Lords Sitting of 28 November 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of St. Albans—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Tuesday, November 20, reported by the Earl of Shaftesbury as follows:—
" I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

METROPOLITAN POLICE ACCOMMODATION.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government if their attention has been called to the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the state of the section houses, married quarters and stations in the Metropolitan Police District, and enquire whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed as rapidly as possible with the building of new section houses, the improvement of old ones, the married quarters and stations; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is, I hope, no need to assure you that this Question which is upon the Order Paper in my name is not in any sense a Party question, nor is it introduced with the intention of making any attack upon His Majesty's Government. The criticisms I desire to make will be directed against a long line of previous Governments as well as upon His Majesty's present advisers. My concern with the present Government is to try to induce them to take the complaints that I shall make into their immediate and serious consideration, and to bring to a speedy end what is in fact a long-standing public scandal. Since I placed this Question on the Order Paper His Majesty's gracious Speech from the
112
Throne has informed us that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, if time permits, to introduce a, measure "for providing better housing of the Metropolitan Police." The Government are therefore committed to the principle of the reforms that I desire to urge upon them, and my plea to-day is that time should be found in order to deal with the matter. The subject is not in any sense controversial. The time required for such a measure would be very short, and the measure itself would in all probability be welcomed by members of all Parties.
The conditions under which young policemen, some several thousands of them, are expected to live in the present section houses are, frankly, quite disgraceful. There is no class of public servant more necessary, more reliable, more considerate than the members of the Metropolitan Police. They perform their duties with discretion and with an understanding tolerance and helpful courtesy which are generally admired and which have won for them the trust and good will of the London public. The members of the force who suffer specially from the conditions at present existing are young officers who at the very beginning of their service are required to live in these section houses. These young constables have been subjected to tests of character. Many of them come from country homes where they have been accustomed to the decencies and privacy of civilised life. They are healthy, virile, and at an age when they are most susceptible to temptations which need not here be mentioned. It is sufficient to say that these temptations exist, and that the conditions under which these young men are compelled to live are such as to induce them to seek relief from them in more than one undesirable way.
My first contention, therefore, is that the State should provide for them morally helpful, rather than demoralising, living conditions. The section houses in which they live are the constable's homes until they are married. A young constable may not, as the Police Commissioner states, even have friends in London to whom he can go when off duty. In my opinion, therefore, it is essential for the well-being, comfort and efficiency of these important public servants that they should be made not less comfortable than they were at home, but

113
rather more comfortable. The constable's lack of human companionship and of the houses of neighbours to which he can go when off duty should, be compensated for by the provision of good surroundings and adequate recreation rooms where he can feel he can read quietly, rest, and have reasonable recreation. There seems to be no doubt that the general surroundings of the men have a very considerable influence upon their character, and it behoves us in no way to lower the general status of the men who enter the Metropolitan force. It is on the contrary the duty of the general public who look to the Police for protection, and do not look in vain, to see that they are given a degree of comfort which is only their due, remembering that the hours of duty are long and varied and that their work is performed in all weathers, by day and by night. We like to think in London, and we do believe, that we have the best Police force in the world, and their conditions of living should he on an equal scale.
On reading the Report of the Commissioner of Police I confess I was filled with alarm when he pointed out that practically all the section houses were pre-War built, and that half of them come from the Victorian era, from 1850 and onwards. They are equipped, as regards comfort and amenities, in a manner far below what is considered reasonable and tolerable to-day. It is alleged that they are bleak and institution-like and frequently situated in dreary surroundings; that these young officers lack privacy, have no place in which to read, write, or rest in comfort, no separate bedrooms, but are compelled to live in narrow, cramped cubicles in cheerless dormitories separated only by a partition which does not extend to the ceiling. These alleged bedrooms are lit only by a dim light, and they are very cold in winter. The men have altogether inadequate recreation facilities, and the catering arrangements for these young men are also deplorably out of date.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to what the Commissioner of Police actually says on this point:
"The larger section houses have canteens, bat these do not correspond at all to the ordinary conception of a canteen. They are, speaking generally, small dark rooms in basements, where the men can get a glass of beer or buy groceries, etc., but they are
114
not, and were never designed as, places where they could sit or take refreshment in comfort. Canteens, it should be explained, have been introduced since the section houses were built, and have, therefore, had to be squeezed into whatever space could be made available.
