Lords Sitting of 7 March 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COVENTRY CANAL NAVIGATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
OXFORD CANAL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

FALMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name relating to this Order.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 17th of February last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ANDOVER GAS ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of February last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PONTYPOOL GAS ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 17th of February last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEICESTER AND WARWICK) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CUMBERLAND AND LANCASTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVSIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER AND WARWICK) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOLLAND AND KESTEVEN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOLLAND AND LINDSEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (AMENDED PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if I may be allowed formally to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, it will enable me to make a short statement which I hope will have the result of saving your Lordships' time. Those of you who are interested in this Bill will have seen that a series of Amendments has been put on the Paper as a result of a consultation which I had with the representatives of the Parliamentary Committee of the Magistrates' Association. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised certain questions upon Second Reading, and, as I said then, I was merely making general proposals
12
which I wished to have adapted in the best mode for the common interests. I met the representatives of the Magistrates' Association, Lord Merthyr and Sir Edward Marlay Samson, and we discussed the whole matter. The Amendments I have put upon the Paper are in the main the result of those discussions and to a great extent they are drafting Amendments.
One question which we discussed in a good deal of detail was whether it was not desirable to sever the conciliation proceedings from a magisterial hearing of a summons. Well, I think that was a sound proposal, and so the outstanding change in the Bill is the change by which it is provided that upon a sworn statement by the complainant in such cases as are here in question, the justices who are concerned with the administration of justice in the area concerned shall consider that statement, and that, thereupon, it shall be open to them to have the parties before them with a view to conciliation. That, of course, is much more desirable than a summons issued and served and the parties brought to the court in a formal way for a hearing. If conciliation fails the ordinary procedure can be followed, but conciliation will still be practicable and can be resorted to. That is the main change. As to the other Amendments, they result in great part from that change except that, when it was brought to my notice that the City of London was not provided for, I introduced a subsection which will extend the operation of the Bill and cover the City of London. I am much obliged to your Lordships for allowing me to make this short statement because it will avoid the necessity of a number of statements upon successive Amendments.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[Lord STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Rules for proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction.
2. Proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction to which this Act relates shall be subject to the following rules:—
(i) Such proceedings shall be instituted by summons to be issued upon an information deposed to by the complainant or applicant which shall set forth the particulars of the matters alleged and intended to be relied upon, and the court dealing with the summons shall have before it the information whereon the summons has been granted.
(ii) (a) Before a public hearing of any such proceeding is had, the court shall consider having regard to the information whether it will be well to hear the parties in private with a view to settlement by mutual consent of the matters in question and, if it shall think fit, shall direct the parties to appear personally before the court and shall hear them in private with the intent before mentioned, and may receive in their presence information from any person whom the justices believe to have knowledge or the relationship of the parties and if upon such hearing no settlement is arrived at, but the parties consent, may make any order within the jurisdiction of the court to have effect for a period limited by the order, and if in case there shall be no such settlement or consent may adjourn the hearing of the summons to as early a date as may appear to the court to be advisable upon such terms as to the intervening period as shall be within the jurisdiction of the court to order upon the hearing of the summons.
(b) No report of proceedings of a court under the provisions of the preceding subparagraph may be published without leave of the court.
(iii) During the subsistence of an order made under the procedure hereinbefore prescribed in paragraph (ii) of this section, neither of the parties may take proceedings against the other in respect of any matter comprised within the terms of the information or without leave of the court any matter of earlier date than the information.
(iv) In case either party shall wilfully disobey an order of limited duration made under the provisions of paragraph (ii), the court if application shall be made in that behalf may proceed to hear and determine the questions raised by the information and summons.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (i), to leave out "summons to be issued upon an information" and insert "a statement." The noble and learned Lord said: What is now proposed is that instead of proceedings to be instituted by summons to be issued upon an information, proceedings shall be instituted by a statement deposed to by the complainant or applicant. That avoids the formal procedure of a summons and will enable the parties to come regularly before the justices.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("by") to ("deposed") in line 19, and insert ("a statement").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (i), to omit all words after "relied upon." The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential and administrative. The justices will have the information before them in the ordinary course, as that is what they are dealing with.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line, 22, leave out from ("upon,") to the end of the paragraph.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next two amendments are drafting and consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("of") and insert ("in").
