Lords Sitting of 15 December 1949

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGES FROM THE KING
  4.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present three Messages from His Majesty the King signed with his own hand. The Messages are as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that Regulation 76 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, which was continued in force until the 31st day of December, 1949, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance Order), 1948, be further continued in force until the 10th day of December, 1950. I will give directions accordingly."
  "I have received your Address praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which was continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, and which would otherwise expire on the 31st day of December, 1949, be continued in force until the 10th day of December, 1950. I will give directions accordingly."
  "I have received your Address praying that the National Youth Employment Council and Advisory Committee for Scotland and Wales (Membership) Order, 1949, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

CALF REARING SCHEME (ENGLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) (EXTENSION AND PAYMENT) ORDER, 1949
4.8 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, as a result of experience in the working of this scheme, and on the advice of Parliament, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has decided to alter the
1616
rates of the subsidy which, instead of being £4 for a steer calf and £3 for a heifer calf, will now be altered to £5 for a steer calf and £2 for a heifer calf. The object of this is to lay more stress on beef production, and in view of the considerable need for increasing our meat supplies, I hope your Lordships will agree with this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, November 29 last, be approved.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF REARING SUBSIDY SCHEME (EXTENSION AND PAYMENT) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is exactly the same Order in reference to Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, November 29 last, be approved.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (MAXIMUM AREA OF PASTURE) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Order is to stop the amount of tillage falling and, in consequence, a greater amount of grassland growing. I can assure your Lordships that this is not intended to be used drastically against farmers in general, but only against those few farmers who are not playing their part in the production drive. I am sure your Lordships will all agree that in these days we need the maximum amount of tillage but unfortunately the figures for Scotland, as well as those for England and Wales, have been falling rapidly. In fact, the tillage in Scotland has fallen since the war by 226,000 acres. As a further indication of the trend, we find that, while in 1948 10,000 acres went down to grass, in 1949 there were 75,000 acres, which is a great increase, and rather a serious and worrying one. For this reason, and because of the importance of supplying feeding stuffs and being as self-supporting as we can, it was considered

1617
necessary to have this power to be used in these exceptional cases. In view of the extreme urgency of growing more grain, both for human consumption and animal feeding stuffs, I hope your Lordships will agree to this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday November 29 last, be approved.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES: VARIATION OF FIRST SCHEDULE) REGULATIONS, 1949
4.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 7th instant, be approved. The Sale of Food Act requires certain articles of pre-packed food, set out in the First Schedule, to be packed by certain weights in packages clearly defining the net weight of their contents. This order places approximately twelve different kinds of pre-packed food in this Schedule for the first time. We have been pressed to do this by local authorities who have to administer this Act, and by retail food trade associations. We have consulted all the appropriate organisations, and they unanimously agree. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 7th instant, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL
4.13 p.m.
Returned from the Commons with one of the Amendments made by the Lords disagreed to, for which disagreement they assigned a Reason, and several other Amendments disagreed to but Amendments proposed in lieu thereof.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. On this Motion it may be convenient if I make a statement. It will be within the recollection of the House that arising out of an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, relating to the Fountain in Parliament Square, we agreed to a certain proposal by which your Lordships' House and another place would require to pass a Resolution approving the proposal to be submitted to them. There has been some misunderstanding, I am afraid, about this matter, and alternative Amendments are now before us from the other place. When we come to them I think it will be possible to submit suggestions to your Lordships—at least I hope so— which will meet with general approval. That course will represent what I am sure we should all agree is desired—a strict adherence to the understanding arrived at previously on the matter.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 2 insert the following new Clause:
  Restriction on use of Canning enclosure
  (". No part of the Canning enclosure within a distance of sixty-five feet from the existing main entrance to the Middlesex Guildhall shall be used as a public carriageway.")
  The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason: Because the Amendment would make it impossible to carry out the improvement scheme to which the Bill relates; and because there is insufficient time, before the beginning of the Festival of Britain celebrations to prepare and carry out a fresh improvement scheme.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment to page 4, line 30, and do agree with the Commons in the Amendment proposed by them in lieu thereof, to page 4, line 29.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the noble Lord has not called us to consider the first Amendment of the Commons.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist upon the Amendment to insert the new clause after Clause 2.—(Lord Morrison.)
  Moved, That this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord opposite, I think it is always better to deal with first things first, and with the first Amendment before the second Amendment on the Order Paper. Having got that right after some hesitation, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, gets up and gives us no reason whatever for the Motion which he has moved in the House to-day, that we do not insist on our Amendment. I take it, therefore, that we revert (a) to the Reason given by the Commons for disagreeing with what we did in this House, and (b) to what the Minister of Works himself said yesterday when this matter was before another place. The Commons say they disagree with the Amendment:
  "Because the Amendment would make it impossible to carry out the improvement scheme to which the Bill relates; …"
  In fact, that contention has no substance at all. Back in 1936 an exactly similar improvement to that proposed by your Lordships would have been effected. The scheme then proposed was approved by the Commissioner of Police and also by the Minister of Transport. It is therefore putting it a little high to say that this Amendment of ours would have made the scheme impossible to fulfil. All it would do would be to shift the existing road nine feet further one way. It would leave exactly the same width of carriageway, and would have no other effect on the improvement of this Square.
  The Commons Reason for their disagreement to the Amendment goes on:
  "and because there is insufficient time before the beginning of the Festival of Britain celebrations to prepare and carry out a fresh improvement scheme."
  If there is the will to make a new scheme, it does not take very long to shift an existing scheme nine feet one way or the other—that is quite clear. One of our complaints in this House was that, through some dilatoriness on the part of the Ministry of Works, this scheme, although it was all being settled, if it was not completely settled, in May, did not
  1620
  come before another place till within a fortnight of the end of this Session, and not before your Lordships until within three days of the conclusion of the Session. So that first of all we were faced with the position that we had to pass an Amendment to our normal Standing Orders of the House to limit the time for the presentation of Petitions. Secondly, we had to acquiesce in a proposal by His Majesty's Government that we should take all the stages of the Bill on the same day.
  It is not our fault, it is not Parliament's fault, that this matter was not referred to it before. If the matter was settled in May, I should have thought we could have had this Bill in sufficient time to allow for further negotiation; then, if there was a difference of opinion between the two Houses, it would have been possible to arrange the usual kind of consultations. By running it to this very last moment of the Session, such consultations are made impossible in this case. We feel that we as a House have a substantial complaint in being placed in the position of receiving this Bill only within the last two or three days of the Session. I have been reading in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT the Minister's speech made yesterday. Fortunately, he made it just in time to have it included in that part of the REPORT; we do not find all the speeches made on this Bill, or the result of the Division, in that same part of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister said that the shifting of the road by nine feet:
  "would have very serious consequences in two ways. First of all, the statues would have to be re-sited."
  It is over-straining it a bit to say that it is a "very serious consequence" to have to re-site statues which are to be re-sited in any event. To describe that as a "very serious consequence" of your Lordships' Amendment to this Bill was, I should have thought, a slight exaggeration of phrase. He went on:
  "However, a far more serious consequence would be that certain of the trees that are being preserved in the scheme according to the way in which we have presented it, would be destroyed, and the life of the other trees would be seriously endangered."
  Actually, when you look at it, the difference is one single plane tree! That is the other "very serious consequence" which

  1621
  your Lordships would have caused if our Amendment had been accepted.
  The Minister continues later:
  "Moreover, the traffic authorities tell me that even doing it in that sort of way would have serious consequences upon the interweaving of the traffic in the Square, and would therefore not be so effective in making traffic movement easier, as is required if we are to get the proper movement of traffic there."
  The lay-out and the technique of roads have not greatly altered since 1936, and there was not that serious objection when the Ministry of Transport agreed to the old plan. Here again, the Minister has thoroughly over-stated the position. The j Minister goes on to say, in the next column:
  "If we put it back in order that a new scheme might be worked out, it means that the whole of this scheme is to be lost, and the benefits that would come for traffic purposes for the Festival would be lost as well."
  Quite frankly, I just do not believe that. To get an architect to alter this scheme again by shifting it nine feet, unless they work even more slowly in the Ministry of Works than one might suspect, should not make this scheme one which "would be lost."
  Then one comes down to the position: What advice are those of us who were responsible for this Amendment to give to those of your Lordships who supported us on that occasion, as to whether or not we should insist on this Amendment? Despite the "heavy weather" (as one of the Minister's own supporters in another place described his speech—the supporter's words also, fortunately, are reported in this part of the OFFICIAL REPORT and as he happens to be an old constituent of mine I read them carefully) made by the Minister over this Amendment, we have to choose whether for the sake of nine feet we will prevent the possibility of this Bill becoming law in the present Session. It is not our fault that we are put in this position. But, as your Lordships realise, we on this side of the House always—as I think will have been recognised during the last four years— try not to raise pernickety small points. Therefore, [feel that we should be unwise to place the House in the position of being asked to have a clash with another place on this small matter of nine feet one way or the other in the alteration of Parliament Square.
  1622
  We have made our protests, and properly made our protests, about two things. I think we were right to register that protest. We have protested, and registered it by our vote, that in our view it was wrong that the Minister of Works and those working with him on this scheme should not have taken the Middlesex County Council into their confidence earlier in this scheme, especially when the Middlesex County Council had been the body who had bought that part of the site at considerable cost to themselves and but for which this scheme would have been completely impossible of fulfilment. In any event, a wise Minister does not ignore a great local authority such as the Middlesex County Council obviously are.
  The second protest which I think we were right in making was that, whereas all these negotiations and the original meeting deciding on this proposal had been called in May, and had reached a conclusion in May, Parliament gets the Bill only within the last week or ten days, and this House within only three days, of the end of the Session. In those circumstances, I do not think we could have been blamed if we had insisted on our Amendment to-day. We have made our protest. I hope that as a result the Minister concerned will in future take early consultation with responsible and representative institutions, such as the Middlesex County Council, and will show rather more respect for Parliament by bringing in his Bill at the proper time.
  4.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to join in the protest against the procedure that has been adopted by the Government in this instance. I cannot see that there was any justification whatsoever for bringing this Bill before this House on the very last days of the Session, requiring all its stages to be taken on one day and not giving an opportunity for the examination of points such as those which have been raised in respect to this Bill. So far as I know, the Government have given no explanation of why they should put this House in that position. We were asked to decide. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Morrison, stated all the facts with regard to the alignment of the particular road and said, "Now let the House decide." How can a legislative