"As regards meals, the men make their own messing arrangements under which, as a general rule, one hot meal a day is provided; either meals being cooked by each man for himself. The catering arrangements are in need of entire overhaul, with a view to securing that the men (who come off duty at all hours) can obtain well-cooked and properly served meals, as and when they require them, in a room furnished after the manner of a comfortable restaurant. This is essential not only as a matter of comfort but for the health of the men, which undoubtedly suffers at present from unsuitable and insufficiently varied diet, a trouble which cannot be remedied under existing conditions."
In reading the Report of the Commissioner I was further alarmed when I saw that the Commissioner had only recommended to the Secretary of State that two new section houses should be built. I was a little appeased, however, when I noticed that on July 5 in another place the Home Secretary said that he was going to build four, and that a general programme of development was being drawn up which was being proceeded with with all possible speed. The statement of the Home Secretary was made in the summer. We are now in the late autumn and the whole subject should come up for a review at once. I therefore ask whether the Government are now prepared to make a full statement as to their proposals, as it is very important that these conditions should be put right. In beginning my remarks I reminded your Lordships that I was not proposing to make any kind of attack on the present Government, but I have indicated to your Lordships conditions which every Home Secretary for the last twenty-five years ought to regard as thoroughly bad and of which he should be ashamed. It would not be a bad thing if the Government to-day could make these young men a Christmas box of a promise that the conditions under which they live will be speedily remedied.
There is also complaint as regards the married quarters. I noticed in the Commissioner's Report that he pointed out that they were still some 300 short of the number which it was recommended by Lord Onslow's Committee in 1920 should be provided for the inner divi-

115
sions, and the Commissioner, having gone into the matter carefully, considers that some 200 more are necessary, which leaves 500 still to be provided. I am informed that some of the married quarters are very bad. There are no bathrooms and no places in which to wash clothes, and they have outside lavatories. In a number of cases where there are baths they are located in the kitchen-scullery. I believe that about 200 of the existing married quarters are not really suitable for occupation by police officers and should be condemned. I hope that the Government will be able to make some announcement about that also.
The police stations in London, which should be the finest in the world, are almost certainly about the worst in the world, and they are terribly cramped. They are lacking in privacy, there are no waiting rooms where callers can be privately interviewed, and we ought really to know what the Government propose to do about them. The old idea of a police court has been superseded. It was then a place to which a "drunk and disorderly" was either persuaded or compelled to go, and where he and his like were detained in one or two detention rooms. But the public go to the police stations now for all kinds of things, and those stations ought to be brought up to date. The law should in this country be represented with a certain amount of dignity. I do not like to call these places official slums, but that is in great part what they are; and whilst we are now looking forward to the abolition of slums it would not be a bad thing if the Government were to begin with those for which they are immediately responsible. The Police who look after us should have the earliest attention, and the conditions under which they live will, I hope, receive speedy attention. I do not need to delay your Lordships longer in asking you to join me in pressing His Majesty's Government to give to this matter its early and earnest consideration and to assure the Government that any Bill which they bring in to remedy this state of things will receive your very earnest attention and cordial support. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I feel confident that you have listened with keen interest to the accurate, just and well-balanced statement made by the noble Lord opposite. I am sure that the
116
noble Lord will be pleased to know that the Government have approved of a general scheme for re-housing the Metropolitan Police, and this scheme is regarded by the Government as an essential and very important part of the reorganisation of the force which has been in progress during the last few years, that is to say, during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Byng, and the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, have held the post of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
The re-housing proposals are in effect the third stage in this reorganisation. The first stage in the reorganisation was a general redistribution of the force and readjustment of its local boundaries, in order to meet, firstly, the many changes of recent years in social and other conditions affecting police work; secondly, the rapid development of the outer parts of the Metropolitan Police District; and thirdly, the greatly increased facilities now available in the matter of transport and communication. This redistribution of the force has resulted, as Lord Trenchard pointed out in his Report for 1932, in a better disposition and apportionment of Police resources generally, and it has had the further advantage of effecting substantial economies in the cost of administration. Redistribution was accompanied by very far-reaching changes in the general system by which Police protection is afforded, that system being a system of beats and patrols. The whole lay-out of the force has been re-planned in conjunction with the increased use of motor cars, wireless and Police telephone boxes, and the methods of policing may be said to have been revolutionised. I am sure that it is unnecessary for me in your Lordships' House to pay tribute to the activities upon which the Commissioner of Police has been engaged during the last few years. Your Lordships will be familiar with the improvements that have been effected in the administration of the Police Service, and will be aware of the value of those changes.
