Sitting of 29 January 1935

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (CUMBERLAND AND LANCASTER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER AND WARWICK) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (HOLLAND AND KESTEVEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOLLAND AND LINDSEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Bill to which I invite your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to-day is one designed to give legislative authority to the carrying out of part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries, which was set up in 1928, and presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord D'Abernon. Those of your Lordships who are interested in this subject will recollect that a measure similar to
712
this was proposed in 1930. That Bill was designed to let the National Gallery and the British Museum lend their possessions overseas. Owing, however, to very serious differences of opinion which occurred between the two Houses of Parliament, the Bill was not proceeded with, and was ultimately withdrawn. Last year, however, a deputation was received by the Prime Minister, urging the reintroduction of a measure somewhat similar to that proposed in 1930, but in a modified form, and I think it would be for the benefit of the House if I told your Lordships that that deputation included amongst others, the Acting High Commissioner for Australia, the High Commissioner for New Zealand and many of the Agents-General for the Australian States.
After considerable consultation and inquiry, the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery unanimously decided in favour of lending overseas pictures by British artists. Unfortunately no agreement could be reached with the Trustees of the British Museum, and for that reason they are excluded from the contents of this Bill. Many of your Lordships will have had the opportunity of visiting the picture galleries of the great capitals of Europe and elsewhere. During those excursions you will, I think, have realised the very singular lack of pictures representative of the British school of painting, and I would venture to suggest that the discovery of this omission has in no way disposed of the unquenchable hope that your Lordships must have entertained that one day pictures representative of the British school of painting might be exhibited in galleries overseas. The benefits to be derived from a Bill of this character are many, and I think to-day I need only call your Lordships' attention to the major benefits which may, and probably will, result from the Bill. In the first place, an exhibition abroad of the finest classes of British paintings would, I think, come as a revelation to the inhabitants of the fortunate country concerned, and indeed the reciprocal advantage of the interchange of loans would not only have a profound influence on art in general, but would also produce and promote international friendship and cordiality.

713
May I ask your Lordships to turn to the Bill? Clause 1 provides that the Trustees and the Director of the National Gallery may do two things. First they shall, in their discretion, have power to lend pictures by British artists for public exhibition outside the United Kingdom. On the Committee stage of the Bill of 1030 my noble friend Lord Mersey moved an Amendment restricting loans to a period subsequent to the year 1600. Your Lordships will see that no mention of this restriction is included in the present Bill, for the reason that the elimination of the British Museum from the measure has removed the necessity for such a restriction. Further, there are very few pictures in the National Gallery painted by British artists previous to the year 1600, and as the right of selection is left to the Trustees and the Director, I do not think that any further safeguard is called for. In the second place, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides that the Trustees and the Director of the National Gallery shall, in their discretion, have power to lend pictures by British artists for display in the official house of the British Ambassador in a foreign country.
As your Lordships are no doubt aware the majority, in fast all, of those residences for Ambassadors abroad are provided by the Government, and up till now no pictures have been furnished with the exception of the pictures of their Majesties the King and Queen, which are supplied by the Lord Chamberlain's Department. I think your Lordships will agree it is not within the power of all Ambassadors to-day to produce pictures of a decorative standard which could be Lung in the great British Embassies abroad, and for my own part I could imagine that, having been appointed by His Majesty to be Ambassador to one of the great Powers in Europe, nothing could be more dismal or dreary than to enter that building and find bare and empty walls. There are fifteen such Embassies to which these pictures could go if the Trustees and the Director thought fit, and it may well be that some of your Lordships have fear that the climatic conditions or the absence of expert supervision may make it very undesirable, if not dangerous, to lend. I think that danger has been amply foreseen by the Government, and this clause, which
714
authorises the Trustees and the Director to lend on such conditions as they may think fit and subject to such conditions as they may impose, is a very strong safeguard. Indeed, if those conditions which they saw fit to impose and the conditions under which they thought fit to make this loan could not be met then obviously the pictures would not be sent.
The last part of Clause 1 is a proviso about bequests which I think needs some explanation. Under the National Gallery (Loan) Act, 1883, the Trustees of the National Gallery, including the Tate Trustees, may not lend to this country a picture vested in them by gift or bequest until after the expiration of a period of fifteen years from the date of the gift or bequest if the terms of such gift or bequest leave them free, or twenty-five years if the conditions of gift or bequest are inconsistent with the loan. In the ease of loans abroad the Government feel that the restrictions on the power of lending should be rather more strict than at present contemplated, and I therefore propose on the Committee stage to move an Amendment debarring Trustees, at any rate in the case of future gifts or bequests, even after fifteen years, from lending abroad in cases where the loan would be inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest.
I mention the case of future bequests since it will no doubt be agreed that it would be very unfortunate that the Gallery Trustees should be debarred, for example, from lending to a foreign exhibition of British art any part of their superb collection of Turners. On the other hand, it is proposed, following the line of certain recommendations made by the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries, that these two rules may be abrogated with the consent of the donor or of his personal representative or of the personal representative of the testator. I do not think that point will be in any way controversial and, as I have said, I propose to move that Amendment on the Committee stage to set out quite clearly what the intentions of the Government are. That is the Bill, and it is one to which I think your Lordships could very safely give a Second Reading to-day. It is one which has been drawn up with mutual agreement between the parties mentioned in

