Sitting of 8 June 1926

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

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the enactments providing for the protection of wild birds and to substitute other provisions therefor; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CHORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a.
Clause 135:
Provision of concerts, entertainments, etc.
135.—(1) The Corporation may provide or arrange for the provision or carrying on of suitable concerts, lectures, entertainments, athletic meetings, exhibitions, and amusements, and for the sale of refreshments in any public buildings, halls, or rooms belonging to them or for the time being vested in them or under their control or hired for the purpose or upon any land belonging or leased to them, and may make such charges as they may think fit for admission thereto, and the Corporation may let any such building belonging to them for the purpose of such concert, lecture, entertainment, athletic meeting, exhibition, or amusements, or for the sale of refreshments for such periods or occasions and upon such terms and conditions as the Corporation may think fit: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall enable the Corporation themselves to use any public buildings, halls, or rooms for the purpose of the performance of stage plays by professional companies of performers or to carry on therein the business of a cinema theatre:
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to leave out all words in the proviso after "Provided
268
that" and insert "nothing in this section contained shall enable the Corporation themselves to use any public hall, pavilion, bandstand, assembly room or other public building erected under the powers of this Act for the purpose of the performance of stage plays by professional companies of performers, or enable the Corporation themselves to carry on therein any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment or the business of a cinema theatre."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must make some excuse for moving this Amendment on a Private Bill. Very briefly the story is this. This Bill came up to the House as an unopposed measure and the reason why it was not opposed by the Theatrical Association was that their secretary was ill and, accordingly, due notice was not given. The Chorley Corporation introduced a clause into their Bill allowing the Corporation to provide theatrical entertainments, cinema shows and variety entertainments out of the rates. Your Lordships may remember that a Public Health Bill was passed last Session after being successfully piloted through this House by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, who accepted an Amendment on behalf of those with whom he was associated excluding theatrical plays, cinema shows and variety entertainments from the scope of the Bill. The Chorley Corporation and one or two other corporations have, however, brought forward in their Private Bills this Session what is tantamount to a reversal of the legislation that was then passed.
There is no particular reason why Chorley should have this power. They did offer, in fact, an amendment of their original proposal in the form of striking out the reference to theatres and cinemas, but they reserved to themselves the right to continue variety entertainments. This has been strongly objected to by the Association of West End Theatrical Managers, the Theatrical Managers' Association and the Entertainments Protection Association. The Amendment that I have put upon the Paper, if accepted by your Lordships, will restore the position to that which existed when the Public Health Bill was passed last year. I hope to obtain your Lordships' support, in view of the fact that this matter was so adequately discussed last year and that it seems somewhat prema-

269
ture, after such a short interval of time, again to bring forward what is, after all, a very vital alteration in the existing law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 135, page 74, line 36, leave out from (''that") to end of line 39, and insert ("nothing in this section contained shall enable the Corporation themselves to use any public hall, pavilion, bandstand, assembly room or other public building erected under the powers of this Act for the purpose of the performance of stage plays by professional companies of performers, or enable the Corporation themselves to carry on therein any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment if the business of a cinema theatre").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend need offer no apology for moving an Amendment to a Private Bill. Of course, all classes of Private Bills are entirely in the hands of your Lordships for any action which you think desirable. My noble friend has explained in moving this Amendment that he is asking you to enact that the exact words of the Public Health Act passed last year should be maintained in this particular borough. As a broad general principle one naturally would assume that it is desirable that in cases such as this uniformity should be maintained, especially in view of so recent a decision by Parliament. One can conceive that there may be exceptions in particular parts of the country where it may be desirable for special reasons shown that a departure should be made in a certain case, but this is certainly not one of those cases, in my humble view. Your Lordships are aware that it often happens, when an Amendment is proposed on the Third Reading of a Private Bill to which the promoters object, that great activity is shown in bringing to your Lordships' notice what those objections are. In the present case I have seen no such objections and personally I see no objection to passing the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed, if your Lordships, think fit.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of s. 1(2) of Midwives Act, 1902.
1. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section one of the Midwives Act, 1902 (which relates to certification of midwives):—
"(2) If any person, being either a male person, or a woman not certified under this Act, attends a woman in childbirth otherwise than under the direction and personal supervision of a duly qualified medical practitioner, that person shall, unless he or she satisfies the court that the attention was given in a case of sudden or urgent necessity, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved to add the following proviso to the clause:—
"Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of a person who, while undergoing training with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner or a certified midwife, attends a woman in childbirth as part of a course of practical instruction in midwifery."
The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is to safeguard the midwifery training of medical students and of pupil midwives. Under Clause 1 of the Bill as it now stands no medical student can attend a woman in childbirth except under the personal supervision of a qualified medical practitioner. It is possible that in the future the Courts might hold that the words "personal supervision" implied the actual presence of the qualified medical officer. If that were to be the case the present system of midwifery training would become unworkable. Under resolutions of the General Medical Council it is laid down that the medical student must spend three months out of his five years' curriculum in learning obstetrics and gynecology.
The usual arrangement with regard to these three months is that they begin in

271
the fifth year of the student's time. For the first month he is required to attend lectures on the subject and also to receive instruction in practical work. During the second month the student resides in the hospital, so that he may be able to attend cases in the maternity ward at any hour of the day or night. During this time he has to deliver at least five women in the presence of a physician of the hospital to the satisfaction of his teacher. If that condition is complied with he is then, during his third and last month, allowed to attend eases outside the hospital in the adjoining district. In any case of difficulty he at once sends to the hospital for the attendance of a qualified medical officer. It is very unusual that in a case of this kind the delay of an hour or so has any bad effect upon the patient, especially as the student, having done four years of medical training, is in a position to give general treatment while awaiting the arrival of his colleague. I do not think that any authority on obstetrics would consider it necessary that a student should be accompanied by a medical man in all the cases that he has to attend. On the contrary, the student cannot learn his work properly without having responsibility during the period of training.
The case of the pupil midwives is very similar to that of the medical students. An untrained woman has to go through a course of training for twelve months, while a trained nurse has a course of six months. The training is carried out under the superintendence of experienced midwives, who are recognised by the Central Midwives Board, and the training consists in lectures and also in deliveries in hospitals and outside. It is not only undesirable that they should be subject to the personal supervision of medical men in all these cases, but, if this supervision is insisted upon, it will have the effect of greatly reducing the number of midwives owing to lack of medical teachers. Therefore I hope the noble Marquees will see his way to accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert:—
("Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of a person who, while undergoing training with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner or a certified midwife, attends
272
a woman in childbirth as part of a course of practical instruction in midwifery.")—(Lord Stanmore.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: The noble Lord has been kind enough to consult me about this Amendment. The other day all the medical schools in London met and proposed an Amendment to this Bill which is very much the same as that which the noble Lord has just foreshadowed, and I am quite sure that your Lordships may accept this Amendment with perfect certainty that the women who are being attended are given proper attention and that the students, whether men or women, will be properly taught. There is one alteration which I hope the noble Lord will accept. His Amendment reads thus:—
"Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of a person who, while undergoing training with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner.…"
The word "training" should, I think, be made stronger. If the noble Marquess will accept the alteration the words should read: "training recognised by the General Medical Council or the Central Midwives Board"—because "training" might mean anything. What we want to be quite sure is that nobody is allowed to attend a woman in confinement unless he is going through a proper and recognised training. If that alteration could be made I am sure we might accept this Amendment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): It is quite true that since this Bill was read a second time there have been very strong representations made to the Ministry of Health and to the Government about this particular matter. It has been pointed out that if the clause passed in its present form it would involve a very considerable difficulty in the training both of medical students and of pupil midwives and would really constitute a great disadvantage to the public interest. On the other hand, we on our side have to consider the safety of the women who are concerned, and we could not agree to any Amendment which did not in its terms adequately protect these women. We are, as it were, between two extremes. We must not interfere, if we can help it, with the practice of the hospitals, and, indeed, it would be against the interests of the

