Lords Sitting of 25 October 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on Woolsack.
Prayers

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision that to assist in overcoming the present financial difficulties of the country, economies will have to be made in administration, some indication can be given of the present total expenditure of the Government on propaganda and public relations services of every kind; and what steps are to be taken to achieve an immediate and drastic reduction in this class of luxury expenditure.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, details of the amounts provided for home and overseas information expenditure during the current financial year were given in a White Paper on Government Information Services (Cmd. 7697) published last May. I am having a copy sent to the noble Lord. He will see that the estimated expenditure by or on behalf of home departments was about £5,000,000, and the corresponding figure for overseas departments was about £11,000,000 As was announced yesterday in another place, the total is to be reduced by more than £1,000,000. The Government, however, regard it as essential to retain adequate information services at home and abroad and could not agree that this expenditure should be classed as luxury expenditure.
  LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they do not consider that they could do a little better than make a cut of £1,000,000? Could
  1094
  this expenditure not be cut by £5,000,000 or something like that? Do His Majesty's Government not realise that they have a unique opportunity of imposing a cut which will please everybody and upset nobody?
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am afraid I can only offer the suggestion to the noble Lord that, while I am perfectly ready to discuss this matter with him in private, what is most popular is not always what is right, and the Government must take their stand on that position.

RELATIONS WITH HUNGARY
2.38 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action they have taken in view of the attempt made by the Hungarian Government to terrorise a member of the British Legation in Budapest into giving them information.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, as a reprisal for this action, the Hungarian Government were requested to recall a member of the Hungarian Legation in London. I might add that the Hungarian official in question, when faced with the prospect of returning to Hungary, at once asked for political asylum in this country.
LORD VANSITTART: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether the present situation is not a little unsatisfactory? A couple of our people have been expelled, another has been "third-degreed," native-born employees have been badly tortured, and then, when we expel someone, he whips round and asks for asylum—which perhaps might be a very suitable word. Without in any way prejudging this particular case, might it not be said that if that were carried further, we would be pocketing all insults and injuries and were getting in return a string of double agents?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the desire for political asylum in this country indicates, perhaps, a recognition that

1095
in many countries service for the State is dangerously akin to liquidation by the State.
LORD VANSITTART: I would ask the noble Lord whether, if these abuses and insults are prolonged or repeated, he will take into consideration a suggestion that on the next occasion we should be considerably more drastic and get rid of the lot.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in the event of anything of this nature recurring, obviously the position would have to be considered afresh and the suggestion made by the noble Lord would be borne in mind.

RESIDENTIAL FLATS AS GOVERNMENT OFFICES
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONSELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many blocks of residential flats in the area of Greater London are now occupied, wholly or partially, by Government Departments and nationalised industries; and what is the total number of rooms involved.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, owing to the regrettable absence of my noble friend, Lord Morrison, I have been asked to reply. The number of blocks of residential flats in the area of Greater London wholly occupied by Government Departments and nationalised industries is twenty, involving some 3,050 rooms, and the number of partially occupied is nine, involving some 350 rooms. In addition there are twenty-two separate flats so occupied, involving 125 rooms.
VISCOUNT MONSELL: My Lords, would not His Majesty's Government consider accommodating these rather overflowing staffs in the many empty houses there are in London in which nobody can afford to live to-day, instead of taking, flats away from many homeless Londoners?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the question will, of course, be considered, but I hope the noble Viscount will under-
1096
stand that to divide a large staff over a number of separate and scattered dwellings would not make for efficiency.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know whether there is any prospect of these flats being released as a result of the cuts the Prime Minister listed yesterday?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is rather soon to say whether any of them are being released as a result of yesterday's speech, but it may help the noble Lord if I say that since June last year the number of separate flats released in Greater London has been 636. It is the policy of the Government to release these flats as quickly as may be when suitable accommodation for staffs is found elsewhere.

AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill seeks to consolidate the law relating to patents. The principal Act to be consolidated is the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. That Act has been amended on a considerable number of occasions, and your Lordships will recall that substantial amendments to the Act, and many new provisions relating to patents, were enacted this year in the Patents and Designs Act, 1949. The Acts of 1907 and 1949 both deal with registered designs as well as patents, and the present Bill deals with the parts of those Acts relating to patents. It is sought to

1097
consolidate separately the provisions relating to registered designs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

REGISTERED DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks to consolidate the law relating to registered designs. The Acts to be consolidated are the same as those dealt with in the Patents Bill. The present Bill deals only with the parts of the Acts of 1907 and 1949 which deal with registered designs. Your Lordships will recall that the Departmental Committee on Patents, which sat from 1944 to 1947 under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Swan, recommended that the law relating to registered designs should be incorporated in a separate Statute from that dealing with patents. The present Bill seeks to implement that recommendation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 8:
Area of commission
8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall De a separate commission of the peace for every county and for every county borough, and there shall not be a commission of the peace or justices of the peace for any other area.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the county shall be the administrative county except that—

(a) in the case of London, the county shall be the county of London as constituted under subsection (2) of section forty
1098
of the Local Government Act, 1888, unless the City of London is made subject to the jurisdiction of the county justices and court of quarter sessions under subsection (3) of that section; and

(b) the administrative counties of Southampton and the Isle of Wight shall be a single county by the name of the county of Southampton.

(3) For the purposes of this section, an administrative county shall be deemed to include any county borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions which forms part of the county for the purpose of the appointment of a coroner, but this shall not affect the commission of the peace or justices of the peace for the borough and the jurisdiction of the borough justices as respects matters within their commission shall be exclusive of that of the justices for the county to the same extent as if the borough did not form part of the county.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): At the moment three Amendments have been under discussion by the Committee, Lord Llewellin's two Amendments, and Lord Rochester's Amendment to Lord Llewellin's second Amendment. It might be convenient if we dispose of the first Amendment at page 7, line 9, to leave out the word "and" (where it first occurs) in subsection (1). I understand that that is a drafting Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept that Amendment in order to dispose of it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I now beg formally to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, after ("borough") insert ("and for every borough appearing to the Lord Chancellor at the date when this section comes into force to have a population of twenty-five thousand or over").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD GODDARD: When the Committee adjourned last Thursday we were discussing Lord Llewellin's Amendment suggesting that in place of the proposal in the Bill, which was to deprive of their separate commissions all boroughs that were not county boroughs, should be substituted a proposal that boroughs should be deprived of their commissions only if they did not exceed 25,000 inhabitants. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has down an Amendment

1099
suggesting 40,000, instead of the figure of 25,000, and the Lord Chancellor has stated that he is prepared to consider a compromise, which would mean that boroughs under 50,000 inhabitants would lose their borough commissions, but that boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants should retain their quarter sessions.
The last thing I would want to do—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor knows this—is to take up any attitude which would add to his labours. I can well understand, and have always sympathised with, his desire to get rid of the commissions in small boroughs, but having given such thought as I am able to this proposal I am not at all convinced that the compromise, as he called it, will work. I want to be quite clear, in the first instance, as to what it is. As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor would abolish all borough commissions in places of under 50,000 inhabitants. Those boroughs with 50,000 inhabitants would retain their borough commissions, whether they have quarter sessions or not—because a good many boroughs of that size, which are also county boroughs, have no quarter sessions. Just to give three illustrations, there is Stockport with a population of 130,000, Rochdale with a population of 82,000 and Stockton-on-Tees with a population of over 65,000. They are all county boroughs, but they have no quarter sessions. I suppose, under the Lord Chancellor's proposal, they would retain their borough commissions.
But are the county boroughs to retain their county commissions whether they have 50,000 inhabitants or not, whether they have quarter sessions or not, or only if they have over 50,000? There are a good many county boroughs which are not of that amount of population, and some of them have quarter sessions, and some have not. Eastbourne, for instance, is a county borough having a borough bench but no quarter sessions. Yet Canterbury, which we know is quite a small borough, is a county borough. Chester, which is rather larger, but is under 50,000, has quarter sessions. Some, as I say, have quarter sessions, and some have not. So it seems to me that if the Lord Chancellor's proposal is to be accepted, there are a good many anomalies which will of necessity arise. Perhaps they are not very serious, but I
1100
think I have said enough to show the somewhat anomalous situation which would arise here.
Now I understand that the noble and learned Viscount suggests that the justices of those boroughs whose commissions disappear are to become justices of the county, sitting for the petty sessional division in which the borough happens to be situate. What would happen is this. Let us take an imaginary place, because I do not want to hurt the feelings of any particular borough—let us say, the borough of Barchester, situated in the Barchester division of the county of Barset. Barchester, being a small borough, will lose its separate borough commission. At the same time, there are sitting in Barchester every fortnight or every month, as the case may be, the county justices for the Barchester division of the county. Under this proposal, Barchester will become part of the county division, and the borough justices will become county justices and will sit for the county division of Barchester in the county of Barset. I cannot think that that is altogether satisfactory. It means that borough justices from these small boroughs will, for the rest of their magisterial lives—which is up to seventy-five if they live so long—become county justices. The justices of the large boroughs which retain their borough commissions will not become county justices. I think that will cause a certain amount of heart-searching, and it will always be possible for these borough justices to swamp the county justices sitting in the same division.
One of the reasons why the Lord Chancellor is anxious to abolish the small borough commissions is because of the difficulty he has experienced in finding suitable magistrates in so small a jurisdiction. Certainly I do not need to be persuaded that many of these small borough courts are exceedingly unsatisfactory. And yet the result of this proposal would be—and I commend this point most respectfully to the Lord Chancellor for consideration—that these often unsatisfactory borough justices will all become justices for the county; and if they have one of their friends up before the bench, they could, as I have said, swamp the county justices who would otherwise be sitting. It seems to me somewhat anomalous that these borough justices from small boroughs are to be made

1101
county justices—which, mark you, will enable them to sit in any division of the county they like and to take part in the county quarter sessions. Those are matters which ought to be very carefully considered before this suggestion is adopted.
Those boroughs which at present have quarter sessions and over 10,000 inhabitants are to retain their quarter sessions. The result of that will be that where there is a committal for trial to quarter sessions, the same bench will be committing either to a recorder or to a county quarter sessions, according to whether the offence is committed on one side of the line or whether it is committed on the other. That may not seem to be a very serious matter, but what I think is much more serious and much more undesirable is this. Nowadays, there are far more appeals to quarter sessions than there used to be when I was young at the Bar. I think that is principally due to the fact that there are so many offences which people can commit. Offences under the regulations are often committed by people of means who can afford to appeal, and this has led to a very large number of appeals. That is the difficulty at the present time. I have been surprised at some of the figures given to me by recorders of boroughs of the number of appeals which come before them in the course of the year. When I was young at the Bar, we looked upon an appeal to quarter sessions as "a hit of fat" which did not often come our way. Now appeals seem to be quite common. Surely, it would not be a desirable thing to have two different tribunals acting as an appeal tribunal from the same court. If this proposal were adopted, appeals by anybody who committed an offence in the borough, and who was convicted, would go to the recorder. If he committed the offence over the other side of the line, the appeal from the same court would lie to the county quarter sessions. I cannot think-that that would be a desirable state of affairs, and again I think it requires a great deal of consideration before it is adopted.
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not quite follow what the noble Lord means when he says "by the same court." To start with, unless and until the area is altered, the Barchester borough
1102
would be the Barchester division of the county of Barset, and all appeals from that area would inevitably go, if there were a quarter sessions, to the recorder. It is only if and when the area is extended that it is treated as though it were part of the original area, and equally all appeals would go to the same court. All I contemplate is that all appeals—there should be no option—will go to the same court, subject, of course, to the rule under the Act of 1928, that if there is no divisional court being held within a month—or whatever the words are—you may send to another court.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That applies not to appeals—that applies to indictable offences.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is the same principle exactly.
LORD GODDARD: I am sorry if I misunderstood the Lord Chancellor's proposal. It seems to me that it is necessary to get it absolutely clear. I understood that the Barchester commission of the peace would disappear, and that there would no longer be any Barchester justices. Barchester would become part of the county petty sessional division of the county of Barset. Therefore, the bench who would sit on offences brought before that court would be county justices. Then it is suggested that the Barchester borough justices should become eligible to sit in that division. As I understand it, the only commission they will be sitting under will be a county commission. Then, if there is a conviction before those justices—it may be a conviction for an offence which has been committed within the borough of Barchester, or it may be a conviction for an offence which has been committed in the county division surrounding Barchester—the cases would be committed to the county sessions. Otherwise, where is the recorder's jurisdiction to come in? As I understood the proposal, he was to have jurisdiction over offences which were committed within the borough of Barchester, and not within the whole Barchester division which contains partly county and partly borough. Of course, we have not had the advantage of seeing on paper the exact Amendment which the Lord Chancellor is suggesting. But this is how I see it. If there is an appeal, you would have to consider whether the

1103
offence was committed inside Barchester or whether it was committed in the Barchester division, which are two different things. That, at any rate, is as I saw it, but I may be wrong. I cannot tell any more than that until I have seen the Amendment.
On Second Reading I raised the question of the abolition of these recorders, and said that I thought the Bill went much too far and would cause an increase of work to the county quarter sessions. May I for a moment consider what is the true function of the borough quarter sessions? The true function, as I ventured to submit to the House, is to try offences which are committed within the borough and to hear appeals from the borough magistrates. If, therefore, a large number of borough quarter sessions were abolished the result would be that all those cases which the recorders try at present would have to go to the quarter sessions of the county; and that would cause a considerable increase in the number of cases with which the county has to deal. It would also probably increase very largely the number of appeals with which the appeals committee has to deal.
It is also said—and a great deal has been said about this matter during this debate—that one useful function of the borough quarter sessions is to hear cases from the county which may be sent to them. It is true that that is being done, and it is being done under the provisions of an Act of 1925 which was passed, as I believe, with a wholly different intention. Until 1925 it was not possible to commit to what I may call, for the purpose of convenience, a "foreign" court. For instance, if a case had to go to the assizes, if the offence had been committed in county A the case could not be committed to county B—I do not stop to consider the one exception under what is called Palmer's Act; that deals with a wholly exceptional circumstance. As a general rule, as I say, the case had to be committed to the court having jurisdiction for the place where the offence was committed; and to no other court. Therefore committals to quarter sessions depended entirely on whether an offence was committed within the jurisdiction of a borough or in the jurisdiction of a county. That situation led, as was
1104
well known (it was commented upon for years), to hardship in cases where people were committed for trial and either were not given or could not find bail. It was for that reason, as I venture to think any reading of the section will show, that the section in the Act of 1925 was passed. It was not passed as a county sessions relief Act.
The section itself says that the justices may commit to another convenient court for the purpose of expediting the trial or for the purpose of saving expense. It was passed not only because a prisoner cannot be kept without bail in prison, but also because it frequently happened that witnesses such as merchant seamen and other people were kept a long time in this country waiting to give evidence at the next quarter session. Therefore if it was possible to find another convenient quarter sessions to which they could be sent they were sent there. It is, as the section says, for the purpose of expediting the trial and for saving expense. I dare say that it can happen, but it must be seldom, that it saves expense to commit to a "foreign" court. Indeed, as the noble Lord who spoke so eloquently in favour of Scarborough the other day showed, it is much more likely to increase the expense if the case is sent to a "foreign" court. However that may be, I submit to your Lordships that the Act of 1925, although recently it has been frequently used as a quarter sessions relief Act and a county sessions relief Act, was never intended for that purpose.
On the other hand, in 1938 an Act was passed of which very little use has been made; and I think it is a pity that that is so. It is especially so in the case of these sessions, many of which I recognise are overworked. In 1938 an Act was passed, enabling county quarter sessions to appoint a paid chairman and, if necessary, to go outside the actual commission for the county to find a suitable chairman. I support quite as much as my noble friend Lord Lleweliin the principle of voluntary service, but remember this: recorders in the boroughs are paid. When you find quarter sessions lasting for days—often three, four or five days—it is nowadays almost impossible to find a competent chairman who, in taking it on as a matter of office, can afford to give up that amount of time for nothing. If

1105
the counties exercise their powers more freely by appointing paid chairmen—and after all, the salary would not be much; I venture to think that it would make no appreciable difference to the county rate—I believe a great deal of this trouble would be avoided.
In Middlesex, in Lancashire, and I think in one or two other counties in England, there are paid chairmen. Surely, in the overworked sessions in places such as Surrey, Kent and elsewhere, if the complaint is, "We must have cases sent to jurisdictions which were never intended to deal with them because we are so overworked here," then the answer is "Well, appoint somebody who will be in almost the same position as a county recorder." I would not have county recorders appointed, because that would mean they would be the sole judges; but they should be paid chairmen who, in consideration of a small salary, could devote the necessary time to sit with the county justices and preside.
Those are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that I prefer the suggestion that was made by Lord Roche's Committee. Lord Roche's Committee suggested that borough commissions should be abolished if the population was below 25,000. The result of that, of course, would he that if a borough had a population of 25,000, and already had a commission and its own quarter sessions, it would retain its borough commission and its quarter sessions. Or, if the borough had no quarter sessions, it would keep its borough commission. There you would have the borough commission and the quarter sessions going hand in hand without any of these artificial distinctions.
It is said, and I recognise it, that if that proposal is adopted there would be certain hard cases. The right reverend Prelate from the diocese of Winchester, on the Second Reading made an eloquent appeal on behalf of Winchester. Well, Winchester is the ancient capital of the realm, and I have no doubt we should all be sorry to see its ancient quarter sessions abolished. But I do not know of any reform that has ever been put forward that has not trodden on somebody's toes. We always attack somebody's vested interest and cause some hardship; without that you cannot have any reform. In the case of Winchester—I mention this
1106
merely because of the speech made in support of Winchester, which has, I believe, a population of just under 25,000—
LORD ROCHESTER: No; 27,000.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It is Windsor which has under.
LORD GODDARD: Then it is Windsor. Windsor is a Royal Borough, and no doubt it is very fine that it should have its recorder. But if a smaller borough rises to over 25,000 population it can surely petition His Majesty again to grant a Commission.
These are the considerations which, as I say, make me prefer the proposal which has been put forward by Lord Roche. I do not believe, if I may respectfully say so, that either proposal is ideal. I believe that the only ideal way of dealing with this question, if it is possible, is to consider these boroughs on their merits. I do not suppose anybody would really desire to maintain commissions in these small boroughs of 10,000. Even in the boroughs up to 15,000 or 20.000 I do not think that the justice administered is always satisfactory. That is not meant as any reflection on the recorders, but I beg the Committee to remember that juries would be drawn from a very small panel. If you get a borough of, say, 15,000, and you eliminate the children and the young people under twenty-one, deduct the married women who are not ratepayers and the men who have exemptions from jury service, you will find that the jury panel is a very small one. I am not going to give instances, but I know several. It is very unsatisfactory to have juries drawn from a very small panel. Everybody in the town gets to know who is on the jury, and it is not difficult to visit them and find them in "places where they sing" or other places. If it is possible, I would infinitely prefer to see this matter considered by a committee which would take each borough on its merits. I agree that it would be most undesirable for the committee to hear representations from the boroughs, because every town clerk of every borough would come up; but if the matter could he decided, whether statistically or not, I believe it would be a far better solution than one provided by merely counting heads.
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I should like to say a few words in support of the broad lines of the Lord Chief Justice's speech. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, if I understood him aright, spoke as if his proposals regarding the retention of recorders in non-county boroughs were contingent on our willingness to accept the abolition of all separate commissions of the peace in non-county boroughs where the population is under 50,000. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount cannot really think like that. I am sere that he wants to do what is right and best in both directions, and that those who still plead for consideration of the position of non-county boroughs with a population of 25,000 will not run the risk of losing, so to speak, the benefits of the suggestion made in regard to recorders. I am speaking in support of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I suggest the possibility, even the desirability, of some slight modification of it. I am not really concerned with the question of giving to non-county boroughs which have never had a separate commission of the peace a separate commission for the first time; that is a separate point. The noble Lord's Amendment, if I understand it aright, would give to every borough with a population of over 25,000 a separate commission of the peace.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I think the Amendment as it stands would need some modification to safeguard the position.
I would recall the fact that the Local Government Act of 1888, when reconstituting county boroughs, fixed a figure of 50,000, but made an exception in the case of those boroughs which were already county boroughs and had not a population of 50,000. So there is a precedent for the figure of 50,000, with that modification that where non-county boroughs had long enjoyed a separate commission of the peace 25,000 would be the figure. I am not much concerned with that but it does, I think, suggest a possible modification of Lord Llewellin's Amendment.
The arguments in favour of allowing those non-county boroughs which have for a long time had separate commissions of the peace to retain them are notorious
1108
and familiar. First, I would call the Committee's attention to the fact that if we accept the figure suggested it would get rid of 103 out of 171 boroughs, whereas the Lord Chancellor's figure of 50,000 would mean getting rid of 150 out of 171. I imagine that the noble and learned Viscount, in suggesting this figure, was referring to non-county boroughs which already have separate commissions of the peace. This figure of 25,000 would have one great advantage: it would help us to escape some very awkward questions, because it would in fact place non-county boroughs on exactly the same footing as county boroughs in the matter of population. We should not have to face the question why a place of 25,000, such as Winchester, was being deprived of its commission of the peace while Canterbury was to retain it. You would be taking the same figures for non-county boroughs as at present obtain for county boroughs.
Furthermore, the Roche Committee favoured the figure of 25,000. I am thinking in terms of half-a-dozen boroughs with the life and work of which I am familiar, and trying to apply the canons of the Roche Committee to these examples. What troubles me is that I cannot see any evidence that the dangers to which the Lord Chief Justice has referred, and which are real in regard to small boroughs, cease to apply only at the level of 50,000 and do not much weaken when the population is as large as 25,000. I suggest that there is something unnecessarily arbitrary about the figure of 50,000 applying to a borough desiring to retain a separate commission of the peace which in effect it has had, in more than one case, for a thousand years.
I have been at some pains to try to ascertain the opinions of the county authorities, and while I find, as I expected, a fairly widespread fear and suspicion about the administration of justice in small boroughs I did not find in the case of Winchester, for example, any real desire on the part of the county authorities to see Winchester lose its separate commission. I know that it is improper to refer overmuch to one particular place, and I ask the Committee to believe that I am thinking not merely in terms of one particular place. I refer to Winchester simply as an illustration of the general principle for which I am pleading. The Lord Chancellor says in effect "What

1109
difference would it make—and would you indeed not have a higher status?" But these justices do not want a higher status. They say "We have carried on our duties pretty well for centuries. Have we not the right to be given a clear reason why we should be swept out of existence?" The only answer seems to be that it must be done to ease the pressure of the enormous burdens resting on the Lord Chancellor and his Department.
The Lord Chancellor may forgive me for reminding him that this debate reminds one strangely of an even more familiar debate. As Abraham might have said: "Peradventure there be fifty thousand righteous in the city: wilt thou not spare the place for fifty thousand righteous that are therein?" The Lord Chancellor will remember that that debate concluded (I am not using the precise words of the quotation): "Oh, let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but this once. Peradventure twenty-five thousand will be found there. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
3.20 p.m.
EARL WAVELL: I apologise for again intervening in what is a legal matter. I shall keep your Lordships for only a few moments. I want to put forward a special plea for the City of Winchester. It is our oldest capital, the capital of King Alfred, who first made us into a nation and first gave us a navy. It has had its own magistrates for, I believe, something over a thousand years. It seems to me that it would be a sin against all tradition if Winchester were now deprived of that privilege simply because she has as a city, so to speak, kept her figure and not indulged in a middle-age spread. She may be penalised merely because of a lack of philoprogenetiveness—I believe that is the correct legal term for an excess of population.
I should like to point out, too, that there is in Winchester for the city magistrates an extremely intellectual level of population. You have the Cathedral, the College and, I understand, a very large number of retired officers of high rank—admirals, generals and air marshals—and a very high class of tradesman. So that Winchester has always had a very strong court of magistrates and is extremely anxious to retain this ancient privilege. Therefore, I do put a
1110
special plea before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that Winchester shall be allowed to retain those privileges. I hope that the conclusions of Lord Roche's Committee will be observed. It seems to me that, after having appointed such a strong Committee, to ignore what they recommended would be, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Roche, and to the Lord Chancellor, somewhat like buying a dog and then biting a policeman yourself. That is all I have to say. I hope that this Amendment will be carried, and that Winchester, which has a population of about 26,000, will be able to retain its borough court.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As High Steward of the City of Winchester may I add my voice to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who has just sat down? I have no further arguments to adduce, but I have just one point to make. In a speech the other day, one of the last he made in the debate last Thursday, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said he hoped that Devizes would keep its commission.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Its recorder.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I understood that it was the King's commission. But Devizes has a population of only 7,000, whereas Winchester has 25,000. I should like to add my plea that the historic City of Winchester shall keep its commission and its recorder.
LORD SCHUSTER: I am bound by every sentiment of piety to defend Winchester. I have been completely convinced by the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and by the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who always defends Cambridge. But I do not rise to speak on behalf of any particular town; nor do I think that one should really rise in the defence of what may happen to any particular town. There are two reasons, I think—I must not pledge my colleagues—why the Roche Committee made the recommendation which they did. One was this: that there is a certain level of population—though no person can dogmatically say what it is—at which it is difficult to find for any town a good advisory committee. There are not enough people who can be gathered together to make an advisory

1111
committee in which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor can have trust. I do not want to say anything unkind about these towns, because no doubt people there have done their duty for many years and have served loyally; but I am talking of practical difficulties that have been encountered. It is not easy—in fact, it is very difficult—ito find at a certain level enough justices in whom the Lord Chancellor can have confidence.
Therefore I think the first object—I repeat, I must not pledge my colleagues—which the Roche Committee had was to try to fix a level at which it might reasonably be supposed that a good advisory committee could be got together and where there was sufficient recruiting ground for the bench itself. I do not want to say dogmatically that 25,000 is the right number; no human being can fix upon a particular number and say that it is the right one. All I can say is that we did the best we could. Looking at all the circumstances before us, listening to all the evidence and being completely impartial and not warped in any way by any kind of political outlook or other dark design, we took the figure of 25,000.
The second object was quite different—not antagonistic to the first, but quite different. We hoped and I am still hoping—that in whatever Bill followed on our investigations there would be an enhancement of the position of the justices' clerk. We wanted to see that, if possible, he would have enough work to justify the payment of an inclusive salary, so that he might not be compelled to have regard to private practice, any more than the registrars of many county courts. Again, I do not wish to be disrespectful to them, for they contain many of my friends, but we hoped that these small commission districts would be merged in the body of the county. It is true that we hoped that the magistrates on the commissions for the boroughs would become magistrates of the county, but we did not contemplate—at least, I did not, and I do not think that any of my colleagues did—that there would be a line drawn round the towns, and that that would form the petty sessional division of wherever it was.
My noble friend Lord Llewellin and I, who take a deep interest in the matter,
1112
have been talking a great deal about the county of Dorset. Let me for a moment take that county, which I know better than any other. In the town of Dorchester there sit from time to time two separate bodies—the justices of the peace for the borough of Dorchester and the justices of the peace for the petty sessional division of Dorchester. Neither of those two bodies has enough to do. It seems ridiculous that those two separate bodies should sit there, each employing a clerk, with, so far as the county sessions are concerned, people coming considerable distances, because the Dorchester petty sessional division is pretty large. I have often sat at Dorchester for two or three cases, and I have travelled eight or nine miles for the purpose of hearing them. What we contemplated was not that a line would be drawn round Dorchester—that is where I think there a misunderstanding arose between my noble and learned friend and myself—but that in future the county petty sessional division of Dorchester should include the city of Dorchester and the surrounding country. Therefore, the evils which my noble friend referred to at once occur: there is the ambidextrous appeal. I hope I have made myself clear. The subject is technical and perhaps sounds very dull. I am not quite certain which Amendment we are discussing at the moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I help the noble Lord? At the moment we are having a general discussion in order that between now and Report stage I may try to see whether it is possible to get some kind of agreement on this point. If we cannot hammer out some sort of agreement then we have not the slightest chance of getting this Bill through during this Parliament.
LORD SCHUSTER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I can now be as discursive as I like over the whole subject. One of the real issues before us is, where is the line to be drawn? I think we are all agreed that the demarcation of the county borough will not do, and that we must fix some population limit or else refer the matter to the Committee my noble friend has suggested. For that population limit Lord Rochester suggested 40,000. I do not wish to impute improper motives to him, because his motive was clear—namely, to save his own town of