The second stage in the reorganisation was that to which the Government White Paper of May 19, 1933, mainly related and which was fully discussed in both Houses of Parliament during the debates on the Bill for the Metropolitan Police Act of 1933. I refer in particular to the new system of recruitment in relation to

117
the higher posts and the establishment of the Police College at Hendon. The third stage is this re-housing scheme. It may be said to be largely a question of improving the amenities of life for members of the Metropolitan Police, but the matter also has other aspects. It has an important bearing on the efficiency of the Police and the convenience of the public. As regards efficiency, I think your Lordships will agree brat you cannot expect to have an Al force in C3 buildings. Metropolitan Police buildings, and I think I may say police buildings in general, are out of date in two senses. In the first place, in the passage of time the accommodation they provide has become cramped and inadequate. Secondly, both in their external aspect and their interior arrangements they reflect a totally different set of ideas to those now prevailing with regard to the status the Police.
In his Report for 1932, in that section which dealt with the housing of the Police, the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, drew attention to the urgency of improving section house accommodation and providing more married quarters, and in his Report for published in April last, he dealt at length with the deplorable conditions prevailing in section houses. As your Lordships are probably aware, the term "section house" is the name given to the building in which single men are lodged during the early years of their service, and, as the single men in the Police force number between one-quarter and one-fifth of the force, it is obviously very important to secure satisfactory conditions for them. The standard of amenity aimed at in the section houses in the past seems to have been a deplorably low one. There are over one hundred section houses situated in various parts of the Metropolitan Police District; most of them are very small because they were built mainly in the Victorian era, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, when the principle of "living over the shop" prevailed. That is, the single men were housed as well as might be over the police station to which they were attached, or in another part of the same building. Before the War when the Police force was expanded a number of larger section houses were built, but they are all "bleak and institution-like," and, judging by the standards of to-day singularly little attention appears to have been paid
118
to the question of comfort. Above all, there is a great lack of privacy and quiet and an absence of proper catering and common room arrangements. Men who lead such a public life when at work need privacy when off duty more than anyone else, and in the case of the single policemen who live in the section houses they require it not only for rest but for study, in view of the examinations which they have to pass.
In the new section houses which are now to be built and of which, as announced in another place, four are already in hand, all these defects will be remedied. Some of the existing section houses can be modernised, but with others such a course is impossible, and it will be necessary to build between twenty and thirty new section houses. All the smaller section houses will be closed and in the larger new ones it will be possible to give the men reasonable amenities in the way of restaurant meals, canteens and common rooms, and to arrange the general management of the section houses on a far more satisfactory and economical plan than hitherto. The number of section houses will be reduced by about half, a change which will produce very considerable economies as regards the maintenance of the buildings as well as their management. At the same time, the new section houses will be better placed. Owing to the recent redistribution of the force and owing to other post-War changes, many of the existing houses are so situated that it is no longer possible to utilise them to their full extent or to secure an even distribution of the single men among the various local divisions of the force. This, my Lords, is a very important matter because it is essential that each division should have its quota of recruits. So much for section houses.
As regards police stations, of which there are over 180 in the Metropolitan Police District, the majority of these date, like the section houses, from the Victorian days and they are equally out of date. The number has been substantially reduced in the last few years as the result of reorganisation, and the question whether, in the interests of economy, their number can be reduced still further will be kept under constant review. Under the scheme which has been approved, about two-thirds of the total

119
number of police stations will be reconstructed or otherwise adapted to modern conditions, and rather more than a third will have to be replaced by entirely new stations because they are too antiquated and inadequate to make reconstruction possible. The new stations will be more in accord with the new relation in which the Police stand to the public and there will be proper provision both for the transaction of business with the public and for the carrying on of the necessary administrative work of a station. Some provincial police authorities have already built or are building new police stations which surpass any stations that exist in the Metropolitan area. Clearly London ought not to lag behind in this matter but should lead the way.