273
women themselves if we did; and, on the other hand, we must protect the women from unskilful attendance. My noble friend opposite (Lord Stanmore) has put down an Amendment which is designed to steer that difficult middle course, and I think that on the whole he has succeeded. But I am struck by the words which my noble friend Viscount Knutsford has suggested, which appear to me to be adequate. Perhaps he would let me consider them between now and the Report stage and put them down, if necessary, at that stage.
I may say that the point he raised is, I think, intended to be covered by the words of the noble Lord opposite. I call his attention to the words "with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner." That means that it is subject to the conditions and limitations of the great profession in whose school he has been educated, and all the limitations of which my noble friend Lord Knutsford spoke are really involved in those words. What is true of the medical students is true of the midwives, because the words are "with a view to becoming.… a certified midwife." Well, she cannot become a certified midwife unless she goes through all the training which is necessary to earn the certificate. Therefore, those words are also, I think, calculated to involve the point of my noble friend Lord Knutsford and to safeguard the necessity of adequate training. But it is necessary to be very careful in these matters. Undoubtedly, Lord Knutsford's words make the matter abundantly clear and, if I possibly can, I shall hope to insert them at the next stage of the Bill.
As regards this Amendment I think it is required. We do not want to interfere with this great school of medical training. After all, that is a matter of national importance and even for the women themselves, the women who are attended, it is a tremendous charity which they are now receiving because they get for nothing this attendance of the medical students and of the pupil midwives and all the care which that involves. I speak in the presence of very learned noble Lords in this matter and therefore I speak with due diffidence, but I understand that no medical student would be allowed to act, according to the practice of this great profession, except
274
towards the end of his training. He is almost a qualified doctor when he is allowed to undertake these cases. And as regards the pupil midwife, as a matter of practice she does not act at all except in the actual presence of the trained midwife. The method is that when the pupil midwife goes to attend one of these cases the trained midwife goes with her in order to show her how to do the work. I think your Lordships may be assured, therefore, that adequate care has been taken in the drafting of this Amendment and on behalf of the Government—subject to what any of your Lordships who know more about the matter than I do may say—we are prepared to accept it.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: The noble Marquess made a point just now which will be of considerable interest to the public; that is, he raised the question as to whether the public will be adequately protected in the course of medical education. I think it is very important that the public should be reassured that they are protected. They are amply protected, for these masons. To begin with, a medical student, at the time he starts his training, has been through several years of preliminary education; he has been trained in the basic sciences on which medicine is built. That is one difference and that is one advantage which he has over the midwife. Then, before he is sent out into a district to carry on midwifery, he is put through a course of education within the hospital, where he is supervised in the actual conduct of a maternity case. Having got that far, it becomes very important to send him out where he can learn self-reliance and I may say that that illustrates one of the most delicate questions there is in the whole of medical education—that is, to determine the right moment, not only in midwifery but in other things, when a medical student can be put upon his own responsibility with the right sort of advice but not with somebody standing over him.
And when he has had that month's instruction within the hospital it is found by experience that he is able, and he does his work much better if allowed, to go out to people by himself. He does so with the full knowledge that if the case he is going to attend is not normal, or if there is any difficulty at all, he can immediately send for the

275
highest skilled assistance. It is far better in the interests of the public that he should take that first step in self-reliance with the big machinery of a hospital behind him than to postpone that date until he gets into practice, when there is no one behind him. In actual practice it works extremely well. There is always some one in the background. It is a very popular service. The patients themselves are attached to the students, largely because they come in contact with that sort of innate friendliness which seems to be part of the make-up of the British medical student; and the student, on his part, learns how closely the scientific side and the practice of his art lie side by side. Altogether it is an excellent arrangement, not only for the training in medicine but for the training in the management of people. The patients get very fond of the students, and the students themselves generally end their week on duty with larger hearts and certainly emptier pockets.
They get varied experiences. I may say so, because I have been through all this myself. You learn to put your hand to anything that comes to you. Before now I have washed a baby; before now I have baptized a baby—how efficiently I do not know, but I rather fancy I found baptism more easy than I found washing. But, from the point of view of education the public are adequately protected. The men who go there have been suitably trained up to a certain point and there is adequate help behind them. I think the machinery of medical education and the interest of the public would both be damaged if some such Amendment is not passed as is proposed by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendments of Midwives Act, 1918.
2.—(1) Where a midwife has been suspended from practice in order to prevent the spread of infection she shall, if she was not herself in default, be entitled to recover from the local supervising authority such amount by way of compensation for loss of practice as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
In subsection (2) of Section six of the Midwives Act, 1918, the words from "or where" to "infection" shall be repealed.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment at the request of the executive of the County Councils Association. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill used to be a member of that executive and therefore he will be inclined to give every consideration to their views. A county council at present has the duty of deciding whether compensation shall be paid to midwives who have been suspended, for whatever reason. As the law stands it simply rests with the county council to make compensation to the midwives and the County Councils Association oppose any change in it because they are not aware that any injustice has been done by the administration of the Act of 1918 by county councils.
It is remarkable that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health should have said in another place that under the old Act one or two authorities, though not many, have not acted properly. I think it would have been more reasonable and fair if the Parliamentary Secretary had taken the trouble to inform the Committee of the specific cases that he had in mind. I can assure the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill that the distrust of local authorities by Whitehall is quite without justification. If we had been told what were the cases to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred we should have known whether or not it was unreasonable to go in for this very strong measure of having centralisation as against the decentralisation that has been in existence. The noble Marquess will agree that in the great majority of cases, in fact, I should say, in all cases, the county councils are to be absolutely trusted in this matter.
County councils are popularly elected bodies and their actions can be discussed and any injustice exposed by those who elect them. I submit that that is a sufficient safeguard, and that this particular subsection is quite unnecessary. Apart from that it is open to the objection that it introduces centralisation. The view of the County Councils Association is that there is a certain danger that this provision will not be so freely used under centralisation as it is under present conditions. It is thought that a medical officer would be rather chary in acting,

277
unless he was very certain, when there is a possibility of very large compensation having to be given. The County Councils Association has suggested that justice should be done to all midwives who are suspended through no default of their own, and I do not think it can be said that county councils have not in the past acted justly in the interests of both patients and midwives. On behalf of the executive of the County Councils Association, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (1).— (Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is not a matter essential to the Bill, but I think the subsection, for the reason that I shall submit to your Lordships in a moment, is a valuable subsection. My noble friend Lord Strachie speaks with unrivalled authority of the views of the County Councils Association and, generally speaking, voices the views of local governing bodies, but perhaps he has not given as much weight as he might have done to the great risks that are involved in the practice of midwifery, especially in connection with these matters of infection. He must remember that the vital thing is to keep the patients from any possible contact with infection. Upon that the whole safety of the profession turns and the safety of these unfortunate women. If there is the least temptation on behalf of those concerned to conceal the possible contact with infection then very great risks are run.
I am a great advocate of local government independence, yet I am more concerned, and the Government are more concerned, for the safety of these patients. We are very anxious to go to the full length if we can in order to protect them. My noble friend said with absolute truth that the great body of county councils would act with due regard to the interests of those patients and with proper public spirit in matters of this kind. No doubt my noble friend speaks for the great rural county councils, but there are other county councils involved besides them. But let us assume for the sake of argument that they would all, in practice, respond to this necessity. What we want to do is to reassure the midwives themselves, to make them so certain that they will get compensation that they will not
278
run any risk of carrying infection into the homes of these patients, thereby risking, the lives of the patients. It is for that reason that we want to go the extreme length to which we can go. What is the extreme length to which we can go? It is to make it obligatory that compensation should be given with the one exception of cases in which the midwives themselves are in default. It would not be possible for us to ask your Lordships to compensate those cases and those cases are exempt under the terms of the clause. But to the full extent, within that limit, we are prepared to go. That is the reason why this clause is inserted in the Bill. I hope my noble friend will not persist in the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Marquess having said that be will not accept the Amendment, I must ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Interpretation.
11. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:—
The expression "maternity home" means any premises used or intended to be used for the reception of pregnant women or of women immediately after childbirth, but shall not include—

(a) any hospital or other premises maintained or controlled by a Government Department or local authority, or by any other body of persons constituted by special Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter; or

(b) any hospital or other premises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible; or

(c) any hospital or institution not carried on for profit and not used mainly as a maternity home which may be exempted from the provisions of Part II of this Act by the local supervising authority.

The expression "offence against this Part of this Act" includes an offence against any by-laws made under Part II of this Act.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved, in paragraph (b), after "responsible." to insert:
"and with respect to which there shall have been lodged with the local supervising authority a certificate in a form to be