715
the Bill, and it is one which I submit quite confidently to your Lordships fur Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House will welcome this Bill, a Bill which in my opinion has been long overdue and one which it is wise to pass, not only in the interests of British art but also to reciprocate the many complimentary loans which have been made to this country by other great countries in Europe and elsewhere. After the way in which the Italian Government sent a profusion of first-class works to this country for exhibition I feel we ought to be in a position, under due safeguards as provided, with the consent of the Trustees and Director, to repay that compliment and enable the people of Italy and the people of other countries to judge of the works of British artists.
The first question I want to put to my noble friend is, Why is the Wallace Collection excluded? It may be said—I do not know—that this is a compromise Bill, and that in order to secure an easy passage for it the promoters have been obliged to exclude this Collection and that class of works of art and simply to concentrate on the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery and only to ask leave to loan British pictures. I would like to know whether an effort has been made to bring in the Wallace Collection. The Wallace Collection is a national asset. As far as I am able to ascertain, that collection was left to the nation by the widow of Sir Richard Wallace. The nation purchased the mansion house in Manchester Square where the collection is now housed and, therefore, unless there is some good reason, including perhaps that of getting an agreed Bill, I would like to know why the Wallace Collection is excluded. After all, we have there—I stand to be corrected—outside France, the finest collection of French pictures in the world, and as we have got it by a lucky chance—and perhaps the French nation felt rather aggrieved that it was not left to some public body in France—I think we ought, if possible, to be in a position to lend sonic of those works of art, subject, as I said, to the approval of the Director and the Trustees.
716
Then I come to what is, perhaps, a more controversial subject. Why, in logic, exclude all foreign painters and concentrate entirely upon British painters? The only reason that can be given, I suppose, is that we want to make our artists well known—let other nations go to the land of birth of the painter if they want to find other pictures! In passing this Bill, we really have mainly in view, I take it, the object that British artists should be better known through the world. I do not think anybody would put that forward as a main contention. It is not a very high motive. What I think is our consideration in passing this Bill is this: We have unsurpassed art treasures in the public galleries and in private possession in this country—we are fortunate to have inherited the great purchases of the eighteenth century—and we are not so churlish as to want to keep all these wonderful things from the view and the knowledge of other nations. Private collections in this country have been, and are being, freely drawn upon for overseas exhibitions and, therefore, I cannot see any reason why there is any objection to lending the magnificent Velasquez, let us say, from the National Gallery for exhibition overseas, provided those responsible for its safe custody are satisfied no harm would come to it. I would like to know the attitude of His Majesty's Government on these two points—why Hertford House is excluded and why they confine this Bill to British artists. On the answer may depend whether I shall move Amendments in that sense in the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill is much less controversial than recent measures on the same subject, and, as it is no longer a Bill permitting indiscriminate loans of all pictures of all schools to all countries or any country, my own opposition is very much mitigated. But I should like to say at once in answer to what my noble friend Lord Mount Temple has stated, that the matter is far less simple than he seems to indicate. He says this Bill is illogical because it applies only to British pictures. Why should we not lend our Velasquez to the Prado or our French pictures to the Louvre? The reason is that this practice of sending old master pictures, often of very frail character, careering about from one

717
capital of Europe to another is a source of the most profound disquiet amongst the professional men, curators and keepers, who are responsible for the custody and the good order of these pictures. I do not think my noble friend quite realises how fragile these old masters are. We have no paintings of any value more than five or six hundred years old. Compared with the art of the goldsmith or the sculptor or the enameller, the art of the painter is a mere ephemeral production, and these productions, which are the great emanation of the genius of our race for the last five hundred years, have got to last for five thousand or for fifty thousand years if possible. Every time one of these pictures is sent careering about Europe, its value is reduced by the extent of friction and hydrometric change to which it is subject.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt my noble friend? I apologise for doing so. Would not that apply equally to the works of British artists? Do not they run the same danger?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Perhaps I may roach that point later on. I do not wish to be too long. I say, therefore, that the risk of breakage, the risk of change of temperature, and, not least of all, the risk of fire, have been the source of the greatest anxiety during these recent exhibitions that have taken place in London. When my noble friend talked about the gallantry of the Italian Government in sending over that great shipload of treasures a few years ago he spoke quite truly, but I suppose he knows that every responsible curator in this country, not to mention every responsible keeper in Italy, was on tenterhooks until it was known that that ship had safely got over the storms of the Bay of Biscay. Even then, with all the care that is taken, the risk of damage and loss to pictures sent about in these circumstances is very serious indeed. I entirely object to the term "churlish" being applied to those who dissent from this practice of sending pictures to and fro. The attitude of curators all over Europe is hostile to this movement. It is not their initiative. The whole thing is a political move. My noble friend behind me mentioned that a deputation had recently been to the Prime Minister. I did not know there had been such a deputation, but judging from the names he mentioned they were not the names of persons who
718
were prima facie much concerned in fine art. It was apparently a political deputation from the Dominions and the Colonies. It is what is called a gesture. A gesture, when interpreted in terms of fine art, is a very risky thing indeed.
My noble friend talked about agreeing to sending English pictures abroad while objecting to sending others abroad. I object to sending all priceless and fragile pictures about in this manner, but I am quite ready to recognise that a kind of claim has been pegged out by our recent exhibitions in London—and not only during the last ten years—and by a prevailing feeling that gestures of this character are necessary on our part. Therefore I am ready, though not without reluctance, to accept this compromise Bill as a settlement of the problem. It is for that reason that I waive my objection. At least one can say that the pictures of our national school here, being of more recent date, are therefore not painted on the most fragile of all bases—namely, panel—and are probably less liable to damage than the earlier Italian or German masters.
I would, however, like to add one word of caution. My noble friend who introduced the Bill said there were fifteen Embassies, and rather indicated each one of them ought to have a selection. I do not know that that is a proper way in which to dole out our pictures. Under the Bill you could send a Gainsborough to Tokio, but you cannot send one to Amsterdam. That is not the sort of distribution that pleases me. I should like a more general distribution, and I think the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Director should be able to exercise discretion as to the destination of these pictures. There are not very many of them. People seem to think—even the noble Earl, Lord Munster, seems to think—that the place is full of these pictures. At Trafalgar Square you will not find the great masterpieces of Reynolds and Gainsborough and Romney. They are not there. Such pictures as we have are far from excessive in number or quality to represent the history and development of our own school. My support of the Bill, therefore, if cautious, I think, sound, but it will very soon cease to be sound if the noble Earl gives way to my noble friend below the gangway about