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("information") and insert ("statement").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (ii) (a), to leave out "the court and" and insert "a justice or justices who". The noble and learned Lord said: This is one of the matters which I discussed with the representatives of the magistrates, and it was thought desirable and necessary, in view of the change proposed, that instead of a personal appearance before the court it should be provided that a justice or justices might be directed to see the parties upon the statement.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("before") to ("shall") in line 8, and insert ("a justice or justices who").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next three Amendments are consequential. In regard to the third, if a settlement is arrived at with the parties' consent such justice or justices may make any order within the jurisdiction of the court. That is to avoid the necessity of a public hearing.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("and") insert ("who")
Page 2, line 11, after ("the") insert. ("justice or")
Page 2, line 14, after ("consent") insert ("such justice or justices").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to omit from paragraph (ii) (a) the words "to have effect for a period limited by the order." The noble and learned Lord said: The magistrates' representatives thought these words were superfluous. I think so, too.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("court") to ("and") in line 16.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next Amendment is to remove a misprint.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("if").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (ii) (a), to leave out all words after the last "consent" and insert "the complainant or applicant may proceed by summons to obtain a hearing and decision of the matters in question by the court." The noble and learned Lord said: If there is no settlement by consent the complainant may proceed by summons. The Amendment omits the words previously in and specifically provides to that effect.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("consent") to the end of the paragraph and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("information") and insert ("statement")
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("information") and insert ("statement").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (iv), to leave out "wilfully." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a
16
modification of paragraph (iv). "Wilfully" is unnecessary now and should be omitted, and as to the further proceedings the provision is proposed to be that the court, upon complaint made of disobedience to an order, may direct the issue of a summons and proceed thereon in due course of law.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("wilfully").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("of limited duration").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (iv), to leave out all words after "court" and insert "upon complaint made on that ground may direct the issue of a summons in respect of the matters in question and proceed thereon in due course of law." The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("court") to the end of the paragraph and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As this clause is in a way the most striking feature of the Bill, I think I ought to make some observations on it on behalf of the Home Office, before it is accepted. Before doing so, it would be appropriate to give briefly the reasons why the Home Office have decided not to move Amendments on the present occasion. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that on the Second Reading I pointed out that the problem of matrimonial disputes falls into two parts—first, what can be done and ought to be done to prevent such cases coming into Court at all; arid, secondly, what ought to be the court procedure for dealing with cases which cannot be settled out of court. The view of the Home Office is that the second question cannot be properly answered until the first question is settled, and, in accordance with the promise made last year when this subject was first debated in

17
your Lordships' House, the Summary Courts (Social Services) Committee was appointed to enquire into the first part of this problem. This Committee is now at work and has already taken a good deal of evidence from magistrates, clerks of the peace, and probation officers. As was expected, much of the evidence offered has thrown a considerable amount of light on the question of court procedure which is now being dealt with in the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. For this reason the Home Office feels that it must await the Report of this Committee before expressing any definite or final opinion on the proposals of the Bill.
But to revert to Clause 2; it proposes that in every case in which on the statement of fact there appears to be a chance of a settlement the justices themselves should take part in a private and informal hearing at which both parties are present and endeavour to arrive at a settlement. The Home Office does not feel satisfied at present that attempted conciliation by the court is always, or indeed in most cases, the best method. There are many who think that conciliation in these difficult matters is likely to be most successful when it is undertaken by some person of wide experience and special qualifications, who often will not be a member of the bench. The person at present employed for this purpose in most courts of summary jurisdiction is the probation officer or court missionary, and it is believed that a high standard of success is being reached by this method. Although some justices may be well qualified for the delicate task of conciliation, and may be able to give great assistance in this direction, it is necessary to consider the position of the hundreds of courts of summary jurisdiction throughout the country. I expect I shall have your Lordships' agreement when I say it is by no means certain that suitable justices will always, in every case be forthcoming. The question arises whether a case has been made out for substituting conciliation by the court for the existing method of conciliation by the probation officer. It is this very question which the Summary Courts (Social Services) Committee is investigating, and that is why the Home Office feels it necessary to suspend judgment until the result of this investigation is learned.
18
Apart, however, from this general observation, there are one or two particular aspects of the clause about which the Department that I represent feels very grave doubt. It is inevitable that in some cases the attempt at conciliation by the justices at a private hearing will fail, and that the parties will insist on a formal hearing on a summons. It would seem to be very undesirable that a justice or justices who may have taken part in the private and informal proceedings should subsequently adjudicate on the summons. The mind of the particular justice or justices must inevitably become prejudiced by what has taken place at the private hearing and be would not be in a position to administer justice impartially. It may also be seriously questioned whether it is right, as the clause proposes, to give such wide powers to justices who take part in the private and informal sittings. With the Amendments which have been introduced by the noble and learned Lord, it would be possible for the justices, and even for a single justice, with the consent of the parties, to make any "order within the jurisdiction of the court," which would presumably include not only a maintenance order but also a separation order. It would seem that a proposal which would enable orders of this serious import to be made without the safeguards provided by the existing law is not one which could be accepted without much fuller consideration. I think it only proper that I should put these aspects of the clause before your Lordships before you agree to it.