279
approved by them, and signed by two duly qualified medical practitioners practising or residing in the county, not being in partnership with such first mentioned practitioner or with each other, and not having any financial or other interest in such hospital, to the effect that the premises used or represented as being or intended to be used for such hospital, and the equipment of such premises, are in all respects suitable for the purpose, and that the medical practitioner carrying on or proposing to carry on such hospital as a fit and proper person to carry on the same."
The most rev. Primate said: When the Bill was before your Lordships for Second Reading I called attention to the provision in Clause 11 to which I now venture to move an Amendment. The paragraph as it stands practically says that any man who has attained due qualification for medical work is to be exempted from inspection by authority if he opens a home for the purposes which are here indicated. The purposes are of an exceptionally important and delicate kind, in which it is very possible that unwise, or still more malicious or mischievous, purposes have to be guarded against and we have to be very careful as to the ground on which we stand. I yield to no one in this House in my whole-hearted admiration for the medical profession and its members. There is no profession in the world which stands higher as regards the character of its members and as regards their public spirit and their desire and qualifications in almost all cases to act in the public interest and do what is right both in regard to health and in regard to morality. But even in that great profession there may be, here and there, a man who, while possessing technical qualifications, cannot be regarded as altogether relieved from a possible suspicion of having other motives in what he may be endeavouring to do. It is for the protection of the homes, for the protection of medical men themselves and for the protection of the public, that I venture to say I think there ought to be some qualification as to the complete exemption which we offer to a man who may open a home in this exceedingly delicate and difficult matter entirely on his own responsibility, with no check or control over him, no examination and no need for any registration.
The question then arises: What safeguard would you suggest? What do you think would be the best way of prevent-
280
ing the possible danger to which you refer? In looking for words by which that can be done I turn to the General Purposes Act of the London County Council which has the same matter to deal with and deals with the problem of what are the limitations within which registration ought to be given and what are the conditions which must be satisfied in regard to it. I have taken the actual words from the Act of Parliament which lays down the restrictions in the case of the London County Council, with a view to seeing whether they are not right to be incorporated in this measure, which will now apply to the country as a whole. The form of words is somewhat lengthy and I feel myself not very qualified on technical grounds to amend the words or to say exactly how that could be done. The noble Marquess in charge of the measure on behalf of the Government has suggested another Amendment. He may be able to show that that would be a better safeguard and that ft would answer better than the one I have suggested, but I have thought it right to move my Amendment because I believe that on consideration it will be felt to be a public advantage that there should be some safeguard as regards the character and the qualifications, other than medical, of a man who is taking the sole responsibility for a home dealing with this delicate and difficult question. I therefore move this Amendment as it stands and I shall be perfectly ready to give more than respectful attention to anything that the noble Marquess may say as to other methods by which what I have proposed may be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, after ("responsible") insert the said words.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House will accept the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. I think it is absolutely necessary that there should be some safeguard to prevent a person starting a home of this sort merely in order that he may make money out of it. Perhaps a person not properly qualified, or a person who has not been a success as a medical practitioner, may think he can make some money by starting a home of this sort. I am not absolutely certain that all these nursing homes are quite

281
what they should be. I think it very necessary to have some safeguard of this sort and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no difference of opinion whatever between the Government and the most rev. Primate as to the necessity for some limitation of the clause. If your Lordships will be good enough to cast your minds back you will remember that I ventured to say so at the time of the Second Reading. It is necessary to have some qualification because undoubtedly what my noble friend Lord Banbury has just said is true, that there are a certain number of these maternity homes which are anything but admirable places, which, in fact, are very disreputable, and it is necessary to provide some protection. I do not know that there is a very large number taken altogether, but there are some and some protection there ought to be. The only real question is what form the Amendment should take. The most rev. Primate has put upon the Paper this Amendment, for which he has a good precedent and for which, therefore, there is a good deal to be said, but I venture to think that the method of trying to secure safeguards by a definition and by the certificate of other medical practitioners is not a wholly satisfactory way of meeting the difficulty. The fact is that there are a certain number of black sheep in the medical profession who would be guilty of conducting a maternity home of this kind.
I am sorry to say that it is not the case of only one black sheep. The number may be very small out of the vast number of medical men in this country, but still there are a certain number and it is certainly not impossible for the one black sheep to find two other black sheep and that is really the only protection which the most rev. Primate's Amendment affords us. The practitioner has to get a certificate from two other medical practitioners. It is true that they must not be technically in partnership with the medical practitioner himself, but these things are very easily evaded and there are all sorts of indirect methods, which will occur to your Lordships, by which these things can be carried out. Therefore the Government think that, though the object of the most rev. Primate is admirable, it would be better
282
to achieve it by a safeguard of a totally different kind. Instead of trying to fortify one medical practitioner by two others we think it better to make it a matter of discretion on the part of the county council authority, by giving that authority absolute discretion to say that they will not certify a particular home. In that way, they, having the local knowledge which is necessary, will be able to protect the public and the women concerned. It is for that reason that I have put on the Paper the Amendment which your Lordships will see, to insert after "responsible" the words "which may for the time being be exempted from the provisions of Part II of this Act by the local supervising authority." That is to say that so far as this paragraph is concerned only those will be exempted from the provisions of Part II applying to maternity homes who get exemption from the local supervising authority, leaving it open to the local supervising authority to refuse an exemption where they think fit. That we believe to be the only really efficient safeguard.
It may be suggested by some of your Lordships that the proposed safeguard goes too far, and I shall have a word to say upon that in a moment. At any rate, it is efficient; they have the local knowledge. In a county borough, for instance, the local people will know any maternity homes which are of the character that I have described, and of course they will be refused an exemption by the authority and the protection will be absolute. As I said just now, it may be suggested that the safeguard goes too far and that to leave all such homes, good and bad, in the discretion of the supervisory authority is going too far. The Government agree to that and your Lordships will see that we provide an appeal in order to prevent any possible injustice following upon this method. If your Lordships will take the two Amendments together, the discretion of the supervisory authority, and the appeal to the Ministry of Health, your Lordships will, I hope, agree that we have struck that middle course so necessary to legislation of this kind.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: We are in the happy position of being agreed about the object to be attained and the House is indebted to the most rev. Primate for having, not for the first time, on this occasion brought the matter before it.

283
Having listened to the discussion, I, too, feel the difficulty about proceeding by way of exclusion by a definition. It is not a good way of legislating. On the other hand, I also feel the considerable risk of leaving it to the chances of circumstances whether somebody, wishing to make a little money by opening a maternity home, can or cannot get two medical practitioners to certify. We know these things happen. We have had it before in connection with lunacy in a very prominent fashion. For my part, between the two Amendments, I prefer the one the Government proposes to introduce and on the whole I think we should do best to adopt that.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have no kind of wish to express an opinion which would differ from the opinion of the noble Marquess who is advised by those who are most competent to judge in this matter. Do I lightly understand that the local authority must first satisfy itself that the person is satisfactory before it exempts him from the requirement of registration?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The discretion is absolute. As the most rev. Primate will see, the words are: "which may for the time being be exempted from the provisions of Part II of this Act by the local supervising authority."
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Does that not mean that the home is open and the man is not to be registered because the local authority has satisfied itself that it is undesirable that it should be registered? If that is so, you are requiring an investigation beforehand, which may be an exceedingly difficult one to bring about, in order to justify the local authority in declining to subject this very man to the ordinary system of registration. That is all I am afraid of. I am in the hands of those who are more expert than I am and in the presence of those who know much better. I do not want to press my Amendment in face of the Government proposal, but it seems to me you are asking the local authority first to satisfy themselves about the unsuitableness of the individual before they decline to register.
LORD MERRIVALE: My view on reading the clause and the proposed Amend-
284
ment of the Government is that the proposal of the Lord Privy Seal is much more stringent in the restriction of the right to open homes of this kind than that which the most rev. Primate has suggested. The proposal of the most rev. Primate does leave it at the will of two or three medical men to decide whether a home of this kind should be opened or not, but what the Lord Privy Seal has proposed is that every home of this kind should be subject to registration unless the local authority shall see fit to exempt it, and the local authority, having regard to this duty, will not see fit to exempt any adventurer from the operation of the general law until it is satisfied that he ought to be exempt.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think that is plainly so. As I read the Amendment the position is, that no maternity home can be opened at all unless it has been exempted by the local authority from the provisions of Part II, which would absolutely forbid the opening of such a place unless it was under the most stringent supervision. If so, that is a simpler plan than the plan of the most rev. Primate.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: After what has been said on behalf of the Government and by high legal authorities on both sides of the House I do not wish to press it, but I hope he will not think me wrong if I reopen the matter on Report if between now and the Report stage those who are advising me see some difficulty in regard to it. On that understanding I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I ought to have said that, if the most rev. Primate is not satisfied, and those who advise him see some difficulty, he will most certainly be justified in raising the matter again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after "responsible," to insert "which may for the time being be exempted from the provisions of Part II of this Act by the local supervising authority."
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, after ("responsible") insert ("which may for the time being be exempted from the provisions of Part II of this Act by the local supervising authority.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I hope your Lordships will notice that if this Bill passes there will be exempted from the Bill entirely

"(a) any hospital or other premises maintained or controlled by a Government Department or local authority, or by any other body of persons constituted by special Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter; or

"(b) any hospital or other promises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible."