As regards the married men of the force, the majority of these are given rent allowances and provide their own accommodation, but in the inner and more congested areas of the district it is practically impossible for constables to obtain suitable quarters within reasonable distance of their station, with the result that they have to travel long distances with consequent waste of time, expense and inconvenience. In other parts of the district men can find accommodation only in very undesirable surroundings. In such areas, therefore, it is essential that the married men should be officially provided with suitable quarters. Several blocks of such quarters have in fact been built since the War, but, owing to financial difficulties, progress has been slow and only about half the number required have so far been built. The provision of more married quarters is now to be pressed on with.
It may be asked by your Lordships why these very necessary improvements have not been put in hand at an earlier date. The main reason is the financial one. I may explain to your Lordships that except as regards New Scotland Yard itself and the purchase of sites, it has always been the practice to meet expenditure on Metropolitan Police buildings out of income. Since the War this annual expenditure has been very much restricted owing, firstly, to the economies with respect to Police expenditure imposed after the Geddes Committee and again after the financial crisis of 1931. The position has there-
120
fore been that during the sixteen years which have elapsed since the War, years in which the need for new and better accommodation for the Police has been inure urgent than ever before, the building programme has been on the basis of an expenditure less than half of that which obtained before the War, when a policy of rather cheeseparing economy in this matter was pursued.
The annual expenditure on new buildings has been only about one per cent. of the total expenditure from the Police Fund. The result is that, as was said in a recent article in The Times, there is an accumulation of obsolescence which it is now intended to deal with as rapidly as possible. But to endeavour to make the necessary provision entirely out of income would greatly increase the Police Rate and the burden which would thus fall on the present generation of ratepayers would be much beyond what could be justified. There is the further consideration that owing to the state of the money market, the present is an exceptionally favourable time for borrowing. It is for these reasons that the Government have decided to introduce a Bill to enlarge the borowing powers of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, who is charged with the financial administration of the Metropolitan Police Force. This Bill will be introduced as soon as the state of business in another place allows and as a non-controversial measure should be assured of a speedy passage. I hope that this rather lengthy and detailed statement will satisfy your Lordships that the Government are well aware of the present inadequacies of Police accommodation and are taking action. In particular I trust that the matters to which I have referred will satisfy the noble Lord who placed this Question on the Order Paper.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for the fullness with which he has answered the Question which I placed upon the Order Paper. I notice that a Bill is to be introduced in the other House dealing with borrowing powers as soon as business allows. There is again that indefiniteness there is no pledge that we shall have this Bill actually produced. I hope that the noble Earl will press this matter upon the Government and that in the case of a short non-controversial

121
measure of this kind, which would occupy very little time, the question of time will be disregarded. I beg, my Lords, to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, the Bill of which I now move the Second Reading is all but identical with the Bill which was accepted without opposition and passed through your Lordships' House last Session. I understand—in fact, I know—that the Government in the House of Commons were not unfavourable to it, and so far as I know there was no serious opposition in that House. Owing to the exigencies of other business, however, the Government were not able to find time for this Bill, and like many other measures it therefore lapsed. I now beg to move the Second Reading of it again, and I hope that in this Session it will have a better fate.
I said that this Bill was almost identical with the last Bill, but there are two words in the Preamble which are different. In the Bill of last Session these words were found:
"And whereas by long usage their administration of the law"—
that is, the administration of the law by the Judges—
"is withdrawn from the Parliamentary supervision and discussion to which the conduct of His Majesty's Services is subject."
It was put to me front a quarter which I could not disregard that that might he understood as meaning that the administration of the law by the Judges was wholly withdrawn from Parliamentary supervision and discussion; but of course if any member of either House chooses to move a Motion impugning the conduct of one of His Majesty's Judges, Parliament can and will take cognisance of it. Therefore I have altered the wording slightly so that the paragraph now reads thus:
"And whereas by long usage their administration of the law is withdrawn from the manner of Parliamentary supervision and discussion to which the conduct of His Majesty's Services is subject."
122
This, I think, will make it clear, because in other Services reductions can be moved and can be carried, and the conduct of the Service, whether civil or military, can be impugned or overhauled.