LORD MERRIVALE: I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl's advisers at the Home Office have not read the Amendments. If they had, they would have seen that the Amendments propose to do away in the main with the objections which were previously made on behalf of the Home Office. After consultation with the justices, I took this course, not only out of consideration for the advice of the justices, but out of consideration for the view taken by the Home Office. That is the situation at the present time. It is not the fact that it is now proposed that the justices who would hear a summons should conduct the conciliation proceedings. The court can nominate a justice or justices to see the parties. The Home Office doubts whether there is sense enough in

19
an ordinary bench of justices to undertake a task of that kind. If there is not, they ought not to be justices. After all, their business is the well-being of the community in which they discharge their duties. As to the probation officer, of course, I understand why the official view is that these things should always be undertaken officially. The probation officer is appointed and has the confidence of the Home Office. I dare say he deserves it, but it is a different thing for married people to be put under the hand of an official about whom they know quite well in the district, instead of being dealt with by neighbours of their own of a different standing with a view to the specific object of their reconciliation. Then it is said that the magistrates may make an agreed order by consent, and that it ought to be done after a public hearing. Why should it be if the subject is one in which a public hearing can only be mischievous? Those are the observations I desire to bring to the notice of the advisers of my noble friend at the Home Office.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether in view of what he has said he contemplates that the probation officers or police court missionaries will not be available for the assistance of these justices or any single justice to whom this difficult task of conciliation is entrusted? I should imagine that the last thing he wishes to do is to exclude from the agencies which are engaged in this necessary work of conciliation the peculiar experience, knowledge and tact which have been found already in numberless cases throughout the country to be exercised by the police court missionaries or the probation officers.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am much obliged to the most reverend Primate. I had hoped I had made it clear on a previous occasion that there is language in the Bill which is intended to enable and encourage the justices to avail themselves of the services of the probation officer or anybody else who can help them. They can call in a friendly neighbour, they can call in a friendly probation officer, but they must use their common sense about the matter, according to my view of the case. I hope the answer is clear to the most reverend Primate, to
20
whom I am much indebted for his interest in this Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I only thought that some words which fell from the noble and learned Lord may have implied some degree of suspicion on probation officers and their work.
LORD MERRIVALE: Not in the least.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Summonses and applications under Act to be heard at special sittings of court.
3.—In courts of summary jurisdiction summonses and applications to which this Act relates shall be heard and determined at sittings to be specially fixed and apart from the general business of the court.
LORD MERRIVALE: The first two Amendments in my name to this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("jurisdiction") insert ("applications and").
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("and applications").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to leave out the last words of the clause: "and apart from the general business of the court." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment the justices' representatives discussed with me and they said special sittings of the courts could be fixed. It is not necessary to say that it shall be apart from the general business of the court if it is a special sitting which will deal with a special matter. That seemed to me to be good sense and I adopted the suggestion.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("fixed") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power to make rules.
4.—(1) Rules may be made by the Home Secretary with the approval of the Lord Chancellor to govern the procedure of courts of summary jurisdiction as to the hearing of summonses and applications to which this Act relates and to provide for, inter alia—

(a) the hearing of such summonses and applications within the Metropolitan Police district by a police magistrate

21
sitting with a justice or justices of the peace selected from a panel of justices to be constituted as hereinafter mentioned; and

(b) the hearing of such summonses and applications in courts of summary jurisdiction outside the Metropolitan Police district by justices selected from a panel of justices to be constituted as hereinafter mentioned.

(2) Panels of justices for the duties mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be constituted in accordance with rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and rules so to be made may give directions as to the qualification and mode of selection of a justice for appointment as chairman of a court sitting in a petty sessional area and as to the service of women justices in such courts.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave a out "Home Secretary with the approval of the." The noble and learned Lord said: It has been thought that it would simplify the procedure here if the rules to be made, which are rules really upon a special subject, were made by the Lord Chancellor who, of course, may consult, or his advisers may consult, any representative of the Crown. It was thought that the words which provided for the making of the rules by the Home Secretary with the approval of the Lord Chancellor should be omitted, and that it would be better that the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for the rules to be made, and that he should consult all those whom he thought fit to consult.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("the") to ("Lord Chancellor").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: I beg to move the next five Amendments standing in my name, which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("of") leave out ("summonses and")
Page 3, line 4, after ("applications") insert ("and summonses")
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("to") and insert ("may")
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("summonses and")
after ("applications ") insert ("and summonses").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(b) in am district served by a stipendiary magistrate the hearing of such applications and summonses by such a magistrate sitting with a justice or justices of the peace selected from such a panel of justices."