It would be a very great pity indeed to exempt a hospital opened under a Government Department or a voluntary hospital from the benefits of this Act. They need inspection and to be compelled to make returns rather more than anybody else. All who have studied the Poor Law know the dreadful statistics of the death rate of children born in the Poor Law infirmaries.
Some years ago I went to see the largest Poor Law infirmary in Great Britain. There were 800 ill people in it, 200 of whom were very seriously ill indeed. There was a resident medical officer, who was responsible for the management of this place, and therefore it would be exempted from this measure. What did I find? Apart from these 800 ill people, with the 200 who were very ill, there was a filthy syphilis ward and there was only one medical officer. That medical officer had to do all the post mortems and deliver all the women. She was a girl of twenty-six holding her first appointment. When I exposed this I was called a liar. That I am used to and I do not mind so long as I am speaking the truth. All the city fathers denied that such a state of things existed, but I am glad to say that they had to admit it in the end and the conditions have been altered. That is an instance where; inspection by the local authority would have done infinite good, and the more we who are responsible for voluntary hospitals are inspected the better we shall be pleased. Accordingly I very much hope that the noble Marquess will take out of this Bill the clause exempting from the operation of the Bill hospitals under Government authority and voluntary hospitals where a resident medical practitioner is responsible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend said something to the same
286
effect upon the Second Heading. I am well aware that he would really desire to get rid of all the exemptions and allow all the hospitals, even the great hospital which he himself conducts or does so much towards conducting, to remain open to the restrictive provisions of this Bill. That is a view which, of course, as coming from him, one is bound to treat with great respect, but, although I hesitate to say so, my impression is that the great body of hospitals do not quite share his view and do not desire to be put under the restrictive provisions, of this Bill. What the Government had to consider, in view of that opinion, was how far they could safely carry the exemption, and the clause has been drawn so that, if your Lordships are good enough to accept these Amendments, it will cover that particular ground. If my noble friend wishes to have further limitations and will put Amendments on the Paper, I will, of course, consider them on the next stage of the Bill, but as at present advised we do not think that we have gone too far in our exemptions. They are confined to institutions under Government control or the control of local authorities, to hospitals established under Royal Charter and to other hospitals and maternity homes which obtain exemption through the county council. We believe that we have not gone too far, and I hope, that your Lordships will accept the Amendment that I have moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out all words after "may," and to insert "for the time being be exempted as aforesaid." The noble Marquess said: I was going to say that this is a drafting Amendment, but I ought perhaps to point out that it is a little more than that, because the words "for the time being be exempted as aforesaid" import that it will be possible for the local supervisory authority to withdraw the exemption where they see fit. That is important.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 36, and insert ("for the time being be exempted as aforesaid").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert at the end of the clause:—

287
"(2) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of a local supervising authority to grant exemption from the provisions of Part II of this Act in respect of any hospital, premises or institution, or by the withdrawal of any such exemption previously granted by the authority, may appeal against the refusal or withdrawal to the Minister of Health, and the Minister, after considering the matter, shall give such directions therein as he thinks proper, and the authority shall comply with any directions so given."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment provides the appeal to which I called your Lordships' attention just now. It proposes that any person aggrieved under these limitations shall have the power to go to the Ministry of Health and appeal against the decision of the local supervisory authority. That is provided for the reason that I have already stated, but I may add that considerable representations have been made to the Government on behalf of the hospitals and on behalf of the Salvation Army desiring an appeal in these circumstances. The matter has been considered by the Ministry of Health and we see no reason why this appeal should not be allowed. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to amend the proposed new subsection by inserting, after "matter," the words "and having consulted the authority." The noble Lord said: I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be inclined to accept this very harmless Amendment. It simply gives to the local authority the right to be consulted. The noble Marquess was good enough to say that the County Councils Association is a body that represents local authorities very adequately. That Association are very anxious that this Amendment should be accepted, as they consider that it is only fair that this right of consultation should be given.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 8, after ("matter") insert ("and having consulted the authority").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have such great reliance upon my noble friend's impartiality of mind that I feel sure that he will see that we cannot accept this Amendment. It is not, of
288
course, that we think with any disrespect of county councils, but the Minister, under this proposed clause, sits as a judicial person in cases where it is alleged before him that a particular person has been aggrieved by the decision of the county council. He sits in appeal to decide that point. My noble friend says that he must not come to this conclusion until he has consulted one of the parties in the case. That is as if you were to say that before a Judge decided a case he must consult the defendant. Of course he will hear what the defendant has to say, but it is not necessary to state as much explicitly unless you want to import a bias in favour of one side rather than ensure that the hearing shall be strictly judicial. If the noble Lord were logical he would say, not merely that the authority must be consulted, but that the appellant must be consulted also, and that would evidently be meaningless. I think that the noble Lord will see that to require a judicial person to consult one of the parties to the case would hardly be to legislate in accordance with the traditions of your Lordships' House.
LORD STRACHIE: Since, the noble Marquess puts it that this is a judicial inquiry, I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Short title, construction, extent and saving.
13.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Midwives and Maternity Homes Act, 1926, and Part I of this Act shall be construed as one with the Midwives Acts, 1902 and 1918, and those Acts and Part I of this Act may be cited together as the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1926.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have three drafting Amendments to this clause, without which there would be no definition of the local supervisory authority, for we have to import into the Bill not only Part I of the original Act but Part II of this Bill also, and in this way we introduce in Part II the definition of the local supervisory authority which exists in the principal Act.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 10, leave out ("Part I of this Act")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("Part I of")
Page 7, line 13, after ("Midwives") insert ("and Maternity Homes").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to authorise the appointment of two members of the Judicial Committee with experience of Indian law and at a reasonable remuneration. Appeals to the Privy Council, including the special references, have grown very rapidly during the last twenty years, and the Indian appeals especially, which in the years 1906 to 1910 averaged 52, have, I believe, in the last five years averaged 91 per annum. It has often been necessary for the Council to sit in Divisions. It has sometimes been difficult to provide sufficient members of the judiciary both to man the House of Lords when it is sitting on appeals and to man two Divisions of the Privy Council. We never sit now in this House with fewer than five members. It is desirable to have five members sitting in the First Division of the Privy Council and not fewer than three in the Second Division. It is not always easy, with the present material, to provide that number.
I think that even my predecessors in my present office found some difficulty, but mine is greater. Whereas they had the assistance usually of four ex-Lord Chancellors, I have only one upon whom I can rely. Three of our ex-Lord Chancellors, by a chapter of accidents, have their time fully occupied elsewhere, but my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane still gives his invaluable help, both in the judicial work of this House and at the Privy Council, sometimes, I am afraid, without regard for considerations relating to his own health. Also one is able to have the voluntary assistance of those distinguished ex-Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal who sit in this House, but
290
it is absolutely necessary that we should have two members of the Privy Council with special experience of the diverse systems of Indian law and able and willing to give the whole of their time to the judicial work when the other tribunal is sitting.
We have had, since 1887, two members of the Court appointed under the Judicature Act of that year, but under terms which provide for them a remuneration which is really not sufficient even to pay their ordinary expenses. One of those, Sir John Edge, retired at the end of May last at the age of 84, and I should like to take this the first opportunity I have had since his retirement, of paying a tribute in a few words to the great public services which he has rendered. He was appointed Chief Justice of the North Western Provinces 40 years ago. He returned to this country in 1898. Since then he has been, firstly, a member of the Council of India, and since the year 1908 an active member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I think that not only his knowledge of Indian law but his experience of the Indian character, and his strong common sense, will long be missed by his colleagues on that tribunal. The other member sitting from India is Mr. Ameer Ali, who has also been with us since the year 1909, and who has done, I need hardly say, admirable work, but during the last year or two has sometimes been prevented from sitting by reasons of health.
I think I have said enough to show that some further assistance is required Last year, after consultation with the Secretary of State for India, and with the late Viceroy, who was then here, we proposed to the Government of India that two new members should be appointed at a salary of £4,000 a year each, to be contributed as to one half by this country and as to one half by India. That proposal was brought before the Indian Legislature, but after debate was rejected. I have read the debate and I am not quite sure that all the members who took part fully understood what was proposed, and I am told that it is possible that a different view may be taken at some future time. Of course the matter cannot wait, and what we now propose to Parliament is that His Majesty should have authority to appoint two members of the Judicial Committee