719
the Wallace Collection. I beg of him to take the trouble to read the Trust of the Wallace Collection before be considers sending it about for display. The great charm of that Collection is that it is not like the official picture galleries to which we are accustomed all over the world, where each school is segregated in its particular group of rooms. It is the house of a great collector maintained as far as possible in the happy haphazard way in which it was left, and the fact that the Government paid £60,000 to acquire and rearrange the Collection is no reason for taking away the Trust which governs it. I am sure, however, that the Government are not going to extend the Bill beyond its present scope, which I consider quite adequate to the existing situation.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this Bill because I was responsible for an Amendment which your Lordships were pleased to accept on a previous occasion when a similar Bill was brought forward. I think this Bill does narrow down very much indeed the damage that could be produced. As regards the question of lending pictures to Embassies, I believe that on the last occasion I spoke in Committee against the proposal, but later visits to some of His Majesty's Embassies abroad have convinced me that there is considerable scope for lending something to some of them. I would refer, for instance, to the way in which British art is represented in Rome, where, I think—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—there is only one rather indifferent picture of George IV by Sir Thomas Lawrence in the Vatican Gallery. I do not recall any other British picture of distinction in Rome. The Ambassador there might be allowed, say, some of the Turners in the Tate Gallery. When we think of what the Italian Ambassador in this Capital has hung on his walls we might be tempted to compete in a modest way.
There is another subject, not quite germane to the Bill but not far removed from it, to which I would like to draw attention; that is the question of testators leaving their pictures to the nation. Very few people are able to retain beautiful things of value in their possession nowadays, and it is still harder for their successors to continue to retain them. I do not think it is suffi-
720
ciently realised either by the public or by the owners of such things that if they allow the National Gallery to acquire them when the estate is liquidated they will not have to pay Estate Duty. That makes a very large difference. Take the ease of a very moderate estate which has to pay duty of 33 per cent. If the successor sells a picture to an American art dealer for £45,000 all he receives in fact to put into the bank is £30,000, because 33 per cent. is at once taken by Somerset House. If he sells to the National Gallery for £30,000 he receives £30,000 net and pays no duty. That is a most important point which ought to be more generally known. It is not a matter which needs legislation, but think it might be made an instruction to the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery that they should take upon themselves the duty, through Somerset House, of informing the executors of estates that are in liquidation that the National Gallery would be prepared at a price to take over one or more of their pictures.
I can quite understand that there is a certain reluctance on the part of successors or executors to go hat in hand to the National Gallery and ask whether the Trustees will take their pictures. The suggestion I make, therefore, is that the onus should be on the shoulders of the Government. The Board of Trustees are very well informed and know pretty well what pictures there are which they would like to acquire, and probably know only too well the financial state of the executors. It would be easy for them to say to Somerset House: "So-and-so has died, his successor may have to get rid of some pictures to pay taxation, and we would like you to tell him when you send your assessment that we would be prepared to take some of those pictures at a figure to be settled." I think that would very much facilitate the position of the successor. People have an idea that if they go around here saying they have this or that picture to sell the matter becomes common knowledge, but that if they sell them abroad it is not generally known. I think that is a wrong idea. It ought to be regarded rather as a distinction to allow a personal possession to be hung on the walls of the National Gallery.
I hope that no Amendments of the kind which have been suggested will be proposed. I think that would be the best

721
way of wrecking the Bill. There was, I think, a large majority on the last occasion in favour of limiting the scope of the Bill to British-produced objects. That is going far enough. Even so somebody might find that the Wilton diptych was painted by an Englishman, which would bring it within the purview of the Bill. We are making a generous gesture and I feel sure that if the noble Earl sticks to the Bill he will get it through.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I was one of the opponents of the Bill of four years ago in its much wider form, and I feel sure that the noble Lord below the gangway if he remembers that debate, would not wish to resume the discussion upon the basis which then proved disastrous to the measure. I agree entirely with the view expressed to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and although I also regard with some reluctance and misgivings the possible consequences of this Bill, I am prepared to support it on Second Reading. But I should like to have a slightly more explicit statement from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill with regard to one point upon which I feel very strongly. Unfortunately, owing to the acoustic properties of your Lordships' House, I did not quite hear the terms of the Amendment which he proposes to move, but I understood it to be, and I hope I am right, an Amendment to omit paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of Clause 1, which reads:
"at least fifteen years have elapsed since the date of the vesting of the picture."
I had proposed to move an Amendment to omit those words, but I rather gathered, although I must admit that I did not hear the noble Earl quite clearly, that it was the intention of the Government iii effect to omit those words, and therefore to allow the declared wishes of a testator or donor and the conditions upon which his gift was accepted to be respected and honoured however many years may have elapsed after the gift or, indeed, after his death.
I should like to be reassured upon that point, if the noble Earl will be good enough to give me that assurance, otherwise I shall feel it necessary to move an Amendment at a later stage. Personally, I have a very strong objection to the idea of defeating and ignoring
722
the wishes expressed in a trust unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so. The noble Lord below the gangway talked quite airily about breaking the Wallace Trust, as if it could be brushed aside without any regard to the original conditions under which that great gift to the nation was made. I think that there is a moral issue here as well as one of expediency, and personally I should very much object to that policy being pursued, whatever the object was or whatever specious excuse might be put forward for departing from the terms of the trust. If the noble Earl turns a deaf ear to those blandishments from below the gangway and proceeds with his Bill in its present form but with what I understood to be the Amendment proposed, I think he may also count on my vote.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: My Lords, my views have been so accurately expressed by my noble friend who spoke earlier that I intend to do no more than say a few words. I have been a persistent opponent of this proposal ever since it was first mooted, and I remain obdurate at the present day. My real reason for that is a sufficient one; it is that we do not want freedom. We accept the loan of wonderful pictures and works of art from foreign countries and we exhibit them in London—to the great advantage incidentally of the pictures themselves—but we do that for our own pleasure. We accept the loan, we show the pictures, and then when they ask us to lend some of ours we cannot do it; it is against the law. So long as it is against the law we have a perfectly good excuse; the directors of a gallery can put forward the fact that they cannot do it unless there is a change in the law. I have been concerned in helping to form one or two loan collections of pictures to be sent to the great Dominions of the Empire. It is impossible to have any dealings with the art authorities of Melbourne, Sydney, Ottawa or wherever it may be, without hearing that in their opinion the London collections of works of art ought to be regarded as Imperial collections, and visitors from overseas should be able to share the knowledge that we possess and enlarge their own experience upon that basis.
I think that is really a stronger point than any other. If this Bill were confined to authorising loans to art galleries