  1623
  body such as your Lordships' House decide on the merits of the case after half an hour's discussion, whether a particular road should be sited here or whether it should be sited there? We have a proper procedure for dealing with technical and controverted matters of this sort, through Committees which should examine the facts of the case and which should decide on proper consideration, after hearing witnesses and examining plans, where the alignment of such a road should be. To ask the House on the last day of the Session to decide, perhaps after a Division, as between the view of the Middlesex County Council and the view of the Ministry of Works, seems to me very unfair to the House, and I really think the Government ought to apologise for putting us in that position.
  With regard to the merits of the case, I do not agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. Like many of your Lordships, I am greatly interested in what is to happen to Parliament Square, and also in what is to happen with regard to the Festival of Britain. I do not attach any importance to the question of the trees. If the trees were destroyed it would be a pity, but new trees would grow in thirty or forty years, and we are dealing with matters which are to be of importance for probably centuries. But what is important is that the design, which has been most carefully drawn after prolonged consideration, would be upset by moving part of the road nine feet from where it was intended. I have had the advantage of the opinion of an architect who was not directly concerned but who has closely examined the plans. He tells me that it would make the Square lop-sided. I gather that it would make the design of Parliament Square rather absurd to have a part of the road thrown nine feet out of true, with no obvious reason for such a thing in the general design of the buildings and lay out of the Square. Consequently, all the roads would have to be re-sited, and that would involve a serious undertaking.
  Furthermore, the Commissioner of Police has advised Parliament that the completion of the new layout of the Square will be of great importance in dealing with the enormous traffic which will come in 1951, in the shape of millions of people who will be attending the Festival of Britain—residents in this
  1624
  country and people from the Dominions and from foreign countries. The south bank site which has had to be chosen is in many ways a very unsuitable site. I held the view that London ought to have been ready to sacrifice the use of Hyde Park for two or three years in order properly to display the Festival of Britain or the International Exhibition. As it is, the site is very small, and the traffic may become exceedingly congested owing to the great number of people who will attend. From the traffic point of view, access to the site is very inadequate. The access from this side of the river through Westminster and the neighbourhood is a matter of great importance, and we are told by the traffic authorities that they attach importance to this work being completed before the Festival of Britain is opened.
  Frequently, in different countries, Exhibitions are not ready when they are opened. Your Lordships will remember the Paris Exhibition of, I think, 1938, which reflected considerable discredit upon the French Government in that it was not really completed until the time had almost come for it to close, and in the first stages obviously everything was not ready. We do not want that to happen in London, and it would be a great pity if there were a scurry in preparing the approaches to the Festival during the last months and weeks, and if it were perhaps still not adequately completed at the date of opening. Therefore now is the time, a year or so in advance, when we have to be careful that the opening is not hampered and delayed.
  For all these reasons, this being an important matter, I think the House would be ill-advised to insist upon our Amendment, even if it could be made consistently with the passage of the Bill. Those of us who have been acquainted with this matter from the beginning are sorry that a difference should have arisen with respect to the Middlesex County Council, for undoubtedly they have rendered immense service and undertaken great financial responsibility and risks in dealing with a matter with which they are only incidentally connected from the fact that their own Guildhall is situated in the Square. Parliament and the country are greatly indebted to them for making a Bill of this importance possible by the action which they took at an earlier date.

  1625
  They are going to be inconvenienced by this rearrangement close to their building, largely on account of the greater noise that will be heard inside. It is, however, denied that the additional noise will be serious. In any case, that is not a matter that should govern the issue.
  I have said that the Middlesex County Council are only incidentally concerned. The two local authorities who are directly concerned are the London County Council and the City of Westminster. They have statutory responsibility with regard to the Square. Both have approved the plan as it stands and neither of them, so far as I am aware, has expressed any approval of the view taken by the Middlesex County Council. For all these reasons I feel sure that your Lordships would not be wise to insist upon this Amendment at this stage, and I was glad to hear from the concluding observations of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that he and his friends did not propose to advise the House to do so.
  4.38 p.m.
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, may I say one word in regard to this matter, as I was the Minister at the Office of Works when the Middlesex County Council saved this site? It was only because they were willing to put up a considerable sum of money that we have the open space where it is now. The Middlesex County Council have been much more interested in this site than either the City of Westminster or the London County Council, who until now have been neglectful of any interest in that part of London. I say that, because I regret that steps were not taken to endeavour to meet, even if not to the extent of nine feet at any rate a little more than the Government have met, the feelings and the real interest of the Middlesex County Council.
  I should not have risen except for one dreadful remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who stated that he is not much interested in the trees because you can always plant new ones by way of replacement. Plane trees are slow growing trees. Looking at The Mall, I grudge the disappearance of every big plane tree from London, and certainly when I was at the Office of Works anybody who wanted to cut down trees in the Royal Parks was met with most strenuous opposition from me and had to prove to me that the tree was a real danger before
  1626
  it could come down. Plane trees take a very long time indeed to grow to full size. In fact, I have recently been to the town of Lucca, in the country from which they come, and there the ramparts are planted with plane trees 300 years old which are just getting to their best. It is a tree with a very long life. Therefore I hope that in all these matters we shall be careful before we destroy the finest trees that are left to us anywhere in the streets of London. I want to enter a warning that if any Government tries to remove them, I shall be "at them."
  4.40 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I rise only to say, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that I unreservedly express our sincere regret that this Bill has been brought to the House so late in the Session. I cannot profess to be fully cognisant of all the negotiations and difficulties which have arisen in connection with it but I share with noble Lords opposite—I am sure we all do—regret that we have not had more time to deal with it. I would also like to express sincere thanks on behalf of the Government for the recommendation which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has made on this matter. We recognise with gratitude that, notwithstanding objections which have been mentioned by the noble Viscount, noble Lords have been good enough to subordinate their sentiments to the general wider interests of the Bill as a whole.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill No. 217]

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 3, page 4, line 30, after ("by him") insert ("and the memorial fountain if removed")
  Clause 3, page 4, line 31, at end insert ("Provided that, if another site for the memorial fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament, the memorial fountain shall be re-erected on such site").
  The Commons disagree to the above Amendments, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
  Clause 3, page 4, line 29, leave out from ("re-erect") to ("either") in line 30, and insert ("the said fountain, if removed by him, and such of the said statues as are so removed")
  Clause 3, page 4, line 31, at end insert— ("Provided that, if the Minister by order appoints a different site for the said fountain not being a site within either of the said gardens, the Minister may re-erect the said fountain on that different site instead of in one of the said gardens.
  (2) Any power to make an order conferred on the Minister by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and a draft of any statutory instrument to be made in the exercise of that power shall be laid before Parliament.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Lords Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in the first Amendment proposed in lieu thereof at page 4, line 29.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in the said Amendment proposed in lieu thereof.—(Lord Morrison.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is one of two changes suggested by the other place in the clause which deals with the memorial fountain and the statues in the Square. This Amendment is one with which I imagine we shall have no difficulty in agreeing, because it makes no difference whatever. But I venture respectfully to suggest that we ought not to go through this performance in dumb show. The House of Lords is surely entitled to know why Ministers are moving that we agree with a particular Amendment made in the Commons. Perhaps I may, therefore, be forgiven if I spend two minutes in explaining what the difference is. The Bill as we sent it to the Commons on Tuesday last provided, subject to modification, which we will come to later, that the Minister
  "shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him and the memorial fountain, if removed,"
  in Parliament Square. The change which is brought about by the Amendment which the noble Lord commends to us, and with which I am sure we shall be willing to agree, is that the Minister
  "shall re-erect the said fountain, if removed by him, and such of the said statues as are so removed"
  in Parliament Square. So the whole difference is that instead of talking about "statues and the memorial fountain," the House of Commons, which attends to these matters with such diligence at such late hours of the night, after serious and
  1628
  mature thought, prefers to suggest that we should say "memorial fountain and statues." The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said just now that the Minister in another place had been reproached as having made heavy weather. This is not a case of making heavy weather. This shows the meticulous care with which the present Minister of Works has been studying the clause which has been presented to him. As I have said, the result is that we must not say "statues and memorial"; we must say "memorial and statues." I am naturally submissive and I am always willing to be corrected. As it does not matter twopence which of those two words comes first, if it will please the Government by all means let us arrange them in the reverse order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree to the second Commons Amendment in lieu, at page 4, line 31.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Morrison.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is the other change which, to my great surprise, was made at a late hour yesterday on the Motion of the Minister of Works by the majority of the House of Commons in what was already an agreed Amendment which we arrived at last Tuesday, after it had been considered by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Morrison. After accepting from Lord Addison his suggestion that it should be modified, the House adopted it with Government approval as a Parliamentary bargain. How any one after that could have supposed that within a few hours the other House would be moved as it was by the Minister of Works to disagree with the very thing which Cabinet Ministers here on behalf of the Government, had accepted, passes my comprehension. I gather from what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said at the beginning of our proceedings that he too is a little surprised that this took place. I willingly accept the suggestion, which he made with his usual kindness of heart, that there had been a "misunderstanding." We all want on these occasions to do our best to help one another. Therefore, instead of our