291
of the Privy Council, with special experience of India, at a remuneration of £2,000 per annum each, but that if hereafter India should provide a further sum, then that sum shall go to the members appointed. Meanwhile, we think that a remuneration of £2,000, plus such pension as the person appointed may happen to have, might be accepted as a sufficient remuneration for each of them. Such details as the age of retirement, the qualification for appointment, and matters of that kind, have been discussed with the Secretary of State for India and are inserted in the Bill. It is not proposed that the two members to be appointed should interfere with the appointment of the surviving member appointed under the Act of 1887, but when he vacates his office it is not proposed that any further appointment should be made under that Act. Those are the short details of the proposal. I think every one who is acquainted with the facts will agree that some such measure is required. Of course I am ready to discuss details in Committee. Meantime I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, as I understood it, the effect of the Bill is to cost this country £4,000 a year more, and India has refused to contribute anything to the salary of these Judges, who really are appointed to deal with Indian matters. That seems to me to be the effect of the Bill. After the speech of the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I am loth to do anything to interfere with the Second Reading of the Bill, but at the same time I cannot help expressing my regret that even in such a small matter as £4,000 a year economy seems to be on the side of the Indian Government and not on the side of this Government. I should have hoped that the Indian Government would have paid the salaries of these gentlemen, and that in the parlous state of our finances we should have withheld payment of salary until a better time.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken as if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in what it does for India, was only an Indian institution, but the Judicial Committee—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should have said Indian cases, as I understood it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is one of the great institutions of the Empire—one of the really living links which remain. The Navy is one, the Judicial Committee is another, and of course there is the Sovereign. But if you take it away, or if you cause it to do its work with insufficient means, all I can say is that it is very bad for the Empire, and you are losing one of the most valuable means of holding the Empire together. It was with great relief that I heard the speech which the Lord Chancellor has made from the Woolsack. He has watched over the Judicial Committee with affectionate care, and now he shows that he is alive to its grievous necessities. I call them grievous necessities advisedly. I have sat there on the Judicial Committee longer than, I think, any Judge alive, unless it be Lord Dunedin, who has sat there since he was Lord President of the Court of Session, and all I can say is that the Committee is getting into a deplorable condition.
I will take India first. The cases from India are, on the average, double what they were twenty years ago, and not only double, but they are not diminishing in importance, and it is urgently necessary that we should have more assistance in Indian appeals. I am never satisfied when I hear that only three Judges have sat in Indian appeals—not that three is not a very good number, but that the Empire expects that we should sit in a Court of five, which is the size of their own Courts in most of the other parts of the Empire. Not only that, but the volume and the importance of the business is increasing. It may be that we are not of the quality and swiftness of our great predecessors, but I am told that to-day an appeal averages two hours and twenty minutes more to dispose of than it did in the days of Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne. That may be either because we are not so quick or because the business is increasing in magnitude and importance. But this is certain, whatever else is obscure, that the Privy Council is not diminishing in its jurisdiction.
I hear great complaints of the Empire having to come to Downing-street to have

293
its appeals heard. It may be that these things are said in the Dominions, but the fact remains that the volume of business is growing and growing. Even from Canada and Australia there come more appeals than ever, and we are just entering at present on a long list of New Zealand appeals. It is not only that, but new Overseas Dependencies of the Crown are bringing their appeals. We are very busy just now with appeals from Palestine. I have been presiding over an appeal from Palestine the last two or three days. We are very busy with appeals from West Africa—a place from which there was no such thing only a short time ago. And from all parts of the Empire new activities and new developments of commerce and industry are bringing more business to the Judicial Committee.
In that state of things I have something to say which I am afraid will be of very little comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. Not only do I think that it is essential that this country should give some assistance for the provision of two more Judges to sit on the Indian appeals, but we require urgently more Law Lords for disposing of the appeals that come from the rest of the Empire. At this moment how are we carrying on? We beg, borrow, and steal, because we have not got Judges of our own. The President of the Divorce Court is so kind as to come and sit this week. He is a Privy Councillor, and he will help us out of a very awkward difficulty. And, as the Lord Chancellor says, we are not rich in ex-Lord Chancellors, as we used to be. Lord Finlay is serving his country on the International Tribunal at The Hague. Lord Buckmaster is called away to other occupations, and Lord Birkenhead holds a high office of State. There remain the Lord Chancellor and myself, an ex-Lord Chancellor, from what may be called the Lord Chancellor's list. Then, in addition to that, we have six Law Lords, full Law Lords—what in India would be called pukka Law Lords. That makes eight. And then, for the rest, there have been two Judges from India, and I hope there will again be two Judges from India if this Bill passes. That brings us to ten.
What business has to be disposed of? Six years ago the Privy Council was able to do its work sitting in one Division, and this House took the
294
Judges for another Division. That was practically two Divisions of the Law Lords. But it became apparent that the Privy Council, to get through its work, had to sit in two Divisions—the growth in Indian business in itself was enough to account for that—and it does sit in two Divisions, and two Divisions of the Privy Council, and one here, require fifteen Law Lords. I have already done a sum in arithmetic from which your Lordships will perceive that there are only ten Law Lords available, including the two Indians, who cannot sit for the other business. What do we do? The patriotic energy of my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore and the patriotism of my noble and learned friend Lord Darling and of others come to our assistance, and they, with great public spirit, make up the unfortunately ragged regiment which is all that we have to bring to bear upon our task. That is deplorable. We have to man a tribunal of fifteen in the three Divisions from ten normal Judges and such others as we can get. Somehow we do get them. The patriotism of people is extraordinary. During the strike we had old, retired Judges of over eighty coming down, mainly on foot, long distances from the West End of London to sit, and sit they did. The other day a learned colleague of mine in the Privy Council who was eighty-eight came and sat with us. That is the way we have to get along. But it is not right. It is not really consistent with the duty of the Government towards the Empire to leave it with a state of things like that.
Your Lordships will say that we do not hear about it; it must be going on very well, for nobody complains. Nobody complains because who goes to Downing Street to look at that Court? The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council advises the Sovereign on appeals from the whole of the Empire, except England and Scotland and a part of Ireland. The other appeals come here, and your Lordships dispose of them, and people come and see these beautiful benches. They see a serious and sedate looking body of five sitting and disposing of the appeals, and they say "That is all right." But whoever goes to Downing Street? A great many people from the Dominions go, a great many people from India and from Africa go. There you may see a swarthy local monarch in full uniform,
295
with a great apparatus of staves and banners, attended by his court, coming to listen to the hearing of his appeal against the British Crown. We have these things every now and then. But nobody from this Chamber, so far as I can observe, takes the trouble to turn into Downing Street to look at the supreme tribunal of the Empire doing its work, although every subject of the King-Emperor is entitled to go in there and see that the duty is done.
The neglect of this very important body is deplorable. It may go, and, if it goes, the Empire will go on all right, but a link will have been destroyed, and the link is in the process of being eaten away by sheer neglect and decay at this moment. It is impossible to go on as we are going on just now. We have been working here in the last few days, and we have disposed of a large number of appeals. But that is not because they happen to be short appeals. The appeals sometimes take a week, sometimes a fortnight, to hear, and we sit only four days a week. Be it remembered, too, that the judgments have to be put into writing, and that they are long judgments, and have to be very long judgments, dealing with very intricate affairs. A considerable part of the work done is work done in interpreting such Constitutions as that of Canada where very intricate questions arise involving long training and study, and in which not only the hearing of the case but the writing of the judgments is a matter of very great labour. These things have to be disposed of and unless you have a body of Judges who have been there a good while and are familiar with the work it is impossible for them to cope with that work. Fortunately, I think the Judicial Committee stands to-day high in reputation in the Empire, but that is only because a great deal of trouble has been taken, and it is trouble which could only be taken because the Judges were very willing to work, and did work, very hard. But now we are broken down. There are fewer of us available than there were two or three years ago.
I have added these observations because I wished to bring home to your Lordships the substance of my appeal, which is one not confined to this Bill. I am as certain as that I stand here that the Government will have, and as quickly as
296
possible, to bring forward a Bill for the appointment of two new regular Law Lords who could sit in the Privy Council. Nobody regrets the increase in the number of Judges more than I do. I struggled against it when I was Lord Chancellor and I have always been against it, but there are times when necessity presses these things upon us and necessity is pressing them upon us just now. The work cannot be done without the assistance for which we are asking. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of these things, men like my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin, know as well as I do what the pressure is that we are under. I have ventured to make these observations relevant to the immediate purpose of this Bill merely to show that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is only, in this Bill, dealing with a part of the trouble.
VISCOUNT DUNEDIN: My Lords, the only reason why I trouble your Lordships with a very few remarks lies in the fact that it is just twenty-one years since I had the privilege of pronouncing my first judgment in this House and in the Judicial Committee, and since that date I have been acting, sporadically up to 1913 and absolutely continuously since 1913. The result is that I have been a witness of that development of business of which my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane has just spoken and I have also seen the struggles, the continually increasing struggles, that we have had to make in order to cope with that increasing business. The present Bill deals with the reinforcement of our Tribunal as regards Indian appeals alone and there, indeed, there is the most pressing necessity.
I suppose for a good Judge the first requisite is a certain judicial instinct, the second is that he should have learned the law, and the third undoubtedly is experience. But, besides that, there is another thing that is necessary. It is not necessary perhaps for every member of the Tribunal, but there ought to be somebody there who thoroughly knows the body of law of the system which he is presently administering. That was recognised when the Lords of Appeal were first created. They were created in a much smaller number than their present number—the number was four—