That is not the case with the administration of justice. In the case of the administration of justice it must be done on a specific Motion impugning the conduct of the Judges to such an extent that if it is necessary, according to the charge made, that they should be removed, His Majesty should be advised to remove them from their office; so that there is a real difference. I think these present Words ought entirely to meet the objection and criticism which have been urged. I do not think I need explain the whole matter to your Lordships again. It was gone over very fully during last Session. I now beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by again thanking the noble Lord for introducing this Bill. As your Lordships probably know, the subject matter of it has been before this House on several occasions. Let me first remind the House that the noble Lord who is responsible for its introduction raised the issue in a Question in November of last year, and there followed upon it a very full debate, during the course of which I made a long statement tracing an historical survey of the facts upon which the present status arid independence of the Judges are founded. The noble Lord again raised this matter in December of last year, and in response to an invitation he introduced a Bill upon January 29 last. It was read a second time on March 1, and went through the Committee stage on the 15th of that month. It reached the Report stage on the 28th, and was in fact read a third time in this House on April 19; but no time could be found for it in another place. The Bill was again introduced by the noble Lord on November 21 last.
I agree with him that it is not possible to add much to what has already been said here upon the subject on the previous occasions. I endeavoured then to put before your Lordships the attitude of the Government with regard to the introduction of the Economy Act, which,

123
as your Lordships will remember, was the primary cause and gave rise to this question of vital constitutional importance. However unfortunate the circumstances may have been which compelled His Majesty's Government to effect a reduction in the judicial salaries, they did not take the view that their action in so doing in any way affected the independence and prestige of the Judicial Bench, and it is now generally accepted that the Government never intended such a result to take place. It is, I think, matter for satisfaction and congratulation that now half of the cut has been restored. The Government have considered the advisability of introducing a Bill which might relieve any apprehension which may have been entertained upon this subject, but after a thorough investigation of the ways and means through which a satisfactory solution might be discovered, it was found to be most difficult to prepare a Bill which safeguarded the position of the Judges, and at the same time did not raise problems of even greater perplexity than those that existed before.
Everybody agrees that the Judges should he independent of the Executive, but this proposition has nothing to do with the situation which was created by the Economy Act. The reduction in the salary of the Judges was not effected by the action of the Executive, but was brought about by a vote of Parliament, which was embodied in a Statute. Further, the Economy Act was passed by this House as well as by the House of Commons with a full knowledge of what was intended to be done under it. This intention was made clear in the White Paper, which was circulated, containing the proposals for the reduction in the salaries of the Judges, because the exact amount of that reduction was stated in it. Let me quote the wording of it, so far as it affects this subject, for there can be no doubt from its wording as to what purposes it was to be applied:
"They (the Government) propose further that the salaries of the Judges and of the officers of four Crown Services whose substantive payment is £2,000 a year or more shall be abated by ten per cent. in the case of salaries of less than £5,000 a year, and by twenty per cent. in the case of salaries of £5,000 a year and upwards."
Further, it has been suggested that the independence of the Judges rests upon the fact that their salaries are charged
124
upon the Consolidated Fund. The words in the Economy Act which would affect the Judges are the words referring to "persons in His Majesty's Service." It is said that either these words are not effectual for the purpose, because the Judges cannot have been intended so to be described, or that, if the Judges are so referred to, such reference is derogatory to them and is an attempt to force them into the position of subordination to the Crown, a place which they did no doubt occupy before the Act of Settlement was passed. A review of the situation shows that, although it appears to be thought that the salaries of the Judges were ascertained and established as a result of the Act of Settlement, this is not so, for on investigation one finds that, for a long period after the Act of Settlement, the Judges were dependent for their salary upon a yearly Vote of Parliament. It is, however, interesting to see, especially for the purposes of the argument, that while this state of affairs existed the independence of the Judges was looked upon as sufficiently secured, firstly, by the clause which was inserted in their Patent, that their office should he held during good behaviour, supported as it was, by statutory authority; and secondly, by the rule which prevailed in both Houses, that the conduct of a Judge was not to be discussed by Parliament, except upon a Resolution to remove him.
