Sitting of 11 December 1924

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

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

BANFF TOWN HALL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I desire to present a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Banff Town Hall; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion of which Notice has been given in respect of the Law of Property Act (Postponement) Bill and the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill. The circumstances under which this Motion is made were explained by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack yesterday, and the necessity was acquiesced in by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, opposite, so that feel I need say nothing to your Lordships' House in making the Motion.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting for the purpose of taking the Law of Property Act (Postponement) Bill [H.L.] and the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill [H.L.] through their remaining stages.—(The Marguess Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR (RATES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CHAPTERED ACCOUNTANTS ANNUITY, ETC., FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SCRABSTER HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 18 of the Schedule:
Purchase of tramways by local authorities.
18. The provisions of Section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, shall apply to the intended tramways except Tramway No. 1 Provided that in the application of those provisions the period of forty-two years shall be substituted for the period of twenty-one years therein mentioned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out Clause 18 of the Schedule. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it seems that following the general Orders of your Lordships' House there is a provision in the Bill which makes it necessary that after a certain period parts of this tramways system which are outside the City of Glasgow shall be offered for purchase to the local authority in whose jurisdiction they are situate. But in respect of Glasgow, at any rate for some years, that particular provision has been

87
dispensed with, and in a series of Acts of Parliament dealing with various tramway extensions outside the City of Glasgow the Corporation have been allowed to keep these tramway extensions in perpetuity. It is in pursuance of that precedent that I move to strike out Clause 18.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 13 of the Schedule.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Can the noble Marquess tell us whether there has been any discussion in Parliament with regard to this departure from the usual practice inherent in all Tramway Bills. I am not rising to offer any opposition to the Amendment, but at the same time, it is an important departure from the principle and the policy which has been followed, and I should like to know whether any discussion has taken place with respect to the case of Glasgow on any previous occasion.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to answer the question as I am familiar with the history of this Hill. This Amendment only follows what has always hitherto been done in the case of Glasgow.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I know.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there are about six precedents.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 of the Schedule:
Lodging of appeals.
31. In its application to the city Section 9 (Persons entitled to appeal) of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, shall he read and have effect as if—
(1) the words "not later than the third day of September lodge an appeal in writing with the assessor" were substituted for the words "six days at least before such appeal is heard intimate in writing to the assessor that he is to maintain such appeal" occurring therein; and
(2) the following provisoes were added to that section:—
"and provided further—

"(a) that where an appellant at the hearing of an appeal
88
refers to or leads evidence in respect of premises other than the premises referred to in such appeal and has not at least two days before the date on which the appeal is heard furnished in writing to the assessor the address of such premises the assessor may at the close of the case for the appellant make an application to the court for a continuation of such hearing which application the court 6hall grant where it is possible to do so and to admit of the appeal being heard and determined within the time prescribed by this Act for the holding of such courts; and

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in proviso (a) of paragraph (2), to leave out "where it is possible to do so and" and to insert "if and so far as this can be done so as." The noble Marquess said: This is a drafting Amendment only.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("where it is possible to do so and") and insert ("if and so far as this can be done so as").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (POSTPONEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I ought to intimate to the House that His Majesty, whose interests may be affected by this Bill, consents to the passage of the Bill.