The noble and learned Lord said: With regard to this and the proposals which follow, I ask leave to say that with regard to some of the proposals previously made relating to the constitution of the panel of justices, it was thought to be advisable that the rules should govern the constitution of the panel. A question arose as to the inclusion of women justices which, of course, I think is most desirable. It was pointed out that the rules did not give the degree of latitude which was desired and therefore I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("summonses and").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next three Amendments in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 12, after ("applications") insert ("and summonses.")
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("jurisdiction") to ("by") in line 14.
Page 3, line 18, after ("(b)") insert ("and (c)").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "shall be" and insert "appointed annually at a general meeting of the justices of each petty sessional division." The noble and learned Lord said: The proposal in the Bill as it got its Second Beading was that the panel of justices should be constituted "in accordance with rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor," but the representatives of the justices thought it would be better that the panels should be appointed at the annual meeting of the justices of the petty sessional division.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out from the first ("be") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) In the City of London courts of summary jurisdiction for the purposes of this Act shall be constituted in such manner as the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City may from time to time determine"
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to put the Bill right in respect of the City of London. The City Remembrancer was good enough to call my attention to the omission, and indeed was good enough to suggest the necessary Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Before we leave this clause I would ask your Lordships' permission to make one general observation with regard to subsection (2). So far as the Metropolitan Police Court area is concerned the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan magistrates has for many years past been completely separated from that of the justices, except in the holding of juvenile courts where, tinder the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, justices assist the Metropolitan magistrates. A proposal to extend the same principle to matrimonial work could not be accepted without the fullest inquiry, and I do not think the Home Office could at the present stage, without due consultation with the Metropolitan Police magistrates, express any concurrence with the proposal.
The Home Office also feels some doubt whether in all the circumstances it is wise to place upon the justices a statutory duty of electing each year a special panel for the sole purpose of hearing matrimonial cases. There is of course the precedent set up by the Children and Young Persons Act in respect of juvenile courts, but the proposed extension of this system to matrimonial work calls
24
for careful consideration and may give rise to difficulty, especially 'in the smaller petty sessional divisions where the number of justices on the Commission is limited. There are many who think that a justice, once appointed, ought to be fit to undertake any of the duties required of him and that there may be some risk in extending the principle of selected panels. The information in the possession of the Home Office suggests that those justices who feel that they have a special aptitude for this type of judicial work, and desire to take part in it, are usually given the opportunity of doing so, and in this way something of the nature of a selection in fact takes place. This voluntary assumption of duties may on the whole be more satisfactory than insistence on formal selection.
LORD MERRIVALE: Of course it is open to the Home Office, when they have made up their minds on this matter, to move Amendments at some stage, either here or elsewhere. I have done the best I could in the proposals I have made.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provision as to hearing of evidence.
5. Upon the hearing in the High Court of Justice of any matrimonial cause or matter, and upon the hearing before any court of summary jurisdiction of any summons or application to which this Act relates, the said courts respectively shall henceforth have a discretionary authority to direct that awhile evidence is being given no persons other than the parties and their professional representatives and the witnesses under examination shall be present, such direction to be given only in cases where it shall appear to the court necessary for the clue administration of justice or proper in respect of public decency. Provided always that the decision of the court upon the summons or application shall in all cases be given in open court.
LORD MERRIVALE: The first two Amendments to this clause are consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("summons or").