When this aspect of the situation is considered, it must be realised that it could have been open to Parliament, at any time, to repeal the good behaviour provision in the Act of Settlement, just as it would have been able to reduce the salaries of the Judges. In 1931 it was desired to bring the salaries of the Judges into conformity with the general economic situation of the nation, but the change which was felt necessary during the national crisis does not strike a blow at the position or prestige of the Judges to-day. In the long survey which I made upon the occasion when the noble Lord first put his Motion down, an endeavour was made to illustrate that the independence and prestige which our Judges have enjoyed in their position have rested far more upon the great tradition and long usage with which they have always been surrounded, than upon any Statute. The greatest safeguard of all may be found upon these lines, for tradition cannot be repealed, but an Act of

125
Parliament can be, and so long as this is so, there may always be a danger, if the solution to this issue is to be found by placing a declaratory Act upon the Statute Book.
In conclusion, it was in response to a suggestion by me that the noble Lord first introduced this Bill, and while I should wish to be the very first to congratulate him upon his great industry, and also to thank him for the assistance he has given in this matter, I cannot help feeling some difficulty in, satisfying myself that the remedy sought, by the introduction of this Bill, will accomplish what is the sole object of us all—namely, to see that His Majesty's Judges continue to occupy and enjoy that supreme independence which must be imperative for the proper discharge and administration of justice in this country. We shall certainly not oppose the Second Beading of the Bill, but I am afraid, if the noble. Lord will allow me to say so, that he may have to comfort himself, as other legal. reformers have to, by a contemplation of the old Latin line Non vi, sed saepe cadendo. It may be impossible, having regard to the great amount of work before Parliament, to give any assurance that the Bill is likely to reach the Statute Book this Session.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am a little sorry that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack should have thought it necessary to conclude his speech with so many warnings of the great improbability of the success of this measure, because I think it would be a real advantage to the State if the measure were placed on the Statute Book. May I say at once that I have never impugned, and I do not think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has ever impugned, the intentions of the Government? No one supposes that the Government in 1931 wished to undermine the position of the Judges. I do not think it has ever been suggested in this House. But it is not a question of what they intended to do, but of whether unintentionally they have struck a blow at one of the pillars which uphold that doctrine of independence, and I think your Lordships will do well to regard this matter as one of supreme importance. For my own part I believe that the independence of the Judges is by far the most important guarantee of the liberty of the subject
126
in this country that can possibly be devised, and that the moment you allow, as in some foreign countries recently has been done, the Judges to be at the mercy of the political power, whether in the House of Commons or in the hands of a dictator, you are destroying the great guarantee of the freedom of the people of this country.
I am far from saying that anything very serious has been done by the Government. I do not suggest that, but I do say that it is creating a precedent which might conceivably be used with very disadvantageous effects. The thing that we are afraid of is simply this, that you have made the salaries of the Judges in future rather less secure than they were. Up till now the salaries of the Judges never came before Parliament at all. They were never discussed by Parliament. It is quite true, as my noble friend has pointed out, that an express Motion censuring a Judge was in order, but you were not even allowed to ask a question which reflected on a Judge's conduct—at least, you were not in the other House. I do not know what happens in this House, but I imagine it would be equally out of order in this House. Unless you were prepared to take the formal step of trying to censure the Judge or of moving an Address for his removal, you could not touch his independence. That is merely an illustration of the immense care that has been taken—by building up no doubt on tradition—to preserve the independence of the Judges, and it is obvious that unless their salaries are as independent as their position, as their office, the independence of their office is of very little value to them or to the country.
If you can curtail and whittle away the salary of the Judge it is evident you can destroy his position as a Judge. Therefore it is essential that the same kind of guarantee should he preserved for the salary of a Judge as for his actual position upon the Bench. I know it is said—I do not know that my noble friend said it just now, but it was said on the previous occasion—that it is no use trying to legislate against revolution. It is asked what is the use of passing any measure of this kind, because if a revolution takes place it will all be swept away and until a revolution takes place it is not necessary. I do not quite agree with that. I do not myself regard noble

127
Lords who sit on that Bench as people who are likely to wade through rivers of blood to a new and socialistic state, nor do I regard my noble friends who sit on the other Bench as likely to become the adherents of Sir Oswald Mosley. The two propositions seems about 'equally likely, but the truth remains that we have seen in a number of countries in Europe revolutionary Governments set up, and even where they are not revolutionary you have seen undermined that great security of freedom which consists in the complete independence of the Judges. Therefore anything we can do, any obstacle we can set up which will make that less likely, is well worth while.