JUDICIAL VACANCIES.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies (not exceeding two) should be filled in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those Judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of the Supreme Court of. Judicature Act, 1910.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have now to move, accordance with Notice, that an Address be presented to His Majesty the effect of which will be to authorise the appoint merit of two additional Judges. As your Lordships know, the normal strength of the King's Bench Division is fifteen Judges, in addition to the Lord Chief Justice. In 1910 the Cause List had got into such serious arrears that Parliament then authorised by Statute the, appointment of two additional Judges to the King's Bench Division, but added a proviso, the effect of which was that whenever the number of Judges was again reduced in number the vacancy should not be filled except on the presentation of an Address from both Houses representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division required that such vacancy should be filled. From 1910 to 1913 the number of Judges was generally kept up to seventeen, but in the year 1913 it had been reduced by death and other en uses to fifteen. By that time the arrears had been reduced with the help of the two new Judges. No Address was then presented by Parliament, and the number continued at fifteen until the year 1920.
In the year 1920 the arrears in the Cause List had again seriously increased and Parliament presented an Address of this character, and two new Judges were again appointed. The number was kept up to seventeen until March, 1923, when Mr. Justice Bray died, and we then made an attempt to go on with sixteen Judges. But arrears again began to grow and before the late Conservative Government, of which I was a member, went out of office we had decided to ask Parliament to pass an Address for an increase of Judges under the Act. The late Government had decided to move such an
90
Address this year and it would no doubt have been moved but for the Election a month or so ago. The question has again become very urgent and figures which I have examined slow plainly that it is only by increasing the number of Judges that we can get through the business of the King's Bench Division.
I will give your Lordships a few figures which will, I think, speak for themselves. At Easter, 1920, the cases on the List for trial in the King's Bench Division amounted to 888. At Easter, 1923, the figure, had decreased from 888 to 380. In March, 1923, the number of Judges fell to sixteen by reason of the death of Air. Justice Bray to which I have referred, and we went on with sixteen Bulges during that summer. At Michaelmas, 1923, the arrears had again risen to 731, and by Michaelmas, 1924, the cases on the List had risen to the very high number of 1191. I think your Lordships will see, therefore, that the time has come when the matter ought to be definitely considered, and that the figures show that an increased judicial staff is really necessary.
There are also certain special reasons which show that more Judges are needed. The list of divorce oases, although not quite so heavy as immediately after the Armistice, is still very heavy, the number of eases on the List for the Michaelmas Term being 913. The practice of transferring Judges from the King's Bench Division to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division has been practically continuous. The King's Bench Division has for some time past almost always lent a Judge to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and this year, during which one of the Judges of the Probate Division has been disabled by illness, two Judges have been transferred from the King's Bench Division to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. In addition, some divorce work, as your Lordships know, has been transferred, but even so the divorce work has grown to a very high figure. Then there is another factor. Trial by jury naturally takes a longer time than trial by a Judge and, as the House knows, cases in which trial by jury was dispensed with, the cases being tried by a Judge, greatly increased during the war. That process is now being reversed. Already jury trials are more frequent

91
than they were and, if discussions which took place last summer bear fruit in a Bill which may be introduced in this Session, an approach may be made towards restoring the old system of trial by jury. In that case more judicial time will be occupied by trials in the King's Bench Division.
Further, as your Lordships know, the President of the Railway and Canal Commission is always a Judge of the High Court, and the work of that Commission has been very greatly increased by the passage of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. That Act committed to the Railway and Canal Commission certain new work, and that work has proved very substantial, with the result that a Judge of the King's Bench Division is occupied for much of his time in presiding over the Railway and Canal Commission. Then there has been a system, which I am afraid has not diminished in recent years, under which, whenever an Inquiry is desired by Parliament or by a Department and it is desired to appoint a Chairman of independent and judicial views, a Judge of the High Court or a Lord Justice of Appeal is chosen for the purpose. These Committees have taken away from their judicial work a great many of our Judges during the last few years. If your Lordships care to follow that point up you will find, in answers given to written Questions in another place yesterday, a list of Judges who have been so occupied.
The result of all this has been to throw very heavy burdens upon the King's Bench Division and to make it practically impossible for that Division, with its present staff, to carry out its work properly. Indeed, if it had not been for the assistance rendered to that Division by a member of your Lordship's House, I do not know how we should have got on. My noble and learned friend Lord Darling has, not only in the last sittings, but again in the present sittings, given a great deal of the leisure that he has fully earned and that he knows so well how to use, to the task of guiding and brightening the administration of justice in the King's Bench Division, and I am sure the country is very greatly indebted to him for his help in that direction. If it had not been for his help the arrears would have been even greater than they are to-day.
I must refer briefly to the question of cost. If you look into it you find that the cost which will be caused by the appointment of these two additional Judges is really trifling compared with the benefit which will accrue to suitors. The total cost of the two Judges will be £5,400 per annum each, or a total of £10,800 a year. But that sum must be reduced in more ways than one to get at the real figure. You must deduct Income Tax and Super-Tax, which are returnable to the State and which form, as your Lordships know, a very substantial item to-day. In addition, we must deduct the cost of the Commissioners of Assize. For years past the number of Judges available for Assize work has been insufficient, and the Lord Chancellor of the day has had to ask distinguished King's Counsel to act as Commissioners of Assize and assist the Judges of Assize in doing their work. That, in itelf, is costly. I will give your Lordships one figure to show what it means. In the financial year 1923–I fees paid to Commissioners of Assize amounted to £3,102. If you deduct from the £10,800, Income Tax, Super-Tax and this item of £3,102, you will readily see that the net cost of the addition which we require will not be great.
I will venture to make only a few more remarks. It is rather unfortunate that at every vacancy in the King's Bench Division an Address should have to be presented by both Houses. For instance, if your Lordships pass this Address to-day and it is also passed by the other House, and if a Judge were to resign next month, it would be necessary again to pass a similar Address, although it is plain that the need for the additional judicial strength will not have been removed in that interval. I think that this point needs to be looked into, and I propose when an opportunity occurs to ask Parliament to say that when an Address is once passed it shall take effect for some fixed period—say, a year—so as to give a chance of securing due advantage from the appointment of additional Judges.
I go a little further. I think we have now had enough experience of this Act to warrant us in considering whether some more permanent arrangement should not be made. I think the time has come when I should ask some competent Committee