  1629
  asking that the Amendment which was then agreed, should be reinserted in the Bill in the same terms, and sent back to the House of Commons, it seems to me that it would be more seemly and considerate, since this mistake has been made, to move what is really the same proposition in different words.
  Those of your Lordships who happen to have been handed a copy of a new Amendment in my name—it is necessarily typewritten—will see that I propose to move, as an Amendment to Lord Morrison's Motion, that we dissent from this Amendment in lieu sent up to us by the House of Commons—the debate on it last night is not yet to be found in any Hansard, because the discussion took place in the middle of the night, but we shall be able to read about it to-morrow —and that in its place we propose a further Amendment in these terms:
  "Provided that if the Minister considers that it would be preferable to re-erect the said fountain on a site not being a site within either of the said gardens, and if the Minister has laid before each House of Parliament a paper stating his proposal and the reasons therefor, and thereafter a Resolution of each House of Parliament is passed approving the Minister's proposal, the said fountain shall be re-erected on the site so agreed."
  I think I may safely assure your Lordships that this Amendment secures what this House, with the assent of Cabinet Ministers, agreed to last Tuesday, modified as it was by the suggestion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and that the only difference in substance is that it is stated in more words, than the words which I moved on Tuesday last.
  It has, however, perhaps this further advantage which I am very willing to point out. I understand that in making his astonishing proposal to reject the very Amendment which the noble Viscount in this House had accepted on behalf of the Government, the Minister explained that it rested with him to consider what would be the best site, to inquire about the title to land and, no doubt, to take the best advice. Of course it does. But in order that I may ease his conscience I have thought it well to propose these words, so that what is here provided would begin
  "… if the Minister considers that it would be preferable to re-erect the said fountain on a site not being a site within either of the gardens …"
  I hope that will be some relief to his departmental anxieties. In the second
  1630
  place, this Amendment proposes what, of course, would have happened in any case: that when the Minister makes the proposal he should lay upon the Table of each House of Parliament the proposal and the reasons for it. I hope that will not be too great a strain on the Ministry of Works.
  Lastly, this Amendment provides that when that has been done, the Minister in the Commons and his representative in this House, who always has dealt with us so kindly, should, if he wishes, move a Resolution that each House accepts the proposal which he has thus put before us. It would be for each House of Parliament to decide whether or not to approve it. I can assure your Lordships that that effects exactly what your Lordships, with the approval of the Government, previously decided to do. Therefore, I hope this is a case where, if there has been "Much ado about Nothing," at the finish "All's Well that Ends Well." I only add in conclusion that I noticed when we were handed, necessarily in typewriting, the Amendments which were made at the instigation of the Minister of Works in another place last night, the Amendment which I propose we should refuse to accept, does not conclude, as is the custom, with any statement of the Reason why the Commons disagree. I am not surprised.
  Amendment moved, That this House disagree with the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu, but suggest to the Commons the further Amendment in lieu thereof.
  Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
  ("Provided that if the Minister considers that it would be preferable to re-erect the said fountain on a site not being a site within either of the said gardens, and if the Minister has laid before each House of Parliament a paper stating his proposal and the reasons therefor, and thereafter a Resolution of each House of Parliament is passed approving the Minister's proposal, the said fountain shall be re-erected on the site so agreed.")—(Viscount Simon.)
  4.44 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to add a word to what has been said before we part with this Bill. May I, first of all, support the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount and also, none the less emphatically, the protest which he has made against the very peculiar course followed in dealing with this matter in

  1631
  another place. I really rose in order to ask one question, which this would presumably be the last opportunity of having answered. When we discussed this Bill before no conjuror ever produced a rabbit out of a hat with quite the same air of triumph as the Minister exhibited when producing the fountain out of a file. He seemed to indicate that it was only because of the efforts of this Association responsible for the building and provision of drinking fountains in the Metropolis that the fountain is there. I cannot help thinking that that was only a partial explanation of the true facts. I think it would be the desire of the House to have a full and factual statement, which obviously can be given in the compass of a few sentences, as to how this fountain actually came into existence and whether or not it does what we all believe it to do, commemorate a great chapter in our history.
  4.46 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, as I took part in the original debate on this matter, I should like to make one short remark. I hope I may be allowed to say that we all know how scrupulous the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is to observe the very letter of any undertaking into which he may enter. Therefore, it was with great surprise, in fact, with consternation, that I read in The Times this morning, that the undertaking which the noble Viscount had given, an undertaking given by a Cabinet Minister, who is also the Leader of your Lordships' House, had apparently been disregarded and revised by a junior N4inister in another place. I felt sure at once that the noble Viscount, far from having agreed with such a procedure, could not possibly have been consulted about it. I confess the thought passed through my mind that the noble Viscount would feel very considerable resentment that such a thing had happened. We now know that this was a misunderstanding, and I think we might agree to leave it at that. Misunderstandings we know, do occur, even in the happiest of families. And this was a misunderstanding. That disposes of that side of the matter. As regards the other side, the fate of this fountain which has been the subject of so much discussion, I believe that the object which the noble and learned Viscount,
  1632
  Lord Simon, and other noble Lords, advanced in your Lordships' House recently is fully met by the proposal which the noble Viscount has now put forward, and I trust that the Government may be able to accept what has been proposed.
  LORD REA: My Lords, perhaps I was misled on Tuesday into thinking that this fountain was the only memorial to Buxton in the precincts of the Royal Palace of Westminster. It should be pointed out that there exists one far nearer than the fountain—that is, the traditional type of statue in Westminster Abbey where he stands near his friend Wilberforce, known colloquially as "Soapy Sam," much nearer your Lordships' House than the site of the present fountain.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I correct him on this matter. It would be a serious mistake to say that William Wilberforce, the friend of Pitt and the abolitionist of the slave trade, was "Soapy Sam." That is really a shocking thing to suppose. It was the distinguished son of that gentleman, who was afterwards Bishop of Oxford who, whether rightly or wrongly, earned that sobriquet.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I withdraw and apologise on that point.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, are noble Lords aware that this fountain has had on it up to yesterday a notice which says, "For export only"? Were the Ministry of Works or the Board of Trade responsible?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think that many noble Lords, including myself, know more about this fountain than we did a week ago. For myself, it is not a thing I ever admired. It has given rise to considerable controversy, and I am glad to accept the admonitions of your Lordships. I think the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount accords with the understanding we arrived at in this House, to which, of course, we adhere, and therefore, I am glad to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, before we proceed to consider these Amendments, with the leave of the House I would like to make a short statement by way of personal explanation and apology. During the debates in Committee on this Bill, when we were discussing the question of pensions for stipendiaries, I made the statement that the stipendiary for Birmingham was older than the stipendiary for South Staffordshire. I now wish to say that that statement was incorrect, and to tender a sincere apology to the noble and learned Lord, the stipendiary for Birmingham, for having said incorrectly that he was older than the stipendiary for South Staffordshire. In case I should pass from one trouble to another, I wish also to apologise to the stipendiary of South Staffordshire for saying that he was younger than the stipendiary for Birmingham.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, my attention has also been drawn to this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Ilkeston, and I, too, would like to make a personal explanation and an apology to that noble and learned Lord. On this particular topic the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr and I were trying to achieve a better rate of pension, for stipendiary magistrates, and I then used these words:
"I do not know the age of the oldest stipendiary at the present moment, but I think he is ninety or thereabouts, and the reason why he stays is largely because there is not an adequate pension."
I was quite unjustified in saying that the reason why either of these two gentlemen stayed was largely because there is not an adequate pension. I should also say that I was wrong in saying "ninety or thereabouts," because both of these gentlemen are only eighty-two.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The references are to Bill No. 206 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 6, page 5, line 16, at end insert ("and section thirty-four of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, in so far as it directs that a justice shall not be disqualified from hearing any case arising under the said Act by reason of his being a member of a district board shall cease to have effect.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons have inserted a provision dealing with the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, comparable to the one we inserted at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. This Amendment is made in conformity with Clause 6, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we fully agree with this Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 7, page 5, line 23, leave out from ("to") to end of line 24, and insert ("act in connection with proceedings before any of those justices as solicitor or agent for the solicitor of any person concerned in those proceedings")
  Clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out from ("not") to end of line 34, and insert ("subject him or any partner of his to any disqualification under this section")
  Clause 7, page 5, line 36, leave out from ("not") to end of line 37, and insert ("subject any partner of his to any disqualification under this section.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can take these three Amendments to Clause 7 together. The object of these Amendments is to make it plain that the prohibition in the subsection applies to a solicitor-justice acting as agent for another solicitor. I think this carries out the intention which we all desired. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we also agree to these Amendments. I may say that I think that the third Amendment should be to page 5, line 37, and not line 36. I have been unable to find a "not" in line 36.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is so, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing it out. I do