297
and at that time, although it was not actually put in the Act of Parliament, it was undersood that there were to be two Englishmen, an Irishman and a Scotsman. I know my English friends and I am perfectly certain that the typical Englishman of the class of my old and noble friend Lord Banbury would never put up with a compulsory Scotsman unless he knew it was absolutely necessary. It is the same thing that we want in Indian cases and what, unfortunately, in our present circumstances we have not got.
This very day I have been writing a judgment in an Indian case—a most important case—and yet I only had the assistance of one Indian Judge. While I entirely associate myself with what the learned Lord Chancellor has said as to the valuable assistance we have received, it is some time since the Indian Judge who was assisting me left India. I think there ought to be Judges in practical touch with the law as it is administered. I should have been glad, indeed, if I could have had more help—not help so much to make up my own mind as to give me the certainty that I was not going against any current of opinion which was, so to speak, buried in the book and with which I was not familiar. While I think there is no question of the desirability of the present Bill, I would like to say that I thoroughly associate myself with the remark which Lord Haldane has made as to the necessity of increasing our numbers for other purposes. Really the whole question depends upon the numbers of the tribunal. Nobody can say that a tribunal of three may not be a very good tribunal. Suppose, for example, Lord Cairns, Lord Selborne and Lord McNaghten were sitting in one tribunal, you would then have the finest tribunal that has ever sat.
But it is not only a question of three being able to do the work. You have to a certain extent to deal with other susceptibilities. Just as I have always thought that it is the duty of a Judge not only to decide a case right but also to send away the defeated litigant with a feeling that he has had a fair run, so, when you come to interfere with the judgment of High Courts in other parts of the Dominions, you should remember that they have a right to feel that their views have been adequately considered. I think it is only a natural feeling on the part,
298
for instance, of Canada and Australia, where they have tribunals of five and sometimes of seven, that there ought not to be a reversal of the judgments of those tribunals by three sitting here and three only. If that is the case, then I think five should be the minimum number by which we ought to have any important cases adjudicated upon. I shall not go over again the arithmetical sum which Lord Haldane did, but I think a tribunal of five for each of the three Divisions is a perfectly proper tribunal.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I think the House ought to be very grateful to Lord Banbury for his criticism of the Bill if for no other reason than that it has provoked two magnificent speeches from Lord Haldane and Lord Dunedin. I should not have spoken myself in this debate if it had not been for the fact that I once sat under Lord Haldane when he gave a superb lecture on the Empire at the University of London on the duties of the Privy Council. In that lecture he showed how the Privy Council bound the Empire together more than any other factor. It seems to me that this debate ought to be considered all over the Empire and that it may have one effect—namely, that India may recognise what this country is doing and supplement the amount of money that is proposed. I am sure if it is known in India what the Mother Country is doing in this respect they will go forward and emulate the generosity of this country.
There is only one provision in the Bill to which I think some exception may be taken, because I have heard many arguments on this matter in another place, and that is the limitation of age. I have heard it argued so many times that the judicial mind does not fail at 72 years of age and when one thinks of the example of Lord Halsbury and other eminent Judges much beyond the age of 72 one is rather apt to have a shock at seeing a provision of this kind put in this Bill. That may be, only a Committee point, but having heard that argument so often expressed by those competent to express an opinion, I am somewhat surprised that the provision should have been put in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill has evoked some very interesting speeches, and I have listened with great

299
interest to what was said by my noble friends Lord Haldane and Lord Dunedin as to the need for appointment of more Lords of Appeal. I do not mean in the slightest degree to express dissent from what they have said. It may well be that at some future time I or a successor of mine may have to bring that matter before your Lordships, but nothing they have said makes this Bill less necessary. Whatever you may do as to other Lords of Appeal you must have two effective Judges with special experience in the difficult and diverse system of law administered in India, I am sure that, whatever happens, something in the nature of this Bill is absolutely necessary. As to what my noble friend Lord Jessel said, I have a good deal of sympathy with him. The nearer I approach to the age of 72 the more I think it not altogether a proper retiring age. The figure was inserted in the Bill to meet views which were expressed on behalf of the Government of India, but I am quite prepared, if any different proposal should be made in Committee of your Lordships' House, to give it full consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, or how far, an agreement on the future constitution of the Council of the League was arrived at on the occasion of the recent meeting of the Reconstitution Committee; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before the noble Viscount who I understand will answer my Question on behalf of the Government went to Geneva, I ventured to express an opinion on many of the crucial matters which would come before the Committee on the reconstitution of the League Council and I understood that there was little difference between us on the course of policy which should be followed. I desired, I believe, the same reconstitution, if any reconstitution was to be made, as he himself desired, both as regards what are known as the permanent Members and the non-permanent Members. Of course, it was well-known before the noble Viscount went to
300
Geneva that on both of these points there was likely to be considerable difference of opinion.
At the same time, the only information that I have been able to obtain has been obtained through the success of the noble Viscount himself in opening for public comment and to the public generally as I understand the proceedings of the Committee on the reconstitution of the Council of the League. This information so given has been, I think, of the greatest benefit and the greatest value to all persons interested in League questions. In fact, I do not hesitate to say what I have said before, that one of the causes of the failure which took place in March appeared to be what was called the tea-party system and insufficient publicity as to what was being done. I am not sure whether we have had all the information which is necessary to enable us to know accurately what has passed at Geneva and it was for this reason that I was desirous of asking the noble Viscount opposite the Question which is on the Paper, so that your Lordships may have information at first hand as to what passed at the Committee on reconstitution at Geneva. There may be, of course, in a matter of this kind and at the present moment a difficulty in giving the information for which I ask in my Question and I want to say at once that I do not desire in any way to press the noble Viscount to give any information which, in his opinion, it would not be convenient, having regard to existing negotiations, to give at the present moment.
My desire is that everything may be done to further the stability, influence and authority of the League of Nations, both in the Assembly and in the Council, in their work at Geneva. I do not in these circumstances propose to make any further statement unless a further statement should be rendered necessary by anything that the noble Viscount himself may say. I wish to leave it entirely in his discretion as to whether he can give us information, whether the difficulty as regards the permanent Members has been overcome and whether any agreement has been arrived at so far as to the number in the future of the non-permanent Members and as to the method of their appointment. Personally I have always felt it was a mistake to have raised this question except in the first instance by

301
public discussion in the Assembly itself, but whatever I may think upon that point my one desire is to strengthen the position of the League. I hope the noble Viscount, will be able to give us information that some of these crucial questions are at last on the way to settlement. I move for Papers and I ask the noble Viscount what answer he can give me.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he has put his Question and I am ready to give him such answer as is possible in existing circumstances. The Committee was appointed, as your Lordships know, after the Assembly in March in order to investigate the question of the composition of the Council and the question of the appointment of the non-permanent Members as well as of the permanent Members. I ventured to remind your Lordships when I last addressed you on the subject that the question of the non-permanent Members had agitated the Assembly for several years and was one which was certainly ripe for discussion and settlement. The Committee met and sat a good many days, eight or ten days. It did not complete its work and it is at present adjourned for a further session fixed for June 28. Whether that date will be adhered to I do not know, but the meeting is at present fixed for June 28. It was able to arrive at a number of provisional agreements, it being well understood that they were to be reconsidered in June, and on certain questions which I shall have to allude to no agreement was arrived at but a discussion took place upon them. Almost the whole of the discussions were reported verbatim and if the noble Lord wishes to see the verbatim report he can get it quite easily from the League, but I shall be very glad indeed to place at his disposal a copy of the whole verbatim report of the discussions.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I applied to the League and I got a verbatim report on the disarmament question but could not get one on the constitution question.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry, I do not know how that was. I looked at a verbatim report on that
302
question just before I came here. Provisional agreement was arrived at and these points were settled: It was agreed that the number of the non-permanent Members should be increased from six to nine. It was further agreed that they should hold office for three years and that three should be elected each year. Therefore, of course, it will be necessary to start that arrangement by electing three for one year, three for two years, and three for three years. After that each of them will hold office for three years. Not more than three of the nine are to be again eligible at the conclusion of their term of office and only then if the Assembly should so decide by a majority of two-thirds. The remainder are not to be re-eligible for a period of three years after their term of office. That is the object which has often been pressed in the Assembly—the idea that there should be a rotation of office in the Council so as to give Members the opportunity of sitting there and learning- the work in what is, perhaps, after all, the most important portion of the League. That is the basis of the change that is to be made with regard to the non-permanent Members.
There are two small additions to that—namely, that the non-permanent Members are to take office in future immediately on election. Up to now it has been the practice for them not to take office until the ensuing 1st January. That was felt to be an inconvenient arrangement for several reasons and really to have, no justification at all. The Committee decided without a dissentient that for the future they should take office immediately upon their election. At present, under Article 4, the Assembly is authorised at its discretion from time to time to elect the non-permanent Members, the elective Members, and it was urged in the Committee and generally agreed that that gave to the Assembly the absolute right, at any moment if it chose, to say: "We are not satisfied. We do not think the existing elective Members represent the Assembly. We want a general election now immediately." It was thought very undesirable to take that power away from the Assembly, partly because it could not be done without a change in the Covenant, which would take a considerable time, and partly because it was very important that the elective Members should represent the Assembly. But it was thought