723
of the Dominions I should say, "By all means let us lend"; but there are many countries in this world which have collections of pictures and which might expect to be entrusted with loans from us, and they are not all trustworthy. I do not mean that they would not return the pictures; I mean that they cannot he trusted to take sufficient care of these very tender works of art. That is a matter which is by no means universally borne in mind. There are countries to which we would not like to lend pictures, not because we do not like them and not because they are not most estimable people with wonderful galleries, but simply because we do not think that they know how to take care of pictures. Naturally enough I cannot mention names, but it is within the knowledge of everybody that there are certain galleries in which the pictures are in a desperately bad condition and nothing is done to save them. We do not want to send our pictures into that atmosphere.
This Bill is a great deal better than the previous one. The idea of confining it to pictures of the English school is an improvement, for they can travel with far less danger than almost any other pictures. They go very freely to America and do not suffer very much on the way. There is a great deal to be said for allowing some of our own productions to go, if necessary, to the ends of the earth, but there is, I think, nothing to be said for lending pictures of other descriptions. This could only be the thin edge of the wedge. We should be led by this Bill into lending older pictures and lending foreign pictures, and we should find ourselves lending indiscriminately before we knew where we were. I should oppose the very beginnings of this lending. I think that we are on a perfectly sound footing now. The Government have been driven to exclude the British Museum from the scope of the Bill; and why? Because the contents of the British Museum are of an exceedingly delicate and tender nature and could not be moved with any safety at all. It is only a matter of degree. If you once let the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery lend pictures, you will be driven to allowing the British Museum to lend its art treasures. For those reasons I am unable myself to support this measure and I must vote against it.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I would like to say a word or two on this Bill in support of it. I remember thinking four years ago when the original Bill was introduced, that the matter was a very simple one, but after the debate in December, 1930, I fully realised that it was by no means so simple as it appeared on the surface, and I think the Government have been wise in restricting the operation of this Bill as they have done compared with the Bill of four years ago. Undoubtedly the fears expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, are very real. Perhaps there is nothing of great value that is so perishable as a picture, and I know myself what the noble Earl referred to as the terrible anxiety that artists and gallery directors went through when the Italian loan to this country was so generously made by the Italian Government. I am not at all sure that some amount of harm may not have been done to those pictures, however perfectly packed they may have been, because in the case of panel pictures vibration is apt to bring about a certain amount of harm. In the measure now before us I think these difficulties have been avoided. In the first flush of it, when one thinks that the Governments of foreign countries are so generous as to loan pictures to us, and when these exhibitions are matters of such very great delight to our people, and are very useful indeed in bringing about amicable relations between peoples—it seems that on the first flush it is ungenerous of us not to respond in equivalent terms, but I think there is wisdom in the caution that has been adopted, and so far as it goes I cannot see any objection to the passage of this measure.
I should like to ask the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading just one or two questions. Do the words "Trustees and the Director of the National Gallery" include Trustees and Directors of the Scottish National Gallery? That is to say, will a Raeburn be allowed to be sent abroad in the same way as a picture in the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square? Next, I would like to ask the noble Earl—perhaps he will not be able to give me this information offhand—whether he can tell us approximately the number of unhung and stored pictures in the National Gallery and the

725
Tate Gallery. I believe there are a considerable number of pictures of value for the exhibition of which there is not sufficient wall space, and those pictures naturally will be of use in filling spaces on the walls for loans abroad. They may not in the least necessarily be of inferior quality, but owing to the restricted wall space there are large numbers of pictures which have been stored.
The third question is this: Have not the Office of Works got a number of pictures in their care? Are they not able now to send these pictures abroad for the decoration of foreign Embassies, and do they not now allow these pictures to be exhibited in Government offices? Have they not also got a store of pictures of that character? I know, for instance, that over the mantelpiece in the Minister's room at the Ministry of Transport there is a very beautiful picture that I very much suspect of being a Wilson, but it is not named, and I believe it comes out of the store of the Office of Works. I think there are also some in Downing Street and elsewhere. I would like to ask the noble Earl whether those pictures can be sent abroad by the Government without application for leave by any one; also, what exactly those pictures consist of, and whether they can be used for the decoration of Embassies at the present time. Perhaps these are rather technical questions to which the noble Earl cannot possibly have the answer in his mind, but I shall be very much obliged if, during the course of the passage of this Bill, he would be good enough to give the answers to them. Meanwhile, I feel that there can be no sort of objection to the passage of this Bill in its present form.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not think I can complain of the reception which the Bill has received at your Lordships' hands. One or two direct questions have been put to me which I will endeavour to answer. In the first place, Lord Mount Temple was good enough to inform me that he proposed to raise two questions. The first question was whether the Wallace Collection can lend their possessions overseas? The answer is: No, they cannot. I understand that the bequest contained a clause that the Collection should not be added to or taken from, and this clause has been interpreted by successive Boards of Trustees as precluding loans being sent
726
abroad. The second question is why are foreign pictures precluded from this measure? I do not think it is necessary for me to answer that question at any great length, because I think the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, gave more of an answer than I could possibly give; but of course the Bill is admittedly a compromise. If it is passed it will be very much to the benefit of foreign countries who wish to see British pictures, but the noble Lord will see that there would have been no possible chance of the Bill passing if it included pictures by foreign artists.
My noble friend Lord Crawford, who supported the Bill, suggested that I should indicate the names of one or two individuals connected with the Colonies who composed the deputation to see the Prime Minister. No doubt there were others of which he has knowledge, but I would mention Mr. Edward Marsh, Dr. F. A. Bather and Mr. S. F. Markham, and indeed on the Executive Committee was Lord Conway. He said there were fifteen Embassies, but there is no idea of these scrambling together in the basement of the National Gallery, and I imagine that there could be no difficulty about the Trustees and Directors finding one or two pictures suitable to particular Embassies, after taking all the pros and cons into consideration. Lord Lee of Fareham spoke about the latter part of Clause 1, dealing with bequests and gifts. I am sorry that the noble Viscount could not hear me when I addressed the House on the first occasion. It is the Government's intention to introduce an Amendment dealing with the whole of that paragraph and it will I think meet the point which the noble Lord raised, but I would beg him to wait until that Amendment is printed, when I feel sure that he will be able to support the Government and the Bill. I think I can say quite definitely that the Amendment will be in no way controversial and that the noble Viscount will accept it.
Then Lord Ponsonby asked one or two questions. The first was with regard to the National Gallery of Scotland. I am advised that at the present time they are enabled to send any possessions they may have for exhibition overseas, and indeed there is quite a number of various museums and galleries in the country which can already do that. The National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and