93
to go into the whole question, and to consider what ought to be the strength of the judicial staff both in the King's Bench Division and also in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. That Committee might also consider whether the present allocation of work between the Divisions of the High Court is quite that which it ought to be. However, that is a matter for the future, and I only refer to it today in order that it may be borne in mind. That project, of course, will not satisfy the immediate requirements of the High Court, which are very urgent. I think we all recognise that delay is the cause of great hardship to suitors, and in some cases amounts almost to a denial of justice. Believing that your Lordships take that view, I have no hesitation in moving the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies (not exceeding two) should be filled in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those Judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTKR: My Lords, this Motion will no doubt be passed in another place. I have equally no doubt that it will receive your Lordships' approval. It has been stated by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that it was the intention of the Government before the last to lay the matter before your Lordships, and that the late Government was inspired with the same idea. Therefore there is not likely to be much opposition to the Motion, but none the less I think it would be unfortunate if a Motion of this importance were to be passed without some consideration. In 1912 a Motion was made in the House of Commons asking for the appointment of one additional Judge, and I opposed it on the ground that the whole circuit system required to be revised. There had been reports made more than once showing' that by a rearrangement and re-adjustment of business it would be possible for the then existing judicial strength effectively to cope with the arrears, and I asked the House of Commons to reject the Motion,
94
until it was shown that the Government were prepared to deal with this matter. The Government gave the usual promises. I cannot, say that I was greatly taken in by them. I did not expect that anything would result, and nothing did, and nothing has resulted from that day to this, although twelve years have passed.
The present Government has an unrivalled opportunity. It has got a majority which will enable it to carry in another place almost anything which it desires, and in this House no reasonable proposal for re-adjustment or redistribution is likely to meet with much opposition. Therefore I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor, who says he is going to appoint a Committee for the purpose of seeing what re-arrangement of business can be effected to secure the more efficient conduct of judicial business, whether he intends to include the circuit system or not, because upon that inclusion the whole matter depends. These appointments are to be made to the King's Bench Division, and it is the King's Bench Division which is regularly decimated by the demands for Judges to go on circuit. As your Lordships know well, there are circuit towns where there is practically no business whatever to transact, but into which, none the less, there is the whole of this solemn paraphernalia of the Judge travelling in and holding Assizes although he has got nothing to do there.
I had not got the recent returns with regard to the business at circuit towns. I was unaware until late last night that the Motion was coming on to-day; otherwise I would have tried to get them up to date. I notice, however, looking back to what I said in 1912—and I do not suppose there is very much difference now—that there were fifty-six towns in which civil or criminal cases were to be tried at the Summer Assizes in 1905, and of these there were seven in which no civil cases were tried at all, four in which one only was tried, ten in which there wore only two cases, and thirty-seven in which there were no more than five tried, while there was one town in England in which there had been only one case in the last five years. I have no reason to doubt that if you examine the records of to-day you will find similar results, and they will continue until some Government has the courage to re-arrange the circuit system.