  1635
  not see a "not" in line 36. It should be page 5, line 37. I will put the Question in that form, and your Lordships will understand what I intend.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 8, page 6, line 36, at end insert ("which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment subjects to annulment by Resolution the regulations we make under Clause 8. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 7, line 29, leave out ("June") and insert ("December").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the explanation of this Amendment is as follows. Your Lordships will remember that we go to the nearest round figure in assessing the population of boroughs for the purposes of this clause. If you take 35,000 as the figure, and you are just under 34,500 you go to the 34,000 figure. The population of Wednesbury was 34,500 in December but it is under 34,500 in June; therefore, pressure was put upon us to take the month of December instead of June in order that Wednesbury might find its way into what it regards as its rightful place under the Bill. I am quite prepared to assent to that. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all agreeable to this. The Commons have found a similar ingenious way of including Wednesbury as your Lordships found of including Penzance at an earlier stage in the proceedings. I am sure that no one will grudge this to Wednesbury.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 7, line 31, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("thirty-five").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that we made 50,000 the minimum popula-
  1636
  tion for retention by a non-county borough of a separate commission of the peace—I referred to it in the course of our debates here as "my irreducible minimum." This applies to many other provisions of the Bill. I want to say, frankly, that we got this Bill through by a system of compromise—there was no other way of getting it through in the time —and we sent it to the other place with a large number of compromises already made. Those of us who know anything about the other place are well aware that it is impossible to expect Ministers to get a Bill of this sort through the other place unless they, in their turn, can compromise, more especially as there are a large number of Members there who were urged by their constituents to see that their separate commissions were not done away with. Consequently, since getting the Bill through depended on good will and compromise, we made this compromise. I confess, frankly, that I would rather not have had it. I feel—and I am sure all my predecessors in this office would agree —that it is not desirable to have separate commissions.
  We are now faced with the position that we sent the Bill to the other place, and this compromise was made—and it was not unnatural that it should be asked for. I feel about this as I do about the other Amendments, that it would be most unwise to sacrifice the Bill—because that is what it will come to—by objecting to this compromise. Its effect, in substance, is the saving the commissions of twenty-five boroughs. There were 169 separate commissions, and we have now succeeded in getting rid of 108 of them. This is subject, however, to a clause to which we shall come in a moment, which provides that I shall have a certain discretion conferred upon me. Those of us who have indulged in law reform know that on this particular topic great patience is needed, and you must be content if you can go by small steps. I do not think we have done at all badly if we manage to get rid of 108 out of 169 commissions. Possibly my successor in this office may achieve a little more, but I think this is a good beginning. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I suppose everybody in your Lordships'

  1637
  House who served in another place realised that as this Bill deprived a certain number of the boroughs of their separate commissions of the peace, and more particularly of their recorders, there would inevitably arise considerable pressure from the Members of Parliament representing those places in order to sec whether they could not save something which was highly prized in these various localities. I never thought that any single justice was losing anything merely because the separate commission of the peace for a borough was given up, because he automatically would become a county justice. In a way his jurisdiction is extended, because he becomes eligible to sit as a member at county quarter sessions, a right which he did not have as a borough magistrate. Your Lordships will remember that I put up a considerable fight in this House to keep a number of recorders. But that is not what we are discussing at this moment. We should all realise that there was bound to be this pressure, and we should all realise that in order to get the Bill through in this Session of Parliament the Government had not only to give way to pressure in your Lordships' House, but, obviously, to the pressure which was applied in another place. We have really done quite well in abolishing all separate borough commissions of the peace (other than those which are attached to the recordership) for towns with populations below the figures of 35,000, and I think we ought to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 7, line 34, at end insert—
  ("(c) that at the end of that month the borough had a separate commission of the peace and court of quarter sessions, and the Lord Chancellor makes an order under subsection (5) of this section saving the grant to the borough of its commission and quarter sessions.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the first of several Amendments which confer upon me a discretion. We discussed this during our debates in this House, and at one stage I myself suggested that I might have a discretion. Your Lordships will remember that having considered it I came back to your Lordships and said that it was the very last thing I desired. I am bound to say that, having considered it again, I still think it is the very last thing I
  1638
  desire. The Commons, however, think that I should be entrusted with this discretion. All I can say is that I shall do my best to exercise in a fair and judicial manner the duty imposed upon me. Although it is a task from which I naturally shrink, yet I think we should be wise to accept this Amendment. I will do the best I can to carry it out in the right spirit. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I take it that we are discussing this Amendment and the Amendment on page 8, line 18. I was one of those who tried to save some of these recorders, especially where they were doing a good deal of work and thereby preventing the county quarter sessions from being overburdened with appeals and cases of indictable offences which might come before them. Although I sympathise with the Lord Chancellor in this, of course this pressure can fall upon him for only a period of two months, and I should imagine that almost all those who have been deprived of their recorder will apply within that time. There may be one or two cases for which we ought to have this Amendment—it would be wrong to mention names—because it is obviously a matter which will have to come before the Lord Chancellor to consider within the terms of the proposal now before us. There are one or two cases in which it will be of great convenience in the countryside, and will help the speedy administration of justice, if the Lord Chancellor has this power and exercises it in their favour. The only other thing I would like to say on this series of Amendments is this. I am glad to think that a suggestion which I made on the Committee stage has been accepted. It was that recorders of these boroughs should consult with chairmen of county quarter sessions to ensure that the holding of these different sessions in the same county is spread over the year, so that fewer prisoners committed to these courts will have to wait long before they have their case tried. I am glad to see that that suggestion of mine has now found its way into the Amendments which we are asked to approve.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 7, line 35, leave out from ("the") to ("His") and insert ("passing of this Act").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment saves any new commission of the peace granted between the passing of the Act and the date when Clause 10 is brought into operation. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 7, line 40, leave out ("seventy-five") and insert ("sixty-five").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this reduces from 75,000 to 65,000 the population qualifying a non-county borough to apply for a separate commission of the peace. There are five of them. What it comes to is this. Your Lordships remember that we had 75,000, and under that basis there were three. By reducing it to 65,000 it includes Stockton-on-Tees, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Hove, Swindon and Chesterfield. This again was a concession which obviously had to be made. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it does not necessarily mean that all these will get it?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: They can only apply, and I hope that we shall not go far to increase the separate commissions of the peace at this time, because I think the fewer new commissions there are the better.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
  ("(5) The Lord Chancellor may make an order saving for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the grant to a borough of its commission and quarter sessions if—

  (a) the borough council applies for the order not later than two months after the date of the passing of this Act or within such further time as the Lord Chancellor may allow; and

  1640

  (b) the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that it is desirable to save the grant to the borough of its commission and quarter sessions on account—

  (i) of the assistance the borough court of quarter sessions has given or is likely to be able to give in the administration of justice in the county which includes the borough; and