1113
Rochester, a very laudable and desirable thing to do. I want to see Rochester saved; I want to see Cambridge saved; and I also want to see Scarborough saved. But if the level is lowered to 25,000, then, as I understand it (I may have the figures wrong) there are only four additional towns which will be saved—namely, Winchester, Hereford, Kings Lynn and Deal. I am arguing in favour of the figure of 25,000, and I am taking the figures given by the Lord Chancellor. I do not want to say anything in praise of any one of those four towns. I have already told the Committee that I have a prejudice in favour of Winchester; a town which I wish to see in every way exalted and maintained.
What I would suggest to the Committee in regard to the small recorderships—I hope the Lord Chancellor will believe that I am saying this in no grudging spirit, for I am sure he is trying to meet us—is that the abolition of the smaller recorderships may be regarded as an end in itself. It is impossible to say where the axe should fall, but I do not believe that the smaller recorder's court is a good court, or can be a good court. It the first place, as my noble friend has already pointed out, the panel of jurors must be very small; and in the second place it is obviously a great waste that a recorder should be sitting for 3,000, 4,000 or, as I think, 10,000 or an even greaser number of persons. I am throwing myself on the mercy of the Committee here; I can express only my own view, and I do not want to commit my noble friends, but I think the members of be Roche Committee thought that the same argument applied as regards boroughs, and that 25,000 was the appropriate figure both for the recorder and for the borough commission. I cannot tell you why. Every noble Lord must look at the matter from his own experience. It is absurd to hold a court before which there come very few charges. It is bad in every way. Neither the presiding officer nor those who sit with him gain sufficiently in experience to "keep their hands in."
I do not want to argue in favour of large and bloated courts. I certainly do not want to argue in favour of throwing on to the quarter sessions, either east or west, the great number of prisoners who are tried in the big Kentish towns. I do suggest, however, that the recorder
1114
of the small town does not serve any useful purpose, and that in fact the recorder of a small town and his court are an anomaly and a nuisance and, I think, a denigration of justice. I think I can go further than that. We were aiming at concentration and economy. Consider the character of the four towns which I have taken, whose population, if I am correct, falls between 25,000 and 40,000. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate—and I cannot put it nearly so well as he or the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Wavell—it is ridiculous to say that from the 27,000 inhabitants of Winchester you cannot get a good advisory committee and a good bench. I do not know so much about Hereford because I have had no connection with the place; but it seems ridiculous to say that among the 33,000 inhabitants of Hereford you cannot get a good advisory committee and a good bench. About Kings Lynn I know nothing; about Deal I know too much and I prefer to be silent on that subject. But again as far as their population, history and tradition are concerned—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord seems to be under a misapprehension. There are 27 boroughs with populations of between 25,000 and 40,000 which have commissions of the peace.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The noble Lord has taken from Hansard the figures for boroughs which have both separate commissions of the peace and quarter sessions.
LORD SCHUSTER: That is what I am saying. I do not know which are the other 27 boroughs. Here is the document with which the noble and learned Viscount furnished me, and I have done the best I can with it. I admit that my powers both of reading and of expression are inferior, but at the same time I do not know what other towns there are. But be it so. Suppose there are 27. I take my four towns, not because I have a special interest in any of them but because they are symptomatic of the situation. One can judge the towns of 25,000 by those four, but if the noble and learned Viscount adds others I shall be glad to deal with them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are a large number of them. I am not

1115
talking about boroughs which have their own quarter sessions; I am talking about those boroughs which have separate commissions of the peace. I counted them rapidly. By accepting the figure of 50,000, we abolish 49 more separate Commissions of the Peace than if we accept 25,000 only. If we accept 40,000, we abolish 27 more than if we accept 25,000 only. It is quite true that between the 40,000 and the 25,000 there are only five with separate quarter sessions, and in between 40,000 and 50,000 there are seven more with separate quarter sessions. The difference between 25,000 and 50,000 is, as I have indicated a very substantial one.
LORD SCHUSTER: I am sorry if I misled the Committee. I was talking about boroughs with quanter sessions; that is to say boroughs that have separate commissions of the peace and quarter sessions. I am arguing in regard only to the quarter session boroughs which have separate commissions of the peace. I have nothing to add to that; I have really talked too long. I do want it to be clearly understood in regard to the objects of the Roche Committee, however, that if when the borough has lost its separate commission it alone becomes a petty sessional division of the county, the very object at which we were aiming disappears, and exactly the same thing will happen as happened before.
Take my own borough of Dorchester, of which I was speaking a few moments ago—it is Dorchester not Barchester. There again exactly the same thing will happen. You will have the Dorchester justices for the petty sessional division of the county sitting in Dorchester and the justices for the borough petty sessional division sitting in Dorchester. Neither group will have enough to do, and they will have two separate clerks, neither of them, it may be, adequately remunerated for his professional skill. In short, we shall have all the evils and troubles which we were aiming to end. I do not think I need argue the matter further.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not propose to take up more than two or three minutes of the time of the Committee after the interesting discussion which we have had. We are, however,
1116
in some difficulty. My noble friend Lord Llewellin has put down an Amendment on the lines of the recommendations of the Roche Committee. The Lord Chancellor has sprung upon us a totally new proposal, the effect of which would be to change the conditions both for the commissions of the peace and for the recorderships. I hope that in the light of this discussion he will see fit to take very carefully into account what has been said upon the subject and will recognise that there is great opposition, at any rate in some quarters, to certain parts of the proposal which he has made. I am more interested in the question of the recorder-ships than I am in the commissions of the peace. I see that in these small boroughs there is a great deal of objection to having an advisory committee, and it may be difficult to find enough justices for the commission. I admit, none the less, that I think the greater objection is to be raised against the small recorderships. In that connection there is the problem of finding a jury in one of these minute places, where everyone knows everyone else's affairs.
Another objection, which I do not think has been mentioned so far in this afternoon's debate, is that the session is apt to be very short and perfunctory. A recorder goes down to one of these small places, arriving at perhaps eleven o'clock in the morning, and, possibly, he has in view the catching of a train to take him away again at about twelve-thirty. He has, it may be, one case to hear. I believe that one of the outstanding merits of our great assizes is that there is a measure of time during which, if necessary, passing of sentence in a case can be postponed in order that further inquiry may be made. As a rule, assizes last at least two or three days, and I believe that at these great assizes there is a better chance of justice being done and, what is very important in these days of complicated sentences, of the right sentences being imposed. That being so, I object to the Lord Chancellor's proposal which, as I understand it, would leave recorder-ships in any place that has a population of over 10,000. I think that that figure is much too small. I would have preferred to keep the simple line—it is of course open to detailed objections—of the Roche Committee, that there should

1117
be the same principle for both. If the Lord Chancellor says there is a particular instance in which a recorder of a small borough is doing essential work, I should be prepared to give him or the Committee a certain elasticity of decision.
I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier about the possibility of more detailed inquiry into these difficult cases, but speaking generally I wish to see these small recorderships go. I believe that it will be better administratively that they should, and I believe that it will be better in the interests of justice as a whole. On that account I prefer the rough and ready—but perhaps I underrate it in saying rough and ready, so I will say the broad proposition of the Roche Committee that 25,000 should be the population test. As I say, I am perfectly prepared to accept the Lord Chief Justice's suggestion that there might be opportunity for inquiry, in whatever form he and the Lord Chancellor think fit, into some of the difficulties. I therefore hope the Lord Chancellor will not press his proposal to-day, and that we shall accept Lord Llewellin's proposal embodying the recommendations of the Roche Committee. Then if there are modifications to be made upon it the Lord Chancellor can make them when we come to toe Report stage.
3.46 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: I wish to express my agreement with the observations which have just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. I find that in the north there is very little, excitement or distress with regard to the idea that the small boroughs shall be merged into the county, now that we have been assured that such boroughs will be able to hold their own petty sessional courts, which of course have their own important duties to perform. But I do wish to urge upon the Lord Chancellor that there should be a revision in relation to the matter of the recorders, especially in connection with some of the small and, in certain instances, ancient boroughs.
I have the privilege of being chairman of one of our large prisons, and in the course of my duties as a visiting magistrate I came across a really distressing case. I always, if I may so put it, make a bee-line to the quarters of the juvenile
1118
prisoners, in order to ascertain why they are kept in custody. On the occasion of a visit some three or four weeks after a previous one I found that a boy was still detained. I asked the Governor the reason for his detention and he told me that the boy was waiting for the recorder to sit at the quarter sessions, and the recorder was waiting until he got some more cases. The boy had not been granted bail, and there was good reason for that, I gathered. I took up the case with the Home Office because, in my simplicity, I thought that quarter sessions were held four times a year. Here, in my opinion, is a case where this recordership in Yorkshire should be abolished, and this borough for quarter sessions purposes should be merged with the West Riding of Yorkshire. There, sessions are regularly held, and less hardship is caused, because the modern magistrate does not like to keep anyone in prison to await trial if he can avoid it, especially if the person concerned is a boy of seventeen, eighteen or nineteen years of age.
Therefore I think it would be in accordance with the consensus of opinion of those who have studied the problem that, without fear or favour, some of these ancient recorderships should be decapitated and the areas merged. The recorder could be given a job, perhaps, as chairman of quarter sessions. My noble friend Lord Merthyr, who knows all these things, tells me there are fifty-two counties in England and Wales, and when we held our commission we found that there were only about eight or nine paid chairmen. I understand that there are now about a dozen. But there are other counties which could well dispense with the unpaid chairman and have a paid chairman who should be a barrister of at least seven or ten years standing. Thus, I suggest, there would be jobs open for "the boys." There would be places where the trained lawyer could practise his talent. I hope the noble and learned Viscount, like Pharaoh, will harden his heart and get rid of some of these quarter sessions and recorders which are neither good nor middling.
LORD ROCHE: I am very sensible of the weight of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said about time in this matter. Time is the essence of this Bill, which I, for one,

1119
should like to see passed. Let me make two observations. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Viscount contemplates dividing on this Amendment or leaving the matter at large until Report Stage. I am certain, however, that my Committee never contemplated setting up separate commissions for any boroughs over 25,000 or any such figure; they were dealing merely with retaining commissions. I think the right reverend Prelate was perfectly right on this point, and I would be sorry to see any Amendment passed which would result, as I think would be the effect of passing the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in separate commissions being set up.
Is the solution not this: that the figure 50,000 be retained as the ruling figure, yet boroughs of 25,000 or over which already have commissions and quarter sessions should retain both. That would cover the five boroughs about which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, is speaking. I have not maturely considered that course, but I think it would content me, and it would be in line with what the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, intended. We might well get rid of most of the quarter sessions in boroughs of under 25,000, subject to the discretion of the learned and noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor if he thought there was an important exception.
I confess that I do not regard as lightly as some noble Lords, including I think, the Lord Chief Justice, the question of the relief of the county quarter sessions. Having a paid chairman would not overcome all difficulties, because we have to have other magistrates there. I put more faith in laymen than in lawyers appointed either as "jobs for the boys" or in any other way. I put great faith in sensible laymen, all of whom are deeply engaged in county or other business and probably unable to attend county quarter sessions for a much longer time than they do now. Coming back to my proposal, which I think is in line with what the right reverend Prelate suggested, while boroughs such as Winchester and Rochester should retain both their separate commissions and recorders the line might otherwise be drawn at 40,000 or 50,000.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord,
1120
who has made a most helpful contribution to our discussion. I want to find a more or less agreed solution, because unless we get that, we have not a hope of getting this Bill through. It seems to me that what the noble Lord has said holds out hope of an agreed solution. But I do not think the Amendment in the form in which we have it here is satisfactory, for the reasons he gave. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will agree that it is a question of retaining commissions and not of constituting new commissions. I do not want to go into any controversy about Winchester, or about any of the other boroughs affected. My only object in this matter is to try to secure the best administration of justice. From my experience I am satisfied that I ought to do everything I can to abolish these separate commissions. I believe that I shall be assisting the administration of justice by doing so, and I believe that those who have had experience of my office would agree that we could to a large extent get rid of separate commissions by adopting the figure of 50,000.
I should like to have the figure of 50.000. It is not only that sometimes I have difficulty in constituting a satisfactory advisory committee but I am conscious of the difficulties in commissions under that figure. They are too small; the people know too much about each other; and generally things are not satisfactory. Anybody who has had my experience knows that to be true. But I must be content with what I can get, and if I can get what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, has suggested. I would have 50.000 as my preliminary figure while retaining those boroughs of 25,000 population which have already separate commissions and recorders. I do not like that so much as the proposal in the Bill; I do not think it makes for the administration of justice so well as the proposal in the Bill. But I would rather have that with general good will and consent than any abstract prospect which I think more ideal. I should like to ask the noble Lord Lord Llewellin, to withdraw his Amendment now, with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and to leave the matter completely open. Between now and the next stage of the Bill I will endeavour to introduce a clause on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord

1121
Roche, which I believe will receive a large measure of the approval of your Lordships.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I agree with the noble and learned Viscount on two points—namely, that if we are not in substantial agreement there is not much chance of this measure being passed, and the Bill will not go through another place without a large number of boroughs properly pressing their Members to make it possible for them to keep their recorders, and, secondly, that my Amendment is not aptly drafted. The reason for that is that I did not mean to create any new commissions of the peace. It seems to me that the question is where we are to draw the line, and whether we ought not to draw two lines, one for the abolition of the separate commissions of the peace and another for the abolition of the recorderships. I think this Bill would pass through more easily if we had two lines, as proposed in the compromise suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount.
The difference between a limit of 25,000 and one of 50,000 is that if the 25,000 is adopted, forty-nine additional commissions of peace remain. I cannot see why any justice at present on the rota of borough justices should feel aggrieved that his commission is absorbed in the larger county commission, when he has the wider rights that a county justice has of sitting on county quarter sessions and will still sit in his same petty sessional court-house. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head, but I see no reason why they should not sit in the same court-house, nor why, unless the magistrates' courts committee of Hampshire suggested a new boundary for the petty sessional division of Winchester, they should not have exactly the same jurisdiction. If they did suggest an alteration, it would be only to include some of the countryside in the immediate neighbourhood of the borough of Winchester, so that they would have a larger jurisdiction.
That is the way I see it working, so far as commissions of the peace are concerned. I realise that some of the smaller ones ought to go, and I do not see that anybody has any great grievance if they go to a considerably larger extent than my Amendment suggests. It is essential, however, if we preserve the courts of quarter session, to lay down the extent of the recorder's jurisdiction. That is the
1122
sort of provision a layman cannot easily draft; it must be done by the experts in the Parliamentary draftsman's office. I do not in the least see why these quarter sessions should not have appeals from the borough, or, if the extent of its petty sessional division is extended, from the wider area. I could not follow the Lord Chief Justice when he said he thought one petty sessional court would have one appeal going to the recorder and another to the county quarter sessions. As I understand it, the drafting would be that any appeal from the petty sessional division that included the old borough, or was the old borough, should go to the recorder; and, although the magistrates are county justices, the appeals from that petty sessional division will still continue to go to the recorder. I see no difficulty in that, so long as we are not wedded to the old form of only a separate commission having appeals to a recorder. We can move with the times if we want to keep, as I do, more of these recorders.
If we were to accept the Lord Chancellor's original suggestion and retain recorders for all boroughs of 10,000 population we should be retaining—and I think it would be a good thing—an additional twenty-five recorders. If we raise the population limit to 50,000 quite a number of these recorders will go, and from such political knowledge that I have, I am certain that it will be far more difficult to get this measure through another place, because the real problem will be how to keep the recorders in the various county towns. I should have thought we were much better striking the line where the Lord Chancellor struck it when he originally made this offer to get rid of these separate commissions—that has many advantages—and at the same time retain as many recorders as we can. Abolish the very small ones, but keep as many recorderships as we can, first, because it relieves pressure on the county quarter sessions, and, secondly, because they are a good trial ground for an eventual Judge of the King's Bench Division.
I very much agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Roche that it is not only the chairmen who have to be considered, but all the magistrates who sit with them; they are a very important part of the court, and anybody who has sat as chairman or deputy chairman of

1123
quarter sessions knows what a relief it is to have other magistrates in to discuss the sentence and not to have to do it entirely on one's own. Had it been left to me I should have clinched the matter by accepting the Lord Chancellor's suggestion straight away. We should then have got rid of a lot of these tiny commissions of the peace, and at the same time have kept these valuable men, the recorders of the different boroughs. I hope that when it comes to the Report stage we shall have something done on that line. What consoled me in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Roche was that it seemed to me to accept the position that two lines could be drawn, one for recorders and the other for commissions of the peace. In the circumstances, that is what I think would be the sensible thing to do. Perhaps Lord Rochester will agree not to move his Amendment to my Amendment, which I shall then be happy to withdraw. We will then see what we can put down on the next stage of the measure.
LORD GODDARD: If Lord Roche's proposal is that all boroughs under 50,000 which have not their own quarter sessions boroughs should lose their commission of the peace, but that boroughs of 25,000 with quarter sessions should retain their commission and recorder (I believe that was Lord Roche's suggestion) I would gladly accept that and support it.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am, of course, in your Lordships' hands. I was fully in favour of Lord Roche's Committee's recommendation of 25,000 both for the commission and for the recorders. It was only because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, at the commencement of his speech in the debate on Thursday, in reply to an Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said in terms that his irreducible minimum was 50,000 that I jumped in with an Amendment of 40,000, in order to save those boroughs between 40,000 and 50,000.
LORD LLEWELLIN: One borough.
LORD ROCHESTER: I was quite frank with your Lordships; my figure would have included Rochester.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And excluded everything else!
LORD ROCHESTER: On the contrary. It would also include Scarborough, on which we heard such a delightful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on Thursday. I feel that the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Roche is an admirable one. It would meet my position entirely if Lord Llewellin's Amendments were withdrawn and I did not move mine: in order, in the words of the Lord Chancellor,
"that the whole matter can be gone into to see if we cannot hammer out a solution which will commend itself to everyone."
I therefore agree not to move my Amendment to Lord Llewellin's Amendment.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: After the last two or three speeches I am not sure what is the position with regard to recorders. Has the Lord Chancellor a completely open mind as to what should be the number below which recorderships should be abolished? My noble friend Lord Llewellin has just pressed very strongly that the number should be 10,000. Some of us think it should be much higher. I should not like this discussion to end without having the position clear. Is the Lord Chancellor taking back his proposal? Is my noble friend Lord Llewellin withdrawing his Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, agreeing not to move his Amendment to that Amendment on the understanding that, both with the commissions of the peace and the recorderships, the position is open, and that the Lord Chancellor will take into account the very strong arguments that have been put forward by the Lord Chief Justice and others against these small recorder-ships?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to tie myself at the present time. I want to negotiate to bring about the largest possible measure of agreement. I am sure we all understand Lord Roche's proposal. Under his proposal, of course, the boroughs under 50.000 which have not recorders would lose their separate commission of the peace. But, if I understood him, boroughs which have recorders would retain both their commission of the peace and also their quarter sessions—that is under what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, calls the one-line proposal, and not the two lines. The position with regard to recorders is this:

1125
A town of under 25,000 would lose its recorder, unless possibly I had some latitude in the matter, so that if there were particular recorders who seemed to me to be playing a useful part in the administration of justice in the county I might be able to reprieve them, either alone or after reference to some committee. But everyone will realise that in my negotiations I do not want to tie myself by any obligation. What I want to do is to bring about an agreement on this.
LORD ROCHESTER: It is on that general understanding that I will not move my Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was prepared to accept the limit of 50,000 for the commissions of the peace only so long as we had recorders above 10,000. I am still convinced that I am right, and I would like to say, whatever my noble friend Lord Templewood says, that I adhere to a at bargain which I have made across the floor of the House with the noble and learned Viscount. That being understood by the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Bill may read now a little oddly, since we have deleted "and," but that can be put right on Report stage.
4.12 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (2) to omit "except that" and the whole of paragraph (a), and to insert:
"and subsection (3) of section forty of the Local Government Act, 1888 (which provides that for the purpose of the jurisdiction of the justices the county of the City of London shall continue as a separate county unless the Mayor commonalty and citizens of the city assent to jurisdiction there being conferred upon the justices under the commission of the peace for the administrative county of London) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I have put down two or throe Amendments which are associated one with another in connection with the position in the City of London. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that in the City of London the position is different from that of the County of London and of any other part of this country. In making these few remarks, I cannot help mentioning the question of stipendiary magistrates. I am not going to argue the major point that it may be that stipendiary magis-
1126
trates are desirable: I am quite aware that a large measure of opinion is against stipendiary magistrates. I think it will come at some time, but I am not going to press it now. I will take up the point from there. The opposition to the stipendiary is based partly on the premise that one man alone should not decide cases of fact in courts of law, even if he is a qualified lawyer. That is one of the arguments used against a stipendiary. Now in the City of London the case is even stronger, because the one man who sits alone in the City is not a qualified lawyer; he is a layman. That is an entirely unprecedented position.
I will quote from the Report of the Royal Commission at the bottom of paragraph 214 on page 55, where they say, in discussing the whole question of stipendiaries:
"Further, the cases in which decisions on questions of fact in criminal cases are left to one man ought to be, as they now are, exceptional. It must be remembered that even a judge of the High Court is never asked to undertake the heavy responsibility of trying a criminal case except with the assistance of a jury of laymen, to whom alone is left the decision on the facts."
In the City we have not a qualified lawyer sitting alone and deciding facts, but a layman, and I submit, using the arguments of those who disagree with me, that an end should be put to it.
It is really a simple matter to make the City of London the same as the County of London. I can conceive no reasons at all why that should not he done. I think it has been done as regards juvenile courts by this Bill, and if it can be done in relation to juvenile courts it can be clone in relation to adult courts. I entirely agree with what the Royal Commission said about it, but unfortunately they did not go further and say that this position ought to be ended. I must ask this question of those who do not agree with me on this major point: You do not like stipendiary magistrates because they sit alone; Why then, do you impose, without their permission, upon the greatest City of all—I refer to the whole of London—a system with which you do not agree? I think that is a fair question, and I should like to hear the answer. You impose this system which you do not like upon the greatest City of the Empire, and I cannot see any reason or logic in it.
I confess that this is part of the anomaly hunt, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has just left the Chamber, because I know he would like to say something about it. But this is not, I submit, a harmless anomaly; it goes against a principle of very considerable importance. As I said last week, here is an elected judge. I disapprove most strongly of the whole principle of an elected judicial officer, and here he is—and he is not even a qualified lawyer. I am not suggesting, to use the noble Lord, Lord Harlech's words, that these Aldermen in the City have made a "bloomer." There are many other cities with a far larger population than that of the City of London, but none of them in this country has this system, and I do not think it ought to prevail in London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, leave out from ("County") to end of line 19, and insert the said words.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD GODDARD: I hope your Lordships will leave the City of London alone. I understand that my noble friend Lord Merthyr is suggesting that in the City there should not even be stipendiaries or metropolitan police magistrates; it appears that it is to be left to the justices. Apart from that, however, I believe that there are no petty sessional courts in this country which are so satisfactorily run and managed as the courts in the City of London. During the time that I have been a Judge—which is now seventeen or eighteen years—I have never known a special case taken from the City of London. The fact is that the City does not have a large number of serious cases to decide, as do the metropolitan magistrates; there are not the murders, the thefts, and so forth. There are some frauds, but most, I think, are quite ordinary—what I would call police cases. I see no reason at all for impinging upon what I think has been carried out with universal approbation and has worked thoroughly well for years and years. The two police courts in the City of London, the Lord Mayor sitting at the Mansion House for one part of the City, and the Aldermen sitting at the Guildhall for the other, have never given the King's Bench Division the smallest trouble. I cannot remember a single appeal from them, and
1128
I hope your Lordships will leave the City of London alone.
LORD MERTHYR: May I, before anybody else speaks, correct one misapprehension? I am not advocating that laymen should sit in the City. I would like to make the City the same as the County.
LORD GODDARD: But the county justices are lay justices. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved does not propose to give the metropolitan police magistrates jurisdiction over the City. But whether he did or did not, my objection to it is the same: I say that the Aldermen have done well for years and years and are still doing well. Let us leave well alone.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One often thinks that we are not a very logical people and I quite agree. Very often we apply not a test of logic but the simple question: "Does this, that, or the other institution work well?" After all, my Lords, take my own position as Lord Chancellor: can you conceive anything more utterly illogical than the position of Lord Chancellor? If anybody were starting anew and setting out a new system, would he in his right senses invent such a thing as the Lord Chancellor? Yet the Lord Chancellor has not so far been abolished, though he may be soon—I do not know. The question which we apply to ourselves is not "Is it logical?" but "Does it work well?" On the whole, I think that the system is one which works well.
I concede at once to the noble Lord that logically he has everything on his side, and the system in the City of London is an anomaly. But I agree entirely with the Lord Chief Justice. In my experience, this thing works, and it works very well. Now, why should I go and uproot a system which is working very well in order to satisfy Lord Merthyr's sense of logic? I know that the City are proud of this anomaly. They like their ancient traditions, am I bound to say that this particular tradition is certainly not one which they have in any way abused. I think that if we try to aim at logic here we shall do an ill service to the administration of justice in the City of London. I should advise your Lordships to leave the City of London as the Lord Chief Justice and, I think, anybody really experienced in the working of the law would leave it, entirely alone.
LORD MERTHYR: I do not propose to press this Amendment further, but may I say two things in connection with it? The fact that this system works well—the system being a single magistrate sitting alone—is an argument which I shall take leave to bring up in another connection. I think that stipendiaries do work well when sitting alone. That is why I want this system to be instituted in the City of London. When other people say that they do not work well I must beg leave to reserve this argument for them. But meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.24 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that subsection (2) of Clause 8 reads:
"For the purpose of this section, the county shall be the administrative county except that—
(b) the administrative counties of Southampton and the Isle of Wight shall be a singe county by the name of the county of Southampton."
For administration purposes, the Isle of Wight has been a separate county since 1890. Al that time there was no provision made for a separate commission of the peace or for a separate quarter sessions. As a result, all cases of an indictable character not tried by the petty sessional division have to go to Winchester to be tried, whether they are major questions to be tried at assizes or less serious crimes to be tried at quarter sessions. Not only have the cases to go, but it also means that all the witnesses in the cases have to cross that stretch of water and take the train journey to Winchester, and the jurors have also to be taken from the Isle of Wight to help to man the Winchester quarter sessions. The Winchester quarter sessions is quite a busy quarter sessions and that means that jurors have perhaps to stay away from their homes in the Isle of Wight for several days. So, too, do the witnesses if the Isle of Wight case cannot be taken oh the first day.
It is unanimously the opinion in the Isle of Wight that this anomaly—because that is what it is—should be ended, and this opportunity should be taken of ending it. The Isle of Wight County Council, the Isle of Wight Law Society and all representative opinion in the Isle of Wight
1130
hope that this anomaly may now be got rid of. I made a strong plea for it in my speech in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading, and I believe there is an unanswerable case for it. The Isle of Wight authorities, I am told, are prepared to make the necessary court space available. I have ascertained that the Western Circuit Bar will make their best endeavours to man the quarter sessions there, so long as they are kept closed sessions for barristers, as I think they certainly should be and as I believe the Isle of Wight is prepared to keep them. If this Amendment is accepted by the Government and by your Lordships, I believe it will right an anomaly that should not have existed for the fifty-nine years that it has.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, leave out from ("section") to end of line 22.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has made out his case here and I am prepared to accept his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I understand it will mean quite a number of consequential Amendments, but those, of course, will be put down on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment, I must confess, primarily because I could not understand the meaning of this subsection. That was not very surprising. I asked several other people and they could not help me very much, if at all. A little daylight has appeared since the noble and learned Viscount put down his Amendments which follow mine, and I must agree that the whole subsection is now a little clearer. My only object in putting down the Amendment was to make the subsection clear to the Committee, and therefore, without saying anything further, I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that the noble Lord was troubled over this subsection. It is not really very difficult. The point of it is this. There

