circumstances which have led to this Motion. The Committee have given anxious consideration to the arrangements for the inquiry and to what is best to be done having regard to all the circumstances. At present the sittings of the Committee are being held by the gracious permission of His Majesty the King in the Royal Robing Room. That room will accommodate the Committee and their colleagues from India along with the witnesses and the several persons in attendance upon the Committee, but it would not be possible as well as those to accommodate therein members of the public. If it were to be decided to open the doors to the public it would be necessary to remove to a larger room. The Committee therefore considered the expediency of holding the inquiry in the Royal Gallery, but while the use of that place would largely surmount the difficulty of providing adequate space, it appears to the Committee that such a course would involve most material disadvantages.
The acoustics of the Royal Gallery are known to be bad, and if the Committee were to sit in that Chamber it would be necessary, we are informed, to install loud speakers. Conditions of that kind may be appropriate to certain occasions. They are not, I think the House will agree, appropriate to the carrying out of the task laid upon the Joint Committee. That task must consist in, the prolonged and detailed examination of problems of very great complexity. Physical conditions of the sort described seem to us to be quite unsuited to the appropriate conduct of the kind of work that lies before the Committee. In those circumstances it is proposed to continue to hold all sessions of the Committee in the Royal Robing Room and not to admit the public. If this House and another place are pleased to pass the appropriate Motions to-day it will be open to the Committee to lay upon the Table Minutes of Evidence. That means, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, that such Minutes as are laid will be available to your Lordships and to members of another place in the Printed Paper Office of this House and in the Vote Office of the other House, and will thereafter immediately be on sale to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Constitutional Reform to lay upon the Table from day to day or otherwise the Minutes of Evidence taken before them and also such other records as they may think fit; that such Minutes of Evidence and records be printed, and delivered out; That, if the House be not sitting, such Evidence and records shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table of the House when delivered to the Clerk of the Parliaments.— (The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise not to criticise this Motion at all but to ask the noble Marquess what it means. If your Lordships look at the terms of the Motion you will see it is quite doubtful what it does mean. It reads in this way:
"…lay upon the table from day to day or otherwise the Minutes of Evidence taken before them and also such other records as they may think fit."
What does that mean? Does that mean that only those parts of the evidence that they think fit are going to be laid before us— that is to say, that the evidence is going to be edited? If it is, I should think it would give rather a bad impression to the country at large, because it would mean only those portions of the evidence that the majority of the. Committee thought would be good for us would be put before us. Surely if it is to be done at all and we are going to have the evidence it must be all or nothing. Otherwise let us have it quite clear that it is only the evidence as edited. I am only asking the noble Marquess to tell us which of these two things is meant. Is it to be little bits which he or his Committee think fit for our ears, or what does it mean?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Full unrevised transcripts of evidence.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.