727
the British Museum, however, cannot send overseas at all. The noble Lord asked me if I could give, him any indication of the number of unhung pictures in the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery. I am advised that in the National Gallery there are about thirty, and in the Tate Gallery several hundred. The pictures which the noble Lord mentioned as being at the moment in the Office of Works buildings and in other Government Departments are, I am advised, lent from the National Gallery, and these pictures could, with the others, be sent abroad for exhibition purposes if this Bill is passed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (AMENDED PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, this Bill embodies the proposals of a Bill to which in the Session of Parliament which concluded at the end of the year the House gave a Second Reading. That was the same Bill, except for slight verbal corrections. It was received with very great kindness by those of your Lordships who discussed it, and was given its Second Reading without a Division. As I said at that time, the subject matter is, in my judgment, one of very considerable social importance. It affects particularly the less well-to-do classes in the country, and the law and the procedure which govern it and have governed it since about the year 1837, are in a condition in which, in the very generally held opinion of those who are familiar with the subject, substantial change is overdue.
The Bill deals with the class of case in magistrates' courts in which one of the spouses is seeking what is in effect a decree of judicial separation because of domestic differences—what might commonly be called cruelty, but generally is found to fall within a more technical description of cruelty and neglect to maintain. These cases at present are brought before the magistrates' courts without any preparation on the part of the court, and with no notice of what is to come before them. They are mixed up with the ordinary criminal proceedings of the courts, and they are conducted in the
728
same way as the criminal proceedings, although that is a thing which, by the publicity it gives and by the necessity which it causes for a public conflict between the parties, is about as mischievous as can well be conceived. When you bear in mind that the number of orders for judicial separation—that is, magisterial orders for separation in such cases—is about four times as great as the average number of decrees of divorce in the course of a year, and when you bear in mind that the people who are concerned not merely have their homes broken up, but what was their joint means of maintenance broken up, becoming inadequate for two families very often where it was barely adequate for one, it is not surprising that the result is bitter controversy—controversy which leaves no reasonable scope for the settlement of disputes of married people in the way in which they ought to be settled.
After all, there is an old adage which says that in the falling out of friends the renewing is of love, and it is quite certain that people can often be reconciled and afterwards get on better than ever before. What this Bill proposes is that the magistrates who are to deal with this class of case should be provided in advance with knowledge of what the subject matter is; and that then they should be entitled to require the parties to come to them in private, if they think well to do so. If they think that it is a case in which the contest ought to be fought out in public they can so provide. But if they think it is in the interests of the parties and in the common interest, they can require the parties to come to them and apply a process of conciliation. It is quite obvious that a reasonable process of conciliation, privately applied, is the only means in many of these cases of bringing them to any but the most unhappy ending. And in cases where it has been found practicable, I know, from the experience of magistrates, that it has been very beneficial. Then, besides having that resource, the justices under this Bill have another. Without any infringement of the law with regard to publicity where a case is fought out, except restraint upon the publication of indecent matter, within the discretion of the justices, they have control of publicity with regard to the process of conciliation. When one knows that a very considerable number of these separation decrees are either not taken

729
up or not acted upon, it is clear that there a very considerable field for conciliatory action.
Last Session, as I say, your Lordships were so good as to give the Bill a Second Reading, with some very kind observations about it from some of my noble friends. Since that time the subject has been very widely discussed. One reason why I moved the Second Reading at the time I did was that, with regard to a reform which I think is overdue and has long been overdue, there should be some stimulus to discussion. Well, discussion took place, and where the Bill has been discussed, except for an article in one publication, I am not aware of any instance where it was not very favourably considered. The outstanding cases are two which I will mention. One is that of the Parliamentary Committee of the Magistrates' Association, I suppose one of the most experienced bodies you could think of for the purpose of discussing a matter of this kind. I know from the correspondence which their clerk, Mr. Leeson, has been so good as to have with me that that Committee have been at very great pains to examine the Bill thoroughly, and have given it in general terms very cordial approval. The Committee very naturally propose Amendments with regard to procedure, and at the proper time these must have that careful consideration which Amendments proposed from such a quarter ought to command. More recently both Houses of Convocation have discussed this matter, and it was with very great satisfaction that I learned from the Press—the most reverend Primate of course knows about this in a way in which I do not—that each House of Convocation was warm in its approval of the general proposals of this measure. If I go too far I have no doubt I shall be told I have done so. With regard to the criticism of the newspapers, as I have said, generally it has been exceedingly favourable, and the correspondence I have received from various parts of the country has been of the same tone.
The net result is that, so far as I can appreciate, there is general recognition of the need for action, and that being so and, as I think, action in the matter being overdue, I ask your Lordships now to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so with more confidence than I did when
730
the Bill was last before your Lordships. And I would add this: I know there is a Home Office Committee sitting at the present time dealing with matters mixed up with this question, especially with the province of the probation officer. The few words with which I have clarified a line which had been a little obscure in the Bill enable the magistrates to take advantage of the services of the probation officer or anybody else competent to give them assistance. The Home Office Committee is proceeding with its task. It is proceeding as Departmental Committees usually proceed. I dare say some time in the course of the coming months it will publish a Report and then, if the Report is dealt with as the Reports of Departmental Committees are usually dealt with, the Report will be carefully stored. My view of this matter is that it is not necessary for us to wait for elaborate advice with regard to one aspect of this matter, that there is a broad question involved of public necessity and acceptable means of dealing with it, and that being so, I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading again to this Bill. I shall consider at an early date what course I ought to take to meet reasonable demands for time for consideration without failing to discharge what I think is a duty incumbent upon me in the circumstances of this case.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merrivale.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, when this Bill was last before your Lordships I was very glad to be able to give cordial support to its main provisions. Since then, as the noble Lord has explained, it has received a very wide measure of support from magistrates and, as he rightly pointed out, last week from both Houses of Convocation of Canterbury, members of which in each case gave unanimous approval to the main proposals of the Bill. After what the noble and learned Lord has said, and after what I said when this matter was last before your Lordships, it is unnecessary for me to add much to-day. I strongly approve of the proposal that in matrimonial disputes both the High Court of Justice and courts of summary jurisdiction should have authority entrusted to them by which they can order that the evidence, or parts of the evidence, should be heard

731
in camera. I do not think that the interests of justice are advanced or that the interests of the public are served if parties are obliged to detail the most intimate maters of domestic and matrimonial life before a crowd which happens to be collected in court. I also approve most strongly of the proposal that in courts of summary jurisdiction these cases should be held at special sessions and not mixed up with the ordinary police cases which come before those courts. I think that is a proposal which must commend itself to us all.
I am also very glad that provision is made for the appointment of panels of justices specially qualified to deal with delicate matters of this kind, particularly those conciliatory efforts to which I shall allude in a moment, and I hope if these rules are made care will be taken, wherever it is at all possible, that a woman shall be one of the panel of justices. I am quite satisfied that in many cases the woman, who is generally the applicant for these separation orders, will be able to give her evidence with much greater fullness and much less embarrassment if it is in the presence of a woman. As your Lordships are well aware the chief proposal of the Bill is the second clause which provides for these conciliatory efforts. It is quite obvious, and the noble Lord once again made it clear, that in many cases the greatest advantage would result to the parties, to their homes, and to their children if "tiffs" and misunderstandings were not allowed to harden into separation. The mere fact, to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, that out of the great number of orders for separation granted a very large number are never even taken up is a proof that with a little friendly effort at conciliation at an earlier stage the orders need never have been taken out at all. I am quite certain there is a great field for useful work here. It is only right to recognise that in many parts of the country a great deal is done both by clerks to the magistrates and by the magistrates themselves in this direction, but their powers are limited, and it is an excellent thing that by this Bill the effort should be made operative throughout the whole country.
There is only one difficulty which I have about the Bill and to which the
732
noble and learned Lord has already alluded. It will be remembered that when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, brought this matter forward in a rather larger scheme, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack intimated that the Home Office was about to appoint a Departmental Committee. I welcomed that because I recognised at once that there are many things that the clerks and the magistrates themselves, even under the provisions of this Bill, are unable to do. They cannot visit the homes of the parties, they cannot make themselves familiar with the intimate circumstances of the case, and, as the noble and learned Lord has recognised in many cases—I should imagine in most—they should have recourse where they can to the probation officer or the police court missionary, in many cases the same person.
If it be true—I do not know—that the Departmental Committee is at work, that it has been giving consideration to the development and extension of the probation system which will operate very usefully in regard to the matters dealt with in this Bill, it might be an advantage before the Committee stage is reached that the Report of that Committee should be known, since so much depends upon the working of the main clause of the Bill, and so far as I know the Departmental Committee may give recommendations in its Report that would immensely assist the operation of that main provision of the Bill. It might be possible to suspend the Committee stage, but it is for the noble Earl who will reply for the Government to say what prospects there are of that Report being produced at an early date and dealing sufficiently with these matters to make that course reasonable. That is a matter between the noble and learned Lord and the Government. I content myself now with saying that once again, and I believe in common with a very great and growing measure of public opinion, I give my cordial support to the main proposals of this Bill.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in venturing to intervene in this debate I must first of all ask your Lordships to extend to me that measure of indulgence which is customary in the case of a member of your Lordships' House who is speak-