303
that a power such as that ought not to be exercised except by a considerable majority, and the Committee agreed that, though they did not desire to deprive the Assembly of the right to proceed to an election of all the elective Members at any moment, yet that right should not be exercised except on a vote of a two-thirds majority. It would then be for the Assembly to settle under what conditions as to term of office and so on the elected Members should then hold office.
The result of these changes will be that every year three Members will be elected to the Council. One of these will be a re-eligible Member and the other two will not be re-eligible. There will be a rotation which gives an opportunity to the Members of the Assembly to serve on the Council. The third, of course, will be re-eligible. He may, of course, be re-eligible only for one term, but it is probable that the re-eligible Member will be elected for several terms in most cases. There was some protest made against the increase of the non-permanent Members and, in particular, several members of the Committee urged that three Members was too large an increase. But the number was adhered to for this reason: It was felt that in order to give anything like an effective rotation you must have two Members re-elected from year to year. Therefore you must have six Members of the Council, if they were to hold office for three years, who would be non-re-eligible, rotating Members, subject to rotation. That involves six ordinary Members.
It was an essential part of the scheme, for reasons with which your Lordships are familiar, that there should be a certain number of re-eligible Members and the question then was whether you should have two or three re-eligibles. If you only had two, you would be placed in this difficulty. Either you would allow both to be re-elected from Europe and allow no re-eligible Member from outside Europe or else only have one re-eligible Member from Europe. For reasons familiar to your Lordships, it was thought that this would be a method which would prove unsatisfactory in view of its difficulties. In spite of all the criticisms that were raised it was thought that on the whole it was essential to have nine Members, three
304
being re-eligible and six non-re-eligible, what I have called familiarly rotating Members.
That will give a Council of fourteen with the existing permanent Members and Germany. It was assumed through all our discussions that Germany would be very shortly—in September—one of the permanent Members of the Council and if and when Russia and the United States enter the League that would make a Council of sixteen. I do not dispute that for some purposes sixteen is too large. I would rather have seen a smaller Council, if it had been practicable, but the Committee were ultimately nearly unanimous, Sweden reserving her decision. There was no other opposition to the view that the best way out of the difficulties in which we found ourselves was to have a Council of sixteen and I see no reason why a Council of sixteen, or of fourteen immediately, should not work with reasonable success, as Cabinet Councils of that number or even more have worked in this country. That was the solution at which we arrived with reference to the non-permanent Members.
With reference to the permanent Members there was considerable discussion and, as that discussion is reported verbatim, perhaps it would be convenient if I place a copy of the verbatim report in the Library so that any of your Lordships can refer to it. In the end it was decided not to come to any decision on the point for the moment and that matter was adjourned until the next sitting of the Committee, when, no doubt, a decision will have to be taken. It is satisfactory to be able to say that in the end, largely through the tact and skill with which our debates were conducted by our Chairman, M. Motta, the eminent Swiss statesman, no Member of the Committee voted against any of these proposals. They were provisionally agreed to without a dissentient voice. It is quite true that two Members of the Committee, Spain and Brazil, reserved their opinion generally for the adjourned meeting, that China and Poland made also a rather less emphatic reservation, and that Sweden, as I have said, reserved her opinion on the question of the increase in the Members. No other Members of the Committee (there were fifteen of us) reserved their opinion or expressed any dissent, and it is perhaps worth record-

305
ing that the German representative, though he had doubts about certain provisions, expressed general assent to the solution that had been arrived at.
I ought, perhaps, to add this. In the Interim Report which the Committee has presented to the Council and which, I believe, is to be laid before Parliaments—certainly, so far as the Government is concerned, there can be no objection to laying it—your Lordships will find at the end a statement that the Committee were unanimously of opinion that no less than three of the non-permanent Members should be representatives of South American States. That is, roughly speaking, the proportion to which the South American States are entitled on their numbers. They are about one-third of the Members of the Assembly, and are entitled, broadly speaking, to one-third of the elected Members.
I think it right to say that every one recognised the very great part which South America has played in the League, and we all felt, as I am sure the noble Lord opposite will feel, that the very fact that the South American States are aloof from the storms and difficulties of Europe makes their presence, even in European questions, particularly desirable. Certainly we had no thought of under-rating their value to the League; on the contrary, the Committee unanimously accepted the view that they were entitled to these three Members. Whether one of these Members will be a re-eligible Member or not will be very largely a matter for them to determine, because I feel quite certain that the Assembly will be ready to meet them on a point of that description. I believe that all the Members of the League are anxious to co-operate fully, completely and with the most entire respect with the South American Members of that body.
We also, in view of the reference to us asking us to consider the geographical distribution of Members, expressed the view that the Asiatic countries ought to have adequate representation. I am not here to say to your Lordships that the provisional settlement that we arrived at was an absolutely perfect settlement. I think it would be quite easy to present criticisms—indeed, some criticisms were presented. I believe that on the whole it was the best settlement
306
that could be hoped for in the existing circumstances. Certainly I think that it does give solid ground for the hope and expectation that it may prove to be, I will not say a permanent, but a relatively permanent, settlement of this controversy. I am very strongly of opinion that controversy of this description is exceedingly harmful to the League and that the sooner it is settled, and settled on reasonable terms, the better for the League. It is not a satisfactory state of things that the whole attention of the countries should be concentrated on the question of the exact composition of the Council. This certainly is not that which the League was brought into existence to do. It was brought into existence to try to establish an era of peace and good will throughout the world and it is more than time that it should concentrate its attention on this great work and leave the question of the composition of the Council reasonably settled, as I hope it is, and not to be disturbed in future years.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire most heartily to thank the noble Viscount for the statement he has made, and I should like also to add something that I could not have said in the first instance because I was not sufficiently informed—namely, that I entirely agree with him in all that he has said regarding the constitution of the Council, so far as the non-permanent Members are concerned. I forbear to say anything about the permanent Members because, as the noble Viscount has very truly stated, the matter is still under discussion and I think it will be wiser to adopt the attitude that he has adopted and not to seek any further information upon it at this point. The important statement that the noble Viscount has made is that the non-permanent Members, according to the preliminary recommendation of this Committee, will be made up to the number of nine. From my knowledge of the Council I came to the conclusion, and more than once stated in public, some time ago that the number of non-permanent Members ought to be increased, and that nine would be a suitable number. Accordingly, I can say at once that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount's remarks on that point.
I also agree with what he said on the question of representation. He is very