Page 3, line 29, after ("application") insert ("or summons").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after "present," to insert, "and that no report of evidence so given shall be

25
published." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a question of directions by the justices which will prevent the humiliation to women, in particular, of disclosing wrongs of which they complain, in the presence of all sorts of people. We know that frequently this limits the capacity of a witness to give evidence and sometimes prevents her venturing to take any proceedings. There was au error in the Amendment as it was printed on the Paper. I dare say it was clue to my bad writing. The word "repeal" appears on the Paper, but it, should be "report." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, after ("present") insert ("and that no report of evidence so given shall be published").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("direction") and insert ("directions").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to leave out "the summons or application" and insert "any summons." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a necessary Amendment resulting from the changed provisions of the earlier part of the Bill, provisions providing that the decision of the court upon any summons shall be given in open court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("the summons or application") and insert ("any summons").—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Establishment of Herring Industry Board]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of a number of Amendments to the Bill, to alter the references to the Herring industry Board from the plural to the singular. The first was to
26
substitute "its." for "their." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, most of these Amendments are put down with the object of getting carried out a ruling by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that all nouns of multitude if they begin in a Bill in the singular shall continue throughout the Bill in the singular, and if they begin in the plural shall continue in the plural. Clause 1 (1) says:
"For the purposes of this Act there shall be established a body, to be called the Herring Industry Board,' which shall be a body corporate …"
After that throughout the Bill the Board is referred to in the plural. It is with the object of remedying that that I venture to put down the Amendments which stand in my name. They are all consequential except the last one, which I will explain later.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, this Amendment and the other Amendments on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount seek to alter the grammar of the Bill so as to put references to the Herring Industry Board in the singular instead of in the plural. It is quite immaterial, either to the effect or to the artistic correctness of the Bill, whether the references are in the singular or in the plural; but there is a definite and sufficient reason why the Amendments should be resisted. This grammatical paint has been raised on a number of previous occasions, and a standing instruction as to the practice to be followed has been laid down for the guidance of the Parliamentary Counsel. That instruction has been observed by them in the preparation of this Bill. The instruction is to the effect that whichever alternative is adopted as between singular or plural references to nouns of multitude, consistency will be observed. If, in a case where the Parliamentary Counsel have been careful to observe this instruction, grammatical Amendments on this point are accepted, their work will be hampered by unnecessary uncertainty in a matter of no practical importance.
It is perhaps justifiable to remind the noble Viscount that in putting down these

27
Amendments his action appears to be inconsistent with something like an undertaking which was arrived at on an occasion on which it was stated in this House that the instruction in question had been given to the Parliamentary Counsel. During the Committee stage of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill in June, 1933, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, expressed the hope that the noble Viscount would be content with the assurance that every endeavour would be made to be consistent with whichever alternative was adopted, and that he would not seek to impose an arbitrary rule of his own which could only be an embarrassment in the preparation of Bills—a task in which the real difficulties are of a much more substantial character. The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, whilst indicating that he regretted that the decision had not been that the singular would always he used, nevertheless stated that he was prepared to abide by that decision. I hope the noble Viscount will not think me discourteous if I remind him of the fact that the printing of these Amendments, and the reprinting of the Bill, if that becomes necessary, does represent something in terms of the expenditure of time and money, and I venture to express the hope that his anxiety for grammatical or artistic correctness or perfection will not outweigh the desire, which I am sure he shares with us, for national economy and efficiency.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the question is: Is this consistent? It begins in the singular and then goes into the plural. I do not quite follow what my noble friend means. Then he says it is immaterial, but is it immaterial to follow out the ruling of the Lord Chancellor? I really think it is not very courteous towards the holder of that high office that we should be told that it is quite immaterial if the draftsmen choose to do it in a certain way. The noble Lord said that every endeavour has been taken to make this consistent but it is not consistent, and with very little endeavour it could have been made so. However, I would not like to put my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in the invidious position of voting in a way from which he disagrees, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move any of the others.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Will the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, and Mount Royal, inform us how much the printing of these Amendments will cost the Stationery Office?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Viscount now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LIFE PEERAGES.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY had given Notice of the following Motion:—That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that his undoubted Prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament, during the present Session, of any measure relating to a limited creation of Life Peerages that may be introduced.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Address, the scope of my remarks must properly be chiefly confined to procedure, to-day. I might have proceeded by way of Resolution, as indeed my noble friend Lord FitzAlan of Derwent did on a somewhat analogous occasion some seven or eight years ago. The same procedure was followed by my noble friend Lord Clarendon, now Governor-General of South Africa, a year or so later, but, as it seems to me in this matter, and under present conditions, any Resolution of that kind merely ends in being a registration of pious opinions. If there is any hope of getting further in these complications and puzzles, I think it is a better course to proceed by way of Bill, and if I proceed as I have elected, by way of Bill, precedents become important.
This Bill deals with, or affects, the Royal Prerogative. Mr. Gladstone, many years ago, laid down very lucidly and clearly the rules of Parliament when concerned with that subject. More recently the late Marquess of Lansdowne, in 1911, addressed some observations to this House which make quite plain to my mind what the procedure is if I elect to bring in a Bill. Lord Lansdowne said on March 28, 1911, in this House:
"… any Bill dealing with the constitution of this House necessarily touches the Royal Prerogative … any Bill of which that can be said ought not to be introduced into either House of Parliament without the

29
previous sanction of the Crown… it is in accordance with the practice of Parliament and with the respect which we owe to the Crown that that preliminary concurrence should be obtained."
