Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I wish to say a word or two about a point I raised on the Second Reading.

The Deputy-Chairman:

We have already passed Clause 1, and Clause 2 is purely citative.

I was trying to catch your eye a few moments ago, Mr. Beaumont.

The Deputy-Chairman:

The hon. and learned Member is too late. We have already passed Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.4 p.m.

I would like to raise the point which I raised on the Second Reading, namely, as to the intervals between the days of hearing that take place when an appeal is being heard in the House of Lords. As I indicated on the Second Reading, an appeal, when it is called for hearing, may be heard say on the Monday morning and then on the morning of the next day, but very often there is then an adjournment from that clay until the Thursday or Friday when the appeal may be continued on only parts of those two days as well. As those who practice in that tribunal have experienced, as I said on the Second Reading, I am not criticising that or complaining, but I would like some elucidation on this rather important point. In the law courts, for example, they sit from day to day, and there is continuity. The advantage of that to all concerned is beyond doubt. I would like to know whether it is possible for the same procedure to take place in the House of Lords. I realise, of course, that the House of Lords has legislative, as well as judicial functions, and that that House cannot sit as a legislative chamber and as a judicial tribunal at one and the same time in one and the same place, but that does not seem to be an adequate reason for the House not sitting in different places concurrently to perform both respective functions—

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to me how his remarks conform to what is in this Bill, which is solely for the purpose of increasing the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary?

With great respect, Sir, the Bill seeks authority to appoint two further Law Lords. It was explained to the House that delay was being caused in the hearing of appeals, and I am addressing my observation to that fact. I am seeking to show that incidental to, and wrapped up with, this question of the appointment of two further Law Lords in order to avoid delay, there is this further matter which I desire to be taken into consideration.

That is a very interesting point, but it is one that might have been raised on the Second Reading. We are now dealing with what is actually in the Bill, namely, the question of increasing the number of Law Lords from seven to nine.

I raised it on the Second Reading, but the point was not dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General before the Question was put.

That may be true, but that is no justification for raising it on the Third Reading.

I do not propose to resist your Ruling, Sir, but my submission is that it is germane to the Third Reading. However, if you say that it is not I cannot proceed, but I do ask the Solicitor-General if he will deal with this point when he replies—

No, the Solicitor-General equally will not be allowed to be out of Order.

12.7 p.m.

I realise that it is difficult to be in Order on this Bill, but I believe that even with nine Law Lords this tribunal cannot act properly, because, from its very nature, it is an anachronism, and ought to be swept out of existence. I do not know whether that is out of Order

The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that it is entirely out of Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.