95
The reason it has not been done is this. If you attempt to group the business in any particular area in the town that is now the thriving centre of commercial life of the area, all the other towns whose rights and privileges are taken away protest through their Members of Parliament, and make such a fuss that it is practically impossible to change matters. I remember the case of Huntingdon, close by Cambridge. Huntingdon resented bitterly the taking away of its Assize business, and the giving of it to Cambridge, and yet to have continued the old state of things would have been perfectly ridiculous. The life of the community has grouped itself round centres which were not the centres when the circuit system was established, and it has become essential, if you want to get the best out of the men appointed as Judges, that you should see that the circuit system, if maintained at all, is maintained at the least cost and inconvenience to the men who have to take part in it.
An occasion like this is about the only occasion on which it is possible to call attention to difficulties of that kind, and to ask for redress, and I should protest against, and oven go so far as to ask the opinion of the House upon, any proposal that will remove from the consideration of both Houses these questions of the appointment of additional Judges. If your Lordships were to agree to such a proposal you would divest yourselves of a very valuable privilege, which at certain moments might become of very great consequence indeed, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not pursue his proposal to suggest that this matter should be taken outside your Lordships' jurisdiction.
Finally, let me say that I think that the three great blots upon our system of the administration of justice are delay, cost and uncertainty. The delay is not nearly so grave as it was. It is always a mischief, it is often a grave oppression, but I do not think it exists so much now in the Courts of First. Instance as it formerly did, and I am quite satisfied that it is capable of being remedied. I think that the effort this Motion makes will immediately remedy it. That is within the power of the Legislature to put straight. But there are other forms of delay that in their
96
way are just as oppressive. I do not know why it is, but it is the fact that cases have tended to indefinite prolongation in the Courts, and take much longer being heard now than they used to do twenty and thirty years ago. It is particularly true of cases relating to trade inventions, and it is certainly a grievous hardship that a litigant may be brought before a Court and involved in a lawsuit, in which, even if he succeeds, if he be a man of humble means to start with, he stands the risk of being ruined; and that is the case to-day. I do not quite know how that is to be met, but I am satisfied that, if you think the only abuse connected with our administration of the law is delay, you will be overlooking something which, to my mind, is even more grave.
With regard to uncertainty, that must always remain, but I do think that the uncertainty of our law has been slowly getting less and less. I am convinced that it is possible for people to speak with far greater confidence to-day as to the result of litigation than it was when I was called to the Bar. And I believe that that will go on. I think that, as matters get simplified and principles get more clearly enunciated and the law made more intelligible and plain, as I think it is getting day by day, the uncertainty will be, as far as possible, removed. It is not to-day in this country anything like what it is anywhere else, and we have, I believe, the finest system of procedure known to any country in the world.
I have occupied your time for a few moments in discussing what may seem to be a purely professional matter, but it is a professional matter which leads up to a subject in which every one of you is deeply interested, and the preservation and maintenance, of which, I am sure, you would gladly secure. I always look back to a statement I read in an old book about people who came to this country in the eighteenth century. It was said that the thing they came to see was not our big shops or our big manufactories, not even our Army and our Fleet; the thing that impressed these visitors, and which they were most anxious to witness, was the administration of the King's justice in Westminster Hall.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, it was a relief to me to listen to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord

97
Buckmaster, who is going to support this Motion. I had some fear after the declarations of my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, who leads the other Opposition on the principle of opposing everything, that there might be opposition to the present proposal. Lord Buckmaster had a better title to speak, because my noble and learned friend Lord Darling is not the only member of your Lordships' House who has rendered great services recently in the Courts of First Instance. Lord Buckmaster has sat, I think, not only as Judge of the Chancery Division, but as a Judge in the Divorce Court, and therefore he of all people is entitled to speak with direct knowledge of what is going on in these Divisions.
I listened to what my noble and learned friend said about the circuits. I entirely agree with him. The matter engaged my attention when I occupied the Woolsack, and what we were, brought up against was the number of Members in the other House who desired to have a Red Judge continuing to visit their constituencies. It is not the civil business—my noble and learned friend spoke as if it were the civil business—it is the criminal business, with all the paraphernalia of the Judge coming there to try, perhaps, two offenders, or to receive, perhaps, a pair of white gloves, that attracts the populace in those regions. We could not touch that in the House of Commons, because we had not numbers enough, but we did touch it indirectly by bringing in two Bills, which passed your Lordships' House, and under which the Quarter Sessions may dispose of a number of cases that have hitherto gone to Assizes, and the task of Assizes in both criminal and civil business will be somewhat lightened.
I quite agree with Lord Buckmaster that the true remedy is to consider the circuit system. In some cases you have a difficulty in supplying judicial strength for the circuits. Liverpool and Manchester nowadays take up an enormous amount of the Judges' time, but there are other places in which, as he said, the Judges are really not wanted, and the business ought to be done either by being transferred to London or to a neighbouring Assize town, or by the county courts, with the extended jurisdiction and the new organisation which is conferred upon them by the Act which was passed this
98
year. I do not think that reform of the circuits will do everything. We want it, and it will leave more time free, but it will not meet the whole evil. I think the Lord Chancellor has demonstrated that more Judges and a considerable addition to the present judicial strength are required if the evil that exists to-day is to be got rid of. I was called upon to go rather closely into this matter when I occupied the Woolsack, and I found the state of things a deplorable one. Whenever a Judge was ill—and Judges, like everybody else, are apt to fall ill—there was a shortage in the work. We had to appoint Commissioners, we had to transfer cases to Judges who were already overburdened, we had to resort to every shift and expedient to get the judicial business done; and even then the business was piling up. People do not realise that we have at present very much the same number of Judges that we had in the time of James I, and yet the business has increased enormously. Under these conditions it is obvious that the time has come to reconsider judicial strength.
The money element, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, is very little, but the importance of getting the cases properly heard by proper Judges, and not having the condition of things, the chaos, that obtains in the King's Bench Division at the present time, is very great. I myself had to go into this matter at length when I occupied the Woolsack on a former occasion in 1912. There was then a Commission presided over by the late Lord St. Aldwyn, than whom there was no shrewder investigator, who looked into the whole matter, and the Commission found, as I found, that under ordinary circumstances there is a considerable margin of elasticity in the work the Judges do. They can, by arrangement, get through a great deal, and it is not necessary really to expect of them more than five days a week. If they sit five days a week they have done about as much as they have the strength for. Your Lordships who have not got to do it do not realise what it is to sit, as I have been doing to-day, and have been doing during the whole of the past week, and shall be doing next week, from half-past ten to four, presiding over the hearing of appeals here, and then coming to do the business of this House.