1131
are a large number of county boroughs—Darlington. Dewsbury, Eastbourne, East Ham, Newport, South Shields, Wakefield, and West Hartlepool—which are county boroughs but have not their own quarter sessions. There are twenty-one of them in all. Of course, the appeals from the magistrates there have to go to the quarter sessions for the county, and for that purpose the county borough has to be treated as though it were part of the county. The only object of this clause is to deal with that point which otherwise would be left in the air and there could be no appeal. If they have no quarter sessions of their own, and unless they are treated as part of the county, there will be no available quarter sessions for them. The noble Lord I think will understand that explanation.
LORD MERTHYR: I am much obliged. I do understand it now, though I confess I did not before.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Committee agree we might take together this and the next Amendment—that to page 7, line 31. They are drafting Amendments. There are county boroughs without quarter sessions which form part of more than one county—for example Stockport, which is partly in Lancashire and partly in Cheshire. Thus in Stockport at present the Lancashire quarter sessions have jurisdiction over one part of the borough and Cheshire quarter sessions over the other part of the borough. The effect of the Amendments is to apply the provisions of the subsection to each part of such a county borough, so as to relate it to the appropriate county for the purpose of the exercise of the quarter sessions jurisdiction of the county. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, after ("any") insert ("area in a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also, as I have indicated, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("borough") and insert ("area").—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
4.32 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Times for holding Quarter Sessions
" . It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Peace of a County as soon as may be after the Michaelmas quarter sessions in every year to inform the clerks of the peace of neighbouring county boroughs and boroughs within the county having a separate court of quarter sessions of the dates upon which the general quarter sessions of the county will be held during the following year and the clerks of the peace of the said boroughs shall thereupon inform their recorders so that arrangements may be made for the holding of the courts of quarter sessions for those boroughs during that year at such times as will secure that so far as possible the intervals between the holding of any neighbouring court of quarter sessions shall he of equal duration."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment does not order the recorders to do anything. It is an attempt to try to space out the dates of the holding of county quarter sessions and neighbouring borough quarter sessions. This is not necessarily to relieve county quarter sessions; what it seeks to do is to try to ensure that justice is speedy, as it ought to be. If you find a county with several different borough quarter sessions, and two or three recorders, all holding their sessions within, say, the first week in January—when a lot of sessions are held—and then there are no more sessions until April, persons who are awaiting trial and kept in custody may undergo a lot of unnecessary mental suffering. I realise, of course, that many persons will be on bail. My Amendment seeks to ensure that the county quarter sessions and the clerks of borough sessions shall know after Michaelmas each year what will be the dates for the county quarter sessions throughout the succeeding year. In most counties I think the dates remain about the same, but in any event the knowledge would enable the recorders to fix their own courts in such a way as to divide up the year as much as possible.
One cannot in a Statute direct a recorder that he should divide the year. Moreover, recorders themselves are busy men, with their own practices to consider. If it is not appropriate to put this actual clause into the Bill perhaps the Lord Chancellor could give me some sort of undertaking that some intimation will be

1133
given to recorders to the effect that this would be a good thing to do. That might have the desired effect, and it would indeed be an additional justification for keeping a number of these recorderships for whose retention some noble Lords are making a considerable struggle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Liewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have great sympathy with the noble Lord in this matter. What he seeks to achieve by the proposed new clause is obviously desirable. On the other hand I do not think we could very well put it into an Act of Parliament. In the first place the noble Lord by this proposed clause places a duty on clerks of the peace to notify the boroughs which have recorders of the dates of county quarter sessions, which is probably quite unnecessary. The second part of the clause suggests that clerks of the peace in boroughs should be required to inform their recorders, so that arrangements may be made for the holding of the borough quarter sessions at convenient times in such a way to string out, as it were, the quarter sessions of the county and the borough. That is a very desirable end. If noble Lord will leave the matter there I will undertake to approach the Bar Council and endeavour to get them to see to it, so far as they can, that recorders do act on this principle. One cannot, of course, lay down a hard and fast rule on busy barristers for a precise date, but we must show it to be a desirable end. I promise, if they use their influence, to reinforce it by such influence as I have. I am sure that it will be more effective in that way than by inserting this clause in the Bill. Perhaps, in these circumstances, the noble Lord may care to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks. It is just the kind of answer I wanted. I think that most of the recorders themselves will realise that this is the right way for them to act if they can possibly do so. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.37 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Record of dissent of Justice
" .—(1) A justice of the peace may immediately upon the rising of a magistrates' court of which he was a member require the justice's clerk to record upon the minutes of the court that such justice of the peace dissents wholly or in part from any decision of that court and also a concise statement of the grounds of such dissent whether as to acquittal, conviction, sentence or costs and the clerk shall thereupon make the appropriate entry in the minutes of the court.
(2) In the event of any appeal to quarter sessions or of any other proceedings whatsoever consequent upon or arising out of the decision in respect of which such dissent has been entered in the minutes as aforesaid the clerk to the justices shall transmit to quarter sessions or to the court of other tribunal in or before which such proceedings are taken a copy of the entry in the minutes required to be recorded under subsection {1) of this section."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a point that was not considered by either the Royal Commission or the Roche Committee. It represents a suggestion that was made, and I put the Amendment down to see whether the Committee were of the opinion that this would be an improvement or otherwise. From time to time magistrates are told that it is not desirable to express dissent with the decision of the court. Various devices are employed to get round the difficulty which frequently arises when one or more justices sincerely and honestly differ front their colleagues. Differences in open court are condemned by almost everybody, despite the fact that they occur in many courts of law.
Then there are the various subterfuges, such as a magistrate remaining out of court when a decision is announced, and so forth. There are occasions—though they are few compared with the total number of cases heard—when the magistrates are severely criticised for their decision. The magistrate who has himself differed from the majority may then feel a little hurt because his difference was never made known to the public. This clause seeks to overcome that difficulty. It might perhaps be called a little face-saving on behalf of a justice; but it does provide an opportunity for a man to put on record his dissent without any public disclosure of it being incurred. Then if later an appeal is laid

1135
against the decision, or if the decision of the court is criticised, the individual magistrate has the satisfaction of knowing that his difference of opinion is recorded. I think this might be an improvement in the procedure of magistrates' courts. It is possible that the Committee may prefer this Amendment to my next, but I shall be prepared to listen to any argument on the matter. I bee to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. The Government's view is that this would establish a very unsatisfactory precedent in regard to this type of matter; and indeed it seems exceedingly doubtful whether magistrates as a whole would welcome any such proposal. The idea that quarter sessions should know that the decision of the justices was not unanimous is not felt to he at all a good one. An appeal against conviction involves a rehearing of the whole case by the appeal committee of quarter sessions, or by the recorder if it is a borough court of quarter sessions. Quarter sessions ought to make up its mind on the evidence before it whether the balance of that evidence is or is not in favour of the conclusion reached by the bench without regard to the question whether the bench were or were not unanimous.
It does not follow that, because the bench were unanimous, they were right, nor of course that because an individual justice dissented that they were wrong. The same is true with regard to appeals in other types of case—against orders such as bastardy orders, and other orders of that kind, against which there is an appeal to quarter sessions from the court below. On an appeal against sentence, a quarter sessions has to consider whether the sentence imposed was too severe or too lenient, and it will hear argument on that point both on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defendant. It should hear this argument with an open mind and without any predisposition to a particular conclusion which obviously, I suggest to your Lordships, might result from knowing that the bench below were divided or that some of the justices below had dissented from the decision which had been come to by the court as a whole.
1136
On these grounds, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord who has just sat down is right on this. What is really required from the justices' room is a unanimous decision. It may be that there is give and take in the justices' room, as there is elsewhere, especially when it comes to deciding on the question of sentence. One justice's views modify those of another. If we had this procedure by which anybody might have his dissent notified, it would be much more difficult to secure those agreements in the future. I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that certainly the court of quarter sessions ought not to be swayed one way or the other by what has happened in the other court. It ought to bring its own judgment to bear upon the evidence that is brought before it and not be in the least influenced by what has happened in another court. I can understand my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, putting down this Amendment because, if we did not have this kind of procedure on Royal Commissions I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, would be. However, I think the Government are right to resist this particular Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: I wish in a few words to support the Government in this matter. From my experience on the bench and of retiring to the magistrates' room to discuss a matter on which some division of opinion was apparent, I am quite sure that the chances of securing a unanimous decision, and of preserving that harmonious spirit of give and take amongst the magistrates, could only be prejudiced if any such provision as this were in operation. It is equally clear that it is most desirable when a case goes to quarter sessions or to appeal that those who then have to decide the case should not he prejudiced in their minds by any revelation of there having been a difference of opinion among the magistrates in the lower court.
LORD MERTHYR: It is all very well to say that the quarter sessions should not be swayed by what goes on in the court below but, of course, no one can avoid the quarter sessions knowing the decision of the court below. If they are bound to know that the decision was to

1137
convict, it can be argued that there is no harm in their knowing that there was a difference of opinion. I do not want to pursue this matter further. I moved this Amendment to test the feeling of your Lordships in this matter; it was not my own original idea. I am satisfied with what the noble Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (2) to omit "police courts for" and insert "justice rooms of." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the following three Amendments on Clause 9 are all consequential upon an Amendment that was accepted by the Government at a previous sitting. The object of all of them is in the course of this Bill to call all these courts "magistrates' courts," and not by a number of names such as police courts, courts of petty session, and so forth. The Amendments are all consequential upon an Amendment already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("police courts for") and insert ("justice rooms of").(Viscount Templewood.)
LORD CHORLEY: Of course, we accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I have already dealt with this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, leave out from ("a") to ("be") in line 10, and insert ("magistrates' court").—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Viscount Temple-wood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 43, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Size and Chairmanship of Bench
10.—(1) The number of county or borough justices sitting to deal with a case as a court of quarter sessions, as a court of summary jurisdiction or as examining justices shall not be greater than the number prescribed in that behalf by rules made under this section.
(5) Rules made under this section may make provision as to the manner in which this section is to he administered and in particular—

(a) as to the arrangements to be made for securing the presence on the bench of enough, but not more than enough, justices; and

(b) as to the term of office and manner of election of the chairman and deputy chairmen of the justices in a petty sessions area, and the number of deputy chairmen to be elected in any such area.

(6) Rules for the purposes of this section shall be made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is another consequential Amendment of the same kind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave our from ("sessions") to ("shall") in line 14, and insert ("or as a magistrates' court").—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to omit "the number" (where that phrase occurs a second time) and to insert:
"seven in the case of quarter sessions and five in any other case or such lesser number as may be."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a matter which we have not yet discussed in this debate. The question here is whether the number of justices to sit in court should be limited or unlimited. I venture to say that there is a strong feeling in the country that there should be some limit to the numbers sitting on the bench, both at petty sessions and at quarter sessions. But whilst I entirely support that must say that there are a minority who say that there should be no limit. The matter was fully discussed by the magistrates themselves

1139
at the annual meeting of their Association twelve months ago. After a lively debate, a vote was taken and by a large majority the magistrates decided that it was desirable that the numbers should be limited. The Royal Commission said they should be limited, and I have put down this Amendment to give effect to what I think is a general desire.
There has been a tendency over a number of years in recent Acts of Parliament to limit the number of justices on the bench. I need mention only the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933, and the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act of 1937, both of which limited the numbers to sit in certain cases. This merely carries the principle a step further. The Committee have heard instances, particularly in regard to licensing cases, of any number up to thirty justices sitting on the bench, and I need not remind your Lordships that in quarter sessions there is no limit to the number sometimes found on a bench, because some counties have many hundreds of justices. I know of counties where a very large number do sit on a bench and insist, as they have right to do, in taking part in a vote on every point of law. And that, of course, holds up the business.
The real point is whether this limitation should be effected by rules or by Statute. Some people feel so keenly about this point that, to be frank, they are not content to leave it to the Lord Chancellor to make rules on the subject, because they feel apprehensive as to the number the Lord Chancellor would fix. I think I am carrying out the wishes of a considerable number of people in moving this Amendment. Of course it must be a matter of opinion as to the precise number that sit on a bench. Nearly everybody would suggest an odd number because, as the chairman does not have a casting vote, there would be less likelihood of getting an equality. I think my Amendment represents a general view—namely, that the maximum should be seven in the case of quarter sessions and five, or such lesser number as may be desired, in any other case. I would remind the Committee that under this Bill, magistrates are for the first time to be paid expenses for coming to court. That is another reason why it is not desirable to have a very large number
1140
sitting on the bench, when everybody knows that a smaller number could do the work perfectly well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out ("the number") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. Sometimes a large number of magistrates turn up at quarter sessions for the morning of the first day, and then they drift away, or if they do not drift away there are a large number who cannot be in close contact with the chairman in the conduct of the case, and who in some instances, such as those which Lord Merthyr has quoted, actually wish to take part in the final adjudication. This question has been discussed over and over again in the Magistrates' Association. It is true that there are active magistrates who would like to see the number unlimited. At the same time a very large majority of the active magistrates wish to see a reduction on these lines. Their view is confirmed by the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I suppose the only question is whether the number should be laid down in the Bill or in the rules. I am inclined to think that it would be wise for the Government to put it into the Bill, if only because there has been a great deal of discussion on this question in magisterial circles.
LORD CALVERLEY: The Royal Commission were in no doubt about this. Lord Merthyr agreed with us that the number of magistrates should be limited. Only yesterday I was looking through the Lord Chancellor's advice, I think to borough courts, that five and no more is a good number for the ordinary sittings of a magistrates' court. I certainly agree that it would be better if we could have a rule limiting the number in regard to quarter sessions to no more than seven and for magistrates' courts to five. It would help in regard to efficiency and also in the smoother administration of the law. We have heard some curious cases where the bench has been cluttered up at quarter sessions, usually when there was a good lunch afterwards! With regard to magistrates' courts. I am in no doubt whatever that there should be no more than five. This is what obtains

1141
at the present, on the instructions of the Lord Chancellor.
LORD RAGLAN: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. In my own quarter sessions, about forty or fifty magistrates usually turn up on the first day. But the sessions often go on for a second or third day. What happens then? The chairman and the clerk of the peace go round amongst the septuagenarians and say "Can you manage to sit to-morrow and Friday?", and generally from amongst them they are able to obtain the number to make up the bench. If the number were limited the effect would be that nobody except the septuagenarians would ever sit at quarter sessions at all. So much for quarter sessions. Now we come to petty sessions. The court in which I sit has seven magistrates. Sometimes, they all turn up; sometimes only six; and sometimes, a lesser number. If five were the rule, the clerk would have to write round to the magistrates to ask whether they were going to attend, and if all seven said they were he would have to pick out two and say they were not wanted. If six said they were going to sit, he would have to pick out one and tell him he was not wanted. This court sits only once a month, so that the magistrates have not a great deal of opportunity to learn their duties as magistrates. If they were debarred from taking such chances as they now get, they would be less efficient than they are now. In conclusion, I would say that this would cause a great lack of experience in magistrates, a great deal of unnecessary trouble to clerks of courts, and, so far as I can see, would be of no benefit to anybody.
4.57 p.m.
LORD ROCHE: As a rule I have the greatest satisfaction in supporting any Amendment moved by Lord Merthyr. I do not always succeed in obtaining my desire to do so, but in a fair number of cases I hope I do. To this proposal, however, as a chairman of quarter sessions for many years I am opposed. My Committee, in their Report, had to consider the number to sit at petty sessions. Unhappily, Lord Merthyr was otherwise engaged at that time and was not a party to the decision. The decision was that the maximum number should be seven. Lord Merthyr wants a different figure. But I suggest that in
1142
any event this point ought to be left to the rules; it would be thoroughly unsatisfactory to deal with it by Statute.
With regard to quarter sessions I share very much the view which has been expressed by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I think it would interest the Committee to know that I was discussing this matter last week with my noble friend Lord Maenan, a chairman of quarter sessions for twenty years. The Committee will be pleased to hear that in spite of his age, or perhaps because of it, he is recovering satisfactorily from a minor operation, although he is unable to attend the House. He asked me especially whether I had had an opportunity to express the view that quarter sessions should be left alone on this matter, except in so far as they might be guided by a scheme which the Royal Commission suggested they might prepare and which should be subject to rules made by the Lord Chancellor. What he says, in effect, is this: "I have not the slightest difficulty in sitting with and consulting at least a dozen to thirteen people at quarter sessions." The main object should be, he says, to get as many justices to attend the sessions as possible, because they learn their duties there very much better than they would as the result of a course of instruction which might be offered to them under this Bill. That was his view; I confess that I share it.
I believe that by seeing justice administered under, I hope, a properly skilled chairman they learn a great deal. I am quite certain, however, that they will not attend court if they are told that they will not be allowed to do anything. Therefore, I would summon as many as possible, though it should be made plain who, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, should adjudicate in particular cases. Not more than twelve or thirteen should adjudicate, and that is quite possible and feasible. I can assure your Lordships that it is not difficult for a chairman to consult with that number without any impropriety or undue discussion. You have six justices gathered around you on your right and an equal number gathered around you on your left. You pass the word down that the question is whether the sentence should be six months or twelve months, or penal servitude. There is no difficulty about it whatever, but limitation by Statute would,

1143
in my view, be profoundly disadvantageous, besides being unnecessary. Therefore I oppose this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask this? For some years at the quarter sessions with which I am concerned we have had and worked successfully a rota system. Under it the justices specified on the rota are the only ones to sit on the bench. Those not on the rota come to court for the civil business, which usually takes from ten to fifteen minutes at the beginning of the proceedings, and I am glad to think that usually they stay on afterwards in the side gallery listening to cases and gaining their experience that way. I think it is most important that we should keep the bench small. We have adopted this rota system by a resolution of tie justices. I should like to know whether, unless we have something in the Statute, there is at the present time any power of enforcing the rota system. On one occasion—and it has only occurred once—someone who was not on the rota wanted to sit on a certain occasion. As chairman, I told him that it was not right that he should sit, and I suggested that he should sit in the side gallery. The man was very pleasant about it, and did as I suggested. But I have always wondered whether I had any authority to tell him not to sit on the bench.
I believe it is important that we should keep the numbers actually adjudicating on cases small, though I agree with Lord Roche about the great value of justices, listening to cases being heard and, by being present in court, learning how to carry out their judicial duties. That is an extremely good thing. But I think it is altogether had to have twelve or more justices all around you to consult. In fact the only way of doing that with any dignity, is for the whole bench to leave the court. In most courts you cannot whisper in such a way that someone does not hear. So it may be that a person not on the bench overhears someone saying: "Give him two years" and someone else saying "Bind him over." I hope that, whether by regulation or in the Statute, we shall limit to a small number the justices actualy adjudicating. I do not much mind in which of the two ways this is done, so long as it is done. I should also like to know whether the
1144
chairman presiding at quarter sessions does wrong if he does as I did in dealing with one of my fellow justices only a few months ago.
LORD CHORLEY: I think there is general agreement that it is desirable to limit the number of magistrates adjudicating in these cases. As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, when he had underlined that point, the whole question here actually is whether it is better done in the Statute or by rules. Some of your Lordships have advocated that it should be done in the Statute itself; others have felt that the best way of doing it is by rules. The Government's view is that the latter course is right. If your Lordships will look at subsection (5) of this clause you will see that provision is actually made for the drawing up of rules by the Lord Chancellor to deal with this very point. The Royal Commission, in the passage in which they deal with this matter, stress the very varied sorts of conditions which exist in different parts of the country. Some sessions are much busier than others; some have a much larger number of magistrates than others. I suggest that to do this by Statute would mean doing it in a way which would deprive us of much-needed elasticity. If in fact it were found that the section did not work satisfactorily it would mean that an amending Act would have to be passed, whereas if the Lord Chancellor's rules are found to be not quite right in one way or another they can easily be put right. There is a precedent in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules for the limiting of the number of justices who may sit as justices at any juvenile court. Rules were in fact made under that Act, the Juvenile Courts Constitution Rules, 1933. and I understand that they have worked well. I suggest that that is much the best way of doing what is required and, in the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to make just two or three observations on what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said that there would be difficulties. If I may borrow arguments from those who opposed me I would say that in juvenile and matrimonial courts this limitation works quite well.

1145
The troubles which the noble Lord envisages do not, I think, occur. It is a fairly well accepted view that to have a very large number of justices at quarter sessions all jointly adjudicating upon a pure point of law is unnecessary, to say the least of it. Of course Lord Llewellin apprehended quite rightly when he said that he had no power whatever to order a magistrate off the bench. If the magistrate had objected I do not know what would have happened. I suggest that it is desirable to put that matter in order. When one remembers that a question of whether a statement is or is not evidence has to be decided by every magistrate present, I think it will be apparent that some alteration is needed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I say that I did not order the magistrate off the bench? I saw him before the bench assembled and asked him not to sit.
LORD MERTHYR: I accept that, of course. I would like to stress that, obviously, there is no objection whatever to magistrates going to court to learn their job. That is what hundreds of them do now, without sitting on the bench at all.
A point which has always bothered me is why it is necessary to have these amateur magistrates to assist the chairman of a county bench of quarter sessions. The chairman of a county bench of quarter sessions is, after all legally qualified, and it is not considered necessary to have even one justice to assist a recorder. In many instances, moreover, a recorder has not such high legal qualifications as a chairman of a quarter sessions. I have never quite understood that difference, though the history of it I do understand. In the old days a recorder was qualified and a chairman of quarter sessions was not. But that is not the case now. That is one more reason why I think alteration is necessary in this connection. There is not very much between us here; the only point is whether what we want should be done by rules or done by Statute. Certainly, I am not going to divide the House on that, and I beg leave to withdraw, my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR: This is a small point which I feel would be dealt with
1146
better by the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter. It is a matter in which he takes a special interest and I feel he ought to he moving this Amendment. However, I have been asked to do so. It is felt that whoever holds the office of custos rotulorum should sit on the bench as a matter of right whether or not it happens to be his turn to sit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that in the case of a court of quarter sessions of a county the said numbers shall be exclusive of the custos rotulorum.")—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: As apparently the noble Lord thinks I ought to have moved this Amendment perhaps he will allow me to support him. I hope it can also be extended to petty sessions, because under the Royal Commission's suggestions, the custos rotulorum should visit the petty sessions and I think it is desirable that he should be able to do so. If the noble Lord would extend this to petty sessional courts, I should be willing to support him.
LORD LLEWELLYN: Would this matter not he dealt with under the rules? If we had passed the previous Amendment, this Amendment would have followed automatically. We should be content at the present moment with the assurance from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that in drafting rules under this clause he would make provision for the custos rotulorum to have the right to visit all his courts to see what kind of justice is being done therein.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel that what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, just said is right. Now that the whole matter is to be dealt with by rules I think this must be the subject of one of the rules. So far as quarter sessions are concerned I think the number ought to be inclusive of the custos rotulorum. I have not considered the question of petty sessions, but I give the noble Lord the assurance that when I come to redraft the rules I will go into this matter very carefully. As your Lordships know, the custos rotulorum plays a very important part in the whole scheme of things. It is from him I receive my information, and if I have a good custos, as I usually have, on