733
ing for the first time. I do so first of all as a magistrate who may have to administer this Bill, and also as a member of the Magistrates' Association, the Parliamentary Committee of which body has given very careful consideration to the provisions of the Bill. After what the noble and learned Lord has said about that association I feel unworthy of the task of putting before your Lordships this afternoon the views of that body. But I may say at once that the Magistrates' Association welcomes this Bill as a much needed measure of reform, and hopes very earnestly that His Majesty's Government will grant the necessary facilities for it to become law. There are, however, one or two improvements which the members of the Magistrates' Association feel can be made in the Bill, and I shall venture, if I may, to mention one or two of those improvements this afternoon.
In our opinion there are two main defects, if they can be called defects, in this Bill. The first is that the weapon of conciliation is hardly given sufficient play at the outset of any proceedings which may be taken in the courts of summary jurisdiction. The second is that the Bill hardly provides sufficiently for the special cases which may arise in rural areas as opposed to those larger towns where cases of this kind are frequent. In our view Clause 2 of this Bill, which is the first clause to which I wish to allude, in a sense enables one of the spouses to declare war in this matter at an unnecessarily early period in the proceedings, and that circumstance is bound to have an unfortunate effect upon the other spouse. The procedure of starting these proceedings by summons is, in our view, an unfortunate one. The word "summons" carries with it a flavour of criminality which is wholly unnecessary in these proceedings. It is apt to sound provocative, and will, we think, not be the best method of producing that measure of conciliation which is so desirable. To avoid this difficulty it is suggested that we should start at one step lower down the ladder of procedure than is contemplated by the noble and learned Lord who introduced this Bill. We would insert an extra preliminary step before the taking out of a summons, and we would say that there should be an application for a summons made to
734
the magistrates by the complainant personally—an application which could be either written or verbal, and which could be made in an entirely informal way.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned that the main purpose of this Bill was to help the less well-to-do, and in our view that object could better be achieved by enabling such persons to go in person, without any professional assistance and without any written document being necessary, to the magistrates and to initiate these proceedings. It would be easy, it would be inexpensive, and in our view complainants would be more likely and less hesitant to adopt such procedure. The alternative procedure by way of information at the outset is more expensive and has the difficulty that it presumably could not be done without professional legal assistance. That might act as a deterrent to the complainant at the very moment when such deterrent would be most harmful. In our view, therefore, there is an unnecessary stumbling block just at the point where it would be most dangerous. It would seem to be preferable to insert this preliminary step and then, if there is no settlement and if there is consent as is allowed for in the Bill, there could be a summons, and if there is neither consent nor settlement, then the summons could be made returnable for a particular date. I observe that the order which is contemplated to be made as a result of the summons is to be limited as regards time. It seems to us to be unnecessary so to limit the order, or, rather, to make it apparently compulsory to impose some limit upon this order. Why should there be a limit in time for this order, and what is to happen when that time limit has expired?
I pass to the second observation which I ventured to make, and that was that this Bill was rather designed to work in the large towns And cities of this country and hardly gave sufficient scope for the rural areas where magistrates may have to travel long distances to the court and where cases of this kind may be very few and far between. It seems to us that, while entirely agreeing that there should be special sittings of the court to deal with business of this kind, it is unnecessary for those special sittings to be on separate days and it would be sufficient if provision was made for special sittings to be inserted into the

735
ordinary sittings of the court or taken after the ordinary business was concluded. That would meet the case where magistrates may have to travel long distances for a few cases.
The Magistrates' Association have ventured to take exception to the procedure outlined in Clause 4, whereby these rules are to he made by the Home Secretary and not by the Lord Chancellor, In their view it is unnecessary to depart from the precedent by which such rules have been in the past in similar cases made by the head of the legal profession. It would seem to be best that the Lord Chancellor who himself appoints the justices who are to work this Bill should make rules under which they should work. Then again, with regard to the panels which are to be set up provision is made in the Bill for its working in the Metropolitan Police District and in rural areas by lay justices, but there appears to be no provision for the working of it in those towns and cities which have stipendiary magistrates. It would appear to us to be necessary to insert a further subsection in order to remedy that omission. These panels, no doubt, generally speaking are very requisite, but in our opinion they should be optional and not compulsory. In most cases, no doubt, they would be desirable, but there may be some cases where there are very few magistrates available and then the question whether panels should be made should be left to the discretion of the justices themselves. It is therefore suggested that it should be enacted that justices "may" appoint panels rather than that they "shall" appoint these panels.
We also think that it should be left to the discretion of the justices themselves as to framing rules under which they should work, thus enabling them to adapt those rules to local conditions. There are precedents for that, I believe, in the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, where the committees who hear the appeals are appointed by the justices themselves and the rules under which those committees work are framed by the justices themselves in Quarter Sessions. There seems to us to be no reason why the same principles should not be followed in this Bill. That would make for greater elasticity and would remove what must be the difficulty of framing in London rules which are to operate in
736
every district of the country, rural and urban.
I would like to make one observation with regard to Clause 5. That is a clause which will doubtless be generally approved. It is there arranged that the Press shall not be present during the hearing of the proceedings in the High Court as well as, I think, in the court of summary jurisdiction. But although they are not allowed to be present there seems to be nothing to prevent the Press from publishing reports of such proceedings, and if that is so that seems to be an undesirable situation. If a reporter is not allowed to be present but is not forbidden to publish what happens, he may obtain from some careless person an entirely inaccurate account of what took place and more damage may be done than if the reporter had been actually present.
I have mentioned one or two Amendments which it is proposed to move with regard to this Bill, but I do not want it to be thought for one moment that the Magistrates' Association do not wholeheartedly welcome this measure and do not appreciate to the full the benefit which will accrue from the work which the noble and learned Lord who introduced it has done as a result of his great wealth of experience in these matters. If I may respectfully say so we hope that this Bill will become law, and I should like to add that, whilst venerating our legal system and preserving the reputation which it rightly enjoys, we should never hesitate to give unremitting attention to bringing up to date and into line with modern conditions the procedure under which its institutions work. Therefore I venture most humbly and respectfully to hope that this Bill will without much delay become law.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, we have just listened to a very interesting criticism of certain clauses of the Bill to which no doubt careful consideration will be given when the Committee stage is reached, but earlier than that I would like to give my own wholehearted support to the Bill, which seems to me to give opportunity and scope to wise trends of reform. Some of us have experienced the way in which in our poorer districts, in connection with our public school settlements and other plans, the poor gladly turn to those whose advice they value and whose help they seek. This Bill appears to me