99
You cannot expect Judges to do that, or even more, and at the same time to look after their work properly. Those who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal have got to read the papers, and some of the judgments have to be written, and five days a week is enough to ask of any man to sit in judicial business, if you expect to get the best of his strength and application for it. That is a condition of things which at the present time does not dispose of the business. Even making all the reforms which Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission considered necessary, you cannot get over the difficulty. People say: "Sit in the Long Vacation." But Judges sit in the Long Vacation now for whatever business is ready for them. Suitors do not bring business in the Long Vacation excepting to a limited extent. It is not convenient for them they are otherwise engaged. So far as I know the strength of Judges available is enough for the Long Vacation business, but you would not save anything by putting more business into the Long Vacation because you could not get that business put through. Under those conditions there is nothing for it but to recognise that we have reached a time when more Judges are required.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack alluded to another cause which has increased the demand. Whenever a Question is asked in either House of Parliament about which there is likely to be some division of political opinion and a Committee is desired to investigate it, it is the custom to say: "Put a High Court Judge or a Lord of Appeal at the head of the Committee." That is a very convenient course, but it encroaches some-what heavily upon the judicial strength and I think provision must be made for that as well as for the illness, which is always taking place, of one or other of the members of the Judicial Bench. In those circumstances I came clearly to the conclusion during the period in which I last occupied the Woolsack that we were driven to an increase, and the Government actually gave notice of the very Motion which my noble and learned friend is proposing on this occasion. Therefore, I give him my warm support.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish to refer in a very few words to the point which my noble and learned friend put to me. He asked me whether, in connection with the other matters I
100
mentioned, I had considered the rearrangement of the circuits. No one knows better than my noble and learned friend that he is opening there a rather thorny question for any Government. I was interested that he should refer to it in the manner in which he did because, as no doubt he knows, so soon as ever a re-arrangement of the circuits is suggested opposition comes from a number of places. Among others it comes in great strength from those places in North Wales and Mid-Wales where there is very little business indeed for the Assize Judge who goes down there. My noble and learned friend has more influence than I have with some of the Members for Wales. My noble and learned friend asks me, Why? He at all events can use his persuasive power with the Leader of the Liberal Party in another place and no doubt we shall ascertain in that way what is the feeling in those Assize towns in Wales which might be threatened by a re-arrangement of the circuits.
It is also the fact, as the noble and learned Viscount has just said, that in the Criminal Justice Bill which your Lordships discussed in 1923 at my instance and again passed in 1924 at the instance of the noble and learned Viscount, there is a clause transferring to Quarter Sessions part of the business of the Assizes. But there was also a clause in the Administration of Justice Bill which is very relevant to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster. It was proposed by that Bill that where there was no substantial business forthcoming for an Assize it should be in the power of the Lord Chief Justice to dispense with that Assize and so save all the time which a Judge would lose by going to an Assize town and either receiving white gloves or trying some trilling case which might have been sent to Quarter Sessions. I believe that clause alone, if Parliament should adopt it this year, would save some of the time which is wasted at Assizes. But I do not stop there. I am willing to consider the whole matter and to see whether anything more can be done to prevent any loss of time under the Assize system. I think that really deals with the point made by my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SOVIET MISSIONS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had the following
Question on the Paper:—
To ask how many persons connected with various Soviet Missions have been admitted into this country since the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement; and how many are resident here now; and whether all these employees of the Soviet Government enjoy either complete or partial diplomatic immunity.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I venture to make an appeal to my noble friend Lord Newton to postpone the Question of which he has given Notice. It is a matter in which both the Foreign Office and the Home Office are concerned, and I think he will see that in the absence of the Foreign Secretary it is impossible to give him either an immediate or a satisfactory answer. I hope, therefore, that he will kindly consent to put the Question down for one day next week.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should be very reluctant to embarrass the Foreign Office, or the Home Office, or my noble friend who is on the threshold of his official career, and I am ready to postpone my Question if he will undertake to give an adequate answer one day next week. In that case I will put the Question clown for Tuesday.

ORDERS REQUIRING RESOLUTIONS: SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY) had given Notice of a Motion to appoint a Select Committee to consider procedure in regard to legislation by Special Orders which require affirmative Resolutions by both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is for the re-appointment of a Select Committee which sat in the last Parliament. Your Lordships are familiar, no doubt, with the points raised by that Committee. It had two or three sittings and was not able to conclude its labours. My noble friend the Lord Chairman, who is concerned in all matters of inquiry as to the Orders and procedure of the House and is Chair-
102
man of the Select Committee, does not intend that it should sit during these sittings, but he considers that it would be useful to have the Committee re-appointed in order that any papers may be circulated. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the conditions under which in various Acts of Parliament it is provided that schemes or Orders shall acquire or retain the force of law upon the passing of an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament, and to report whether in so far as the House of Lords is concerned any and, if so, what safeguards in the procedure under which these Resolutions are submitted is required in order to preserve adequate control by Parliament over the provisions of these schemes or Orders, and that the following Lords with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Select Committee—