1147
whom I can rely to make a point of visiting all his benches, and who knows all about them, I have a valuable source of information of what is going on. I will do all I can to encourage the custos to visit his benches and see how they work. With regard to petty sessions, I am inclined to think that, as the onlooker sometimes sees most of the game, the custos might see rather more if he is not on the bench.
LORD MERTHYR: I am quite satisfied with what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is really, a drafting Amendment. The words "as such" are inserted for this reason. When a stipendiary magistrate is sitting in a court in his area, the chairman and deputy chairman as such shall not be entitled to preside, but if a stipendiary magistrate happens to be a justice for another area and sits there in his capacity as an ordinary justice, this provision ought not to apply. The Amendment secures that it applies only when a stipendiary magistrate is sitting as such. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, at end insert ("as such"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.14 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (5) (b) to leave out "and manner of election." The noble Lord said: It will be clear to your Lordships that this Amendment and the next are consequential one upon the other and therefore, by leave of the House, I propose to deal with the subject in a simple way. On many benches throughout the country the family is a happy one. But there are occasions where that condition of affairs does not exist, and I think it would be a good thing if it were put into the Bill that the election of the chairman and deputy chairman should be by secret ballot. It would remove possible unpleasantness and possibly let the majority of the bench have the proper say in the election of the chairman and deputy chairman. I do not know whether this would be covered under the rules, but I think the principle
1148
involved is sound and I hope it will be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 37, leave out ("and manner of election").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I think this Amendment is very desirable, though whether it is put in the Bill or in the rules does not matter a great deal.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As chairman of a rural bench I should like strongly to support this Amendment. I have been chairman now for ten years and, as I have stated in your Lordships' House when we had a debate on this subject, every year they re-elect me as chairman. I like being chairman and they know like it and, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagen, says, we are a happy family. But I am sixty-nine, and although I do not feel very ancient or very stupid other people may think I am—and possibly my colleagues may think so. It would be much more satisfactory, and I should feel a great deal easier, if election were by secret ballot. I know that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor proposes to do this by rule, but I think it would be better to put it in the Bill, so that we should know where we are.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Frankly, I intend to have election by secret ballot. I do not much care whether this is covered in the rules or in the Bill. I will willingly put it in the Bill, if that accords with the view of the majority of your Lordships, but I think the right place for it would be at page 9, line 19. Subsection (2) would then read:
"In any petty sessions area there shall be a chairman and one or more deputy chairmen of the justices chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for the area by secret ballot."
I think that is the right place. We would then take out "manner of election" and insert some other phrase appropriate to the secret ballot. I should have to make rules about nominations, votes by proxy and so on. I think the best thing to do now, since I gather that this principle represents the wishes of your Lordships, would be for me to agree to insert it in the Bill by amending the later clause. Perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now and I will put down an Amendment on Report stage.
LORD O'HAGAN: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD GODDARD: Is it proposed that there shall be a secret ballot when there is only one nomination? Is it going to be sent round to see whether anybody is going to "blackball" it? If this is put in as it stands, there must be a secret ballot every time there is an election of a chairman. I see no reason for it, unless there is a contest. I think this ought to be dealt with by rule.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I should have thought the case we want to cover is that of an excellent person who has been chairman for a great many years and nobody quite likes to say to him, "We want a change." Nor does anyone want a special procedure or a special appointment. What we want is a normal arrangement, where nobody can say that it is aimed at any particular individual, which comes about each year as a matter of course. I am glad the Lord Chancellor is going to put this in the Bill, and in spite of what the Lord Chief Justice has said, I hope that a secret ballot will be taken as a matter of routine every year.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is The Lord Chief Justice will see that otherwise we have this sort of danger. You might get somebody saying: "Our friend Lord Templemore is here. I do not suppose anybody is going to vote against him. We do not need to have a secret ballot, or a ballot at all." In those circumstances, they might hesitate to say that they wanted to get rid of his Lordship. I think it is better to go through the form of the secret ballot, even though there is no nomination, and I will work out rules as to nomination and that sort of thing.
LORD MERTHYR: May I say, with all respect to the Lord Chief Justice, that in my court we have a secret ballot every year, and there are no nominations at all? Each justice is given a slip of paper and is asked to write down the name of the person he wishes to be chairman. It works very well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsec-section (6), after "Chancellor" to insert:
"after consultation with the courts committee for the area concerned."
1150
The noble Lord said: The rules to be made under this clause cover a wide variety of subjects. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will realise that there is a good deal of difference in this matter between boroughs and counties, between one county and another, and even between two parts of the same county. I have no doubt at all that those who are to be regulated by these rules will be regulated much more happily if they first have the opportunity of making representations to the Lord Chancellor on the regulations he proposes to make. I think the courts committee is the most appropriate body through whom those representations should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 42, after ("Chancellor") insert the said words.—(Lord Raglan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I could not undertake to do this. When I am founding a general rule I could not undertake to consult with every magistrates' courts committee which would be affected by the rule. I am an accessible sort of person—at least, I hope I am. I shall welcome any observations from any magistrate's courts committee, and I am sure I shall receive them. I can assure the noble Lord that I know the wisdom of trying to carry with you the people concerned when you are making rules. I do not want to promulgate rules as though I were some law maker from on high. I realise that I am dealing with humans, and I think I know how to treat them. Therefore, I shall try to be reasonable and amenable in what I do. But I cannot undertake to put myself under an obligation to consult with each magistrate's court committee with regard to rules which I promulgate. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: What we are afraid of—not with the present Lord Chancellor, but possibly with a successor—is that these regulations will come down on us like a bolt from the blue before we have any opportunity of making any representations about them. Unless some machinery can be devised to ensure that they will be circulated in draft, or something of that kind, before they are put into force we are in a very uncomfortable position.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I should like to do. I should like to indicate in some way beforehand the rules I am thinking of promulgating, and invite observations on them so that I may see how they affect adversely particular areas. People will then write to me and say what they think of the rules. That is what I am thinking of doing.
LORD RAGLAN: In view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Age of bench in juvenile courts
11.—(1) The rules with respect to the formation and revision of juvenile court panels made under paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or section fifty-one of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, may include provision for securing that a justice shall not be a member of a panel after he has attained the retiring age prescribed by the rules.
(2) Those rules may also include provision for securing that a justice is not appointed a member of a panel after he has attained such age as may be so prescribed.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to add to subsection (1):
"and shall provide that a juvenile court may consist wholly or in part of men or women."
The noble Lord said: It is at present laid down that the juvenile court shall consist of one man and, so far as practicable, one woman. That was laid down in 1933, when it was thought there were not sufficient women justices to lay down without qualification that there must be a woman on the bench. I should have thought that by this time there were enough women on the bench for us to adopt the preferable course of indicating that a juvenile court should be constituted either of men or women in any number up to the maximum of three. A strong reason for making this suggestion is this. The present position is that you can have a court entirely composed of women to try an adult. No matter what the crime, how old the adult may be, or what the sex, a court composed entirely of women can try the case. Yet a court composed entirely of women cannot try a child. I cannot see any reason for that distinction. In order to remove any possible difficulties in rural areas, where it may be difficult to find
1152
exactly the right people of the right sex on the bench I think it would be desirable to make it wider and say that the juvenile court may be composed of either men or women. There must be two—that is laid down—there may be three; but not more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the existing rules relating to the metropolis a juvenile court, which as the noble Lord rightly says cannot consist of more than three, must be composed of at least one man and at least one woman; the sex of the third is unspecified. In the rest of the country, however, though equally the maximum number is three, it is provided that one must be a man and, so far as practicable, one a woman. The reason for that is that there are still unfortunately areas in the country where we cannot get sufficient women justices. If we are going to try—as I hope we shall—to enforce a considerably reduced age limit for these people sitting on juvenile courts, it may be more difficult than ever. For my own part, I am satisfied that the best court you can get, other things being equal, is the court which consists of one man and one woman. I think you want both elements on the court in the juvenile courts, and women have played a most valuable part. I should be sorry to see a court composed entirely of men, though I realise that it is necessary in certain areas, because you cannot get the women. Therefore, I would rather leave it as we have it.
We are here dealing with the power to make rules. Clause 11 of the Bill says:
"The rules with respect to the formation and revision of juvenile court panels made under paragraph 1"—
of the Act of 1933—
"or section fifty-one"—
of the Scottish Act—
"may include provision for securing that a justice shall not be a member of a panel after he has attained the retiring age prescribed by the rules."
Apart from that, I have these general powers to make rules. What I want to see, so far as possible—and I want the Lord Lieutenant to help me—is that in every area I have enough women of a

1153
suitable to be able to take their part in the juvenile courts. If we carry out the provision of, so far as practicable, one woman—I look forward to the time when it will be practicable everywhere to have one woman—we shall then have our juvenile benches, following the existing rule, consisting of one man and one woman and a third person, whoever it may be. I think that is desirable, and I should he sorry to lend colour to the idea that we ought to have these juvenile courts consisting of members of one sex only. I do not think it is desirable. The much better way is to have members of both sexes on these juvenile courts, and therefore I would be sorry to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: One might describe what the Lord Chancellor has just said by saying that there are not enough women to man these courts. I hope that in any rules he issues he will state the case rather more strongly than he has. "So far as practicable" seems to me rather a colourless phrase. If he could tell us that he would set out the ideal he has in mind, it would help a great deal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly bear that in mind.
LORD RAGLAN: The Home Secretary has somewhat anticipated the passing of this Bill by issuing a circular in which he strongly recommends that all magistrates should be removed from the juvenile courts at the age of sixty-five, and no magistrate appointed to a juvenile court after he reaches the age of fifty. Next year I shall reach the age at which, in the opinion of the Royal Commission and, apparently, the Home Secretary, I shall be too near my second childhood to have any sympathy with my first. If I do what the Secretary of State recommends, I shall retire from the juvenile panel and then have to find some person below the age of fifty to appoint to the bench. There is no vacancy on the bench at present and, therefore, the person I appoint will be supernumerary. As another member of the panel is also over sixty-five, I shall have to find a second and then there will be two supernumeraries on the bench. The effect of that is that the people about whom the noble Viscount was talking yesterday—the chairmen who have shown themselves
1154
to be so brilliant—would be out of court altogether. They are all over fifty, and they would not have the faintest chance of ever being appointed magistrates.
In considering what the effect would be, I took steps to find out the ages of all the magistrates in my county. I have about 160 magistrates and only seven are below the age of fifty. Therefore, if this rule is put into force the result will be that for the next five or six years, at any rate, almost all the magistrates who are appointed to the bench —there are twenty juvenile courts—will have to be below the age of fifty. I am not saying that that may not he a desirable thing, but it will be a complete revolution in our methods up to date. Hitherto, the duty of the advisory committee has been to select persons from those whose names are sent in, and they are seldom below fifty years of age. The committee will have to do something quite different. They will have to hunt for suitable people below fifty years of age and will have to exclude the class of persons who have hitherto been appointed—that is to say, the people who have distinguished themselves as chairmen, mayors, retired lawyers, or even K.C's. All these people will be excluded in favour of persons below fifty years of age. I very much doubt whether the Home Secretary or other persons concerned have realised the extent of the revolution in appointing magistrates which this provision will bring about.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, on this matter. The other day a juvenile court had to be convened after this unfortunate circular had been sent out. The chairman, getting on for sixty-five, said: "I am going. I am not going to wait until I am kicked out." That rather upset the whole composition of the juvenile panel, and because of this unfortunate circular which was sent out before this Bill was considered a very capable chairman has been lost.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say something about this matter. I admit that the recommendations in the circular cannot possibly be put into force for a considerable time to come. However, I would like to ask all those responsible for the appointment of magistrates and for recommending names to me not to contemplate that

1155
we are going to have a spate of young people. I do not want that. I do not believe in spates at all. But in selecting magistrates, I do want advisory committees particularly to try to get some younger people if they possibly can—to get some young women in the middle thirties. I know it is very difficult to get young men. If all the Lords Lieutenant will bring their influence to bear on the advisory committees to try to look out for young people I, for my part, will not rigorously adhere to the numbers, as I sometimes do when I am dealing with older people. I will welcome them with open arms if I can get people of the right type.
As I said to the Royal Commission, I am sure it is true that although we grandparents think that we are extremely good with children, I cannot help thinking that we were better disciplinarians when we were parents and not grandparents. From the point of view of discipline, I am inclined to think that grandparents are apt to be rather a menace. I want to get more of the young people if I can, and I hope the Lords Lieutenant will do their best to help me.
LORD MERTHYR: I entirely accept everything which the noble and learned Viscount has said about this Amendment. In withdrawing it, may I ask him this? When he is framing rules regarding the numbers of magistrates to sit in court, would he bear in mind the present position which allows the entire bench to consist of one sex, either male or female, and results in the rather extraordinary position which I have already mentioned, that you can have all women trying an adult but you cannot have all women trying a child? I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to insert after subsection (1) the following new subsection:—
" () The Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, shall have effect as if for the references therein to the Secretary of State there were substituted references to the Lord Chancellor."
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to try and bring into line the differences in framing these rules and enactments, where in some the Home
1156
Secretary and in others the Lord Chancellor appears. In the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor are mentioned in the same Schedule. To a fairly large number of people, it seems that these rules should be made by one authority or the other, and nearly everyone to whom I have spoken prefers the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State. It appears to be very incongruous that the Secretary of State appoints the juvenile court justices in London, whereas, so far as I am aware, other juvenile court justices and all other justices are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Why the Secretary of State should come in and do this, I really do not know. I am not saying that he does not do it well, but it complicates matters to an undue extent to have these two authorities doing what clearly one could do in a manner which would be more plain to everybody.
I think an Amendment should be made which would substitute the Lord Chancellor for the Secretary of State in all these matters. The position in which the Secretary of State deals with the court buildings, the furniture of the court buildings and so forth could still be preserved, while the Lord Chancellor would deal with the personnel. At present both are dealing with the personnel side. In order to try to clear this matter up, I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I should like to support Lord Merthyr in this matter. There is an example of dual control in the circular that has been issued. If the Lord Chancellor had been in control of the juvenile courts, that circular would never have been sent out until this Bill had become an Act and he was ready to act. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will take over the juvenile courts in the country.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Perhaps as an ex-Home Secretary I may make an observation on this Amendment. In spite of my connection with the Home Office, I am afraid that I take the view that the time has now come to transfer responsibilities of this kind to the Lord Chancellor. My reason is that in recent years the Home Office has entered much

1157
more into the field of direct administration, particularly in questions regarding children, than was the case in the past. As noble Lords will remember, most of the responsibilities regarding children under the recent Children Act come under the Home Office, and I take the view that that being so it is much better to distinguish between executive action and what is really judicial action. Now that the Home Office is administering so much of this executive work, I think it is better that the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, should deal with judicial questions of this kind. This Amendment, I admit, raises the issue only upon a small point, but it is a big issue, and in saying that I am making no criticism of the Home Office in the past. I believe that the Home Office has carried out its duties very well. I make my argument upon the basis that things have changed since the Home Office became a great administrative Department in this field regarding children.
5.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with what has just been said: this is a very small question but it is a facet of a much bigger question which underlies it, and that is the division of responsibilities between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. Whatever the abstract proposition may be as to who ought to have certain things to do, I have considered how far I can possibly go, and I want to tell your Lordships how far I am prepared to go with the complete approval of my colleagues. I am prepared to take over the appointment of recorders. I think it is felt by my colleague the Home Secretary, and incidentally I think by my colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy, that it is probably better that the appointment of recorders should come to me, because, after all, as Lord Chancellor I am rather out of the hurly-burly of political life, and in your Lordships' House I do not think I am subjected to pressure of the sort I might be subjected to were I in another place. That I am prepared to do. But I need hardly tell your Lordships I do not want to seek further fields to conquer in this office, because I have a very small staff and I have them housed in this building; as your Lordships know, I have people working in little rooms at the very tops of the turrets. I have no more little rooms, and I do not want any
1158
more staff. I believe that the whole success, such as it is, of the Lord Chancellor's Department is that it has a very small staff and he himself is able to keep a general eye on the whole thing. He knows everybody and they all know him, and it is not one of those huge offices which spread out all over the place. I will do that; I will take on the appointment of recorders, but I really must draw the line at that. I cannot take on anything more. I have not the staff and I have not the accommodation.
I now relate those observations to this Amendment. So far as the metropolitan police magistrates, the stipendiary magistrates, and the administrative matters (one of which is dealt within this Amendment) are concerned, I cannot deal with them. Physically it is impossible; whether it is right that I should deal with them I am not concerned to argue. I just tell your Lordships that I cannot do it. I have not the staff, and I have already too much work to do. I cannot concern myself with extra work if I am going to take a personal interest in and personal charge of it— and in my office I am quite convinced that I must take a personal interest in it; I must go into these things and not simply sign on the dotted line as is inevitable in a great many offices.
Turning to this particular matter of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933, I may fairly say this. Neither the Home Secretary nor I live in isolation; we neither of us live in ivory towers. We consult with each other over many matters and there never has been the slightest disagreement or awkwardness between us in the working of this Act. In that I can speak not only for myself but for my predecessors. Since this Act was passed, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Secretary's Department have, so far as I know, got along perfectly happily in its working, and there has been no friction at all. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to let this arrangement stay. It is, of course, the fact that I have power to make rules for the formation and the periodical revision of panels of juvenile court justices onside the metropolitan areas; and the Secretary of State has power to direct, for instance, that there shall be only one panel for two or more petty sessional divisions, or he may, by subsequent order, provide for the sitting of juvenile courts

1159
constituted from that panel to be held at such places as he thinks desirable. So that I have the powers relating to such general matters as numbers and manner of selection of justices for the juvenile court, while he has powers and functions dealing with administrative questions—whether in any particular area there should or should not be one panel for two or more petty sessional divisions, and where the juvenile court should sit.
In the metropolitan police area he has the function of nominating the panel of justices for the London area, including, of course, the metropolitan police magistrate who is to act as chairman of the juvenile courts within the area. In fact that works perfectly well. If he finds anybody he thinks would be a suitable person for the task who is not already a justice—and sometimes it does happen —he comes to me and says, "Will you please make him a justice?" When the Lord Chancellor has made him a justice he can be appointed by the Home Secretary. The method has worked Without any hitch at all. The reason that there is this difference is, of course, because the administration of justice in the metropolitan police court area is a special concern of the Secretary of State. He recommends the appointment of metropolitan magistrates and of the chief magistrate and has power to make orders as to the divisions of the area to be served by each metropolitan magistrates' court, and the day of sitting of the courts.
I need hardly say that the constitution of the juvenile court panel is of special importance in the London area, in view of the amount of business that these courts have to do. Indeed, the Home Office has a division specially concerned with juvenile court matters. I neither want to have charge of that division, nor can I possibly house it. I want that division to remain where it is. I think it is desirable that it should remain there. I think these matters of administration are properly the concern of the Home Secretary and I do not want to take them over. Even if it were suitable that I should take them over, I cannot take them over. I hesitate to say that I will not take them over, because your Lordships might say to the contrary, but really it is quite impracticable. If I undertake the appointment of recorders I am taking over a burden which will nearly break
1160
me, and I do ask your Lordships to leave these other matters with the Home Secretary.
LORD CLYDESMU1R: Would the noble and learned Lord Chancellor confirm one point on which I am not quite clear? This is one of the few sections of the Act which applies also to Scotland, and, as I understand it, the relative Act is the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937. Would he confirm that as between the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Department which deals with matters of detail the working of that Act is also proceeding harmoniously and well?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perfectly happily and, broadly speaking, where I say "Home Secretary" you may read "Secretary of State for Scotland."
LORD CALVERLEY: The Committee may know that in Scotland there are only four juvenile courts, and so far the 1937 Act has been almost a failure. The evidence we received from very responsible persons showed a difference of opinion with the Lord Chancellor: they stated emphatically—especially the chief constables—that they preferred "granddads" to "dads" in the juvenile courts.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord's knowledge is a little out of date. Developments which are in progress will increase the number of juvenile courts.
LORD CALVERLEY: By how many?
LORD CLYDESMUIR: We are catching up.
LORD MERTHYR: I am relieved to hear that the Lord Chancellor will appoint recorders, and I know that many people will welcome that statement. I hope it is only a step in the direction of the final objective, which is that the Lord Chancellor should appoint all judicial officers, of whatever rank, from High Court Judges to magistrates.
The question of office accommodation and so forth is a very real difficulty. It was not forgotten by the Royal Commission, which made certain recommendations in order to try to put that matter right. It would not be proper to go into those matters now. I can see that no good purpose would be served by my pursuing the point, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment,

1161
observing that it is very puzzling to some people in the country to know which functions are carried out by which Departments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:
Rules of procedure
" .—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a rule committee for magistrates' courts, and may on the advice of and after consultation with the rule committee make rules for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice to be followed in magistrates' courts and by justices' clerks.
(2) The rule committee shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, the chief magistrate of the metropolitan stipendiary court at Bow Street and such number of other persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor as he may determine.
(3) Among the members of the committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor there shall be at least one justices' clerk, one practising barrister and one practising solicitor of the Supreme Court.
(4) The power to make rules conferred by this section shall (without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) thereof) include power to make provision as to—

(a) the practice and procedure of justices in exercising functions preliminary or incidental to proceedings before a magistrates' court;

(b) the service and execution of process issued by or for the purposes of a magistrates' court, including the service and execution in England and Wales of process issued in other parts of the United Kingdom;

(c) the keeping of records of proceedings before magistrates' courts and the manner in which things done in the course of or as preliminary or incidental to, any such proceedings may be proved in any legal proceedings

(d) the extent to which a justices' clerk may engage in practice as a solicitor or barrister;

(e) any other matters as to which immediately before the coming into force of this section provision is or can be made by virtue of the enactments and parts of enactments repealed by Part II of the Sixth Schedule to this Act.

(5) After the establishment of the rule committee, no rules shall be made by the Lord Chancellor under section ten of this Act except on the advice of or after consultation with the committee.
(6) Any Act passed before this Act, in so far as that Act relates to matters about which rules may be made under this section, shall have
1162
effect subject to any rules so made and may be amended or repealed by the rules accordingly.
Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the rules to reduce the number of justices required for any purpose by any Act.
(7) In subsection (4) of section thirty-three of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, for the reference to section seventeen of that Act there shall be substituted a reference to this section, and in subsection (2) of section five of the Dogs Act, 1906, the reference to rules shall be taken as a reference to rules under this section.
(8) Any rules, directions, forms or other instrument having effect under the enactments repealed by Part II of tile Sixth Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if contained in rules made under this section.
(9) The power to make rules conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) In this section the expression 'justices' clerk' includes a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court and a clerk at either of the justice rooms of the City of London."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This clause is, of course, borrowed from the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, put down. It has certain differences which, if necessary, we can discuss, but I want to make my acknowledgments at once to Lord Schuster. The idea is his, although in some unimportant respects the language which the draftsman has used is not quite the same, as that which Lord Schuster employed. Noble Lords thought on Second Reading that it was desirable in this Bill to provide for the constitution of a rule committee. This clause does that. I want considerable latitude as to how that rule committee should be composed, and this clause gives me that. We shall have to go rather slow. We must first of all see what the Summary Jurisdiction Acts provide and try to separate the procedure from the subsequent law. My ambition is before long to get a simplification of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and I think it is useful that I should have this power. I cannot say whether or not I shall be able to set up this committee at once, but in this matter I have wide power to constitute the committee. I think it is right that I should have that power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SCHUSTER: As the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to refer to my clause, I should like to say in the first place that I am glad that he has put down this clause, which is no doubt satisfactory to himself. I do not think it would be fair to your Lordships if I were to argue now on some of the technical difficulties which arise as between the noble and learned Viscount's draft and my own. My own draft was modelled as closely as it could be upon the Act of 1925, which set up a rule committee of the Supreme Court.
I should like to suggest one or two things to the Lord Chancellor. It will be noticed that I provided specifically for the representation on the rule committee of certain professional bodies, and I suggest with respect that it would be desirable that this requirement should be more closely specified than in the Lord Chancellor's clause. There is an omission in my clause. It has been suggested to me—and as soon as it was suggested I realised that through a lapse of memory I had made a mistake—that the custos rotulorum should serve on the rule committee. The custos rotulorum has an intimate connection with all matters associated with these courts; he visits them and presides over certain matters connected with them; and I think it is desirable that he should he on the committee. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having produced through his draftsmen a clause which he likes. He will pardon me if I say that I am immodest enough to like my own clause better; but I will sacrifice it on the altar of the Woolsack.
LORD GODDARD: I have some feeling about this clause, because it is going to impose another little task upon me. I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor has considered whether it would not be better, in these various Statutes which provide for rules of court, to let these rules be made, drafted or approved, by the existing rule committee—with, possibly, some co-opted members for particular purposes. Under the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 it was provided that a rule committee should be set up to make rules under that Act. The constitution of the committee was set out in the Act, just as it will be in this Bill. It consists of a Judge—I think the Chief
1164
Justice: I am not sure, because I was certainly not Chief Justice in 1907—a judge or two and a clerk, a chairman of a court of assize, a recorder and so forth. It was an ad hoc committee. It would be easy for this committee to meet and draft rules in the first instance. After a year or two perhaps the rules would want amending, and you would have to appoint another committee. Until you had appointed another committee nothing could be done. If these rules could be submitted to the rule committee of the Supreme Court, which consists of the Lord Chancellor, myself, the Master of the Rolls, a Lord Justice, the President and, I think, either two or three judges, certain members of the Bar and certain solicitors, you would have there a body that properly understands the making of rules and which would be able to make them very quickly.
The committee would meet whenever the Lord Chancellor thought it necessary; and as vacancies occurred he would appoint someone to this standing committee. If, for the purpose either of the Criminal Appeal Act or of this measure, we could have power to add to the rule committee perhaps a metropolitan magistrate or a county magistrate, or someone like that, I think we should get not only as satisfactory a body as the rule committee proposed in the Amendment, but a committee which would be always, so to speak, in session, in the sense that it could be called on at short notice, as it often is called on. As amendments are needed in the rules, and as additional rules are needed, in the light of experience, the committee can be called together without any trouble. But consider the number of people who will be on this committee. In addition to myself and the President of the Probate Division, there are to be the chief magistrate at Bow Street and nine other persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Of course, one knows quite well the sort of persons that the Lord Chancellor has in mind to appoint.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord says "nine." The Amendment says "such number."
LORD GODDARD: You are looking at the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Schuster. I am looking at the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I have it here:

1165
"the chief magistrate of the metropolitan stipendiary court at Bow Street and nine other persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor."
LORD LLEWELLIN: It is, "such number." It has been altered.
LORD GODDARD: I have the manuscript.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It is, "such number of other persons" on the printed list
LORD GODDARD: Then it goes on,
"Among the members…there shall he at least one justices' clerk, one practising barrister and one practising solicitor…"
That does not make it so bad. I might ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor if he would consider whether it would not be as well to have on the rule committee of the Supreme Court that power to co-opt one or two persons of the nature mentioned in his Amendment. I throw that out as a suggestion. Otherwise, of course, if I have to undertake it, I will undertake it and do the best I can. But I think the rule committee would be the most satisfactory body to male these rules.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask one question? I do not understand from this draft that the committee are going to make rules once and for all. From the drafting, it seems to me that it will be a standing committee. I should like to be corrected on that if I am wrong. My only other point is that I am rather sorry to see that persons like the chairman of quarter sessions and the chairman of a juvenile court have been left out, because I think that, if you select the right ones, they will have as much to contribute as the other persons named in the Amendment, a practising barrister, a practising solicitor and a justices' clerk. I think that a real working chairman, both of quarter sessions and of the juvenile court will be a valuable acquisition to a committee such as this, and will know just as much about the problems—I say this with great respect to the Lord Chief Justice—as he, not sitting in these particular courts, will himself know.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is meant to be a standing committee. They will go on and will have to meet from time to time, and then we shall find out any mistakes that may arise. I thought it better to have this standing committee
1166
rather than the other. The other standing committee is a committee for which I have the highest regard. We work happily, but we are all very busy men and I hesitate to ask, for instance, the Master of the Rolls. Why should he come and sit on this committee?
LORD GODDARD: Why should I?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Lord Chief Justice has got to, but I hesitate to ask some of those others. The President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division has to because there is a good deal of divorce work; but I do not want to become tied down too much. I like the idea of having a good chairman of quarter sessions. I think he would be very valuable. Also I think the juvenile court men would be valuable when dealing with juvenile courts, and perhaps always. But you must trust me and give me as much latitude as you can as to how to constitute my committee, and I will try to get together the best I can.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I have just a small drafting point. In subsection (2), as a result of the various Amendments that have been carried this afternoon, we call all these courts in the Bill "magistrates' courts." I imagine that it would be the "chief magistrate of the magistrates' court at Bow Street." Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would look into it and, if that is so, have that altered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it is not so, but I will look into it.
LORD ROCHE: I am sure the House is grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for accepting the manifest wish of the House and the two Reports, both of which have been unanimous in thinking that there should be a rule committee. I have only two questions or suggestions I should like to make. I suppose it is proper to say that the Lord Chancellor "may" and not "shall" appoint a rule committee, because one does not mandate a Lord Chancellor. If the Lord Chancellor says he means to do it, that should be good enough. I suggest that the rubric, "Rules of procedure," is unduly limiting, and that it should be "Rule committee." That should be the rubric, because the clause itself is wider than that.