737
in a very special way to give the opportunity and scope to that kind of social endeavour which I believe to be of the greatest importance at the present time. If those who turn to the magistrates in this manner find that their differences are hardened by the legal atmosphere in which they are placed it is a subject of very great regret. Between themselves very often these partisans feel bound to make good their own case, to find in regard to one another those very items which are always easily found and go to support each party in his or her opposition to the other.
The wise outsider in the right way and at the right time can urge a certain give and take which is of immense value in all matrimonial disputes. He can do something more than that. He can urge upon the parties that at bottom they are really friends, that they are husband and wife, that the day was when they loved one another very dearly and that probably it will be so again. He can in a detached way remind them of their best selves, of their best hopes, and point out the way in which their differences may be settled and their best hopes realised. It may seem strange that that kind of thing can be done better by an outsider, but I suppose it is a part of human nature that quarrels can often be healed and dealt with by someone who comes from outside and brings to hear wise and friendly advice upon the two who are at variance. But all this sort of thing must be done in the right atmosphere, and I do not think that the atmosphere of a formal court is quite the best in which to do it very well.
The presence of gossiping neighbours also introduces an unpleasant element which we would wish to avoid. I am often struck, in my dealings with the lives of those who live in humble homes, with the contrast which frequently exists in their attitudes to one another. When they are in great affliction, when they are very poor, when some sorrow or some sickness has come, their goodness to one another is almost unbelievable. On the other hand, when there is some little unpleasant or nasty gossip, then with a wasp-like vigilance they are ready to repeat it and to make the most of it, and that is just the thing which is most likely to spoil any opportunity of reconciliation. This Bill provides against that kind of false atmosphere. As it is, the magistrates
738
can do much and they do do much, but I believe that this Bill will give them the opportunity of doing more in a better way, and will enable them to have fuller scope to be real friends to the poor in their domestic troubles. I hope very much that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this excellent effort in; social legislation.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who has addressed your Lordships' House for the first time will not think that I presume when I make reference and pay tribute to the speech which he has made. It has been a valuable contribution to the debate and at a future date when the Bill will be discussed clause by clause, not only the Department which I represent but also the noble Lord who introduced this Bill will be glad of the speech which the noble Lord has made on the Second Reading.
LORD MERRIVALE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a Bill to make certain changes in the procedure of courts of summary jurisdiction when dealing with matrimonial cases. The main object of these changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has already said both to-day and when he introduced a similar Bill at the end of last Session, is to facilitate the use in proper cases of methods of conciliation. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, pointed out in November, under the existing procedure, when a case comes before a court of summary jurisdiction,
"something like a dog fight goes on. There is a public encounter of these married people, and if there was a possibility of their coining together before, it really becomes almost an impossibility in the great majority of cases after there has been that set battle fought out to a finish."
I am sure that everyone will agree that all practical steps ought to be taken to prevent crystallisation of a state of hostility between married people whose disputes are capable of being resolved and are not such as to necessitate a complete and permanent disruption of their domestic lives.
The problem how to deal with these cases in such a way as to make conciliation possible, or at any rate in such a way as to avoid aggravating hostility between parties who are only temporarily

739
estranged, falls into two parts. The first question is, what can be clone and ought to be done to prevent such cases coming into court at all? The second question is, what ought to be the court procedure for dealing with cases which cannot be settled out of court? Without in the least minimising the importance of this second question, I submit to your Lordships that the solution of it cannot be reached without a full knowledge of the answer to the first question. As I pointed out when the previous Bill was debated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will know, it is a common practice when an application for a separation order has been made, for the court of summary jurisdiction to ask the probation officer or the police court missionary to interview the parties and to try to bring about a reconciliation. In many districts very extensive and apparently successful use is made of this method. At some courts, hundreds of cases are settled informally by this procedure and only a very small proportion of the applications result in actual proceedings in court. In other places comparatively little use is made of these informal methods and large numbers of cases come into court which would not have come into court had there been available a probation officer with the time and ability to deal with them.
Even in places where it is the general practice for the officer to interview applicants and to try and bring about a reconciliation, I do not claim that the existing procedure is perfect or that the use of this procedure eliminates the need for an improvement of the court procedure. It may well be that the existing system of dealing with cases in an informal manner through the probation officer is capable of improvement and amendment, and even when all practical improvement in these informal methods has been affected, it will still, I think, be of vital importance to improve the court procedure for the purpose of dealing with that residue of cases in which extra-judicial methods have been tried and failed. But as the most reverend Primate has himself asked, is it not premature to proceed with legislation for amending the court procedure at the very moment when the whole question of procedure by extra-judicial methods is under consideration by a Departmental Committee? It is
740
quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that the terms of reference of this Committee do not cover the subject matter of the Bill. The Committee is appointed to investigate the social services connected with courts of summary jurisdiction; but amongst those social services special importance is attached to conciliation work, and it will be within the functions of that Departmental Committee to report how far these extrajudicial methods can be properly and effectively used and what improvements are necessary to enable this social service to be adequately administered.
Incidentally it may be said that this Committee, when taking evidence from justices, justices' clerks, probation officers and others on the social services of the court, will inevitably collect a great deal of information relating to the questions dealt with by this Bill. They will hear from experienced witnesses how far conciliation in cases where conciliation is practicable and desirable has been hindered or frustrated by the present procedure prevailing in courts of summary jusisdiction, and they will learn what are the effects of the publicity attaching to those proceedings. The question how best to regulate the procedure of the court obviously, in my opinion, cannot be detached from the question how far conciliation can properly be undertaken by informal methods outside the court; and, at a time when a Departmental Committee is exploring the whole question of the extrajudicial methods, it would seem to be perhaps unwise, without waiting for the information which that Committee will collect, or for the recommendations which they will make, to embark on legislation dealing with the procedure of the courts.
The suggestion that legislation should he postponed pending the Report of the Committee now sitting, whose members have already heard much valuable evidence from witnesses, is put forward not from any desire to shelve or postpone indefinitely the question raised by this Bill, but from a sincere conviction that the problems raised by the Bill can be more effectively dealt with when the Report of the Departmental Committee is in our hands. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, who has reintroduced this Bill, will favourably consider not