M. Salisbury,

L. Ponsonby (E. Bessborough),

L. Denman,

L. Emmott,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Stuart of Wortley.

(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I was concerned to a considerable extent in the appointment of this Committee in the last Parliament and I welcome the Motion made by the Lord Privy Seal. Unquestionably the matter is one of considerable importance. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster made some strenuous observations on the subject when it was last before your Lordships, and I think it is desirable that the Committee should be enabled to complete its examination of the subject.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(The Marquess Curzon of Kedleston.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not know that I am certain of the day to which the noble Marquess means that your Lordships' House should adjourn, but I hope I may persuade him to say that this House shall sit again on Monday in order that we may discuss foreign affairs at the same time as they are discussed in another place. The absence of the Foreign Secretary in Rome, which has received my most hearty approval, has made it very difficult for either House of Parliament to discuss foreign affairs in the debate upon the Address. Indeed, I received through the usual channels a message saying that it was the wish of His Majesty's Government that foreign affairs should not be mentioned in the debate on the Address and that a debate would take place upon that subject in the course of next week. Having received that intimation, I communicated with my noble friend Lord Grey of Fallodon, who, as an authority upon foreign affairs, is unrivalled in this country, and he abstained from coming up to London in order to speak. I hold in my hand a letter from my noble friend saying that he would like to address your Lordships on Inter-Allied Debts, on Egypt and on the Geneva Protocol Unfortunately, for the same reason as that which has caused the absence of the Foreign Secretary during this week, my noble friend is unable to be in his place after Monday next. He can be here and would be here on Monday; but on Tuesday he is obliged to go abroad. In those circumstances I hope that we may be able to discuss these subjects in this House on Monday next.
I think it is of very real advantage that your Lordships should discuss these questions on the same day as they are discussed in another place. It is, I think, very much more consonant with the dignity of this House that the debate should take place at the same time, and that we should not merely be treated to a réchauffé of a debate in another place. I realise that there may be difficulties in doing this. On a previous occasion an important matter was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who also was going abroad. I think that on that occasion he made his speech, and any reply on the part of His Majesty's Government at that time was postponed till a later occasion. If it is any convenience to His Majesty's Government I hope that that is a course
104
which they will pursue. If it is inconvenient for them to speak on Monday, I hope they will make the reply on Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday, or on any day that is convenient to them. But by meeting on Monday my noble friend Lord Grey would be enabled to place his views not only before your Lordships' House but before the country. Those members of your Lordships' House who wish to speak can do so on the same day, and, if he so desires, the noble Marquess can speak himself on a subsequent occasion.
I realise that if we regard this period of the year as being the beginning of a Session it is unusual to meet on a Monday. If, on the other hand, we regard the fact that your Lordships' House will not meet again for another two months, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that in matters of such great importance as foreign affairs it is not asking your Lordships to put yourselves to too great an inconvenience, in order that we may have the discussion and the views of my noble friend Lord Grey, to meet on Monday next. There are not only those three matters which I have already mentioned upon which my noble friend wishes to address your Lordships, but there are also, I can easily imagine, a number of other subjects connected with foreign affairs upon which other noble Lords might wish to address your Lordships' House. It is in these circum-stances, and in order to put myself in order, that I would move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Marquess, that the adjournment should take place until Monday at the usual time.
Amendment moved—
After ("adjourn") add the words ("until Monday next at the usual time"),—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: My Lords, in ordinary circumstances I should have been more than glad to do anything to oblige the noble Earl who has just spoken, in spite of the fact that he enunciated an attitude two days ago of consistent and persistent opposition to everything that is likely to fall from this Bench. And perhaps even more, if possible, would I have been glad to do anything to enable this House to have the pleasure and advantage of hearing Lord Grey of Fallodon upon foreign affairs. I recognise the justice of the description to which we have just listened,