1167
A serious point upon which I should like to be reassured is this. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that we would not be able to do this all in a moment, but subsection (5) reads:
"After the establishment of the rule committee, no rules shall be made by the Lord Chancellor under section ten of this Act except on the advice of or after consultation with the committee."
I should like to be reassured that the rule committee will be constituted before rules are made under Clause 10, because I regard the functions of the rule committee as vital to that clause. I should be very sorry to see the Lord Chancellor making rules under Section 10 and then the onus being put on the rule committee to alter them. It would be invidious. I should like the words "After the establishment of the rule committee" left out, so that the subsection would read:
"No rules shall be made by the Lord Chancellor under section ten of this Act except on the advice of or after consultation with the committee."
So far as I can see that would present no difficulty. They are the rules which are most vital to the working of the Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can see that. I can assure the House that by not appointing a rule committee I have no sinister idea of making a lot of rules. I will certainly look at the point to see what we can do. Of course, the rules which I make under Clause 10 are subject to annulment by this House, so that your Lordships will have a proper control over me. I do not want to make a lot of rules myself. I may have to make these rules quickly, but if I can get the rule committee functioning I would sooner have their advice on those rules before I promulgated them. However, will look into it and sec what I can do.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Establishment of magistrates' courts committees
12.—(1) Committees to be called magistrates' courts committees) shall be set up in accordance with the following provisions of this section with such functions in relation to justices' clerks, to the division of counties into petty sessional divisions and to other matters of an administrative character as are or may be provided by or under this Act or as they may be authorised to undertake by the Secretary of State.
(2)There shall be a magistrates' courts committee for each county and for each county borough:
Provided that—

(a) there may be a single magistrates' courts committee for an area (in this Act referred to as "a joint committee area") consisting of two or more counties, or of two or more county boroughs, or of one or more counties and one or more county boroughs; and

(b) a quarter sessions division of a county may be treated for the purposes of this section as a separate county.

(3) A magistrates' courts committee shall be composed of magistrates for the county or county borough for which the committee acts or, in the case of a magistrates' courts committee for a joint committee area, each such county or borough.
(4) A magistrates' courts committee acting for a county divided into petty sessional divisions shall include at least one of the magistrates for each of those divisions.
(5) The Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure for establishing magistrates' courts committees and with respect to the constitution and procedure of and other matters relating to those committees.
(6) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to magistrates' courts committees, the expression "county" means an administrative county exclusive of any county borough included therein for other purposes and the administrative county of Cornwall shall be deemed to include the Scilly Isles, so, however, that references to a county, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, shall include a quarter sessions division of a county which is for the time being to be treated for the purposes of this section as a separate county.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "divisions" to insert "to the provision of courses of instruction for justices." The noble Lord said: I am moving to insert as one of the functions of this new magistrates' courts committee the provision of courses of instruction for justices. This Amendment ties up with the one at the top of page 7 of the Marshalled List, which says:
"It shall be the duty of every magistrates' courts committee, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Lord Chancellor, to make and administer schemes providing for courses of instruction for justices of their area."
I think (that in all parts of this House we want to see these new training courses for magistrates established. Secondly, we shall probably all be agreed that, if they are administered by the justices of an area through the magistrates' courts committee of that area, they are more likely

1169
to be acceptable to the justices of that area than if they are imposed from outside. On the other hand—and this appears from my Amendment after Clause 12—in order to get some kind of uniformity in the practices of different areas and the magistrates' courts committees, I hope that this will all be carried through in accordance with arrangements that are to be approval by the Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt that in making those arrangements he will take into account the views of the Magistrates' Association which has been one of the chief protagonists in trying to get these courses of training started. I think this is the proper way of doing it and, with some confidence that the Government may also take that view, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("divisions") insert ("to the prevision of courses of instruction for justices").—(Lord Llewellin.)
6.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is a very important Amendment, but I hope it is entirely uncontroversial; I think it is. Nine magistrates out of tea are agreed that they would like to have facilities of this kind prepared for them, and I think nine magistrates out of ten would take the view that these courses should not he imposed upon them by any Government Department. That would mean a direct interference by the Executive in the affairs of the Judicature. I think, therefore, that the plan suggested in my noble friend's Amendment is the right one—namely, that the magistrates' courts committee in each case should be responsible for making the scheme. At the same time, I think that many magistrates' courts committees will find it useful to have at their disposal the kind of model scheme that is being prepared by the Magistrates' Association in close contact with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. I think the result of a plan of this kind Will first of all, that the Executive will not be dictating to the Judicature and, secondly, that Whitehall will not be dictating to the various localities. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put the Committee out of suspense
1170
immediately by saying that I willingly accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (1) to substitute "Lord Chancellor" for "Secretary of State." The noble Lord said: I gather that this is an Amendment that the Lord Chancel or will not accept. I gathered that because he told us frankly a moment or two ago that he was prepared in his office to take over the appointment of recorders, for which I think we should all be grateful. I consider it would be far better done in the Lord Chancellor's office and it leads directly to other judicial appointments on which his recommendation is the one that holds sway. I also put down an Amendment to impose upon him the duty of appointing recorders. Being the kind of fellow who is happy with half a loaf if he cannot get more, and having got the more important new concession that the Lord Chancellor will undertake that further job, it would be ungracious of me to persist with this Amendment, and for those reasons I do not move it.
LORD WINSTER: The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has unfortunately become ill and to his regret is unable to be here to move the Amendments which stand in his name. It is a group of Amendments which aims at enabling a large petty sessional division to break away from county administration and to set up its own magistrates' courts committee. It is a point of view which I believe has found support in the Report of the Roche Committee—
LORD ROCHE: No, emphatically not.
LORD WINSTER: I am wrongly informed about that, apparently. At any rate, I venture to move the first of these Amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, in order to obtain the views of the Government and perhaps of some of the Committee upon them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, leave out the second ("and").—(Lord Winster.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I hope we shall not have more of these magistrates' courts committees than are really necessary. One of the functions of the magistrates'

1171
courts committee is to recommend to the Home Secretary the boundary of the petty sessional division, and if a magistrates' courts committee is set up to be co-terminus with the boundary of a particular petty sessional division it is clear that that function of the magistrates' courts committee ceases to exist. The second function, or one of the other functions, of the magistrates' courts committee is to see whether one or two neighbouring petty sessional divisions can make use of the services of the same justices' clerk, so that they can employ a fully paid officer to serve both petty sessional divisions. That, again, would go by the board, if this authority were co-terminus with one particular petty sessional division. For these two reasons, I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, which would substantially alter the whole basis on which the magistrates' courts committees are to be set up, and on which they are to work.
LORD ROCHE: I rise only to say that it is quite natural that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, probably at short notice, had not completely mastered that lengthy Report which is referred to as the "Roche Committee Report." But so far from deriving any support from that Report, this Amendment would cut radically across the recommendations, which are to make larger and not smaller areas. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, that it would be very undesirable to adopt this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are not prepared to accept this Amendment for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, gave, and to which I would add another. One of the functions of the magistrates' courts committee is to review an area within the county. For that reason it is very desirable that they should be able to look at a county as a whole. Secondly, there is the consideration of magistrates' clerks, and the possible merging of them together. Then there is a third reason. Assuming there is not going to be a merger of clerks, it is desirable to be able to look at a county as a whole to see that there is the same standard for the remuneration of the magistrates' clerks in the county, to ensure that one area is not paying more than another. The Government and the
1172
Reche Committee thought that the essence of the matter was that there should be these large areas, with one magistrates' courts committee looking at the area as a whole. For those reasons I cannot accept any of the three Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crook.
LORD WINSTER: Having listened to what the Lord Chancellor has said, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER THE MARQUESS OF EXETER moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
" () The custos rotulorum of a county shall by virtue of his office be a member of the magistrates' courts committee for such county."
The noble Marquess said: I think a little explanation is necessary to start with. The custos rotulorum of a county is responsible, with his advisory committee, for recommending to the Lord Chancellor the persons to be placed upon the commission. When he does that he considers the location of the justices. As I understand this Bill, the petty sessional divisions can be altered, or a plan submitted for the alteration of the boundaries of the petty sessional divisions. Unless the custos rotulorum and his advisory committee have some prior idea of what is going to be done, the situation with regard to the recommendation of magistrates for any particular division may be extremely awkward—for instance, the justices recommended to the Lord Chancellor might not fit in with the boundaries of the petty sessional division. I rather hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall welcome assistance from your Lordships in this matter, because I have no very strong views about accepting, or refusing the Amendment. First of all, as a mere matter of form, if we Eire to have the Amendment, I will ask the noble Marquess to amend it by leaving out the last three words: "for such county," and insert in their place the words: "acting for the county or a division thereof." The reason for that is that you

1173
might have a magistrates' courts committee for a combined area which includes a county, and you might have a county divided into two divisions, as Kent is. So if the noble Marquess is going to press this Amendment, or if I am to be asked to give a decision, perhaps he will not mind moving it in that form; that is, leaving out the last three words and substituting the ones which I have just mentioned— "acting for the county or a division thereof."
With that alteration, we can now consider this Amendment on its merits. There are two observations which I have to make. First, let us remember that the magistrates' courts committee are dealing with administrative matters. I rather question whether it is desirable that the custos rotulorum should be in attendance, and, quite frankly, whether the committee would want him to be there. Is not something to be said for the custos keeping au dessus de la mêlée? If he attends the meetings of the committee, he may find himself rather committed to a point of view. If, on the other hand, he allows the magistrates' courts committee to decide a matter, to make their provisional recommendations and then go to him, will he not be able, in those circumstances, to give a more authoritative judgment, as one who has not been involved in the controversy? As I say, I wonder whether the magistrates' courts committee would desire the custos to be present. Might they not feel that with him in attendance they were not so free to express their opinions as if he were not there—or would they welcome his presence? Frankly, I do not know My present inclination is to say that I will accept this Amendment, subject to the provision that I may look at it between now and the next stage of the Bill, unless some of your Lordships with experience of this matter tell me that they think I had better not, in which case I will not commit myself at this stage at all.
LORD ROCHE: in spite of the form in which the Lord Chancellor has put his invitation—he has rather limited it to those who appose what is proposed—I rise to say that I support the Amendment. I think it very proper. Having been acquainted with committees of magistrates of various kinds for many years, my view is that the magistrates' courts committee
1174
would feel rather lost without the custos rotulorum, and might even wish to send for him if he were not present. I am satisfied that they will not be in the least afraid of the custos rotulorum if he is as competent and incisive as the noble Marquess. If he were not, they would attend to him. So I answer the Lord Chancellor by saying that I support this Amendment.
LORD HARLECH: I do not think there is the least reason to fear that the committee would be afraid of the custos or anything of that kind. This point, however, has occurred to me. Supposing there is from one of these committees a recommendation about which the Lord Chancellor has a doubt, or which becomes known, with the result that local opposition arises. Of course the custos is practically the only person with local knowledge who can be consulted. If the custos has been attending the committee and has been committed, that would make the situation rather difficult. That is the only point which I see against this Amendment. I do not know what my colleagues who function as custodes—and there are a good many here—feel about this. I think one feels that he is very much in the position of a chairman, almost like the Speaker in the House of Commons. The custos, I consider, would not want to take the initiative. What he would wish to do, so far as possible, is to reconcile differing views, and bring about agreement on the magistrates' committee. Fie would wish to do his best to influence different parties, where it may seem desirable, to subordinate their own views in so far as they can. Surely that is the right line for the custos, and he would always be free to make his own private representations in any matter to the Lord Chancellor.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In this case it would be to the Secretary of State.
LORD HARLECH: Or to the Secretary of State. I think that that is the right method. I consider this is a matter which may well be determined by the view of the majority who may be more experienced in this matter than I am.
EARL FORTESCUE: I have an open mind on this but I think that in some ways it would be an advantage that the custos should be a member of the com-

1175
mittee, so that he could offer guidance if necessary. But even if he is on the committee I do not see any reason why the Secretary of State should not consult him at a later stage. I agree with the last speaker, that the committee would not be frightened of the custos. I have never seen any sign of that myself. I think this is a matter which might well be given some consideration, and, on the whole, I am rather of the opinion that the custos should be on the committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If what has been said represents the majority view, let us accept the Amendment without prejudice to my right to return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. If difficulties which I have been anticipating vanish, of course I shall not need to do so. I take it that the noble Marquess is agreeable to moving the Amendment in the form which I have suggested.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: Certainly. I beg to withdraw the Amendment in its original form and to move it in the new form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
("() The custos rotulorum of a county shall by virtue of his office be a member of the magistrates" courts' committee acting for the county or a division thereof.")—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.28 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: The subsection which I propose to leave out provides that on the magistrates' courts committee there shall be representation from each petty sessional division. In my county there are three very large petty sessional divisions, with a population of something like 300,000 altogether. On the other hand, there are a number of small petty sessional divisions. One of these has a population of only 700. If this provision stands, either rural petty sessional divisions will be grossly overrepresented, or, if the urban divisions are brought up in numbers to anything like the rural divisions, the committee will be so large as to be unwieldy. I think it would be very much better if it were made possible to appoint the committee without any such restrictions as
1176
are imposed by the subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out subsection (4). —(Lord Raglan.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is this not a case in which, when this Bill becomes law, the magistrates' courts committee had better see the custos rotulorum with a view to evening up the size of some of these petty sessional divisions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That would put it right. I do not like the principle of any petty sessional division not being represented. I think they all ought to have their representations. Monmouthshire seems to me to be an exceptional case. If I accepted the broad general principle that a petty sessional division need not be represented, I can imagine that some "wangles" would go on, and that some other divisions would be left out in the cold. I think it better that what I know happens in Monmouthshire should happen, though I hope that soon it will be put right, rather than that we should open the door to what might be questionable dealings in various other divisions of the country. Being a good democrat, I support the principle of the people being represented, but they should be represented by a magistrate in that division who knows their problems. I think we should adhere to the position in the Bill, that every division of the county should be represented on the magistrates' courts committee.
LORD RAGLAN: If this clause stands, there is very little likelihood of the trouble being put right, because the scheme has to come from the magistrates' courts committee and representatives of all these small divisions would be able to vote for their own retention. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. In view of the special arrangements for the administration of justice in the City by aldermen, it is intended to exclude the City from the provisions in this Part of the Bill relating to magistrates' courts committees. As the expression "county" is defined in subsection (6) of this clause, it would include the City, and the Amendment accordingly provides that in the case of

1177
London, the expression "county" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Clause 8 of the Bill. It is defined by subsection (2) of that clause so as to exclude the City. The Amendment also includes an Amendment as regards the reference to a county borough with similar effect to that of the Amendment at page 7, line 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 40, and insert ("in the case of London has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section eight of this Act and in any other case means the administrative county exclusive of any area in a county borough included in the county for the purposes of that section.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment follows from the Amendment we have just accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, after ("without") insert ("the whole or part of").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following new clause:
Provision of courses of instruction
". It shall be the duty of every magistrates' courts committee, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Lord Chancellor, to make and administer schemes providing for courses of instruction for justices of their area."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows from the one the Committee were previously kind enough to accept. I beg formally to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Powers and duties of committee as to petty sessional divisions
13.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a magistrates' courts committee acting for a county may at any time submit to the Secretary of State a draft order making such provision about the division of the county or any part thereof into petty sessional divisions as the committee think fit.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection
1178
(1) to leave out, "Secretary of State" and insert, "Lord Chancellor." The noble Lord said: This is another case where the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is not willing to take on additional duties, and for the reason that I gave previously I shall not move this Amendment or any of the others to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper.
6.34 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1) after "divisions" to insert:
"or for the establishment where appropriate of one juvenile court for a combined area".
The noble Lord said: Since I put down this Amendment some time ago, my attention has been drawn to the fact that it is now possible for the Home Secretary to do this very thing. The point I would like to make is that it is possible for him to do it only it an application is made to him by more than one petty sessional division. I suspect that that means it very seldom, if ever, happens.
My experience of local authorities is that it is extremely rare, without anybody urging them to do so, for authorities to join in making an application to a Government Department—although it does happen. I should be interested to know how many times since 1933 this rule has been put into force. It appears in the Second Schedule (paragraph 3) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which we were discussing on an Amendment earlier. If this Amendment is passed the effect will be that the same thing could be done by the magistrates' courts committee. In my opinion there would be far more chance of its being done, and in some rural areas it would be a good thing to do. There is a big difference between having a county committee to review the position, as they take in the whole county, and relying on one petty sessional division going to its next door neighbour and asking if they will join with them in making an application. If this Amendment were passed, joint action would be much more likely. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, after ("divisions") insert the said new words.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord himself gave the answer when he said

1179
that, although when he put down this Amendment he was not aware of the fact, there is already power to combine petty sessional divisions. He asked me for some information as to how much use has been made of that power. I am afraid I have not been able to get information in the rather short time which has been available since he asked me about it. However, in addition to the fact that this power exists already, there are reasons why we should not accept the Amendment. Under the Bill, even if modified so that some non-county boroughs retain separate commissions of the peace, many separate commissions will disappear. Boroughs losing their commission will become petty sessional divisions of the county and can be combined with other petty sessional divisions of the county for the establishment of one juvenile court panel.
Where, however, a borough has a separate commission—for instance, a county borough and any non-county borough which keep its commission under the Bill—there is difficulty about combining the area for juvenile court purposes with an area of the county, because the borough justices are justices only for the borough. A juvenile court is a court of summary jurisdiction and the juvenile court justices are exercising in the juvenile court their jurisdiction as justices for the area of the court. Since the jurisdiction of the borough justices is only within the limits of their commission, it would be wrong in principle to extend this jurisdiction into the county, and it would be a very odd arrangement if they were to be justices for the county for juvenile court purposes and not justices for other purposes. The same point arises as regards the extension of the jurisdiction of county justices into the area of a county borough for juvenile court purposes.
It is one of the aims of this Bill to simplify the present position about commissions of the peace, to reduce their number, and to make those of county boroughs exclusive of the county so far as the jurisdiction in magistrates' courts is concerned. It would run completely counter to this aim to provide for the extension into the county of the jurisdiction of the borough justices when sitting in a juvenile court. Again, the Bill limits separate commissions of the peace to
1180
areas which are thought to be of sufficient size to exist as independent units for the purpose of the administration of justice, and it follows that these areas ought to have their own juvenile courts. If there are petty sessional divisions adjoining a borough which ought to be combined for juvenile court purposes they can be combined with other petty sessional divisions in the county. For those reasons, we are unable to accept the Amendment.
6.40 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: With great respect, I do not think the noble Lord has dealt with all the points, and particularly with one I have in mind. He spoke at some length about combining boroughs with counties. But what about a county which has a number of rural petty sessional divisions, where it is desirable to join them into one juvenile court bench? I see the difficulty about combining a county borough with a county, or even a borough with a county. The magistrates' courts committee, after all, under the very subsection about which we are talking, have power to make:
"such provision about the division of the county or any part thereof into petty sessional divisions as the committee think fit."
All I want to do is to extend that power so that they can put together petty sessional divisions in their county into one juvenile court. In other words, I want to make the juvenile court panel more specialised.
We have heard much this evening about the difficulty of getting magistrates of the required age. In my county the same thing happened, and there was none when the letter was read. But in many of these rural divisions the number of cases that come before the juvenile courts is extremely small. In my own division I do not suppose it is more than four in a whole year—it may be six. Nobody can be expected to specialise under those conditions, and I am certain it would be much more efficient if, say, three or four of those particular rural divisions, all having very little work, could be amalgamated into one juvenile court sitting in the largest town. It is in the towns where the work is, and not in the country. In spite of everything the noble Lord has said, I am sure that an improvement would result. I expect the answer to my question about the number of applications which have been made is nil, because, as I have said,

1181
these things just do not happen—people do not do this voluntarily. However, I really would like to see the magistrates' courts committee given this power. I do not want to press for a Division, but I would ask the noble Lord if he would look into the matter again to see whether he cannot do what is asked, confining it to the county and not mixing it up with the borough or with the county borough.
EARL FORTESCUE: I would point out that this is one of the recommendations in paragraph 180 of the du Parcq Report. It seems to me a most desirable thing to do in these rural areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said.
LORD RAGLAN: The juvenile court over which I have the honour to preside has had one case in the last three years. I cannot see that this Amendment can possibly do any harm to anybody, and it may in certain cases do good. There seems to be no reason why the Government should not accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not see why your Lordships want it. Under the existing law application need not be made to the Secretary of State by the justices; he can make an order provided he considers any representations which are made to him. He has power to do it now. After all, the magistrates' courts committee merely make representations to the Secretary of State, and he can make the order on the recommendations of that committee. I cannot see what this Amendment does. The power is there at the present time. The Secretary of State can act either on the recommendation of the magistrates' courts committee—which would be very authoritative recommendation—or the recommendations of anybody. He need not have a recommendation from the justices of the petty sessions. Therefore, there is no barrier against reconstituting the county in the way that is suggested. It seems to me that this Amendment is wholly unnecessary.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Clause 13 (1) says:
"…a magistrates' courts committee acting for a county may at any time submit to the Secretary of State a draft order making such provision about the division of the county or any part thereof into petty sessional divisions as the committee think fit."
1182
That gives the power to do this to the magistrates' courst committee. Surely without some such words as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, suggests they have not the power to submit to the Secretary of State this centralisation, if necessary, or alteration of the boundaries of the juvenile courts. I do not know. I gather that they have not without the new words being inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my understanding is right, anybody has. The noble Lord or I could write to the Secretary of State and ask him to combine certain petty sessional divisions from the point of view of juvenile courts, and he could do it. If we can do it, a fortiori, a magistrates' courts committee can do it. They can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, and if he is satisfied he will make an order. The magistrates' courts committee cannot act off their own bat. Their function is to make recommendations, and the Secretary of State may or may not act on them. Anybody can make recommendations with regard to juvenile courts, and it is obvious, therefore, that the magistrates' courts committee can.
LORD LLEWELLIN: No. If I may suggest it, they might well be asked by the Home Office: "Under which section are you acting?" It is true that you can act individually, but what power have the magistrates' courts committee as a magistrates' courts committee to do this thing? They would reply that they hoped they had it under Clause 13 (1).
LORD CHORLEY: It is under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Not a magistrates' courts committee, because they were not then set up. Surely, there is nothing between us on this point. If there ought to be a recommendation as to an alteration in the areas of a juvenile court in a county, surely the people from whom it should come are the magistrates' courts committee. We are now setting them up, and they ought to review this as well as the other petty sessional divisions. All we would like is something somewhere in this Bill to show that it is one of their functions to look at these matters, and see whether there ought to be an alteration to make the recommendation to the Home Secretary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look at it, but it seems to me at the moment that the power is there. If it is not there, I will seek to have it put in.
LORD MERTHYR: Section 1 (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, says:
"The Secretary of State, after considering any representations made to him by the justices of the petty sessional divisions concerned, may by order direct…"
That, of course, was laid down in 1933 when no magistrates' courts committee existed. It looks as if the only people who can make representations to the Secretary of State are the petty sessional division. As I said, that just does not happen; they do not do it. I think there is a difference here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I assure the noble Lord that anybody, whether he is a magistrate or a member of the public, can make representation to the Secretary of State, The Secretary of State, on getting the representation, has to consult the justices of the various divisions in order to hear what they have to say. Having received their answers, he can then make the order. All I am pointing out is that if an individual can do that, it is obvious that a group of individuals can do it, and a magistrates' courts committee is a group of individuals. One of their number—the chairman, if you like—can make representation. The Home Secretary gets the representation, he then sends it to the justices of the various divisions to get their observations on it and, having obtained those, he may or may not make this order. That is all there, and I cannot see why your Lordships want this. However, I have said I will look at it, and I certainly will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. There are certain counties—Rutland, for instance—which are not divided at the present time. There is also the Isle of Wight, which we are now bringing in, which has two boroughs, Newport and Ryde, who have their separate commissions. Probably there will be a reorganisation there. It is to deal with these odd cases that this Amendment is set down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 13, at end insert—(" () An order under this section may provide for a county ceasing to be divided into petty sessional divisions, and a direction under subsection (2) thereof may be given with respect to the division of a county which is not for the time being so divided."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD RAGLAN: May I humby submit to the noble and learned Viscount that "may provide for a county ceasing" is not very good grammar?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at eight minutes before seven o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past eight.]
Clause 14:
Appointment and conditions of service of justices' clerks
(6) Where a justices' clerk does not devote substantially the whole of his time to his duties as such (whether in one or more clerkships) he may by arrangement with the magistrates' courts committee make use for the purpose of those duties of any accommodation, staff or equipment which he has for other purposes, and the sums payable to him under the last foregoing subsection may include payments for accommodation, staff or equipment so provided by him, whether or not he thereby incurs additional expense.
(9) A magistrates' courts committee shall consult the magistrates for any petty sessional division of a county on the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk for the division, and the Secretary of State before approving the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk for such a division shall consider any representations made to him by the magistrates for the division.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() A magistrates' courts committee may submit to the Lord Chancellor a draft order making provision for the grouping of such of the petty sessional divisions of the county as they may think appropriate for the purpose of being served by one whole-time justices' clerk and the provisions of the last foregoing section in regard to the submission of draft orders and the making of orders under that section shall apply so far as appropriate to the submission of draft orders and the making of orders under this section."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try to extend the movement towards whole-time clerks in courts of summary jurisdiction. It does not go very far but the Bill is curiously