741
taking it a further stage until we hear not only the evidence submitted to that Committee but the recommendations of the Committee. As a member of that Committee I should like to give a personal assurance to the noble and learned Lord that, so far as it is within my power, I shall endeavour to see not only that the Report is brought to the notice of the House, but that full discussion shall then take place of the details of the clauses within the Bill now before your Lordships and of the recommendations within the Report. I submit to your Lordships that His Majesty's Government would not be justified in carrying this Bill through to its final stages until they are in a position to form a judgment not only on the problems of court procedure, but on the closely connected problems of the extra-judicial methods which are at present being examined by the Departmental Committee. I can only repeat that the Department which I have the honour to represent in this House are in full sympathy with the chief issue which the noble and learned Lord has brought before the House, and which he has himself said has been long delayed, but we think that the matter can be more adequately dealt with if we have the full facts at our disposal.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if I may say a very few words, I would like to thank the noble Lord who made so very interesting a maiden speech for his criticisms. As I said when I originally introduced the Bill, this is a new proposal, and no one mind is likely to find the best methods of dealing with all the details of it. As I said in moving the Second Reading to-day, I welcome the observations of the Magistrates' Association. I think they must be very useful. I could go into detail about them, but I will content myself with saying that my noble friend and I could come to terms upon the whole matter in the course of an hour or so, if we discussed it, or reduce the differences to two or three questions which could be easily disposed of. I will not go further than that.
With regard to the observations made by the noble Earl on behalf of the Home Office, I would like to say this to him. As he has pointed out, this Bill deals with judicial procedure. It does not purport to put any sort of fetter upon that informal action which goes on outside, and
742
which it is most beneficial should go on. Let the Home Office encourage it in every way. But I confess I am a little dismayed at the prospect of holding up this Bill during the whole of the present Session, and taking the chance of its coming on sometime next year, and then possibly being met by some difficulty of the same kind. If I am right in believing that the main question is one of judicial procedure, and if it is further simplified within the terms of the Bill and by giving the justices the powers provided by the Bill, we should, I think, have made a step in advance, and I hope my noble friend will consider whether that is possible, and whether it would not be better to do something rather than to go on thinking about something.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (PRO-CEDURE IN SUITS FOR NULLITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, this Bill passed through your Lordships' House and went down to the other House last year, and was accepted there, and I believe the substance is embodied in a Bill which the Lord Chancellor has introduced. I put this Bill down now in order to make sure that I am right in that supposition. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will inform me.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merrivale).
LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, the position with regard to the Bill is this. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord is quite correct in saying that in November last he introduced a Bill whose object was to give power to hear nullity cases in camera. He is quite right in saying that it passed through all its stages in this House, and was read a second time in the House of Commons, and referred to a Standing Committee. Unfortunately, owing to lack of time, the Bill was not considered in Standing Committee, although' certain clauses had been agreed between the promoters and the Attorney-General in order, if I may say so, to make the Bill quite water-tight. The Bill, therefore, lapsed. Meanwhile,

743
there had been introduced in the early part of this Session the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, which contained a clause with the same objects as this Bill, and that Amendment Bill passed through all its stages in this House. It has been read a first time in another place, and I hope it will pass altogether in another place in the course of a few days.
Both this present Bill and the clause in the Bill before the House of Commons are believed to be technically accurate. In those circumstances, as the object of the noble Lord's Bill is one which we all desire to attain, I venture to suggest that the better plan would be to give a Second Reading to the Bill this afternoon, and it may not be found necessary to proceed with the remaining stages in this House, because I hope that the clause in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill will become law in a few days.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. It was difficult to know precisely what the position was. I am quite
744
content, and of course I shall act upon the noble and learned Viscount's advice. So, having moved the Second Reading, I leave it there.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name with reference to Consolidation Bills. There are several matters which we propose to consolidate, and this is the ordinary formal Motion that a Joint Committee be appointed.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate the Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR 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:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity,

Baildon Urban District Council,

Beckenham Urban District Council,

Birmingham Corporation,

Blackpool Improvement,

Bognor Gas and Electricity,

Bootle Extension,

Bristol Tramways,

Burnley Extension,

Bury and District Joint Water Board,

Chester Water,

Chichester Corporation,

City of London (St. Paul's Cathedral Preservation),

Clacton-on-Sea Pier,

Coventry Canal Navigation,

Croydon Corporation,

Derwent Valley Water Board,

Easington Rural District Council,

Exeter Corporation,

Folkestone and District Electricity,

Frimley and Farnborough District Water,

Fylde Water Board,

Gelligaer Urban District Council,

Glamorganshire Canal Company,

Gloucester Corporation,

Golders Green(Jewish) Burial Ground,

Great Western Railway,

Halifax Extension,

Harrogate Corporation,

Hertfordshire County Council,

Hoylake Urban District Council,

London and North Eastern Railway,

London County Council (General Powers),

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

London Passenger Transport Board,

Maidstone Corporation,

Marlow Water,

Medway Lower Navigation,

Metropolitan Water Board,

Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks,

Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation (General Powers),

Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension),

746

Norwich Electric Tramways,

Nottingham Corporation,

Oxford Canal,

Poole Road Transport,

Port of London,

Reading Corporation,

Rhyl Urban District Council,

Rochdale Canal,

St. Bartholomew's Hospital,

Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council,

Severn Navigation,

Severn Navigation (Charging Powers),

Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation,

Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation,

South Essex Waterworks,

South Metropolitan Gas,

South Shields Corporation,

South Suburban Gas,

Southern Railway,

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation,

Stourbridge Navigation,

Sunbury on Thames Urban District Council,

Swansea and District Transport,

Urmston Urban District Council,

Weaver Navigation,

West Hampshire Water,

West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board (Superannuation),

West Sussex County Council (Water),

Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

FALMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1935.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Falmouth Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WIMBLEDON ELECTRICITY (AMEND MENT) ORDER, 1935.
Special Order in respect of part of the borough of Wimbledon and for the amendment of the Wimbledon Electric Lighting Orders, 1897 and 1911:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.