Two days later, Lord Lansdowne, after referring further to the matter, used these words:
"We therefore draw the conclusion that if a Bill affecting the Royal Prerogative is brought forward by the Opposition"—
or I would venture humbly to suggest by a private member—
"it is indispensable that the Royal Assent should be signified before the Bill has been actually introduced."
Accordingly, I shall beg leave to introduce the Bill which I have in my mind under this procedure. That being so, no other question in my judgment would arise, to-day, except the question whether His Majesty should be respectfully approached to sanction consideration of a Bill such as that which is outlined in this Address.
It seems self-evident that we cannot discuss the subject before discussion is sanctioned. Assuming that His Majesty were to say "No"—that he did not sanction a discussion—there, so far as I am concerned, the matter would end. If, on the other hand, His Majesty is graciously pleased to say "Yes," with, I presume, the concurrence of the Cabinet, then I should at once put down on the Paper of this House a Motion for First Reading. The Bill would then be printed, and your Lordships would have it fully before you before the Second Reading, of which I should be glad to give full notice, is taken. I would only say at this stage that in drafting the Bill I shall be very conscious of the importance of a strict limitation of the numbers of Life Peers, and the whole of my plan will be sketched out on that basis.
Perhaps I may add one or two remarks on the present occasion which seem to the point. One is that I have brought forward this proposal entirely on my own responsibility, as I think the time is suitable or opportune, and I feel that the constitution of this House cannot for ever remain adamant against every suggested variation or amendment, although so far it has never been found possible to devise an agreed scheme of change or reform. Further, I need hardly assure
30
your Lordships—certainly not those who know me best—that this is in no sense a Party move. Whatever is done I want to be done for the best interests of a useful Second Chamber, and I hope that a simple proposal like tins may afford common ground for a, helpful, if modest, alteration in our constitution, and that all your Lordships who believe in the desirability of a Second Chamber at all may be willing to approve it.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that his undoubted Prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament, during the present Session, of any measure relating to a limited creation of Life Peerages that may be introduced.—(Lord Rockley.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I give full credit to my noble friend for his desire to advance the cause which he has at heart in accordance with the best traditions of your Lordships' House, but I cannot help feeling that the course he has taken is a most embarrassing one. The noble Lord said very truly that his desire to-day was that no question should be introduced except the actual giving of His Majesty's sanction to the discussion of this particular measure. But there are two parties to that. We have to consider what is due to His Majesty; we have to consider what is due to this House. If the noble Lord's Motion is allowed to pass—and I ardently hope it will not be allowed to pass—we shall be restricted, in a matter which has been before your Lordships on a score of different occasions, and on which your Lordships have taken very strong action and have expressed very strong opinion, to a discussion of the roost jejune and, as I think, almost inappropriate character, and the whole of the rest of the opinions which have been put forward over a long period of years must be ruled out.
My noble friend alluded, I think, to what Lord Lansdowne brought forward in 1911. But if we are to take the discussions in this House on the question of Life Peers alone, you have to go back, I was going to say to the Dark Ages—to the period when my noble friend's illustrious relative Lord Salisbury was the Leader of this House fifty years ago. The question of dealing with Life Peers

31
alone was then brought forward. You would think from this Motion that we had travelled no distance since then. We had Lord Lansdowne's action in 1911, we had Lord Rosebery's Committee, we had Lord Bryce's Committee, we had Lord Clarendon's Motion, which was accepted by a very large majority of this House, we had a Motion by Lord FitzAlan of Dement, and finally we had Lord Salisbury's Bill, which, if it did not proceed further, did not fail to proceed because what was contained in it was too advanced, but because a large number of your Lordships protested that it would be inadequate to the case. In face of that, my noble friend comes and asks your Lordships to begin again at fifty years back. I cannot conceive of a greater waste of time, or one which is more likely to have a bad effect on those in the country who do not think your Lordships are sufficiently representative as a revising Chamber.
I do not know what view my noble friend the Leader of the House will take, but I would remind him that the Lord President of the Council, when Prime Minister, committed himself at Perth, on October 25, 1924, to these words:
"It is our duty to consider, within the framework of the Parliament Act, whether it is practicable to make provision for the machinery of the Second Chamber for preserving the ultimate authority in legislation to the considered judgment of the people, and, if it is practicable, the adaptation or amendment of the constitution of the House of Lords would be a necessary condition for carrying it into effect."
And on July 20, 1926, Mr. Baldwin repeated the pledge, and added that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this question in the lifetime of the then present Parliament. I really think that, when we have spent many nights in discussing whether the constitution of this House should be amended in the most material respect, and whether the introduction of what is called the outside element should amount to one-third, one-half, or even two-thirds of the House—I really think that it would be a non-sequitur if we were to go back to the old original proposals by which a limited number of Life Peers would be introduced, which cannot possibly affect the main arguments.