1185
silent on this point, which is surprising and regrettable. I always understood that one of the main purposes of the appointment of the Roche Committee was to see whether we could not have more whole-time clerks. If I may read five lines from their Report one of the recommendations in the summary (paragraph 231) says:
"There should be an extension of the system of whole-time clerks, carried out by grouping county divisions and the smaller boroughs into areas that can conveniently be served by a whole time clerk; this cannot be carried out at once, and in some areas part-time clerks may continue indefinitely."
That is just what I want to see, but I do not find anything in the Bill that holds out any hope of it happening within a measurable time. Therefore, I put down this Amendment which I take leave to say is a modest one.
It simply says that the magistrates' courts committee may send in a draft order making provision for the grouping of some petty sessional divisions. It leaves it entirely to the discretion of the committee and there is no dictation from above; it is purely permissive. It does not say that they must do anything. I should hate thought that this Bill should not be passed without at least giving some sort of permissive power to the magistrates' courts committee to take this step forward in getting full-time clerks if they see fit. Some people, I know, are against the idea of whole-time clerks, but we have whole-time registrars almost universally; we have whole-time county court judges; we have some whole-time magistrates: I cannot see why we should not have a considerable extension of whole-time clerks. The arguments for them are many and varied, and I do not propose to go into them all this evening, but I would say briefly that a greater degree of specialisation is desirable and this Amendment would go some way towards it.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this Amendment is moved under a misapprehension Clause 13 provides for the alteration of petty sessional divisions by the order of the Secretary of State, ordinarily, of course, made on the submission of a draft order by the magistrates' courts committee for the county. That, of course, is one way in which
1186
clerkships can be combined. A single clerk would then be appointed for the combined petty sessional division—a new petty sessional division—instead of there being separate clerks for the existing petty sessional divisions. But it is possible for a magistrates' courts committee to combine clerkships without altering petty sessional divisions. That power is under Clause 14. What they have to do for this purpose is to group the clerkships so that the work amounts to a whole-time job, and then appoint a single clerk as clerk to each of the petty sessional divisions concerned. They have full authority to make such arrangements under the provisions of Clause 14, which gives the magistrates' courts committee the right to appoint clerks to justices, subject to consultation with the magistrates for the petty sessional divisions concerned.
Your Lordships will notice in particular that Clause 14 (3) makes provision for a justices' clerk to be paid an entire salary in respect of two or more clerkships. Therefore there is no reason for this power, or for the machinery provided for by this Amendment, for the making of draft orders and their submission to the Lord Chancellor; and indeed there is no reason why the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State should be required to give his approval to an arrangement of this kind. It is one of the purposes of the Bill to put power to effect such combinations of clerkships into the magistrates' courts committees and to allow them a free hand to exercise it. They have full authority to do so under Clause 14 of the Bill, even though they do not alter the petty sessional divisions, which they have power to do under Clause 13. Therefore this Amendment seems to be misconceived.
LORD RAGLAN: They have not full power. Although they are given full power under subsection (1), under subsection (8) that full power rests with the Secretary of State, who can annul everything they do.
LORD MERTHYR: I am sorry if I have been taking up time unnecessarily. That certainly was not my intention. But although it may not be necessary to move this Amendment I think the words which the Lord Chancellor has just suggested will be useful, because they will provide an authority which can be quoted by

1187
those who want to have more full-time clerks. Therefore I do not think I have been entirely wasting time in putting down this Amendment. I did so in the genuine though mistaken belief that it was necessary. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: Could the noble and learned Viscount answer the question I put to him? I may be wrong, but there seems to be a conflict between subsection (1) and subsection (8).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Subsection (8) provides for a particular matter—a decision to increase the number of justices' clerks in a petty sessions area or to have more than one in a new petty sessions area, or for the appointment of a justices' clerk. That is a general power whether the divisions are amalgamated or not. There is also power under subsection (8) for the removal of a justices' clerk where the magistrates for the division do not consent to the removal. This has nothing to do with that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, in subsection (2) after "committee" to insert "or sub-committee." The noble Lord said: This is a small but, I hope it will be thought, necessary and harmless Amendment. It enables the clerk, in addition to the total salary he is paid for the clerk's duties, to retain anything he is paid if he acts as secretary to a licensing planning committee under the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Acts of 1945 and 1946. I am advised that there are under that Act sub-committees to which these clerks frequently act as secretaries and that they are paid for these services. It seems only reasonable, if they are entitled to retain the salaries which they are paid as clerks to committees, that they should be allowed to retain salaries received as clerks to subcommittees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, after ("committee") insert ("or sub-committee").—(Lord Schuster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can allay the noble Lord's anxiety. If the clerk to the justices is paid for his job as secretary to a sub-committee it
1188
would not be by virtue of his office as clerk to the justices, and accordingly he could receive payment. He is prohibited by this subsection merely from receiving any payment for anything he does as clerk of the justices over and above the entire salary. To this there is the single exception of payment for his services as secretary under a licensing planning committee of which he is required to be secretary, in his capacity as clerk—that is, under the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act. And for this he can receive payment. Apart from this, he can engage in any other occupation not in his capacity as clerk to the justices—as, for instance, clerk to the sub-committee; and for that he can receive payment. So that we need not put in these words.
LORD SCHUSTER: I do not want to waste time. I am obliged for that assurance. With that assurance that the clerk can retain what he receives as secretary to the sub-committee, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (3) to omit "entire." The noble Lord said: A clerk may receive a part-time salary in respect of two or more clerkships which do not altogether amount to a full-time salary. Therefore, I think that the word "entire" in this case would be better replaced by the word "inclusive." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("entire").—(Lord Raglan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I am not sure that the word "entire" is a very happy one. It might be "inclusive" or "single." May I leave it and look at it to find out what is the appropriate word?
LORD RAGLAN: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "does not devote substantially the whole of his time to his duties as such (whether in one or more," and to insert:
"devotes part of his time to work other than the duties appertaining to his clerkship or".
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment has been put down to

1189
meet the point which is raised by an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, which we shall reach presently, to try to find some other word instead of that vague word "substantially." The distinction which is made in this subsection is between a whole-time clerk and a part-time clerk; and a part-time clerk is described as a clerk who does not devote substantially the whole of his time to his duties as such. In this, the subsection follows the precedent of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, which defines a whole-time officer as meaning, in relation to any local authority, an officer who devotes substantially the whole of his time to their employment. This definition applies to clerks to justices for the purpose of the application to them of the provisions of the 1937 Act relating to superannuation.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, put down an Amendment on this point which I have endeavoured to meet in this way. I have no doubt that his point is that if a clerk is not whole-time, hut only substantially whole-time, it means that he devotes some of his time to something else; and if he devotes it to his private practice, there is no reason why he should not have the benefit of the clause as regards the use on magisterial work of staff employed for his private practice and be eligible to receive payment in respect of this use of his staff. I confess that when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment I thought there was some substance in this point, especially as there may be cases of clerks who are substantially but not quite whole-time and are prepared to become whole-time by taking on another part-time clerkship when it falls vacant; and who until then wish to retain their private practice but to be regarded for superannuation purposes as whole-time clerks. Therefore, I put down this Amendment to meet such cases and to give effect to what I think is the noble Lord's intention in submitting the Amendment standing in his name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, leave out from ("clerk") to end of line 6, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD RAGLAN: That entirely covers my point. I do not propose to move my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (7):
"Before any such staff are engaged or dismissed (otherwise than by the clerk himself on behalf of the committee), the clerk shall be consulted."
The noble Lord said: Here we come to the case of staff who have to be engaged or dismissed. It seems to me that there is something slightly lacking in the wording here. I suggest that we should insert the words
"Before any such staff are engaged or dismissed (otherwise than by the clerk himself on behalf of the committee), the clerk shall be consulted."
Normally, of course, that would be the case, but I am told there have been cases where these powers have been given and the clerk himself has not been consulted. Obviously, if you are going to have a staff working under you it is much better for the whole working of the business that you should be consulted on their engagement. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly accept this Amendment. I may say that generally I think it would be very foolish of the committee not to accept the position that the clerk should have some reasonable control over his staff. To make him go round and ask permission to engage or dismiss a typist is ridiculous, and I hope the authorities will have the sense to give him that power. Yet I agree that we should put in words such as these to make plain our intention. Accordingly, I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.32 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (9):
"and (in the case of the removal of a justices' clerk) shall consider any representations made to him by that justices' clerk or by the magistrates' courts committee."
The noble Lord said: In this paragraph, as the Committee will see
"A magistrates' courts committee shall consult the magistrates for any petty sessional division of a county on the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk for the division, and the Secretary of State before approving the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk for such a division shall consider any representation made to him by the magistrates for the division."

1191
After the words "for the division" I seek to insert:
"and (in the case of a removal of a justices' clerk) shall consider any representations made to him by that justices' clerk or by the magistrates' courts committee."
If the Secretary of State is going to consider this in a judicial manner, as I know he always will, he ought not only to have the onus put upon him to consult one body, he ought also to consider representations from the clerk dismissed and from the magistrates' courts committee who have considered the case. It is so that we may put all parties concerned on the same footing that I seek to insert these words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, after ("division") insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think there is very much between us here. Under the existing law, although the appointment of a justices' clerk requires the Secretary of State's confirmation, his removal is entirely in the discretion of the bench of justices of appointment. Under the Bill the appointment of justices' clerks and their removal will be the responsibility of the magistrates' courts committee. Subsection (8) (c) of this clause requires that where the magistrates for the petty sessional division of a county do not consent to the removal of their clerk the approval of the Secretary of State for his removal is required. Subsection (9) of the clause provides that in such a case the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him by the magistrates for the division. Lord Llewellin's Amendment would require the Secretary of State in such a case to consider also the representations made to him by the clerk or by the magistrates' courts committee. The proposal that representations by the magistrates' courts committee should be considered is unnecessary, because if the bench whom the clerk serves does not consent to his removal it will be the magistrates' courts committee who will have to submit the proposal for the clerk's removal to the Secretary of State.
It is also unnecessary to require the Secretary of State to consider representations by the clerk himself. Where the magistrates for the petty sessional division which the clerk serves do not consent to
1192
his removal, the Secretary of State is required to consider their representations, and this, I think, would be sufficient to ensure that the clerk's interests are looked after. Indeed, if the magistrates themselves make representations to the Secretary of State against the proposed removal by the magistrates' courts committee of their clerk it is unlikely that the clerk himself would be able to add anything to those representations. I confess, frankly, that it is of no importance to my mind whether the Secretary of State is required to consider representations from the justices' clerk as well as from his bench, although I admit that I prefer the clause as it stands. However, if the noble Lord is anxious about a justices' clerk's own personal representation, I will gladly undertake to consider making a provision for representations by the clerk himself as well as by the bench. I cannot accept the Amendment in its present form because of the reference to the magistrates' courts committee, but I will consider between now and the next stage of this Bill, whether I can put in a provision to make it plain that a clerk has the right to make his representations to the Secretary of State. After all, as a judicial officer I am always anxious not to take any adverse steps against anyone unless I have given him the chance of being heard in the fullest possible way. As I say, I will consider between now and the Report stage whether I can put in some words making it plain that a clerk will have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. The real force of this Amendment is plain. There is a distinction, I think, between a man being able to make his own representation, which he might be glad to do fully, in his own words and his being told: "You are excluded because the magistrates of your petty sessional division are doing it for you." I should like to see the justices' clerk included in this. As I say, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for saying he will consider drawing up some words to provide for that before the next stage. If he does that I shall be perfectly prepared to drop the part of the Amendment about the magistrates' courts committee. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"(12) Subsection (1) of section forty-nine of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (which prohibits justices' clerks from acting professionally in connection with proceedings at licensing sessions) shall apply in relation to the general annual licensing meeting, transfer sessions and petty sessions held for any district as it applies in relation to those held for the clerk's district, and the words excepting the preparation of notices and forms from the operation of the subsection shall cease to have effect."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, with the Amendments to Clause 15, at page 14, line 48, and to the Sixth Schedule at page 55, line 20, has been drafted to give effect to the proposal made in the new clause of Lord Schuster and Lord Merthyr—"Disqualification of justices' clerks "—which they propose to insert after Clause 15. This Amendment deals with the prohibition against justices' clerks engaging in licensing practice before justices. I think the Amendment in the names of Lord Schuster and Lord Merthyr is wrong in that it would debar any barrister or solicitor engaged in licensing practice from being appointed justices' clerk. It is difficult to know how the term "engaging in licensing practice" is in fact to be interpreted. The Amendment seeks to prohibit justices' clerks from acting professionally before any sessions at which licensing functions are exercised by justices. The Roche Committee had dealt with the question of clerks to justices engaging in licensing practice and had propounded the principle that the clerk should not engage in private practice for organisations or individuals whose situation is such that by reason of their position they are likely to be interested in the results of proceedings before the justices. This would mean that the clerk should not act for, or advise in any way, any firm likely to make application to the justices, even though the advice may be on something unconnected with the application.
There is an obvious difficulty about the extent of such prohibition and the way it should be applied in practice. The Committee thought the application of the principle they proposed could be conveniently dealt with by rules. The new clause which has been put down by myself enabling me to set up a rule committee includes the power, in subsection (4) (d), to make
1194
rules as to the extent to which a justices' clerk may engage in practice as a solicitor or barrister. Beyond the making of rules, I think the limitation of the character of work for justices' clerks should take the form of an extension of the provisions of Section 49 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act of 1910, which prohibits a justices' clerk from acting professionally in respect of any application about justices' licensing or any other proceedings in licensing matters for the district of which he is clerk. This Amendment makes this prohibition applicable not merely in his own district but anywhere where licensing or other sessions are held. It also repeals the exception in Clause 49.
This is a point to which the Committee referred in paragraph 85 of their Report. They expressed the view that on principle there was no ground for this exception. My Amendment does not go so far as that of the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, or the recommendation of the Committee, but it is clear from what the Committee have said that the prohibition in Section 49 of the Act of 1910 ought to be made general and ought not to be confined merely to the district of the clerk. It is also clear that the application of the principle should apply not only to questions of liquor licensing but to others such as those under the Cinematograph Act and to clerks acting for motoring or other licensing authorities. This is a matter which requires careful examination, since it affects what clerks may or may not do in private practice in legal matters which may have been entered into. This difficulty is a matter which obviously needs most careful consideration. I think it had better be left as the Committee suggested, to be dealt with by rules which I have a right to promulgate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SCHUSTER: I frankly admit that what some of the members of the Committee, of whom I am one, intended was to stop justices' clerks who were part-time clerks from doing any work connected with licensing authorities. The argument was this. If a clerk is in the pockets of the brewers, it may be that when an application comes to be made

1195
the relationship between them is too close. I am not saying that because the Committee considered this matter and came to certain conclusions, they are necessarily binding on the House. I am trying to justify the fact that we discussed this at great length and took a great deal of evidence from witnesses. So far as my personal convictions are concerned, I started from the other end of the camp and was brought completely round by the arguments I heard. I was satisfied that merely to prohibit a clerk from engaging in licensing, practice in the next district was not enough. We must prohibit him from having to do with any matters which affect licensine. I think it would be far better if, instead of inserting something of this kind in the Bill, the matter were dealt with by rule. On that I entirely accept what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, and on the understanding from him of his intention to do that, I shall be content.
I wish to draw attention to one other point, which is highly technical and I am not absolutely certain that I can make it plain. It is in regard to the last words of the Amendment. There is at present an exception which allows clerks to prepare notices and forms and to take fees for so doing. In London, while certain salaries are paid to the clerks to lay justices they are very small, and the clerks to lay justices who have duties to perform are really remunerated by the fees which they take for the preparation of these documents. I do not think they do anything more than prepare the document, if your Lordships understand what I mean, in the same sense in which the registrar's clerk in the county court often prepares the plaint, or prepares the answer, and shows how the thing should be drawn up. But the remuneration of these men—which, taken by and large, is very considerable—would be completely cut off if they were now to be prevented from drawing up these forms. I am not saying—I hope the Committee will not take me as saying—that that is a good way of remunerating people. I think it is a bad way; but nobody has suggested any other way. What we are doing to all intents and purposes if we pass these words in this form, is to deprive these people of their livelihood, in some cases running into what I would consider large
1196
sums of money—hundreds of pounds a year.
I cannot move an Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I have probably not succeeded in making my point. However, I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount would consider the matter, as I understand he is also going to consider the question of whether this should not all be made a matter of rule, and if he would meanwhile consider such representations as the men wish to make on the subject. They are a class with whom one does not often come into contact, because their duties lie apart from the general administration of the law. Certainly in my own professional experience, such as I have, and in my administrative experience, I have never come across them. But they do exist, and a grievous wrong will be done to them if they are thus deprived.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Representations have been made to me also that these last words will deprive the justices' clerks in London of a substantial amount of the remuneration that they get at present. I do not think the preparation of these forms really identifies them particularly with the people who ask them to prepare them. It is merely a matter of getting the notice in the right form, in accordance with the law, which the layman cannot do himself. He goes to the justices' clerk, and these matters are put into the form in which they should be put to comply with the terms of the Licensing Act. That is what they do, and they get a fee for it. If they have their remuneration substantially increased by whoever it is that pays them in London—by the recommendations of whatever magistrates' courts committee exists there—that is one thing, but we have to face the fact that if they are deprived of this job, which many of them have always done and which is, if I may suggest it, a formal job of merely getting the notice in the right form and preparing the appeal (it does not identify them as they would be identified if they were conducting the case for one of the applicants) they will sustain some harm. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to look into the matter and receive representations from the justices' clerks between now and the Report stage, to see whether it might not be possible still to

1197
leave this work for them to do, as was done under the Licensing Act, 1910.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not mind undertaking to look at it between now and the Report stage so long as it is understood that I want the interval between now and Report to be as short as possible. That is our only chance of getting this Bill through, and it is not a very good chance even then. I will look at this but I confess that I look at it with a prejudice. It is possible that a man who prepares these forms and is paid by the applicant may not have a further interest of any kind, but I doubt it very mach. I think I am right in saying that the Roche Committee themselves recommended that this thing should stop.
LORD ROCHE: I do not pretend at this stage of the evening to remember what we reported, but I do not think we did. If we did, I am rather inclined to think we were wrong, but that may be as may be. I think there is a great deal in this point. It does not commit a justices' clerk to anything beyond saying, "The forms are in order," which is in the interests of the court as much as of the applicant. I should very much like to see this matter reconsidered, at any rate from the point of view of London.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look at it but I will look at it with a prejudice against it—I will be quite frank. I will consider any representations, so long as it is understood that I am not going to hold up the Report stage.
LORD RAGLAN: In the rural areas there are justices' clerks who receive a very small portion of their income for their work as part-time justices' clerks. If they are prevented by these laws from performing the ordinary work of country solicitors, it may be very difficult to get qualified persons to act as a justices' clerk.
LORD SCHUSTER: My prejudice against this is at least as strong as the Lord Chancellor's. My plea is for justices' clerks employed whole-time, who receive a salary for that office and nothing beyond that. The Bill does not provide for that; it leaves these people in the air. They will still be part-time clerks and, subject to the fact that they are paid small salaries, they will be deprived of that which hitherto has been their livelihood. It is a very special case,
1198
and it really does not affect the cases of which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, spoke. All I would ask now is that the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to consider it between now and Report stage. If he would see one or two of the people interested in this matter and listen to their ease, that would completely satisfy me. I was impressed by the strength of their case and I am sure the Lord Chancellor will appreciate their point. I am quite certain that he will endeavour to meet it. My prejudice is entirely with him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot undertake to see anybody. My hours are such that it really is impossible. I will undertake that they can see a member of my staff, or I will consider anything in writing. If your Lordships saw my engagements you would realise how I am placed.
LORD SCHUSTER: If I may say so, that is quite good enough for me.
LORD LLEWELLIN: So far as I understand it, these men are not going to sit as clerks of the appellate tribunal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
LORD LLEWELLIN: They have already sat as clerks for the initial hearing and they are only preparing the forms in the correct way to go before the confirming authority. That seems to me to be in a different sphere.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Qualification of justices' clerk
15.—(1) Except as provided by this section, no person shall be appointed a justices' clerk unless either at the time of appointment he is a barrister of not less than five years' standing or solicitor of the Supreme Court of the like standing and is within any limit of age prescribed for appointments to a clerkship of that class or description, or he then is or has previously been a justices' clerk.
8.54 p.m.
LORD MORRIS: This Amendment raises a very small point, but one to which apparently some of my professional brethren who are experienced in practice before courts of inferior jurisdiction attach some importance, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it. It appears to me to be entirely innocuous, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, after ("standing") insert ("or a solicitor of the Supreme Court who has served not less than five years in one or more of the capacities mentioned in subsection (3) of this section ").—(Lord Morris.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In general I have great sympathy with this Amendment. I understand that what the noble Lord has in mind is this. Supposing an unprofessional man has served for five years, or something of that sort, and then becomes a solicitor. Then, says the noble Lord, he should not have to wait another five years after becoming a solicitor; he should be able to use the five years which he has had before as qualifying him straight away. In broad general principle, that is right, but I do not think that this Amendment will do as it is. We have to consider another and rather difficult question. Supposing there has been an interregnum; supposing, having spent five years some time ago as a justices' clerk unqualified, after a considerable interval of time he becomes a solicitor: what then? What should we do in that case? I am not attempting to answer the question; I am saying only that I think the Amendment ought to deal with it. Therefore if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, I will undertake to think out some Amendment for the Report stage which will embody the principle which he has in mind. I hope that with that assurance he will rest content.
LORD SCHUSTER: I have on page 10 of the Marshalled List an Amendment which, so far as I can understand Lord Morris (and it is my own stupidity and not his lack of lucidity which makes me make this observation), is intended to cover the same point. If that point is covered by Lord Morris's Amendment and the answer which the Lord Chancellor has given, then on the understanding that the Lord Chancellor has sympathy with it, I shall be relieved from the obligation of moving my Amendment. The clause hits particularly people who, having been qualified before the war—that is to say, having passed their five years as justices' clerks—were caught up in military service in one way or another and admitted immediately after their demobilisation. Those are the particular cases I have in mind. But if, as I think is the case, Lord Morris and I are aiming at the same thing, I am content.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think Lord Schuster's Amendment is rather different, because if I read it aright its application is limited to those assistants in the magistrates' courts service who have five years' service before the coming into operation of this Part of the Act. If an assistant enters the service of a justices' clerk after the Act has been brought into force, takes the trouble to become articled and qualified as a solicitor and has, by then, five years' service in the clerk's office—it is, in fact, likely that he will have had much longer service than that—he ought not to be required to wait another five years before he can take an appointment as a justices' clerk. It seems to me that Lord Schuster's Amendment is drafted to exclude any person whose service begins after the Act comes into force, whereas Lord Morris's Amendment is drafted on rather wider lines. I quite agree that the two Amendments are dealing with the same sort of subject matter, but I think Lord Schuster will find that his wording is a good deal narrower than that of Lord Morris. When I consider Lord Morris's Amendment I shall be dealing with the subject matter which Lord Schuster's Amendment covers, and it may be that Lord Schuster will find that the alteration I suggest is satisfactory to him as well as to Lord Morris.
LORD SCHUSTER: I am greatly obliged. My wording was intended to be narrower, but I see the force of what the Lord Chancellor has said; and knowing that he is going to consider Lord Morris's Amendment and, I suppose, put down something, I shall not move my Amendment.
LORD MORRIS: May I, on that happy note, thank the Lord Chancellor for his very kind assurance, and withdraw my Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.59 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that any person, not being a barrister or solicitor, whose service in one of the capacities set out in Section 7 of the Justices' Clerks Act, 1877, had immediately before the coming into operation of this Act, been of sufficient duration to make him eligible for appointment as a justices' clerk under that

1201
section shall remain so eligible, and the provisions of the said Section 7 shall continue to apply to him as if they had not been repealed by this Act."
The noble Lord said: I think it will be to the convenience of the Committee if deal at the same time with this Amendment together with the next which stands in my name, as I think they hang closely together. In fact the first rather depends upon the second.
The second Amendment, which is to delete subsection (3), is meant to ensure that magistrates' clerks shall be qualified lawyers. The first Amendment in my name seeks to ensure that certain difficulties which might follow will be overcome, and that certain hardships will be dealt with. I will deal with the second one first, if I may, and at the outset would like to make it plain that when I press for a definite ruling that justices' clerks should be qualified lawyers, and only qualified lawyers, mine is not a solitary voice in the wilderness. I know that many lay magistrates and others are deeply concerned about this matter and feel that it is of vital importance that justices' clerks should be qualified lawyers. Moreover I am following exactly the recommendation of the Roche Committee that only qualified men should be appointed as clerks to justices, a recommendation for which good reasons were given in the Report—reasons that it would be difficult to refute.
If all benches included justices possessing legal qualifications the matter would be of less importance, but lawyer magistrates are scarce, in my county at any rate, and from time to time lay magistrates must take the advice of their clerks. Now and then lawyers are on opposite sides in disputes on points of law, and magistrates have to make decisions. If they are advised by clerks with legal qualifications, well and good. But their decisions are hardly likely to be so acceptable if they are based on advice tendered by amateur lawyers. Surely the prestige of magistrates' courts should not be allowed to suffer through neglect to ensure that they are adequately served by qualified men. To deny this seems to be just as sensible as it would be to suggest that the Board of Trade should relax the rules for the holding of masters' certificates by masters of ships. And it would be no less an outrage than
1202
if the Minister of Health were to countenance the appointment of unqualified men as medical officers of health.
This afternoon it has been impressed upon us that we are bound not so much by logic as by the criterion of what works. It is true that there have been many unqualified justices' clerks who have functioned admirably, but to-day the complications of new laws and so on are such that it is more than ever necessary that justices' clerks should be qualified men. I will not labour this any further but will deal, if I may, with the other Amendment. I recognise that it may be difficult to achieve ideal conditions at once. In spite of what the Law Society has done, and is doing, for assistant clerks, and for those who desire to qualify, there may for a little time be a shortage of qualified men for all the clerkships that exist. We should also wish to avoid hardship for those who have aspired to clerkships and who in existing conditions are eligible to serve. My Amendment is designed to meet both these cases and to cover a transition period until it is possible to have all clerkships held by qualified men. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 7, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Middleton.)
LORD CALVERLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has put the question: What is a qualified man? I want to speak for a moment not for the country courts where little business is done but for the lay magistrates in many of our great industrial areas. Some of these are very much perturbed about what is going to happen to their justices' clerks and their assistants. I have here a list, impressive but incomplete, of great centres of population where the justices' clerks are not solicitors although they are qualified men. I should have liked to ask the Lord Chief Justice, if he were here, what he considered to be the source of most of his troubles. I think he would say that they sometimes come from the little courts where the solicitor is a part-time man and deputes his work to an unqualified assistant. That happened at Hereford.
Perhaps I may be allowed to read a few of the names of these places to the Committee: Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Doncaster, Cardiff, Ports-