  (ii) of historical or geographical reasons;

  and it shall be the duty of the recorder for the time being of any borough named in an order under this section, before he fixes the date for holding any quarter sessions for the borough, to consult the chairman of the court of quarter sessions of the county or quarter sessions division of a county in which the borough is situated or (failing the chairman) the deputy chairman or one of the deputy chairmen of that court.
  (6) The power of the Lord Chancellor to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a matter we discussed before. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, that the suggestion we have adopted originated from him. With suitable acknowledgments which I make now, I hope that it may prove useful. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 8, line 31, leave out ("June") and insert ("December").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 11, page 9, line 25, leave out ("1925") and insert ("1949")
  Clause 11, page 10, line 5, leave out ("proceedings") and insert ("case")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments are both drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 12, page 10, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section the confirming authority in any borough mentioned in Part III of the Third Schedule to this Act or in an order of the Lord Chancellor under section ten thereof shall be a joint committee of the borough justices and justices for the county in which the borough is situated (constituted in accordance with section four of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910), if and so long as t appears to the borough justices expedient having regard to the small number of the borough justices available to act as members of a confirming authority constituted as provided by subsection (2) of this section.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment provides for the constitution of the confirming authority in non-county boroughs where the number of justices available is small. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 15, page 11, line 36, leave out second ("and") and insert ("or").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 16, page 13, line 32, leave out ("seventy-five") and insert ("sixty-five").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this substitutes 65,000 for 75,000 as the population rendering a non-county borough eligible to have a separate magistrates' courts committee. I have already dealt with this and I now beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 19, page 17, line 19, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 20, and insert ("and to a county borough or county not divided into petty sessional divisions which is included in a joint committee area, as if it were a petty sessional division of a county").
  Clause 19, page 17, line 34, leave out ("justices' clerks") and insert ("clerks to licensing justices").
  Clause 19, page 17, line 36, leave out ("justices' ").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps we might take these three Amendments together. They are all drafting.
  Moved, That this Mouse do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 20, page 18, line 7, at end insert—
  ("(3) A person who has not been bound by and served under articles as required by paragraph (a) of section fourteen of the Solicitors Act, 1932, but has served as assistant to a justices' clerk, may be admitted a solicitor of the Supreme Court, subject to the following provisions—

  (a) the person to be admitted shall have had not less than ten years' service as such an assistant and, out of that service, not less than five years shall have been before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty, and not less than the required number of years shall have been approved service;

  (b) for the purpose of the foregoing paragraph 'approved service' means service either as an articled clerk or with respect to which the person to be admitted has obtained from the Law Society a certificate under this section on an application made after he has had five years' service as such an assistant and before the said first day of January, and the required number of years of approved service is the number which that person would, apart from this subsection, be required by the said Act to serve under articles entered into at the date of that application;

  (c) the Law Society may grant a person a certificate with respect to service in any employment as assistant to a justices' clerk if they are satisfied that at the time of granting the certificate it is not practicable for him to serve as an articled clerk in that employment, and the certificate shall relate to any service by him in that employment after that time;

  (d) subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the Solicitors Acts, 1932 to 1941, shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to a person's certificate under this section and a person applying for or obtaining such a certificate as if the certificate were articles of clerkship and the service to which it relates were service under those articles.")

  5.21 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLLOR: My Lords, this is a matter which gives rise to a much greater difficulty. I will tell your Lordships the position as shortly as I can. The Roche Committee recommended, and I think we must all agree,

  1643
  that ultimately the only satisfactory solution of this problem is that all justices' clerks should be qualified men; and I am sure we shall all subscribe to that as a goal to which we can look forward. But we have this difficulty; that we have to consider the existing people and deal gently with them. Where a young man is working as an assistant to a clerk to the justices, if his clerk to the justices is himself a solicitor, it is possible for the young man to be articled; and that is now being done. The problem arising is that if the clerk to the justices is not a solicitor, then, in the nature of things, it is impossible for the young man to become articled, because there is no one to whom he can be articled. This is not a fanciful case. I believe that in fifty-eight of the ninety boroughs, the clerk to the justices is an unqualified man. In places like Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, and many others which also are important, there is no one in the office of clerk of the justices who is qualified. It is possible to arrange for the young man to be articled to a qualified solicitor and the difficulty can be overcome in that way, but where there is no one to whom he can be articled the problem arises.
  The Home Secretary took up the matter and asked various people concerned to go and see him. He was able to get in touch with the President and Secretary of the Law Society and one or two members of the Council, but he was not able to convene or call a special meeting of the Council of the Society. He did, however, get the consent of all the people he saw. The proposal is— and it confers on the Law Society a privilege, not an obligation—that if there is a young man now in the office of a clerk to the justices who has been there five years, they can, if they think proper, give him a certificate. Then, if he stays for another five years—and, of course, passes all his examinations and so on—he can be admitted a solicitor. The Law Society Council have the power to do that—I stress again that there is no obligation on them—if it is not possible for that young man to become articled in the ordinary way. In other words, if the clerk to the justices is a solicitor, or if there is a solicitor available, so to speak, then the ordinary machinery must operate. But if there is no solicitor available for the purpose then the Law
  1644
  Society may, if they think fit, grant this young man a certificate on the ground that he cannot get his articles because there is no one to whom he can be articled.
  That was agreed by those concerned. I am most anxious not to represent that it has the approval of the Law Society, because it has not. It has the approval of the President and several members of the Council; but while they are perfectly willing that I should state that to your Lordships, they are equally anxious that I should not tell you that it has the approval of the Law Society. As it does not confer a duty on the Society, but only a privilege or power—and a power which exists for only the next ten years, when it will run out—I have no hesitation whatever in recommending it to your Lordships as a reasonable compromise. It was so regarded in another place; it appealed to both sides there. And although I do not seek to say that it was a Parliamentary bargain, in the sense of the bargain we were discussing a few moments ago, yet it was obviously assented to by all sides of the House. I believe it to be a workable compromise, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.27 p.m.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I am sorry that it should fall to me to break up the universal harmony which has prevailed this afternoon, but I think this is an Amendment which we cannot possibly accept without standing on our heads. I should like your Lordships to consider the effect of this clause. For many years —almost, I think, for half a century—the education of a solicitor and his admission to the profession have been regulated by Statute, by regulations made not for the benefit of the solicitor, for whom I am not speaking now, but for the benefit of the public: so that when a man has received a certificate from the Law Society, the public resorting to him may know not only that he is a man who has passed all the necessary examinations but that he has been under the guidance of an experienced solicitor, to whom he has been articled and from whom he has

  1645
  learnt the business of a solicitor and those principles which actuate solicitors in the discharge of the duties of their profession.
  The effect of this clause is that a man who is not a solicitor, working under a man who is not a solicitor, by passing certain examinations but never entering a solicitor's office at all or seeing any portion of a solicitor's business discharged anywhere, except so much as passes within the narrow limits of a magistrates court, can become a solicitor, and can hold out himself to the world as a person fit to discharge a solicitor's duties. At the time when he sets up his plate as a solicitor in the street of the small town where he lives, he may never have seen a will in his life, far less made one, or seen a contract for sale of land, or a trust deed or trust account. He has no knowledge whatever of the great majority of those things on which a solicitor is called upon to advise his clients. That we should do this at this stage, after all these years during which successive Councils of the Law Society, successive Lord Chancellors and successive Masters of the Rolls have tried to build up more and more the prestige of the profession and the security of the public resorting to members of that profession, seems to me a most lamentable thing.
  Consider how it comes to us. I do not want to use extravagant language, but really this clause in itself is a Parliamentary outrage. Neither in its Long Title nor in its scope is this a Bill to deal with the qualifications of solicitors. Amongst other things, it is a Bill to deal with the qualifications of justices' clerks. To go on to say that because it deals with the qualifications of justices' clerks it therefore can deal, within its same compass, with the qualifications of solicitors is flying in the face of every doctrine that has ever governed Parliamentary time and procedure.
  I fully agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that this subject is most difficult. It caused us great difficulty and trouble on the Roche Committee, and those of us connected with that Committee were all prepared to find that there would be considerable discussion on the matter here. We were always troubled as to the position of the unqualified man in the magistrates' clerk's office, and the consequent difficulty of
  1646
  reaching the goal which the Lord Chancellor—rightly if I may say so—has described as that of getting only qualified men to be justices' clerks. Therefore, I personally was by no means surprised at the decision which this House reached on this matter—which really came to this: that we gave to the unqualified man a ten-years' run. I think that is a fair way of putting it. At the end of that time, his prospects were to be cut off, but for ten years at least he was to have a chance, in special circumstances, of becoming a magistrates' clerk although he would have been unqualified.
  That, however, has nothing whatever to do with what is going to happen to the assistant who does not become a justices' clerk. No argument has been adduced for turning him into a solicitor without his going through the ordinary steps that an ordinary solicitor has to go through. I find it difficult to understand how a proposal of this sort could have emanated from the present Government who, after all, whatever is said about them— and I knew that some quite nasty things have been said about them—do sincerely care, as I understand it, about seeing that those things which are done for the public by people held out to the public as fit to do them are, in fact, so done by people who are so fit. This completely retrograde step of going back to before the days of Bleak House is not only an innovation but a scandal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord deal with this point, for I am trying to follow him? There are the justices' clerks of whom fifty-eight are not qualified and thirty-two are. There is no difficulty about the thirty-two who are qualified. The young men who are with them can become articled and, although they do not have much to do with wills or land because their whole time is spent with the justices' clerks, they can become solicitors. So whether they can or not depends upon the accident of whether a young man's "boss," if I may use such a vulgarism, is or is not a solicitor.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I follow that and I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his interruption. I have to face that. The first thing I would say about that—though it may be irrelevant—is that I do not myself approve of the process which has sprung up in recent years