105
that that noble Lord speaks with a unique authority upon the subject. But the suggestion which is made by the noble Lord is one without precedent.
There is, so far as I know, no precedent whatever for asking your Lordships in the first week of a Session, indeed after we have only met for three days, to contravene your ordinary practice and meet on Monday, even in order to have the advantage of hearing a speech from an individual member of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl seems to think that there was some such precedent. He was mistaken in his allusion. He referred to the occasion last Session when Lord Balfour made a speech upon Singapore to which His Majesty's Government did not, for reasons of their own, immediately reply. That debate was not upon a Monday; it was upon a Thursday. It was in the ordinary course of business that Lord Balfour spoke upon his own Motion, which was down upon that day, and the only apology that he made was for asking the House to consider so important a subject as Singapore at the very close of a rather long sitting, and he did so because he himself was going away after he had made his speech, and had, therefore, to deny himself the pleasure of hearing the Government's reply a week after. Therefore there is no analogy whatsoever between the case of Lord Balfour and the case which is urged now.
Let me put another point. The noble Earl suggests that we should meet on Monday to have the advantage of hearing Lord Grey. But the position of the member of your Lordships' House who is to reply to Lord Grey has also to be considered. That individual happens to be myself. Indeed, had the Foreign Secretary been here, in the ordinary course I would, have strained any point in order to meet the noble Lord, even at the cost of asking the House to break its normal custom. But it is out of the question that I should be in a position to give an adequate reply to Lord Grey or any one else on foreign affairs on Monday, for this reason. The Foreign Secretary does not return to this country till late on Saturday night or on Sunday, and on Monday, when I should naturally be in conference with him with a view to consider what shall be said in reply in your Lordships' House, he, as we all know, will be busily engaged in preparing his own speech for
106
the House of Commons that afternoon. Therefore we should be driven to this situation—that if the noble Lord, Lord Grey, favoured us with a speech it would be impossible for anybody to reply to it, and we should be in the rather absurd position of meeting, contrary to our invariable practice, to hear an individual speech, and then adjourning to another date in order to enable a reply to be given. I think that would be a very undesirable precedent to set.
May I make one more observation upon what the noble Earl said? He said that in his judgment it was a good thing and a convenient thing that debates on foreign affairs or on other important matters should take place on the same day in both Houses. Quite true. But the debate on foreign affairs in the House of Commons is going to last for three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Therefore it is quite possible for us to secure the identity of time that the noble Lord speaks of by having our debate on Tuesday or Wednesday. There is the further advantage that noble Lords will then be in a position to have studied what was said in the House of Commons the day before, or two days before, and to supplement their own knowledge by making any additional inquiries they choose. Although from the point of view of prestige there is much to be said for the debates taking place at the same moment in both Houses, I am not certain from the point of view of public advantage that it is not desirable that we should have here the opportunity of commenting upon what may have been said elsewhere.
Hearing that Lord Grey was likely to be in London at the beginning of the week, and desired to speak upon Monday, I wrote at length to him yesterday, and communicated to him the difficulties which I have confessed to your Lordships, and I expressed an earnest hope that he might see his way to favour us with his presence and his speech on Tuesday or Wednesday. I suppose my letter has not reached him, although I asked him to telegraph a reply. Therefore, at the present moment, beyond knowing from the noble Earl that Lord Grey contemplates going to the Continent on Tuesday morning, I am unable to say whether he will respond to that suggestion. In the absence of any reply I must say that I feel

107
great reluctance in asking your Lordships' House to depart from your ordinary practice, and I hope it may still be found that we shall have the advantage on Tuesday or Wednesday of listening to the unique authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Grey.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is obviously impossible for me, in view of the alliance which exists between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, and the noble Marquess who leads the Government, to insist upon forcing this matter to a Division. I shall, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. Two observations, however, I should like to make. With his usual dialectical skill the noble Marquess the Leader of the House confused the analogy which I drew between the present occasion and that upon which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, spoke in this House. I used the occasion of Lord Balfour's speech as an analogy for the reply being made on another day by His Majesty's Government if that was more convenient to them. I should have been equally pleased if the noble Marquess had arranged to speak on the same day. But my analogy did not go further than that, although the noble Marquess represented
108
it as going a great deal further. Unfortunately, I can hold out no hope that my noble Friend Lord Grey will be hero on this occasion, and I must express my very sincere regret that at so early a moment in the new Parliament the noble Marquess the Leader of the House should have used his battalions in order to prevent the Liberal point of view on foreign affairs being placed before your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Grey.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Front Minutes of December 10.]

DUKEDOM OF SOMERSET.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard on behalf of the Petitioner Henry Sydney Seymour: Counsel for the Marquess of Hertford heard to apply for an adjournment to allow time for the claim of the Marquess of Hertford to be properly presented to the House: The Solicitor-General heard on behalf of the Crown: Committee adjourned sine die.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.