1203
mouth, Huddersfield, Southampton, Preston—and so on; places all over England and Wales. These courts are manned by what the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, calls "unqualified men." In Manchester there will be six or eight sitting every day. In my own comparatively small town we have four courts sitting five days per week—I agree that there is only one on a Saturday—and we are forced to man those courts with assistant clerks. These young men are largely of our own upbringing. In many of these great cities of this country we have appointed what the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, calls "unqualified clerks" when we have advertised for either qualified clerks—that is, solicitors —or men who have been trained in the administration and procedure of a court and are ready at an instant's notice to advise their magistrates as to what a certain course of action should be.
I have no axe at all to grind in this matter, but I am concerned about it, for it appears to me as if the Incorporated Law Society are pressing us to find blindalley occupations in Manchester for four to six assistants, in my own town for three to four assistants, in Leeds for five to six assistants, because these men can never hope to be justices' clerks. I speak with only twenty years' experience—that is all. To use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Middleton, we have had the assistance of unqualified men and, on a few occasions, a qualified man whom we allowed to come, because he was a solicitor, to try it on us. It was for us to teach him his job so that he could get a job in some lesser place, or in some county district as a qualified justices' clerk. We cannot expect young men from our colleges and our high schools to come to us and to serve us for years if we say to them: "You can go so far but you can go no further." I suggest to your Lordships that this is a very serious point for the courts of the greater industrial districts of this country. I leave out your paltry little county district, where there is a part-time solicitor, as one noble Lord admitted, who deputes the work to his untrained assistant—
LORD SCHUSTER: No he does not.
LORD MIDDLETON: Nothing of the sort.
LORD CALVERLEY: I withdraw that. I alter the phrase. If he has any sense in him, he gets a trained assistant from one of our large industrial towns.
LORD MIDDLETON: I have never seen it done yet.
LORD CALVERLEY: I have, and I can give the name and the place.
LORD MIDDLETON: Mostly in the West Riding.
LORD CALVERLEY: And also in less favoured places like the East Riding.
LORD MIDDLETON: No.
LORD CALVERLEY: Because, after all, the West Riding is the premier district of this great Empire of ours! But that is by the way. My noble friend Lord Middleton is trying to lead me up the garden path. These men are trained in the law. They are trained on the anvil of experience. We sit and we listen to the Incorporated Law Society. We have distinguished members of the Bar Council who come and talk to us and who gave evidence to the Royal Commission. The barristers especially admitted that they go and eat dinners for the period—I do not know how long that is; I should say it is five years by the look of them; they look very well fed. But this is a serious matter so far as the great industrial districts are concerned. To quote the Bar Council, these men said "We eat our dinners; we read our books and then we have got to begin to learn our jobs by appearing in the courts." We take these young men, we train them, and, as I say, in the hard school of experience, bit by bit, they qualify to be assistant clerks—and Lord Middleton wants to shut them out.
LORD MIDDLETON: I want them to qualify.
LORD CALVERLEY: How are they to qualify if they are in the town clerk's department in the same town hall? The town clerk can take only two articled pupils, and they usually take up the administration of municipal law. I am speaking from actual experience here. These young fellows are to be damned because they will not have an opportunity to qualify. They will have no opportunity to become articled unless they become articled to a competent man who is an

1205
unqualified clerk—as again I emphasise he usually is—in the great industrial centres. When we have four, six or seven courts running every day (and when this House is not sitting I myself put in twenty appearances in two months as a rule, as we are obliged to do to keep things going) there would be chaos if we were told that we had to take these callow youths who had just finished their articles, perhaps at the mature age of twenty-six, and to let them practise on the dog, so to speak, and see how far we should go.
I am appealing really to the Lord Chancellor for a little comfort against my blue-stockinged friend Lord Middleton, who is speaking for what he calls "the trained solicitor." I hope that I shall have an assurance from the Lord Chancellor that these young fellows especially should not qualify by a miserable five years. Five years is not sufficient; ten to fourteen years' experience are required before these men are qualified properly to advise the magistrates' court. I beg the Lord Chancellor to give some assurance in regard to these young fellows, of whom there are hundreds in the courts up and down the country. We must have unqualified assistants or else, if we were to have six and seven courts, the rates would go up. What is the minimum wage for a solicitor? We will say it is £1,500 a year. That is £9,000 on the rates for six qualified young fellows who have yet to learn the job. I do not wish to oppose this clause, but I would like an assurance from the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the existing unqualified justices' clerks who work in most of our great centres of population. I am asking for justice and consideration for these young fellows so that they may not be condemned to what I call a blind-alley occupation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am sorry that the noble Lord who has just sat down comes from such a lawless district. I gather that it is necessary there to have four courts sitting five days a week, almost continuously. But we were delighted to hear his experiences as he narrated them to us. I think that what we all want to see is a gradual raising of qualification among those who act as clerks to justices. The right way to bring that about is to ensure that, if possible, they are qualified solicitors. There are a certain number of cases which are
1206
exempted or sought to be exempted under the Bill as it now stands, though the general purport of Clause 15 is that the justices' clerk shall be either a barrister of not less than five years' standing or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of the like standing. I speak en this because I have an Amendment down to leave out from "London" in line 18 to the second "and" in line 19. I am not sure what an assistant clerk is. If by "assistant clerk" is meant the deputy who sits in court, that is one thing. But if he is an assistant who normally sits in the office and works as a shorthand typist, or someone like that, then that is quite different.
LORD CALVERLEY: I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, but may I just say this by way of illustration? The principal clerk, naturally, has to help the stipendiary. He wants a lot of assistance. Then we have two others, his deputy clerks—sometimes we have three—to help us in the taking of depositions and matters of that sort in preparation for the assizes or quarter sessions.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I appreciate the position of the noble Lord. I am glad to know that he finds that the stipendiary needs more qualified assistance than he does—that, I understood was the purport of his last remarks. What I was saying was that it is quite clear that we ought to have some exception, as there is in Clause 15 (3), from the main general rule in Clause 15 (1), so that those who have started out on this career and who have been in it for some time should not have to start qualifying afresh as old men. It may be desirable, perhaps, to set some limit to the time in which Clause 15 (3) operates. New entrants ought to have that wider knowledge, that wider experience and that wider horizon that complete qualification as a solicitor gives. I would only add that if we could somehow limit in future the provision in Clause 15 (3) (a) about ten years, I should be quite satisfied not to move the Amendment which I have down to this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is a very difficult point. I have given it a good deal of thought, and I am not quite certain that I have come to a firm conclusion yet. I want, and I think we all want, to have whole-time clerks if we possibly can. The figures given by the Roche Committee on these facts are, to

1207
my mind, very significant. May I remind your Lordships of them? Out of 822 justices' clerks, 748 were solicitors. Of the remainder, 69 had qualified by fourteen years' service as assistant and five by seven years' service as clerk to stipendiaries. The bulk of justices' clerks were part-time clerks and only ninety of the 822 were whole-time clerks. Of the ninety, fifty-eight were qualified by virtue of their service as assistants, and only thirty-two were solicitors. So it is obvious that the great bulk of whole-time clerks—fifty-eight out of ninety—were unqualified men, and out of sixty-nine unqualified clerks who were assistants, fifty-eight were whole-time clerks. These are very remarkable figures.
It is sometimes said that justices are too easily satisfied under the existing law about the special circumstances justifying the appointment of an unqualified man; and I think that is true. The Bill improves the existing law not only by providing that appointments are to be made by the magistrates' courts committee instead of by the bench, but that the Secretary of State as well as the magistrates' courts committee has to be satisfied of the special circumstances in which the appointment of an unqualified man is made. There has been no similar provision previously. Even if some existing appointments of unqualified men might not have been the best appointments, it is difficult to believe that that is the explanation of the surprising figures I have given. I think there is no doubt at all that the explanation is this. A part-time clerk who is a solicitor is not willing to give up his practice and confine himself to a whole-time magistrates' clerk's work. Therefore, when a clerkship is made a whole-time job, the justices find that an assistant with long experience is often the best candidate there is. I think the figures I have given prove that fact beyond any argument. I am not at all surprised that it should be so. I can well understand that it should be so. If one of the main purposes of the Bill is to secure that we get whole-time clerks, and if it is the fact that solicitors with practices of their own are reluctant to become whole-time clerks, we have to cast our net wide to get the right people.
I agree that as a broad general principle it is desirable that we should work towards a stage when all these clerks will
1208
be qualified men. I agree, too, with the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, that it is incumbent on us to see that all the men who rose from the ranks and have not any monetary facilities, have a chance of becoming qualified. But I feel that we would do better to do something on these lines. Here again I am speaking without precise ideas on a piece of paper. First, I think it is fair not to prejudice the position of the existing people. That has been very often the case. I remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, introduced a Bill dealing with dentists, all those who at that time were practising had their right to carry on preserved.
But, subject to that, I do not want this system to go on indefinitely into the future. So long as the existing people are safeguarded I think there should be a period of time—a comparatively short period of time; five or ten years, I have in mind—during which we should say that these appointments can go on; but thereafter they should stop. We should say that thereafter the only classes of person who can be considered are either that small class who have qualified today and have this existing privilege, or qualified men. In that time we shall learn what happens.
If we have this clause in the Bill, I shall not be at all surprised if some future Lord Chancellor has to come back with legislation to alter it. It may prove impossible—I warn your Lordships of this—to get the qualified men who can do the work. If we are tied up, as I am proposing, by a legislative requirement that after a certain date only qualified men may be appointed, we may have to come back; but, in the meantime, we shall learn a great deal about it. It is largely a matter of inducement in the salaries that are paid, and so on. We may be able to induce sufficient qualified men to come as whole-time clerks.
What I would suggest is this. First, I think we should accept the principle that it is obviously desirable to have qualified people, and regard that as a goal to which we are going to work. Secondly, I suggest that we accept the position of those who to-day have certain prospects and rights, and do not prejudice them. Thirdly, I suggest that we do not let this thing go on indefinitely in the future, and that we fix a date in our clause—be it five or ten years—

1209
beyond which this system is not to go on. I believe that on those lines we can harmonise the very natural desire to which Lord Calverley has given expression, of these people who have experienced great difficulty in finding the time and the money—it costs some money—to acquire the necessary qualifications, and those who naturally say that, in the best interests of everybody, there ought to be qualified men and whole-time men if you can get them. On those lines I hope I shall be able to reach a compromise which will commend itself to all sections of the Committee. I fully appreciate both points of view which have been put forward. That, at any rate, is what I am going to explore, and I hope on the Report stage to be able to bring to your Lordships a clause on those lines which will perhaps satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I fully understand his reasons in moving the Amendment.
LORD SCHUSTER: I do not like taking up time at this late hour, but as this is a subject in which I have taken a great interest from the start I hope I may be pardoned if I say a few words. First, may I say a word of comfort to the Lord Chancellor? When the county courts were, so far as possible, transformed into whole-time offices for the registrar, there was no general reluctance on the part of the part-time officer to be a whole-time officer so long as proper financial arrangements for him and for his pension were made. I do not believe that there should be great difficulty, if there is a suitable grouping, in finding good men, even at present and certainly in the future, to occupy these positions. Secondly, I want to say this. Of course, one is always charmed and excited by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, but I do not think one ought to leave it completely unanswered. It does not seem to have occurred to him that those of us who wish for the qualified man are looking for something more than a man who can answer at a moment's notice—which I should have thought was a very rash thing to do—any question which may arise in the court, but for a man who has a general education of the law, who has learned all the things which you have to learn if you are articled in a solicitor's office, has passed the series of difficult examinations which a solicitor has to
1210
pass, and has then given sufficient evidence of his general ability to commend himself to the appointing authority. The education of a solicitor does not consist only of answering snap questions. As the Law Society are more and more able to push their educational schemes he receives a very valuable general education in the law.
If somebody would move that the barrister be left out, and anybody else would support him, I should not quarrel with it, because I do not regard the functions of a justices' clerk as the functions a barrister is particularly trained to perform. He is not trained in office work, he is not trained to deal with forms and he is not trained to manage staff. He is essentially an individualist and an advocate, and I should like to see these positions confined entirely to the qualified and educated solicitor. Of course, I realise the force of the Lord Chancellor's observations. None of us has ever wanted utterly to dash the hopes of men who enter this curious service of assistant clerk and who have had reasonable expectations. But when it is said, "Anybody who has any expectation," I hope the Lord Chancellor will not ask us to accept that. The youth of seventeen who has spent a year in the office of a solicitor has "expectations."
Certainly I should not be party to any clause which cut off the five years' protection, and I hope it is a clause of which we shall not see a great deal in the future. My vision is that of a young man, perhaps receiving his articles from the justice's clerk himself, serving his articles under the justice's clerk; taking the Law Society examinations; doing the various things which the Law Society require—something like attendance at a university, which they require now—and so qualifying himself. I am quite certain—and I think the Lord Chancellor will accept this—that mere service as a justice's clerk from early youth to old age is no qualification for the position. There must be a much wider outlook on the world and on the law. Anybody who has sat frequently at quarter sessions and seen the way in which cases are prepared and come up for decision, must realise how much the clerk has to learn besides merely looking in Stone's Justices' Manual to see a snap answer to a snap question. I must not speak for anybody

1211
else, but the Lord Chancellor has said exactly w hat I hoped he would say. I think we are entirely in accord with him, and if he could bring forward a clause which would safeguard these people (whose welfare I have very much at heart) and at the same time help us towards the ideal which he himself has sketched, I am sure we would be more than satisfied.
LORD CALVERLEY: I want to express my personal gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for the way he has met this point. I am not speaking for those men who are almost ready for superannuation, but for the younger men. In everything which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, said, he did not say anything about how these young men are to be trained. I challenge Lord Schuster to approach any judge of assize or recorder—I do not bother about your country quarter sessions. They will say that the depositions and the preparations for their courts are better prepared by the so-called unqualified man than they are by a solicitor who has deputed the work to an assistant.
LORD SCHUSTER: I do not like answering challenges at all, especially at twenty-five minutes to ten, and when I am obviously not the person to be challenged. How can I possibly know what the Lord Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court would do? What Lord Calverley has taken upon himself to do is to make an affidavit on behalf of the High Court Bench and I am not going to take that upon myself. I have not argued for a single moment that the Manchester magistrates' court, for example, does not prepare depositions perfectly well. It may do. It did not do so fifty years ago when I used to practise there, but perhaps it may do now. What we complain of is that these justices whom Lord Calverley described with so much eloquence have seen "a speck of circumstance in a mote of dust." They have not attended to the Statute; they have appointed assistants who have served, and they have done so, I believe, without advertising.
LORD CALVERLEY: Oh, they are forced to advertise.
LORD SCHUSTER: Without advertising, so that the ordinary solicitor has not come into the competition at all. However that may be, I do not accept any
1212
challenge of that kind. I have tried to point out to Lord Calverley that there is more to it than the (I thought) audacious method of looking up Stone and answering a snap question on the spur of the moment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass from this, may I say that I would like the Lord Chancellor, when he looks at this again, to see whether the last part of Clause 15 (3) (a) could not be amended, in addition to the suggestion he has made, in this way, which would largely meet my requirements:
"Clerk or assistant clerk to one of the police courts of the City of London, and assistant justices' clerk."
Your Lordships will appreciate what I am driving at: assistant clerk, I think, must indicate the man who sits in court; but an assistant to a clerk may be anybody in the office. I would like the Lord Chancellor to see whether we can alter those words in that way.
LORD SCHUSTER: As long as it is temporary—subject to a time limit.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Yes.
LORD MIDDLETON: I shall be very brief in reply to Lord Calverley, I am horrified to hear of the appalling state of things in magistrates' courts in the West Riding. If he comes to the East Riding he will see a very different state of things.
LORD CALVERLEY: What about Hull?
LORD MIDDLETON: Hull is not in the East Riding. I only hope that the West Riding building plans are not in the hands of amateur architects. I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much for his words and I know many will share with me lively satisfaction in that he has exactly the same object as I have in moving the Amendment. I look forward with joy to the Amendment that he will bring forward on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR: May I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templewood? I understand it is consequential upon another Amendment which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 17, leave out from beginning to second ("of") and insert ("stipendiary court, clerk at one of the justice rooms.")—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: This is one of the same group of Amendments and is accepted.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is it quite right? I thought the term stipendiary courts had been abolished also. I know that we have abolished the term police courts but I thought we had also got rid of stipendiary courts.
LORD CHORLEY: My noble and learned friend undertook to look at it, but he thought that stipendiary courts was right.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It is better than police courts.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.40 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (5), to omit all words after the first "area," and to insert:
"wholly or partly comprised in an area in which he or a partner of his holds any of the following offices, namely, clerk of the peace, town clerk, clerk to the urban district council and deputy of any such clerk:
Provided that a person shall not be disqualified under this subsection for holding any justices' clerkship by reason of his or his partner's holding any of the said offices where neither appointment is made after the coming into force of this subsection."
The noble Lord said: This is one of the Amendments which have already been covered in an earlier discussion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 28, leave out from ("area") to end of line 30 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment, as the noble Lord suggests, is one to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred earlier in a discussion on an Amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and the noble Lord, Lord Schuster.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Disqualification of Justices' Clerks.
". Neither the town clerk of a borough nor any clerk to the council of a county district nor any barrister or solicitor engaging in licensing practice shall be eligible to be appointed or to hold the office of justices' clerk."
The noble Lord said: This is not a very big Amendment, but it has to do with a matter to which the Roche Committee attached some importance. It seemed to us above all things that if you must have a part-time justices' clerk he ought not also to he the town clerk. The town councils are the most frequent parties to appear in the courts as prosecutors; and it is quite wrong that the town clerk should be advising his council to launch a prosecution and should himself be advising the magistrates in the case when it comes before them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Schuster.)
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to support this Amendment. The case for it seems to me to be almost self-evident. It is a question of justice seeming to be done. There must often be many members el the public in a court who will be rather shocked if they see the town clerk or the clerk to the local authority appearing as justices' clerk, and there can be little or no objection to this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the Amendment at the bottom of page 2 of the new list, and the Amendment we have just passed on the top of page 3 of that list, which precludes a clerk of the peace, town clerk or clerk of an urban district council, or the deputy of any such clerk from acting as justices' clerk, have something in common with this Amendment. I am sure there can be no objection to the Amendment, but would it not be better to have it dealt with later?
LORD SCHUSTER: I should like to point out that in any event, in the Amendment which I have moved we are bound to omit the words about appointing a person "engaging in licensing practice," because we have already discussed that; and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor gave some indication of the course he intends to take. If I may accept the advice offered by my

1215
noble friend Lord Llewellin, as I am sure I should do in all the circumstances, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am much obliged to my noble friend opposite for helping us to clear up this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Function of justices' clerk as collecting officer]:
LORD MERTHYR: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Templewood, I beg to move this Amendment which is consequential on another which has been accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 3, leave out from the beginning to the second ("of") and insert ("stipendiary court and a clerk at either of the justice rooms").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: That is so. I accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER THE MARQUESS OF EXETER moved, to add to the clause:
"(9) Where a justices' clerk immediately before the coming into operation of this Part of the Act was in receipt of remuneration by virtue of subsection (4) of section thirty of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, then as from the date when the last preceding subsection shall apply to him the salary payable to him shall be increased by an amount which is not less than the average annual remuneration which he received under the said subsection (4) during the three years immediately preceding that date.
(10) Where a justices' clerk first becomes collecting officer of any court of summary jurisdiction by virtue of the operation of subsection (1) hereof then as from the date when the said subsection shall apply to him the salary payable to him shall be increased by an amount which is not less than the average annual remuneration which was paid in respect of the said court under subsection (4) of section thirty of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, during the three years immediately preceding the application of subsection (1) hereof or which would have been payable if the said subsection (4) had then been in operation in respect of the said court."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment requires a little explanation. Your Lordships know that some clerks, when collecting fines, are paid by a percentage, and some fines are collected by people other than the magistrates' clerks
1216
and who also are paid by a percentage. So far as I understand it, there is nothing in this Bill to govern the amount of salary that the clerk is to be paid in future in respect of these percentage payments. Therefore, I put down on the Marshalled List this Amendment, which I think covers the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, after ("effect") insert the said subsections.—(Marquess of Exeter.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. As your Lordships are aware, the proposal is that in future the clerk should be paid a proper salary. The object is to get rid of these additional and rather unsatisfactory types of payment which are covered by the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The magistrates' courts committee, in fixing the salary, should take matters of this sort into account and decide on a figure which gives a reasonable remuneration to the clerk. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that will be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. But, apart from that, this Amendment is unsatisfactory because it seeks to establish as a permanent part of the clerk's salary the remuneration which he receives as collecting officer in a way that I have indicated is unsatisfactory. The percentage basis of assessment of the remuneration of collecting officers is a very bad system and one which it is the main object of this part of the Bill to abolish.
A percentage of the amount collected is no measure at all of the work done by the clerk, as the more regularly a man pays under a maintenance or affiliation order, the more the clerk gets, but the clerk may in fact have to do a great deal more work in the type of case where payments are irregular or infrequent. For example, he may have to write repeated letters to a defaulter, and yet the amount which he will get on a percentage basis on the small sum he collects will be very small. So the whole of this system is most unsatisfactory. We want the magistrates' courts committee to establish a reasonably good salary for him, so that this distinctly unsatisfactory type of remuneration may be abolished. Therefore, I hope the noble Marquess will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ROCHE: I desire to support the noble Marques's Amendment. The

1217
Amendment is quite right in all its details, and I am sure that without an Amendment, the situation as it would be left by the Bill and by the explanation which the noble Lord has just given us from his brief would be a most unsatisfactory one. As the Bill stands, without some such Amendment as this it means that the magistrates' or justices' clerk is to be a collecting officer and he should be paid a salary; but not a word is said as to what regard is to be paid, in fixing the salary, to the fact that there is put upon him the considerable and onerous duty of collecting officer. I think that would be profoundly unsatisfactory, and therefore I would ask the Government to think again about this matter. If they are prepared to say that they will provide in an adequate way, and that full regard is to be paid to the fact that the collecting duties are to pass, with all their onus, to the justices' clerk, then it is possible that the noble Marquess might be satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I am not quite satisfied with the noble Lord's answer about this percentage system. It is not a continuance of the percentage remuneration for collecting; it is some form of yardstick, if I might put it that way, of calculating the salary that a clerk should receive for his new duties, and it seems to be the only way of finding out what the salary should be. I quite agree that it is a difficult problem, but I hope the noble Lord will consider this Amendment before he turns it down flat.
LORD LLEWELLIN: So far as I can see, when this Bill becomes law we are in future going to stop the justices' clerk from collecting these fees—
LORD ROCHE: No, he still collects.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am sorry. I should have said that we are stopping him getting a percentage. Then what will happen is that such remuneration as he received under that head will cease. If the proposed new subsections are passed, they will immediately bring to the notice of the magistrates' courts committee that something must be done, otherwise those committees will be far too liable to let the man continue on his existing salary minus the percentage that he received for his collecting duties. I think we need some provisions in the Bill to bring this
1218
matter forcefully to the attention of the magistrates' courts committees, so that these men will in future receive not less than they were getting before Parliament, by passing this Bill, deprived them of some remuneration that they were legally collecting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I take quite a definite view about this matter. I think the system whereby magistrates' clerks receive a remuneration based on a percentage on the fees they collect is a wrong system, and I imagine everybody will agree with that. When we are now fixing for the future what salary a clerk is to get, it seems to me proper to consider what he was getting, and it is quite legitimate for the clerk to say, "I received so much under this heading and so much under that, and I received £100 a year for my 'rake-off' on collections." The justices' clerks committee should take these things into consideration, and they ought to say, "In view of the fact that you were getting £x, part of it coming from collections, we will now give you a salary of £y." I think that is quite right, but that any proposal that the salary which you give him is to he increased by a sum which he used to get out of collections is wrong. It is a factor which ought to be taken into consideration in fixing his new salary, I agree, but he ought no longer to receive a definite sum in respect of collections. I believe that to be a vicious system, and I will not lend myself to it. On that, I am afraid, I am going to be quite adamant.
But I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that there may be some interregnum before the date when the new salaries are fixed, covering a period during which the clerk is, so to speak, carrying on. With regard to that, it is possible under Clause 34 (4) of the Bill to make provision by Order in Council covering that period of time. Perhaps that is what the noble Marquess had in mind. But I do not want to perpetuate for one day longer than necessary any idea that the clerk is to be remunerated on the basis of a percentage of what he collects. I entirely agree that in considering what the salary should be, regard should be paid to what he used to make, and if that includes something by way of collections, then by all mans let us have regard to it. This Amendment seeks to provide that

1219
"the salary payable to him shall be increased by an amount which is not less than the average annual remuneration which he received under subsection (4) during the three years immediately preceding that date."
That seems to me entirely wrong. If, in fixing the salary, you say, "Let us have regard to all these things," then I quite admit that that is common sense; but I am not going to have any sum added to his salary in respect of a notional or average sum which he received for collection. So I am afraid that I cannot undertake to consider putting any such provision as this in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: It seems to me that the noble and learned Viscount has answered my question. When the salary is to be fixed covering the extra duties which the clerk is going to take over, if the amount which he was getting on his collections is taken into consideration, it appears to me that that fulfils what the Amendment really intends. But there is one other point. Sometimes the collections are not made by the clerk at all, but by someone else, and payment is made on the percentage system. The clerk will have to take over that man's duties, so I presume that in that state of affairs the same rule would apply—namely, that the magistrates' courts committee would take into consideration what the outside man was making with his percentage on his collections, and have regard to it in fixing the future remuneration for the clerk.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That. I think, is right. I imagine that the magistrates' courts committee would consider all relevant circumstances, and obviously one of the most relevant would be what this man used to get in the past. They would then, I assume, go on to consider the various sources from which he received it. It is in the light of that that his salary will be fixed, and that is a very different proposition from adding something in respect of these collections. I would not stand for that.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I am quite prepared to accept the Lord Chancellor's view. I think that what he says meets the case, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ROCHE: May I say that I, and a number of the members of my Committee, would feel happier if in this clause the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor added some words such as those he used—"having regard to the services of collecting officers"—to show that the justices' clerk should not be remunerated by any sum in respect of collecting duties and, on the other hand, that no magistrates' courts committee should fall into the heresy on which the Amendment by the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, was based and which the noble and learned Viscount repelled. I think this is an unfortunate clause unless something is said about the collecting officer's duties being the subject of consideration when the justices' clerk's salary comes to be fixed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look into that matter.
On Question, Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Superannuation of justices' clerks and their staff]:
10.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (6) to omit the opening words "The Secretary of State," and to insert:
"A magistrates' courts committee shall not be deemed to be a local Act authority for the purposes of section twenty-six of the 1937 Act (which relates to the modification or replacement of local Act superannuation schemes) but the Minister of Health."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is twofold. Subsection (3) of Clause 17 provides that for the purposes of the Act of 1937, a magistrates' courts committee, in relation to justices' clerks and their staffs, shall be deemed to be a local Act authority if the council responsible for their remuneration is a local Act authority. The employees of a local Act authority are superannuable by virtue of provisions in the local Act and not under the Act of 1937, but the 1937 Act contains certain provisions which apply to local Act authorities. Section 26 of the Act of 1937 requires a local Act authority to make provision for the modification of their superannuation scheme and it is inappropriate that this obligation should fall upon the magistrates' courts committee. The first part of the Amendment accordingly provides that the