  1647
  of articling pupils to solicitors who are not in fact carrying on solicitors' business. This idea that you might be articled to a magistrates' clerk who was a solicitor was a concession. It was a concession granted by the Council of the Law Society, and I suppose by the Society as a whole. I think it was illogical and I do not like it, but it has at least this advantage as against the unqualified man —that the person to whom you are bound is at least a solicitor. He himself has been articled and brought up in the traditions of the profession, and he can inculcate them into the boy who is articled to him, though he cannot provide the opportunity of seeing what a budding solicitor ought to see—wills, contracts, trust deeds, trust accounts and so forth. He cannot show him those, but he can teach him what the profession is and the kind of standards that have to be observed within it.
  That is some excuse for this practice. It is a bad practice, but it is far too late to go back on it now. I entirely agree that it is illogical and that I cannot logically defend it. I can only make the palliating excuse that I have just made. I regretted it when the procedure first started and I regret it now. We cannot go back on it, but why should we immensely increase it? I do not want to say anything derogatory of unqualified clerks, for they are men of integrity and honour, well versed in the duties of a magistrates' clerk, but they are not suitable people to teach young candidates to become solicitors. They have nothing whatever to do with teaching solicitors. They know nothing whatever about it. They are completely ignorant of all the niceties of a solicitor's business and they seem to be completely unsuitable for the purpose.
  I do not want to take up much more time about this. I have made such remarks as I wish to make, but I would add this. In the first place, this Amendment, I humbly suggest to your Lordships, is completely outside the scope of this Bill. No suggestion of that kind was ever made in all the discussions on this matter which took place when the Bill was passing through this House—which, after all, is a most appropriate place in which to make such a proposal, where it could have been discussed at length by people who knew something about it. It
  1648
  was put down on the Order Paper in another place on Monday last and it was discussed by them and accepted on Tuesday—an Amendment containing completely revolutionary proposals which amend the Solicitors Act and of which there is no sort of hint in the Bill from start to finish. Everything was done in the expiring hours of an expiring Session of an expiring Parliament. I urge your Lordships not to allow yourselves to legislate at this "agonising" moment. I wish to pay every respect to the Lord Chancellor's argument—I hope he realises that I understand the logical difficulty I am in—but I do urge your Lordships not to allow yourselves to be jumped by threats (because that is what it comes to) into accepting this Amendment at almost the last expiring moment of the Session.
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I do not like to keep silent on this matter lest it be thought that I approve of or agree to this Amendment. Indeed, I have the authority of my learned friend the Master of the Rolls—who is, after all, the highest authority who has to deal with solicitors —to say that he regards this Amendment with considerable misgivings. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, in what he has just said about this matter being altogether outside the Bill. It is true that the Bill is intended to deal with justices' clerks, but this is not giving justices' clerks a qualification; it is altering the qualification of a solicitor. It is said by the Lord Chancellor that it will affect only a small number of people. I hope the Lord Chancellor will not mind my saying that that seems to me to be very much like the argument so often adduced that "It is only a little one." However many people it affects, it surely is a most alarming departure.
  I am sure your Lordships will understand that, whether a lawyer be a solicitor or a barrister, practical experience is by far the most important part of his training. The articled clerk has to serve three years if he has a university degree, or five years if he has not. A barrister does not have to serve but, if he is going to be a practising barrister, he of course goes into Chambers, and until he has read in Chambers with another barrister he is not fit to conduct a case in court at all. It is only by experience that one fits oneself to carry

  1649
  on a profession. The difference between the assistant clerk to a qualified or an unqualified justices' clerk is this. In the ordinary way the great majority of justices' clerks are not confined merely to being justices' clerks; they are practising solicitors. They may have in their office a man, be he young or be he old, who acts as their assistant and may act as their deputy if they are away. If he is clerk to a qualified solicitor he will have the opportunity of seeing his principal's profession in the same way as any other clerk sees his principal's profession. But the unqualified justices' clerk, the man who is not qualified as a solicitor, is nothing but a justices' clerk.
  It is suggested that men who have been clerks to unqualified justices' clerks and who will never have seen the practice of a solicitor's office are to be allowed to qualify as solicitors. With that there comes the result that directly they are qualified they can at once proceed to practise as advocates before the particular court to which they have been assistants, and can hold themselves out as fit to do the ordinary work of a solicitor. I say that they will not be fit to do the simplest thing in that respect if they have never had the ordinary experience, the practical experience. They will, of course, have to pass examinations (and that they may do), to show that they have some knowledge of law. But that is a very different thing from knowing how to apply it to the practical work of a solicitor's office. It seems to me that if we accept this Amendment we shall be doing a most remarkable thing.
  As I understand the present position with regard to solicitors, it is that if a man has been serving a qualified solicitor for ten years he can apply to the Master of the Rolls to grant him exemption from the preliminary examination. That examination is one of a general character to see if he has the general knowledge. There is a certain amount of Latin, and so forth, connected with it, and sometimes the Master of the Rolls grants exemption from part of the examinations, very often only from Latin, or something of that sort. But that man will have been ten years in a working solicitor's office and he will have to take out articles and serve his articles before he is admitted as a solicitor. I do not know whether a man covered by this Amendment has
  1650
  still to pass a preliminary examination; he may have to. But here it is suggested that he need not have any knowledge of a working solicitor's office; the only thing of which he will need to have practical working knowledge is the work of a magistrates' clerk. To say that that would qualify a man to be a solicitor is, I think, saying something which it is very difficult to justify. I consider that this is a most retrograde Amendment. I cannot think how it came to be passed. I refer your Lordships to the long title of the Bill. How it is covered by the long title of the Bill. I do not know. It comes as a great surprise both to myself and to the Master of the Rolls, and I venture to think that we ought to insist that it should be taken out of the Bill.
  5.44 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can speak again only with the leave of the House, but I should like to do so. I think it is a great pity, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the Lord Chief Justice, that communications about these matters are not made to me. I think it is a great pity, for instance, that the Master of the Rolls did not communicate with me, or that the Lord Chief Justice did not convey to me the views of the Master of the Rolls and of himself.
  LORD GODDARD: The last thing that I should wish is to be disrespectful to my noble and learned friend. I heard this only at lunch time to-day, and I was sitting in court until I came down here. That was the first I heard of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Even at lunch time I should have liked to hear about it. I hear all these things very late indeed. I confess I did not know about it. I was not consulted about it. I wish I had been, but I was not. Even if it is only an four or so, indeed only a few minutes before the debate takes place, I do think it would be much better, if things of a rather important nature are going to be said, that I should be made aware of them. I must say I regret that I was not so informed. The next thing I want to say is that it does not seem to me that the Lord Chief Justice has met the difficulties of the case one little bit. So long as the principle that a man can be articled to a whole-time jus-