These are two in number: first, that an assembly in which a Socialist
32
Government can only command from twelve to twenty members out of 750 is an anachronism; and, secondly, that we have already travelled far beyond the confines within which my noble friend would leave us. I really think that people in the country who are hostile to this House, of which I have always been a most ardent supporter, might well say that to begin to consider now whether we should have a measure for bringing in a limited number of Life Peers would be very like taking a man who has suffered the loss of a limb and offering him a piece of sticking plaster. I venture to say that this is a proposal which, however well my noble friend intends it, would be regarded as a backward step, instead of a forward step, and I very much hope that your Lordships will refuse to pass the Motion which he has put forward.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, we did not expect that controversy over this matter would begin to-day, and I do not want in any way to stimulate it. I will only-say on that point that I do not agree with the noble Earl that the period of the Dark Ages was when, as he said, the noble Marquess the late Lord Salisbury led this House. But, that apart, I rise merely to say that we shall offer no sort of opposition to the Motion which has been proposed. The noble Lord, the noble Earl, and myself, in our experience of another place, always felt it our duty to give what aid we could to any member who desired to introduce a Bill which he thought would benefit the country. On this side we shall support that principle this afternoon, but in supporting it we must, as your Lordships are aware, reserve our complete right to differ, if we must, from any Bill that is introduced.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say just a few words at this point on the question that is before your Lordships for decision this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Rockley has stated quite accurately what the constitutional procedure is with regard to these matters, and he cited what is now the recognised fount of recent authority, the debate initiated by the late Lord Lansdowne in 1911. There is no doubt at all that it is a breach of the law of

33
Parliament to pass through either House a Bill affecting the Prerogative of the Crown without the assent of the Crown. It is possible to ask for that assent either before the Bill is introduced or at any period during its discussion. Your Lordships may remember that in the course of the discussion on the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Salisbury—to whom I hope I may be permitted to say how glad everyone in the House is to see him returned in health and strength—the point was taken by noble Lords opposite that it was impossible to proceed even to the First Reading without the prior assent of the Crown. Precedents were cited to show that that was not the invariable rule, and the noble Marquess, after obtaining the First Reading, introduced the necessary Motion asking that an Address should be presented, a Motion in similar, though not identical, terms to that which my noble friend Lord Rockley has moved this afternoon.
On this occasion, my noble friend has taken the alternative which was then urged and has moved his Motion before introducing his Bill My noble friend Lord Midleton indicates his objection to a discussion limited, as it must be if this Address is passed, by the terms of the Address to the creation of a limited number of life Peers. I do not express at this stage any opinion as to whether or not it is desirable to alter the constitution of your Lordships' House by such a limited creation, or whether it is a useful thing to do that in the absence of any wider measure of reform. The only point to which I have to address my mind as Leader of the House for the time being, and as the representative of His Majesty's Government, is whether or not we should advise your Lordships and later on, if the Address be passed, whether we should advise His Majesty to refuse to allow the Bill to be introduced or discussed. It does not seem to us—and I speak here for my colleagues in the Government as well as for myself—that it would be right to advise His Majesty to exercise his undoubted Prerogative right in order to prevent a discussion of this topic upon which my noble friend Lord Rockley wishes to obtain the opinion of your Lordships. Therefore, although in no way committing the Government or any member of the
34
Government to any opinion upon the actual merits of the proposal, which so far has only been indicated in outline, we propose to offer no sort of opposition to the suggestion that an Address be passed which will ask His Majesty to permit a discussion of the Bill; and if your Lordships see fit to pass such an Address we shall deem it our duty to tender to His Majesty the advice that the Address be acceded to. That, I think, is again in accordance with precedent.
In the case cited in 1911 there were actually extensive proposals for limiting the rights of your Lordships' House embodied in the Parliament Bill at that time under discussion, and notwithstanding that fact the Liberal Government of the day, through the mouth of Lord Morley, expressed the view that it was not right to prevent Lord Lansdowne from introducing his Bill, and accordingly they intimated that they should humbly advise His Majesty to accede to the Address, although they made it quite clear that they had no intention whatever of being parties to any postponement of their own proposals which were embodied in the Parliament Bill. That seems to me a rather stronger case than the present one, because at that time the Government had actually before Parliament proposals which went much further than Lord Lansdowne's Bill, and in spite of that fact they said it was not a proper use of the Prerogative to prevent Lord Lansdowne's Bill being discussed.