1221
magistrates' courts committee shall not he deemed to be a local Act authority for the purposes of Section 26.
Subsection (6) of Clause 17 provides for the modification of the superannuation schemes of local Act authorities, which are known as local Act schemes, so as to make them apply to justices' clerks and their staffs, and under the subsection as drafted the modifying orders are to he made by the Secretary of State. But the Minister of Health is the Minister concerned with the general administration of the Act of 1937 and the local Act schemes, and it is thought that it would be more appropriate if he were the authority responsible for making the orders under subsection 6. Accordingly, this result is effected by the last four words of this Amendment. It might be pointed out to your Lordships that this is a change of form rather than of substance, as such orders will of course he made by the Minister of Health only after full and detailed consultation with the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I suppose this is really necessary. We have been trying to take the Secretary of State out of this Bill and to keep it all in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. We thought we had only three Ministers to deal with—the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland; now we get the Minister of Health. What happens about Scotland? There does not seem to be an Amendment dealing with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Minister of Health's writ does not run there. Could we not leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State and have the justices clerks dealt with by one authority? It is confusing when we deal with more than one Minister.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This does not apply to Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, after ("section") insert ("whose remuneration or any part thereof is paid by the local Act authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 43, leave out from ("authority") to ("subject") in line 44.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (7) to omit all words after "death" and to insert:
"then in relation to any person who is by virtue of this section a contributory employee or local Act contributor in respect of an employment for which his remuneration is paid by the council that provision shall apply as if in that employment he were an employee of the council, subject however to such adaptations as may be provided by order of the Minister of Health."
The noble and learned Viscount said: In the case of many county and county borough councils provision is made entirely outside the Act of 1937 or the local Act scheme for various kinds of benefits which ar payable in the event of the death of an employee or in the event of his being injured or suffering from illness. Sometimes, as in the case of illness or injury, these payments are made to the employee himself: sometimes, as in the case of gratuities payable on death, they are payable to the widow or other dependants. Subsection (7) of Clause 17 as at present drafted provides that such provisions may be extended by order of the Secretary of State to any justices' clerk (and to the staff of a justices' clerk) whose remuneration is paid by the council concerned. Such provisions are both numerous and varied, and on consideration it has been found that it would not he practicable to make orders under this subsection applying the individual schemes. The object of this Amendment is to apply such schemes generally as if the justices' clerk (and the justices' clerk's staff) concerned were employees of the council in whose area the particular scheme operates. The closing words of the Amendment enable the Minister of Health to make any detailed adaptations which may be necessary in the case of a particular scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("death") to end of line 9, and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Existing and former justices' clerks, etc.]
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is perhaps a convenient point for me to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to elucidate the position of the Standing Joint Committee of Middlesex. I have not put a number of Amendments on the paper, because I thought I should expedite the business if I raised the matter on the question of whether the clause stand part. As your Lordships are probably aware, in 1936 (I think it was) Parliament passed a special local Act at the instance of the Middlesex County Council which enabled the Home Secretary to make an order whereby the Standing Joint Committee of that county would exercise all the powers and duties of the justices with regard to the appointment and dismissal and terms of employment of justices' clerks and their assistants, and to transfer to the service of the Standing Joint Committee the justices' clerks who were then in office. Parliament thoroughly approved of that and passed the Bill, and the following year an application was made to the Secretary of State who made an order under that provision whereby all the justices' clerks, and all future jurisdiction over them, was transferred to the Standing Joint Committee.
That order, as I understand it, provided, as was always the intention of the Middlesex County Council, that the provisions which now, ten years later, find their place in this Bill should be applied to the justices' clerks and their assistants —for instance, that they should be remunerated by a proper salary. All the scandals about percentages and "rake-offs," and so on, was abolished in the County of Middlesex, part of which I had the honour to represent before I came to your Lordships' House. What is more, the assistants who used to be remunerated, if I may use the term, by a "rake-off"—and not always a very satisfactory "rake-off"—from the salary of the clerk, were ten years ago in Middlesex properly remunerated by a regular approved salary paid to them. In fact, the whole thing became a kind of established Civil Service which is exactly what,
1224
ten years later, this Bill seeks to do for the whole country. If I may so put it. Middlesex adopted the prototype of a system which is now to be followed here. It is rather lucky that it did not take ten years to get mass production of aeroplanes from a prototype! All I am asking is that that prototype, having gone through all its flying trials with the greatest possible success, and having stood for ten years in action, should be allowed to continue in active service and should not now be abolished merely for the sake of uniformity or, as I believe we are now pleased to call it, streamlining.
But the Standing Joint Committee are to be abolished by this Bill—there is a special provision in the Schedules to do so. I ought to have some of my former Middlesex colleagues here—and, indeed, Lord Latham, who tried very hard several times in opposition to me to become a representative of Middlesex. I am glad to say that he never succeeded, but he certainly ought to be here to support me to-day. I would like to pray Lord Roche in aid of this, because I think I am right in saying that when he was examining the position of the justices' clerks he and his Committee paid a special compliment to Middlesex, for the way in which they had done this job. So far as I can see, only one argument could be advanced for depriving this Standing Joint Committee of these functions which it has discharged very well. Standing joint committees ordinarily deal with police matters. Now I see that that is an objection, but I think I am right in saying that in the County of Middlesex the Standing Joint Committee do not have anything to do with the appointment or administration of the police. That being established—and I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for affirming that—it seems to me that the last reason has gone why this admirable body should now, for the sake of uniformity, be deprived of functions which it has hitherto performed for the last ten years with complete success. My connection with Middlesex has ceased, but I still have an affectionate recollection of all that it was to me, as I hope Middlesex has for me for the little I was to it. In loyalty to my old county of adoption I certainly could not let this clause go through without entering my protest and asking the Lord Chancellor at least to justify this curious clause in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am rather sorry for Middlesex in this matter. It is the fact that Middlesex is one of the rare counties—the County of London is another—where the standing joint committee has nothing to do with the police. I. cannot recall another for the moment, but there may be some. Therefore, the objection to using this standing joint committee—and I concede at once they did their work well; I have nothing to say against them at all—would not apply. Because the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, appealed to Lord Roche, and it is said that the devil himself may quote scripture, let us see what Lord Roche said. Lord Roche's Committee considered the case of Middlesex and the matter of the magistrates' courts committee, and in paragraph 92 of their Report they state:
"The standing joint committee has been suggested as a suitable body for appointing clerks in county areas. In Middlesex the appointment of clerks, and the carrying out of various changes similar to those we recommend, has been vested in the Middlesex Standing Joint Committee by the County of Middlesex (Petty Sessional Divisions and Justices Clerks) Order, 1938, made in pursuance of Section 57 of the London and Middlesex (improvements,, etc.) Act, 1938. As a guide to procedure and in their general scope the Middlesex Act and Order provide a useful precedent, but not on this point, for the Middlesex Standing Joint Committee differs from other standing joint committees: a standing joint committee is ordinarily the police authority for its county, whereas Middlesex is for police purposes in the Metropolitan area. We do not thick that justices' clerks ought to be appointed by a body that is a police authority, and we therefore reject the suggestion of vetting appointments in standing joint committees."
Upon that point, I agree that the argument does hit against Middlesex. The Report continues:
"It has been suggested that county councils should he entrusted with these powers. In our opinion direct control by elected bodies over any person forming part of the system for the administration of justice is most undesirable."
At any rate, so far as the standing joint committee is concerned, part of it is an elected body consisting of elected representatives, and this argument therefore applies.
"City and borough councils, being both elected and authorities for police purposes, are doubly unsuitable"—
meaning thereby that they are unsuitable for both reasons; that is obviously the case.
1226
"The justices of the areas concerned are in our opinion the most suitable local bodies for appointing clerks."
So that is my answer to the noble Viscount. I give him this: that Middlesex did some pioneering work and they did it well; I make no qualification about that at all. The Standing Joint Committee did their job well. But, after all, London is in the same position. In London the Standing Joint Committee are not responsible for the police and London is going to accept the magistrates' courts committee system.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They never had this power, had they? I do not think they had.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure about that. Anyhow, we are going to have the magistrates' courts committee system there and I think it is better. I am not being a pedant about uniformity, but here there is a choice of bodies: either a magistrates' courts committee which consists of magistrates and is in no sense an elected body, or a standing joint committee which, at any rate in part, is an elected body. If I accept, as I have accepted and tried to honour, the recommendations in Roche Committee's Report, I accept the doctrine that this direct control by elected bodies over any person forming part of the system for the administration of justice is most undesirable. Here there is in Middlesex—although I agree it has worked well—direct control by a body half of which is elected, and I think it is better in those circumstances not to break the rule of uniformity and to adopt in Middlesex, as in the rest of the country, a magistrates' courts committee.
In parting with the Middlesex Standing Joint Committee, it is only fair that I should emphasise again that they did do pioneering work, and of course they suffer the fate which the pioneer often does suffer—somebody comes along and invents something rather better, and the unfortunate pioneer has only the moral satisfaction of realising that he was the fellow who blazed the trail. That satisfaction Middlesex are fully entitled to, but I am afraid I cannot depart from the principle of the Roche Committee and accept the doctrine that even it Middlesex we should do away with the proposal for magistrates' courts committee and have instead the Standing Joint Committee.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his full answer. He has paid his tribute of a tear to the virtue of Middlesex. I do not think I can press the matter further, and the Standing Joint Committee of Middlesex will have to rest content with the memory. But virtue, except in the case of a Socialist Government, is its own reward.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Duties of county and county borough councils]:
10.20 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Templewood, I should like to move the Amendment standing in his name. Subsection (1) of Clause 19 says that the local authority shall pay for various things, and we want to include amongst them a comparatively small matter and a new one—the instruction of justices in their duties. It may well be that there will be some local expenditure under this heading. It will probably not be large, but it is desirable that the justices should not have to pay this entirely themselves; and I do not think anybody else should pay for it other than the local authority. It may be said that this is intended in the clause as drafted, but it is not clear, and I therefore suggest that these words shall he inserted to make it clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, after ("justices") insert ("and for the instruction of such justices in their duties").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: When the noble Lord suggested that this Amendment was unnecessary he was right. Clause 19, subsection (2), as at present drafted provides for all expenses incurred by magistrates' courts committees to be paid by the council of each county and county borough. The administration of the system of instruction is a function of magistrates' courts, who can be required by the Secretary of State to perform these functions under the provisions also of Clause 12, subsection (1). I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord may feel he can withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for making that point clear. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think there, is more in it than the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has suggested. Under a new clause of mine inserted in the Bill it is provided that it should be the duty of every magistrates' courts committee to do these things. So it is not a matter of what the Secretary of State may require them to do; by the Statute itself they are required to provide these courses of instruction.
LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to raise a point here. I am sorry not to have given notice of it. For many years past the magistrates have been worried by an anomaly by which, as I understand it, borough justices, have in certain circumstances been liable to pay damages for acts or omissions of theirs in the course of their duty. The curious thing is that that applies only to borough justices, and not to those in the counties. I should like to ask whether Clause 19 removes that anomaly and relieves borough justices from any such liability. I am looking in particular at Clause 19, subsection (2), paragraph (c) which says that the council of each county and county borough shall pay
"…all other costs incurred with the general or special authority of the magistrates' courts committee by the county or borough justices…in defending any legal proceedings taken against him in respect of any order made or act done out of sessions in the execution of his duty as such a justice."
Then I would like to draw attention to subsection (5), which seems to be consequential upon that. This is not a very simple matter and I may have got it wrong, but I would be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would tell the House whether or not this point is met by this subsection. In particular, would he tell us what is the significance of the words "out of sessions" which appear several times. I am not clear how those three words affect this clause, and it is a point that has been worrying magistrates for years. They have sent several communications to the Home Office about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had not any notice of this point and I do not

1229
profess to be an expert on it, but I have taken advice from those quarters where I normally obtain advice. I am assured that the distinction and the anomalies to which the noble Lord has referred are removed by this clause. I would rather not answer any further questions at this stage. I would ask the noble Lord to accept my ipse dixit on this topic. I can add this. Costs incurred with the general or special authority of the magistrates' courts committee by any justice in the area of the committee in defending any legal proceedings taken against him in respect of any order made or act done out of sessions in the execution of his duty as a justice are now payable. Under Section 66 of the Local Government Act, 1888, such costs are, in the case of county justices, payable to such amount as may be sanctioned by the standing joint committee out of the county funds, but there is no similar provision as regards borough justices. It is clearly wrong that an individual justice should be personally liable for the costs of defending legal proceedings taken in respect of some decision, whether right or wrong, which he has taken in the execution of his duty as a justice. This paragraph of the subsection makes a general provision by which such costs may be paid out of local funds. Your Lordships will see that the previous anomaly is now done away with.
LORD MERTHYR: I am greatly obliged for that explanation which will relieve several people's minds on the subject. If it is not a stupid question, I would like to ask: Does the word "costs" include damages in this relation? I suppose it does.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would like notice of that question. I can tell the noble Lord that "out of sessions" means "not in quarter sessions", but I cannot give a further answer on the spur of the moment.
LORD MERTHYR: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Supplementary provisions as to powers and duties of councils
20.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,—
1230

(a) the accommodation, furniture, books and other things to be provided by a council under the last foregoing section; and

(b) the salary to be paid to a justices' clerk and the staff to be provided for him; and

(c) the nature and amount of the expenses which a magistrates' courts committee may incur in the discharge of any functions or may authorise to be incurred (including the sums payable to a justices' clerk in respect of accommodation, staff or equipment provided by him);

shall he such as may from time to time be determined by agreement between the magistrates' courts committee and council concerned.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) (a) after the opening word "the" to insert "petty sessional court house and other." The noble Lord said: Clause 20 sets out the matters which the magistrates' courts committee and the council concerned are to determine by agreement. One of these matters, of course, is the petty sessional court-houses in which the justices are to sit. As your Lordships will see, petty sessional court-houses are included in Clause 19 (1), but, for some reason or other, they have been overlooked n Clause 20 (1) (a). I think there has been an omission in the drafting, and I beg to move my Amendment in order to put this right.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after ("the") insert ("petty sessional court-houses and other").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, which I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, in subsection (1) to omit "agreement between." The noble Lord said: The two Amendments to lines 1 and 2 and the Amendments to lines 22 and 25 all hang together and their purpose, although it may not be popular, is very simple. The clause as it now stands says that the various matters which are set out at the bottom of page 19
"shall be such as may from time to time be determined by agreement between the magistrates' courts committee and council concerned."
The effect of my Amendments if carried would be to say that they should be

1231
determined by the magistrates' courts committee after consultation with the council concerned and subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. I could talk for an hour and a half about the advantages of that as against the proposal in the Bill as it stands, but I think the purpose involved is clear to all noble Lords present, and I will not waste time by arguing the matter further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 1, leave out from ("by") to ("the") in line 2.—(Lord Schuster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Lord that these four Amendments hang together and, frankly, I do not feel strongly one way or the other about this matter. It seems to me a small point. I will put it to the Committee and see what views I get. The Bill as drafted proposes that the magistrates' courts committee are to fix the salaries by agreement with the council, and, of course, the council who have the funds at their disposal have to pay. The proposal is, therefore, that the magistrates' courts committee and the council agree, and if they cannot agree the matter is settled by the Secretary of State. That is the scheme of the Bill. It departs from the Roche Committee's Report, which the noble Lord prefers. His scheme, I think—he will correct me if I am wrong—is that the magistrates' courts committee shall fix the remuneration after consultation with the council. The magistrates' courts committee can fix what it is to be without getting the consent of the council; all they have to do is to consult the council. Then, they having fixed the amount, the council have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. So it comes to very nearly the same thing to my mind: the first proposal being that the committee and the council have to agree or, in default of agreement, the Secretary of State fixes; the second proposal being that the committee consult with the council, after consultation fix the amount of the salary, and the council then have a right of appeal.
If one could imagine a sort of formal hearing before the Home Secretary or his officials—there would never be such a thing, of course—the matter might be important, because the question might arise as to whom had the right to begin, or something of that sort. But I cannot
1232
think that it makes very much difference one way or another. Were I quite satisfied that the local authorities would not mind at all, I would most readily accept the noble Lord's suggestion; but not having had the chance of talking to the local authorities, I do not know whether, although I think it is mainly a matter of form, they might resent any alteration from a proposal which presupposes an agreement subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State if they cannot agree. They might resent that change. As I say, I cannot think it is a matter of great substance and I should like to hear what noble Lords, who probably have served on these local councils and have studied this matter as magistrates' courts committees, think is the better procedure of the two. It is not a matter about which I can get at all anxious or excited. If this commends itself to the Committee as a whole, I am quite prepared to agree to this alteration, though at a later stage, and particularly in another place, it may be that the local authorities may make their views about the matter felt.
10.36 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: For my part I should much prefer to have the terms of Lord Schuster's Amendment put in the Bill. I think the magistrates' courts committee would start off on a better foundation if it were they who were primarily concerned in matters such as the fixing of the salaries of their own clerks. It is true that they are not a rate-levying authority, and, therefore, the rate-levying authority has to be consulted in order to ensure that nothing extraordinary is done. But I think it will give a better status to the magistrates' courts committees if they consult first and then have a fairly free hand when it comes to offering a justices' clerk a particular salary. They will then know where they are and will not have to say: "We offer you this subject to its being agreed by some other authority." By all means let there be consultation with the local authority to see whether the salary which is proposed to be offered is of a nature which the county council will approve. If there is that approval, then it will not be necessary to get agreement on the salary of a particular man. You can offer him a salary and he will be solely your employee and not the employee of the county council at all. That, I think,

1233
in these days, when local authorities are so much concerned in enforcing different bylaws and different statutes, is of importance. It is far better that clerks to the justices should be servants of the justices only and in no way, even by reason of this kind of indirect method of proceeding, servants of one of the local authorities. So I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will accept this Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: I have discussed this matter carefully with my brother magistrates. They most certainly support this Amendment. They feel very strongly that these sables should be settled by the magistrates' courts committees after consultation with and not by agreement with the paying authorities, and, similarly, that the magistrates' courts committees should have the power to settle the conditions of service of their clerks and their assistants of all classes. In the case especially of an office such as that of a clerk, they feel that this should be decided by the magistrates' courts committee alone and not by agreement with the paying authority, in reaching which agreement there might be delay. The wish of the magistrates to whom I have spoken is that the magistrates' courts committee should be independent and in no way governed by the local authorities. The view has also been expressed to me that neither the justices' clerks nor their assistants should have their salaries agreed by a body which is often a party to court proceedings. They feel that the independence of the magistrates' courts committee is most essential, and I know that they most strongly support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster.
LORD RAGLAN: I think it is quite likely that in some instances, at least, there will be disagreement between the magistrates' courts committee and the council, and in that case I think the magistrates' courts committee will be in a much more favourable position if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Schuster is accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have now heard the voiles of four members of this Committee, all of whom have supported Lord Schuster's Amendment. So I, too, will support Lord Schuster and say that I will accept this Amendment. In view of the somewhat uncer-
1234
tain position, as I have not the views of local authorities before me, I hope the Government will not be considered guilty of inconsistency if in another place (if the Bill ever gets to another place) a different view is taken. Subject to that, I accept the Amendment.
LORD SCHUSTER: I am most grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Viscount originally received my Amendment and for what he has now said. I would add a further word. If in these cases the local authorities were really the paying authorities in any substantial sense, I might concede that they would take a different view; but if fees and fines are taken together, and especially if money stolen is recovered, there would be enough without dipping into the rates fund. In these circumstances, I am unable to see why the local authority should be the dominant factor in the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SCHUSTER: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("after consultation with the").—(Lord Schuster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment that the noble and learned Viscount was good enough to accept earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 13, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SCHUSTER: This Amendment is consequential on my original Amendment. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, after ("Any") insert ("council concerned which is aggrieved by a determination of a magistrates' courts committee under subsection (1) hereof may within one month from the receipt by the council of written notice of such determination appeal to the Secretary of State whose decision shall be binding upon the magistrates' courts committee and the council concerned and any ").—(Lord Schuster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SCHUSTER: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, leave out ("agreement") and insert ("determination").—(Lora Schuster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Application of fines and fees and payment of expenses of courts]:
10.42 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "otherwise than in respect of duties of justices at quarter sessions." The noble Lord said: Clause 6 of this Bill deals with payment of travelling and lodging allowances to justices for the performance of their duties and says that those allowances shall be paid by the local authorities. Clause 21, subsection (2), which is incidentally an extremely important subsection, makes it clear that the local authorities will be repaid these expenses by a piece of machinery set out in the Bill, but the last line of the first part of this subsection says:
"otherwise than in respect of duties of justices at quarter sessions."
From this it appears that justices will be paid their allowances for attendance at petty sessions but not at quarter sessions. If that be the intention I should like to know, on behalf of several people, why attendance at quarter sessions is excluded. I have not been able to think of any reason. A justice is notified of his duties at quarter sessions. He is considered not to be doing his duty if he does not go, although it is not compulsory for him to do so. Surely it is just as much his duty to go to quarter sessions as to petty sessions, and it is puzzling to know why he should not be paid for it. I feel there must be some reason, and I should like to know what it is. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, leave out line 13.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason why payments of travelling and lodging allowances, which are payable under Clause 6 in respect of duties of justices at quarter sessions, are excluded from this subsection is that this clause is entirely confined to the expenses of magistrates' courts and the sums received in magistrates' courts. It has nothing to do with the expenses of quarter sessions or
1236
those incurred by justices at quarter sessions. Such expenses will, as the Bill stands, fall upon the local authority. There is not the slightest reason why the expenses incurred by justices in attending quarter sessions, or for that matter any other quarter sessions expenses, should be brought into the account of expenses on magistrates' courts for the purpose of Clause 21, which provides merely that expenses of magistrates' courts are to be met out of fines and fees taken in magistrates' courts, plus a grant from the Exchequer. It does not mean that attendance at quarter sessions is not paid for, but merely that that is an inappropriate subject matter for this clause.
LORD MERTHYR: I understand from that that justices will be paid for going to quarter sessions. But do I understand that the local authority will be repaid?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
LORD MERTHYR: I am obliged for the explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR: This is a consequential Amendment on an Amendment already accepted. I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templewood.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, leave out from ("metropolitan") to second ("of") in line 3, and insert ("stipendiary court, a clerk at either of the justice rooms").—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 21, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SCHUSTER: I should like to make a few observations before this clause is passed. This is really the most important clause in the Bill, because it provides for a completely new method of finding the expenses of petty sessional courts. So far as I understand, they are to be found by this method: that fees and fines will all be paid into the Exchequer, and the Exchequer will pay out again to the courts according to their needs. If the amount distributed is insufficient to meet those needs, there will be a two-thirds contribution from the Exchequer and a one-third contribution from the rates. I think that is right. What I want to know is what is to happen to the road fines?

1237
I have not looked at the figures for over two years, but up to the time of the Report of the Roche Committee the total amount received in fees and fines in all the magistrates' courts throughout the country, added together, was sufficient to pay the expenses of all the magistrates' courts put together and leave a small surplus. Owing to various accidental circumstances it did not work out like that. In a great many cases there was a deficit which had to be met out of the rates, and in some cases there was actually a profit to the rate. I fully understand the fact that such of the Roche Committee recommendations as are being given effect to in this Bill will increase the cost of the administration of the magistrates courts—at least, I hope so. I do not like spending money unnecessarily, but it is impossible to provide salaries for the clerks and their assistants, and to provide proper books and furniture for petty sessional courts, other than at a greater expense than is now incurred. But if the road fines went into the same pocket as the other fines, in all probability that deficit would be redressed.
Probably all your Lordships know the history of the road tines. There was a time in the early motoring days when it was suggested that certain courts of summary jurisdiction were imposing excessive tines on motorists so as to relieve the rates, and the motorists, being a powerful body, succeeded in persuading some Minister of the Crown—and, I suppose, the Cabinet—to take the road fines and put them into something called the. Road Fund, the poor innocent creatures thinking that that hen roost would not he robbed. Then in due time there came a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a keener nose than those who preceded him, and he took the Road Fund and put it into the Exchequer. There is no reason whatever that I have been able to ascertain, in logic or in reason, which dictates such a policy as that. Why should the fines which are imposed for road offences be applied for the benefit of the general taxpayer, while all other fines are devoted to the purposes of the court? Motoring offences do add considerably to the expense of the courts. They certainly add to the expense of the local authority. I do not know how many additional hours in the petty sessional court in which I
1238
have the honour of sitting were devoted to dealing with motoring offences, but the number was considerable. Apart from the fact that funds not paid in had to be accounted for, and as the accounting system of petty justice in this country is probably the most complicated and foolish that the brain of man has ever devised, the result was a considerable waste. All I want to do is to ask what is to become of the road fines. Are we going to get the butter out of the dog's mouth at last?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the position is this. Under the existing law certain penalties are payable to the Exchequer, and fines imposed under the Road Traffic Acts come under that category. The Roche Committee contemplated that these funds world go into the pool from which the expenses of magistrates' courts should be met, and they gave certain figures. In 1938 local authorities received from fines and fees about £690,000, and the expenditure of local authorities on magistrates' courts amounted to £872,000. There was therefore a deficit for the whole country of approximately £182,000. On the other hand, the Exchequer received from Exchequer penalties about £380,000. If the Exchequer penalties were put into the pool the result would be that the deficit of running the courts would be met 100 per cent. by the Treasury, and it would still be met 100 per cent. by the Treasury even if the deficit were twice as large as it was in 1938. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that the Treasury are not prepared to agree, and accordingly this clause excludes from the pool of fines and fees those sums which are at present payable to the Exchequer.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Surely the noble and learned Viscount has been talking about the fines for Customs offences and things of that sort, which always have gone direct to the Treasury? That £380,000 does not take account of the road fines, does it? I think that is a completely different figure if I may suggest it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It does.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Then I suggest that the Treasury should analyse those figures a little more carefully. It is

1239
absurd to ask them to pay twice the deficit, but if they keep their Customs and income tax fines, and things of that sort, then they might find that their road fines would make up the difference. As I understand it, the Home Secretary is to make it up anyway, so why not do it directly as suggested by the noble Lord?
LORD SCHUSTER: It is a little more than that. All through our discussions has run the idea that the less control the local authority have over the administration of petty justice the better. They would have no control at all if all the money available which came into the court was used for the purpose of the court. Therefore it is not a mere question of grabbing at £100,000 or £1,000,000, or something of that kind: it is a serious question of principle. If the fines and fees of the court came into one fund and were distributed according to need (this is rather a prophecy, of course, because no one can exactly foresee the extra expense which this Bill would involve) the cost would be practically covered, and the charge upon the rate would be infinitesimal. Under the plan now proposed, by which the Treasury hold on to the money that belongs to the courts—that is what they would be doing under that system, and it is rather foolish from their point of view—a large contribution is required from the Treasury. That is spending over which they have no control at all. It represents a charge upon the rate which forms an infinitely small percentage of all the money spent upon the courts but gives local authorities generally a footing from which they can, and very largely do, interfere with the salaries of clerks, the way in which clerks behave themselves, the fittings of the place, and what is furnished necessarily for the benefit of the courts and for the magistrates who sit in them. That I think is evil, and it is an evil that is all produced by this monstrous robbing of the hen roost by a noble Viscount who is not at the moment sitting on that Front Bench but who was sitting there very recently.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.