  1651
  tices' clerk who happens to be a solicitor is accepted, that man never sees anything except the inside of that particular court. That is all he does, and he is in exactly the same position as the man who is employed by a justices' clerk who is not a solicitor. If you accept the one, how can you reject the other?
  I quite see the case for saying, "We will not allow either, because their practices are not wide enough; what is wanted is a general survey." I understand that case. But I cannot understand the case for saying, "You are employed in one line of business through a whole-time justices' clerk, who does nothing else whatever. But he happens to be a solicitor, and therefore you can get yourself articled to him and so become a solicitor. But if he is not a solicitor then nothing ought to be done." The work is exactly the same. If the test is to be the fact that the work has not a wide survey, what about the case of a solicitor to a railway company, or a solicitor to some sectional business, who sees nothing except that particular type of work? He does not see wills or land settlements; he would not be brought up in that particular aspect. What about the case of a Town Clerk? The principle is that so long as a man is a solicitor he can have anybody articled to him, no matter how one-sided his business may be. If you accept that principle, I cannot see any logical ground for saying that there should be any difference, in cases where the circumstances are exactly the same, except that in one case the employer is not a solicitor and cannot have anybody articled to him.
  This matter has been argued as though it imposes a duty on the Law Society. It does not do so at all. It merely gives them a right, a power. They need not use it unless they like. Of course, it involves the question of the character of the young man in question, the nature of the business in question, and the kind of man by whom he is employed; but if the Law Society think that the circumstances are such that it is a proper case for the exercise of their right, then they have the power; and no one can compel them to do otherwise if they think it right to say, "We will give this man a certificate." The effect of the certificate really is the same as though he had had Articles. He has to pass all the examinations and do
  1652
  all the other things. I may say that directly a barrister passes his examinations he is let loose on the public to advise on anything. I remember that the first case in which I appeared after passing my examinations was a case in the Chancery Division. Heaven help those who employed me! I regret to say that I lost the case, but I was entitled so to practise. A solicitor passes an examination which, by repute, is said to be stiffer than the Bar exam; and I cannot see why we should not extend to him the same courtesy that solicitors always extend to us by saying we are learned in all branches of the law. I very much hope your Lordships will support me in accepting this Amendment, thereby retaining this Bill.
  LORD LLEWBLLIN: My Lords, by this Bill as a whole we are ensuring, at any rate, that after 1960 none but qualified solicitors and barristers shall be justices' clerks. Let us remember that if this Bill fails, we have lost that improvement in the law which I believe is agreeable to everyone in your Lordships' House. All we are now doing is providing for a temporary period and for a temporary number of people. It sounds odd at first hearing that a person should be articled to a man other than a qualified solicitor and so gain the qualifications of a solicitor, but, of course, that can be done only in a case where the Law Society give the certificate. As the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has pointed out, it is left in the discretion of the Law Society whether or not they give it. They, after all, are the professional body responsible for seeing that the right sort of person is admitted to that profession. The period of articles has never been an absolutely firm one. In the case, I believe, of men who have served through the war, the period of articles has purposely been shortened, to save them time. Variations have otherwise been made from time to time. All I would say on the Amendment is that as for a permanency we are getting what we all want—only a fully qualified solicitor or barrister after 1960—for the sake of a temporary period we should not endanger the passing of this whole Bill by dividing against this particular Amendment, though some of us may not think it is drawn quite in the way that we ourselves would have drawn it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 20, page 18, line 20, leave out ("fifty-five") and insert ("sixty").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a proposal to alter the date from 1955 to 1960, in order to ensure that all persons at present serving in one of the capacities specified in paragraph (a) will be eligible, provided that the other requirements of paragraph (b) are satisfied, for appointment as justices' clerks. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 21, page 19, line 1, at beginning insert ("As from the date when section nineteen of this Act comes into force,").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 21, page 19, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 19.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is consequential on the next Amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 21, page 19, line 19, at end insert ("and section four of the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1949, shall apply to orders under any enactment directing payment to a justices' clerk as collecting officer on behalf of any person as it applies in relation to orders under the enactments mentioned in that section directing payment 1o him on behalf of a married woman.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this applies to affiliation orders and orders under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, and the provisions in the Private Member's Bill which is being con-
  1654
  sidered later to-day, imposing certain duties on collecting officers in respect of ! wife maintenance orders. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 21, page 19, line 25, leave out ("1925") and insert ("1949")
  Clause 21, page 19, line 29, leave out ("under the said section thirty")
  Clause 21, page 19, line 31, at end insert—
  ("Provided that, in relation to an order made under section five of the Licensing Act, 1902, on the application of tie husband, there shall be substituted for the reference in this subsection to the applicant for the order a reference to his wife.")
  Clause 21, page 19, line 33, after first ("section") insert ("in pursuance of the powers exercisable")
  Clause 21, page 20, line 8, after ("personally") insert ("and in relation to an order made under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section five of the Licensing Act, 1902, and not directing payment to the applicant's wife personally")
  Clause 21, page 20, line 10, leave out from ("1914") to end of subsection.
  THH LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the other Amendments to Clause 21 are all drafting, and perhaps I may be allowed to move them en bloc. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 23, page 22, line 16, leave out from beginning, to second ("the") in line 24, and insert—
  ("(4) Where immediately before the said date a person is justices' clerk and collecting officer at the same court, subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall apply in relation to persons then employed by him as if his duties as collecting officer of that court had been duties appertaining to the clerkship.
  (5) Where immediately before the said date a person to whom subsection (1) of this section does not apply is collecting officer of any court and devotes substantially the whole of his time to his duties as collecting officer of that court, he shall be transferred on the said date to the employment of the magistrates' courts committee as a member of the staff provided for the clerk of that court.

  1655
  (6) Where the collecting officer of any court is transferred as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, any person who immediately before the said date is employed by him to assist him in the performance of his duties as collecting officer of that court, and who devotes substantially the whole of his time to that employment, shall also be so transferred.
  (7) Where a person who immediately before the said date is employed by a justices' clerk or collecting officer is transferred by this section to the employment of a magistrates' courts committee, the terms and conditions on which he is then employed by the justices' clerk or collecting officer, so far as they remain applicable, shall apply to his employment by the committee; and the terms and conditions on which a person is transferred to the employment of a magistrates' courts committee by subsection (5) of this section shall be such as in the opinion of the magistrates' courts committee are on the whole not less beneficial to him than those on which he held office as collecting officer.
  (8) In relation to any person to whom the 1937 Act applies by virtue of the last foregoing section, being either—

  (a) a person who before the said date has been a justices' clerk or employed by such a clerk in connection with the clerkship; or

  (b) a person who on the said date is transferred to the employment of a magistrates' courts committee by subsection (5) or (6) of this section;")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment makes provision which will secure that when a whole-time collecting officer who is not a clerk to justices or a member of the clerk's staff is brought over to the employment of the magistrates courts committee as a member of the clerk's staff he will be able to count his previous collecting officer service for pension purposes. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 23, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
  ("(9) For the purposes of this section the expression 'collecting officer' means collecting officer of a court of summary jurisdiction appointed under the Affiliation Orders Act, 1914.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this defines the term "collecting officer" for the purpose of the previous Amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 27, page 27, line 33, leave out ("enactment to that effect") and insert ("provision to that effect made by or under any Act").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 33, page 33, line 43, leave out from ("determination") to ("that") in line 44 and insert ("under the next following subsection").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 33, page 33, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(11) A determination for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection with respect to the stipendiary magistrate serving in any office at the date when this section comes into force may be given—

  (a) at any time on or after the said date and before he ceases to serve in that office, by the authority paying his salary in that office; or

  (b) on his censing to serve as a stipendiary magistrate, by the authority liable for any pension payable to him under this section;

  and a determination under paragraph (a) of this subsection may be varied by a subsequent determination (whether under that paragraph or under paragraph (b) of this subsection) so as to increase, but not so as to reduce, the extent to which any service is to be taken into account.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this new subsection will enable the question whether a serving stipendiary will be allowed to count more than half his previous service towards pension to be determined by the borough council before the period of six months within which the stipendiary has to decide

  1657
  whether or not to come within the provisions of the clause. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 33, page 34, line 43, at end insert ("or be a contributory employee under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, as applied by any local Act or other instrument; and, where a stipendiary magistrate holding office at the coming into force of this section gives notice of his desire that subsection (1) thereof should apply to him, any contributions previously paid by him as stipendiary magistrate under the said Act of 1937 as so applied shall be returned to him.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment makes provision for the return of contributions to a stipendiary who is at present within a contributory superannuation scheme. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 43, page 39, line 13, after ("1948") insert ("or under section twenty-seven of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948")
  Clause 45, page 41, line 3, at beginning insert ("Except in so far as this Act provides to the contrary")
  Clause 46, page 41, line 39, leave out ("five") and insert ("six")
  Second Schedule, page 44, line 42, leave out from ("for") to ("shall") in line 44, and insert ("any of the cinque ports, other than a borough losing its commission")
  Second Schedule, page 44, line 49, at end insert—
  ("(2) This paragraph shall apply in relation to the ancient town of Rye as if it were one of the cinque ports")
  Second Schedule, page 45, line 42, at end insert ("or in any order of the Lord Chancellor under section ten of this Act")
  Second Schedule, page 47, line 39, leave out from ("of") to ("which") in line 40, and insert ("any borough")
  Second Schedule, page 47, line 44, leave out ("those boroughs") and insert ("any such borough")
  Second Schedule, page 47, line 45, after ("recorder") insert ("or court of quarter sessions")
  Second Schedule, page 47, line 46, leave out from beginning to second ("may")
  Second Schedule, page 50, line 21, leave out from ("the") to first ("and") in line 23 and insert ("coming into force of section twenty-five of this Act")
  Second Schedule, page 50, line 24, leave out ("that committee") and insert ("the magistrates' courts committee acting for the county").
  Third Schedule, page 52, line 26, leave out from ("Cambridge") to end of Schedule and insert—

  ("Chesterfield

  Hove

  Luton

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Poole

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Swindon

  PART II
  Boroughs with a population between 35,000 and 65,000

  Accrington

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  Batley

  Bedford

  Chepping Wycombe

  Colchester

  Crewe

  Eccles

  Folkestone

  Gravesend

  Guildford

  Harrogate

  Keighley

  Kidderminster

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Lancaster

  Leamington

  Leigh

  Lowestoft

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone

  Mansfield

  Margate

  Morecambe and Heysham

  Morley

  Nelson

  Port Talbot

  Ramsgate

  Reigate

  Richmond (Surrey)

  Rochester

  St. Albans

  Scarborough

  Shrewsbury

  Stafford

  Sutton Coldfield

  Torquay

  Tunbridge Wells

  Wallsend

  Wednesbury

  Weymouth and Melcombe Regis

  PART III
  Quarter sessions boroughs with a population between 20,000 and 35,000

  Bridgwater

  Deal

  Dover

  Grantham

  1659

  Hereford

  King's Lynn

  Newark

  Penzance

  Pontefract

  Salisbury

  Winchester

  Windsor.")