307
well aware that for some years now the question of representation has been accepted in principle, but it has not been brought into practical application owing to some technical rule regarding the number of nations which are required to assent. It is quite time that this matter was settled. It is time, as the noble Viscount has said, that we paid our attention to the great underlying principles with which the League of Nations should deal without spending too much time on questions of constitutional differences. I also agreed fully with what he said about Asia and the Latin Republic of South America, but I will go a little further than he went. I think it is highly important that, for geographical reasons, three of the nine should come from Latin America. So far as possible I should like three to come from what I may call the Asiatic influences—I do not want to put it more narrowly—and three, of course, from Western European countries. I do not desire to lay that down as an absolute principle, because in particular cases certain deviations will have to be made, but generally I think it is very important that all countries should from time to time be adequately represented on the Council and that this representation should be carefully preserved with due regard to that geographical distribution.
I wish to say only one more word as regards the number. I do not think that, even when it rises to sixteen, the number will be too great, and for two reasons: First of all, the non-permanent Members represent more directly than the permanent ones can do the wishes of the Assembly itself, which I regard as a matter of great importance. Secondly, if you are to have the wishes of the Assembly represented in this way upon the Council, it is hardly possible to have a real representation of a world assembly unless you have, I think, as many as nine non-permanent, or as I should prefer to call them, nine elected, Members. I am not prepared to assent to what the noble Viscount has said as regards the words "at its discretion." I should doubt very much whether that implied the revocation, as I understood him to say, at any time of an election, which prima facie was to endure for a longer time. I know the matter has been raised, but I hope that before he makes up his mind finally upon a point of that kind he will give further
308
thought to what, in the ordinary sense, the words mean, and I do not think they go so far as he suggests.
I understand that he is prepared to place upon the Table, I suppose in the form of a White Paper, at an early date, what has passed, or a précis of what has passed, at the preliminary discussions at Geneva. I think it will be a valuable document, which will be read most carefully by those who are really interested in this question, and the number of those who are getting interested in it in this country is constantly growing, as everyone knows who has worked for the League of Nations Union. I hope that in that way information will be diffused as widely as possible. As I understand the noble Viscount is prepared to lay a Paper on the Table, it is not necessary for me to press my Motion.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Perhaps I might explain. What I suggested placing on the Table was the Report of the Committee which states very accurately the conclusions which were arrived at. I propose to have it printed and laid on the Table in the ordinary way. I also propose, if it is desired, to place in the Library a verbatim copy of the debates which took place. That is my suggestion. I do not know whether it will meet the noble Lord's views.
LORD PARMOOR: I understood that, and certainly it will meet my view. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the suggestions he has made.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ARREARS OF INSURANCE CONTRI BUTIONS.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that under Section 22, subsection (3), of the Unemployment Act, 1920, not more than twelve months' arrears are recoverable from an employer upon his conviction of failure to pay contributions; and whether they will introduce legislation to remedy this, or will make such regulations as will lead to inquiry into all cases where unemployment books are not punctually returned after ceasing to be current.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in submitting the Question which I have put on the Paper, it may be convenient if I state shortly the facts of the case which called my attention to the matter. An individual who carried on the business of a butcher retired from business in November, 1925 He then returned to the unemployment bureau the insurance cards which he had, and which took him down to July, 1923—the twelve months from July, 1922 to July, 1923. From that time until November, 1925—two and a quarter years—he had deducted from his employees their proper insurance contributions, but he had not stamped any cards. When he returned those cards, which were due in July, 1923, inquiries were made, and consequently he was prosecuted for not complying with the requirements of the Act. It was then stated that upon conviction not more than twelve months' arrears could be recovered before the magistrates. That statement appears to be correct, inasmuch as Section 22, subsection (3), of the Act only provides that evidence may be given upon conviction for non-payment of any sum, of nonpayment of arrears for one year preceding the laying of information.
It was also stated that it was not part of the duty of the unemployment bureau, or those in charge of it, to inquire as to the whereabouts of cards which were not duly returned at the expiration of currency, and I understand that the maximum currency is twelve months. The result is that in that proceeding, although more than three years' arrears were due, only one year's arrears were recoverable. I ought to point out, what I have since ascertained, that under Section 24 of the Act a workman whose unemployment payments are in arrear can recover arrears as a civil debt, which I presume means that he can bring an action in the County Court for them; but apart from the fact that very few workmen can be aware of their right to do so, it is also extremely inconvenient that two proceedings should have to Be taken to recover one class of arrears. In my Question I have suggested two remedies: one, that the magistrates before whom the matter is brought should have power to direct payment to the unemployment bureau of all arrears due, and the other that clear instructions should be given to the unemployment
310
bureau to inquire as to any cards which are not duly returned at the expiration of currency. I have no doubt that that is what the Act contemplated—namely, that at the expiration of twelve months inquiry should be made for the cards, and that if they are not forthcoming, or payments have not been made, then a summons should be issued, and there would then not be move than twelve months' arrears to collect. In the circumstances I have pointed out it is plain that you may have very considerable arrears which are not recoverable, at all events before magistrates.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend raises, I think, two points in his Question. He first asks whether we are aware that under Section 22, subsection (3), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, not more than 12 months' arrears are recoverable from an employer upon his conviction of failure to pay contributions. That is quite true, under that section, which is a section imposing a penalty and is a criminal section. The provision is as follows:
"Where an employer has boon convicted under the foregoing provisions of this section of the offence of failing or neglecting to pay any contribution under this Act, he shall be liable to pay to the unemployment fund a sum equal to the amount which he has so failed or neglected to pay, and on such a conviction if notice of the intention to do so has been served with the summons or warrant, evidence may be given of the failure or neglect on the part of the employer to pay other contributions in respect of the same person during the year preceding the date when the information was so laid, and on proof of such failure or neglect the employer shall be liable to pay to the unemployment fund a sum equal to the total of all the contributions which he is so proved to have failed or neglected to pay."
That is to say, for one year. That is quite true and that is part of the criminal proceedings.
In addition to that, under subsection (6) of that same section it is provided that:—
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Minister from recovering any sums due to the unemployment fund by means of civil proceedings, and all such sums shall be recoverable as debts due to the Crown, and without prejudice to any other remedy may be recovered by the Minister summarily as a civil debt."
So that there are really two remedies. There is the criminal remedy, under

311
which the delinquent can be fined and one year's contributions can be recovered in criminal proceedings; and, in addition to that, the whole of the arrears can be recovered by the Minister in civil proceedings under the later section. As I am informed, the practice is, after the criminal proceedings have taken place, if necessary to proceed with the civil proceedings to recover the remainder of the arrears.
My noble friend asks with a great deal of logic: Why should the criminal proceedings be limited to one year; why, if you may recover one year's arrears by criminal proceedings, may not you recover more than one year? I have not been able to satisfy myself that there is logically any answer to the noble Lord. The only thing that can be said is that as a general principle, criminal proceedings ought not to be used for the purpose of recovering debts. You may have, as you have in this case, an exception made in order to facilitate the recovery for a short period of a statutory debt which has not been paid owing to a failure of a statutory duty. But it is held by those who watch over the purity of our legislation and our administration that it is improper to use criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovering civil debts as a normal state of things. Therefore you have this somewhat cumbrous procedure existing in the Statute.
I understand that it is the same in the other insurance legislation, except that in the recent Act by which pensions were granted to widows you can recover two years' arrears, and I certainly think that when the opportunity serves it is a matter which ought to be considered, whether you ought not to bring the unemployment legislation into line with the other insurance legislation, as far as the two years at any rate are concerned. I admit that I have a certain sympathy with the noble Lord, who wishes, I understand, to go further than that, and say that all arrears should be recoverable, but the matter is evidently one that requires a little consideration, because it is quite true that it would never do to utilise the criminal procedure of this county as a purely debt-collecting procedure. It would be introducing a number of evils if that became an accepted part of our procedure in this country.
312
There is no doubt that this particular case was a bad case. The employer had not only failed to pay the contributions, but, while failing to pay them into the unemployment fund, had, in fact, deducted those contributions from the employee—a procedure which came very near dishonesty, if not worse, and it was quite right to proceed against such a case. It is such cases that are proceeded against criminally. That being so, there is a great deal to be said for the view that you must make a great distinction between what is really a civil debt and a criminal offence. That is all that I can say to my noble friend in answer to the first part of his Question.
In regard to his suggestion that inquiries ought to be made always when the unemployment books are not returned, the difficulty is purely one of organisation and expense. There are 11,000,000 of these books, I am told, and if it was to be made a rule that every one had to be inquired after you would enormously increase the expense of the administration of the Act. The Department have not thought it right to incur that expense for what they believe to be, on the whole, an evil of very small extent. What they have done is this. They have taken particular districts and inquired into them. I believe it was last year that they inquired into the Liverpool district. They followed the fortunes of each of the books, and they found that a certain number were not returned, because death had intervened or a man had left the country or had abandoned his insurable employment for an uninsurable employment; and, allowing for that, the proportion of books which were improperly not returned was exceedingly small. I was not able to get the exact figures, but I was assured that the percentage was a very, very small one.
Further experiments are being made in another district, I think in the North-Midland district. I understand that they are still in progress, and it is hoped that further information will be gleaned from these experiments and further measures may possibly come to light for diminishing the improper non-return of these books. I think my noble friend will agree that since, as far as we can find out, the evil is not really an extensive or serious one from that point of view,

313
it would not be justifiable at this time, in the present state of our finances especially, to set on foot such a very elaborate and costly machine as an inquiry into the case of every one of the 11,000,000 books, which would be necessary in order to carry out the desire which he has expressed in his Question. I hope that I have been able to throw some light on the subject that he has raised. We are most anxious to do everything we can to diminish these frauds—because they are nothing less than frauds—which occur from time to time.
LORD SANDHURST: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the answer he has given. Perhaps I may say that I did not intend to suggest that an inquiry should be made in every case, but only in cases in which books were not returned, and if, as my noble friend says, the number of these books which are not returned is very small, it would seem to follow that the expense of the inquiry would not be very great.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I will note that point.
[From Minutes of June 7.]

OLDHAM EXTENSION BILL.
  RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
    TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELEC- TRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOW- MENT FUND BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday, June 15.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.

PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

CHATHAM AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
FORMERLY
BROMPTON, CHATHAM, GILLINGHAM AND ROCHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
DARWEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MESSRS. HOARE TRUSTEES BILL. [H.L.]
SERLE STREET AND COOK'S COURT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.].
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
A Petition of Messrs. J. M. McDonnell and Jackson, of Abbey House, Victoria Street, Westminster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a petition of Frederick William Goundry against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered to-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3).

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ashton-under-Lyne Extension) [H.L.]

316

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) [H.L.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ealing Extension) [H.L.]

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading).

Manchester Ship Canal (Staff Superannuation).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAM WAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Roundway be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Cozens-Hardy; read, and agreed to.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  BERWICK-UPON-TWEED CORPORATION (FREEMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
    LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENE RAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

TEIGNMOUTH ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of part of the Rural District of Newton Abbot, in the County of Devon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the Rural District of Hemsworth, in the West Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LIVERPOOL GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Liverpool Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LEATHERHEAD GAS ORDER, 1926.
TAWE VALE GAS ORDER, 1926.
CHAPEL WHALEY AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1926.
INVERNESS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
DUNBARTONSHIRE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
LLANTRISANT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Orders Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.