I do not say it is conclusive, nothing is conclusive, but it will help if, with the assent of the revolutionaries who sit on that Bench, we are able to reaffirm the independence of Judges. Surely that is a good thing to do. My noble friend said, and said very truly, that the independence of the Judges depends not only upon Statute—it was begun by Statute—but still more upon the accumulated tradition of the country. I agree with him most fully, but the tradition of this country, and thank Heaven for it, is very largely assisted by the action or inaction of Parliament; it is largely built up by the steps which Parliament takes from time to time to affirm general principles. This is an opportunity, as it seems to me, for us to affirm once again this cardinal truth of the independence of Judges, and I earnestly hope the Government will find time, somehow or another, to give an opportunity at any rate to the other House to decide whether they will accept this Bill or not.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I only wish to add that I entirely accept what my noble friend who has last spoken has said. I had no kind of intention of impugning the action of the Government in 1931 as meaning that they wished to undermine the independence of the Bench, but what I do say is that the unhappy events of that time, the rush in which everything had to be done, the want of opportunity for consultation and the like, did create doubts even in the highest quarters as to what the effect of the then Statute was, and how far it might serve as a precedent which might be put to disastrous uses later. The only
128
object of this Bill is to make it quite clear that the position of the Judges is not that of His Majesty's servants in the other Services, and I believe if the Bill reaches the Statute Book a real constitutional purpose will have been served.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OSTEOPATHS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the practice of osteopathy and to prescribe the qualifications of osteopathic practitioners, and move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the adjournment, may I ask the Leader of the House if he can give us some idea of business in the near future? Perhaps I may be allowed to put a further question to him. It is this: Can he give us any idea as to what Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech are likely to be introduced in this House first? I do that because I foresee that the great Bill in relation to India is going to occupy the attention of Parliament during the coming Session, and will reach us at a late stage after it has passed through the House of Commons. We shall have in addition to that all the other Bills that have passed in another place, and thus there may be a very unusual congestion of business in your Lordships' House towards the end of this Session, whereas there may be a possibility of our dealing with some of the measures during the earlier part of the year.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in answer to the first question, so far as I have been able to ascertain there is no business at the present stage for next week, and I do not think it is worth while having a merely formal sitting. Therefore I propose to your Lordships that we do not meet next week. The next

129
business of which I have any information is the Second Reading of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Elibank has just read a first time, and that, I understand, is being put down for Tuesday, December 11—Tuesday week—in which event that would be the first meeting after to-day. I understand from my noble friend Lord Mottistone that he leas a personal explanation that he desires to give to your Lordships' House in regard to certain statements he made and certain comments that have been made in the public Press. He proposes, I understand, to take this opportunity of making that statement. That, of course, will not be a matter of debate. On Wednesday, December 12, there is a Question by Lord FitzAlan of Derwent with regard to certain matters in India. I do not know yet what the business will be on Thursday, December 13.
With regard to the second question, the considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has urged have been very present to my own mind. It is perfectly true, as he says, that the principal business in this Session for both Houses must of necessity be the Bill relating to the Government of India, and that Bill cannot possibly reach us until a comparatively late period in the Session. Therefore I was very anxious, if possible, to find what matters from the Government programme we could usefully consider in this House. Unfortunately, I have to say that I have not been very successful in my search, and for this reason, that owing to the time which the Government of India Bill must of necessity take we have not attempted to set forth a very long list of legislation, as that would merely be a waste of time and a mockery. Of the Bills which it is essential to pass, the majority, at any rate, are Bills which depend mainly on matters of finance, dealing with such questions as housing, the shipping subsidy, and matters of that kind. There is also the Electricity
130
(Supply) Bill, but that has already passed through this House, and perhaps it would be more respectful to your Lordships' House to let the other place deal with it first before asking this House to reconsider it. So far I have not got very much to offer. I can only say that the matters to which the noble Lord has called attention are perfectly legitimate and important considerations, and I am most anxious that any Bills that can properly be considered first in this House shall be brought forward as soon as opportunity offers.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am much obliged to the Leader, of the House for his very full reply. Perhaps he will allow me to ask him one further question. It is whether the debate on the India Committee's Report in your Lordships' House will take place before the Christmas Recess.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is a matter which has not been finally decided. I am endeavouring to ascertain through the usual channels what the most convenient course is, but I hope very much it will be possible to take the debate before the Recess.