  Fourth Schedule, page 54, line 22, leave out ("seventy-five") and insert ("sixty-five").
  Fifth Schedule, page 57, line 30, at end insert—
  ("Provided that if, in the case of a justices' clerk who is a part time officer, it is not possible to determine on the said date whether he then becomes a contributory employee of the magistrates' courts committee by virtue of any order of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 of this Schedule (whether because his salary under section nineteen of this Act has not been fixed or because the order gives him an option exercisable after that date or for similar reasons), the reference to be substituted in the said subsection (2) shall be a reference to the date on which it becomes possible to determine that question.")
  page 59, line 21, after ("1") insert ("(5) or (6")")
  page 59, line 38, after ("Act" insert ("and")
  page 59, line 40, after ("(1)") insert ("(5) or (6)")
  page 59, line 41, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 43.
  Seventh Schedule, page 71, line 28, at end insert—

  ("41 & 42 Vict. C. exciii.

  The Ramsgate Improvement Act, 1878.

  Sections eighteen and nineteen.")

  Seventh Schedule, page 74, line 17, column 3, leave out ("Sections eighteen to") and insert ("Section eighteen from the words 'and from' onwards, so far as relates to the court of quarter sessions for the county of Kent or any division thereof; sections nineteen and")
  Seventh Schedule, page 75, line 3, column 3, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 5.
  Seventh Schedule, page 75, line 23, column 3, at end insert ("and subsection (3) of that section from 'and where' onwards.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, all the other Amendments are either drafting or consequential. I will put them all together. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE) BILL
5.56 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments, be now considered.—(Lord Crook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE) BILL

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
  Provisions as to separation agreements
  (".—(1) In determining for the purposes of section four of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, whether a husband has been guilty of wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance for his wife or her infant children, payments made by the husband shall not be deemed to be sufficient to provide such reasonable maintenance by reason only that they are made in accordance with an agreement made between the husband and the wife before the commencement of this Act.
  (2) Where an order under paragraph (c) of section five of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, or under section one of the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1920, is made in pursuance of an application under section four of the first-mentioned Act, and the husband is liable, in pursuance of any agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, to make payments to or for the benefit of the wife or any child for whose maintenance provision is made by the order, the liability of the husband under the agreement shall be treated as discharged to the extent of any payments made in pursuance of the order.")
  The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because the Amendment, while seeking to alleviate a hardship, would constitute too great an interference with the freedom of the parties to a marriage to settle their differences out of Court.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. It might almost be said that there is no one more qualified to move this Motion than I am. I came here to persuade your Lordships to put this

  1661
  clause into the Bill, and now I have to ask your Lordships to be good enough to agree to its being taken out. This measure, as your Lordships know, came to this House from another place, and I was asked to handle it on its arrival here. During the Committee stage in another place, attempts were made to add to the Bill a clause having, broadly, the effect of the clause which now appears on the Paper. However, the form and nature of the proposals made did not meet with sufficient support, either in the Committee stage or subsequently in the House itself, with the result that the Bill came to your Lordships' House without any such provision, but with an understanding on the part of the promoters that if agreement on a form of words could be secured the Amendment would be moved here.
  On July 21, I asked your Lordships to be good enough to add this clause to the Bill, pointing out the reasons why it was put forward. One matter which, I said, was probably in the minds of those who were disturbed about this question was to be found in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, in the case of Morton v. Morton (1942 All England Law Reports, page 273), in the course of which the noble and learned Lord said:
  "I am content to deal with this case on the basis that a deed like this, providing for periodical payments, the obligation to make which has been punctually performed, is very strong evidence indeed against the complaint of wilful neglect to provide maintenance."
  The point raised is whether the existence of the actual agreements might not cause a woman making the application to lose some of the benefits of the Bill. Agreement was secured on the form of words to come before your Lordships' House by co-operation between the promoters of the Bill and the Home Office, although, in a speech which followed mine, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack pointed out that the Home Office contented themselves by stating what the objects of the clause were as they saw them, and the serious nature of it. They did not, however, attempt to give any guidance to the House.
  In fairness to your Lordships, it is only right to remind you of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor then said. He pointed out that the clause would allow a woman to go to the court and to allege wilful neglect, to allege that
  1662
  she should be receiving much higher payment than she is now receiving, notwithstanding the fact that there had been voluntary agreement. The noble and learned Viscount went on to say that the provision had the disadvantage of treating an agreement which was genuinely come to between the parties, rather as if it were a scrap of paper. The point that an agreement might be treated as a scrap of paper was one to which objection was taken when the Bill went back to another place in July. The Bill had a fairly difficult passage on that occasion. There was strenuous opposition on a number of grounds: first, that there would be interference with the freedom of the parties to compose their differences; secondly, that unfair favouritism was shown to wives, and thirdly, that there was some doubt as to the jurisdiction of the courts, whether in fact the courts were not capable of dealing with some of these matters as the state of the law now stands.
  When the Bill came before another place for adjourned consideration on Monday of last week, clear indication was given that there was also some feeling on the part, I think, of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and certainly of some of your Lordships concerned with the administration of justice, that there might be an additional objection—namely, the overloading of the courts of summary jurisdiction. To sum up, it became clear that this proposal is one that is so completely controversial that, in the view of those who have at heart the original proposals of the Bill, it would be wrong to ask your Lordships to insist upon the original Amendment. Accordingly, I ask your Lordships to acquiesce in the deletion of the clause.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Crook.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  6.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of a Commons Amendment proposed in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments and of an Amendment consequential on a Lords Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered. —(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COMMONS TO THE BILL
  [The references are to Bill No. 139]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  In the Title, line 1, leave out from ("divorce") to ("making") in line 2, and insert ("and other matrimonial proceedings, the admissibility of evidence as to access, the charge and payment of percentage under the Lunacy Act, 1890, and the")
  The Commons disagree to the above Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
  Line 1, leave out from ("divorce") to ("wards") in line 2, and insert ("and other matrimonial proceedings, the admissibility of evidence as to access, the charge and payment of percentage under the Lunacy Act, 1890, and to")
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the first Amendment is an alteration in the Title of the Bill. It makes very little difference. The Title ended up with "to making infants wards of court," and the Amendment makes it end in "to wards of court." Somebody in another place did not like the grammar of the words "to making infants wards of court." I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 6, page 3, line 20, leave out ("in England")
  Clause 6, page 3, line 21, leave out ("for divorce or nullity of marriage")
  Clause 6, page 3, line 25, leave out ("such") and insert ("any")
  The Commons agree to the above Amendments, and propose the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
  Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(3) Section four of the Adoption of Children Act, 1949, shall cease to have effect.")
  LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment is consequential on the Lords Amendments to Clause 6. Your Lordships will remember that at one stage of the Bill in this House I moved an Amendment putting in these words. But
  1664
  the Adoption of Children Bill was somewhat delayed in another place, and we thought it well to take these words out and send this Bill forward so that it could be considered in good time to get it on the Statute Book during this Session. The Adoption of Children Bill has now reached such a stage that the other place suggests that we put these words back. There is now a good chance that if your Lordships agree to this Amendment, both the Adoption of Children Bill and this Bill will become Acts of Parliament tomorrow morning. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Llewellin.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This might be called "Virtue rewarded" or "Everything comes to him who waits." I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on getting at this time that which he asked for at the earlier stage, and to say that I think this will be a useful little Act which will make a real contribution to the law of the land.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  6.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons consequential Amendments read.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons consequential Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons consequential Amendments be now considered.— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill No. 163]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Page 13, line 15, leave out ("any owner, lessee or") and insert ("every owner, lessee and")
  The Commons agree to the above Amendment and have made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
  Page 14, line 22, at end insert—
  ("(d) the expression 'owner' includes any person empowered under this subsection to enter into agreements relating to land:")

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Page 50, line 14, leave out from ("works") to ("the") in line 15 and insert—
  ("() If, on a representation duly made under the last foregoing subsection, the high-way authority refuse to grant an authorisation thereunder, or grant such an authorisation subject to conditions, the person who made the representation may appeal to the Minister against the refusal or against the imposition of the conditions, as the case may be; and if the Minister, after giving to the appellant and to the highway authority an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose and considering the report of that person, determines to allow the appeal, he shall—

  (a) if the appeal was against a refusal, authorise the erection of the stiles, gates or other works in question, subject to such conditions as he may impose for maintenance and for enabling the right of way to be exercised without undue inconvenience to the public;

  (b) if the appeal was against the imposition of conditions, direct that the authorisation granted by the highway authority shall, as may be specified in the direction, have effect either unconditionally or subject to such modified conditions as may be so specified.

  () Where in the case of a public path an authorisation is granted by the highway authority under subsection (4) of this section or by the Minister under the last foregoing subsection")
  The Commons agree to the above Amendment and have made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
  Page 50, line 32, after ("(4)") insert ("or (5)")
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that we sent back to another place more than 140 Amendments to this Bill. All of these were accepted by another place, but it was found necessary to make two consequential Amendments to two of our Amendments, both of which are set out on the Order Paper. Both these were accepted in another place without discussion. The second one is really a drafting Amendment and both are consequential. I beg to move that this House agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, these are clearly consequential Amendments. We made some substantial Amendments to this Bill, and I think we can be proud that only two consequential Amendments arise from what we sent back to another place. I think we can accept them.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past six o'clock.