I propose, and the Government propose, to follow that precedent. I express no sort of opinion as to whether or not such a limited measure of reform is desirable. I express no sort of indication as to what action the Government may feel disposed to take when the Bill is presented for debate in your Lordships' House, but so far as we are concerned we offer no sort of opposition to the Address being moved and passed, and, if it be passed, we shall humbly advise His Majesty to give his assent to it. That, as I understand, is exactly the attitude adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who has just spoken. It seems to me the constitutional and correct attitude, and I am very glad to find myself on a matter of constitutional propriety in such complete accord with the Opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say just one word on the question of procedure. There is no question at all that the Leader of the House has accurately stated what the procedure of your Lordships' House ought to be in a matter of this kind. My noble friend Lord Rockley has pursued, as I am sure he would always do, a most correct course, but I think it important to note that the Leader of the House has slightly modified my noble friend's dictum as to the proper procedure by pointing out that this Resolution which is essential need not necessarily be passed before the introduction of the Bill. It must be passed before this House or the other House, each in its own case, has finally dealt with the measure. That is the procedure. I should like to say that this matter was very fully discussed last year upon the occasion when I had to trouble your Lordships at some length on this subject. The decision we then came to is really, if I may say so, a binding decision, for that is the way in which the order and procedure of your Lordships' House is built up. Questions come up and are decided, and become the procedure of the House henceforward. I do not mean to say there are not modifications, but those are the broad lines upon which we work out questions of order. Therefore we may now look upon it as a settled order in a matter dealing with the constitution of your Lordships' House—the personnel at any rate of your Lordships' House—that it cannot be dealt with except following upon a Motion addressed to the Crown, but that Motion may be made at any time during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
Upon the merits I shall not say anything, because I observe my noble friend the Leader of the House was careful to say that he did not commit the Government in any sense to this proposal. I have heard him say that sort of thing before, and not always upon a formal Motion such as my noble friend has made to-night. Even upon the merits of a Bill, when it has come for First Reading or Second Reading, I have heard my noble friend carefully guard the Government from taking any line on this question of House of Lords reform. This is a matter for the Government. I confess that I think this course becomes a habit of the Government, and it is a mistaken habit. They must ultimately make up their
36
minds to take some line upon House of Lords reform. As I see the General Election approaching nearer and nearer, and perhaps not exactly the same confidence in its result which prevailed a short time ago, I cannot help regretting that the Government did not make up their minds a little sooner. Your Lordships are aware that unless something is said before the General Election, those who believe in the doctrine of mandate—I do not believe in the doctrine of mandate—will certainly say in the next Parliament that Parliament is not qualified to deal with this subject. I think that matter has deeply bitten into His Majesty's Government, and they are aware of what may be the result if nothing is said before the General Election.
As to my noble friend Lord Rockley, I think he is to be thanked for raising this subject again. I agree with my noble friend Lord Midleton, and I would have ventured to ask the House to go much further than I understand my noble friend wishes to go, but in these days we must be satisfied with what we can get. At any rate I am very much obliged to my noble friend for keeping this matter before the notice and attention of the Government and the country.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate and will intervene for a moment or two only. Arising out of the observations of the noble Marquess, to which I think I am entitled to make some rejoinder, I would remind him, when he pleads with the noble Viscount who leads the House that the Government should make up their mind on this question, that when his own Bill was introduced on the first occasion two or three members of the Government voted against it. That is a fundamental fact when you are considering the Government's position in this matter. In these circumstances the prospect of the Government, through the mouthpiece of the noble Viscount, coming forward with an agreed policy on House of Lords reform seems to be somewhat remote, more particularly when you remember that when a certain number of members of the other House interviewed Mr. Baldwin upon this matter he suggested that the Government was unable to do anything, for two reasons. In the first place they had not the time; and in the second place, if they had got the

37
time they had not made up their minds, and could not make up their minds, to an agreed policy. If they are unable to do that now, the prospect of their being able to do it on the eve of a General Election is less likely to materialise. I think the noble Marquess will have to contain his impatience that something should be done in regard to this matter a little longer. We have had proposals for reforming this Chamber from time to time ever since I came here, and they have always ended in exactly the same way—confusion and defeat for those who bring them forward.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I should like to reply to my noble friend Lord Midleton in two sentences. He complains that my proposed Bill is restricted, and
38
he vigorously advocates the wisdom of an all or nothing policy with that unflinching temperament which he has often shown in these matters. In reply, I would say that that is exactly the reason why we never get on. If we will try and agree on something, which is my hope on this occasion, there is a much better chance of improving the constitution of this House than there is by putting forward programmes about which half of the members of this House continue to be disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.