Clause 1.—(Provision against cinematograph exhibition except in licensed premises.) (Hansard, 25 August 1909)

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I desire to make a formal protest against an absurd word like "cinematograph" being stuck into an Act of Parliament. For the sake of the purity of the language I do think that the right hon. Gentleman should ask the House to pass a Bill with this absurd title. Call it by some name that people will understand. Nobody ever heard of this thing ten years ago; now it is to have statutory recognition. Some word ten years ago was taken out of the Greek, and that name is given to this instrument, and now it is to be legalised by Statute. It is perfectly absurd, and I must confess I am surprised that the Home Office should give countenance to such absurd action.

§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
I wish to move to leave out the words "for the purposes of which inflammable films are used."
2261 The object of the Amendment is to extend the restriction in the Bill. As the Bill stands it would be perfectly possible for anyone who wishes to give an unlicensed cinematograph exhibition to say their films are not inflammable. It would be impossible for the local authority to challenge their statement. The exhibitions are continually changing and so are the films used, and the fact that they were not inflammable one week would by no means ensure that those used the next week were not extremely dangerous. These shows aim at being topical, and in that way the changes are frequent.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone)
I accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. E. H. CARLILE
I think the scope of the Bill is quite sufficiently large as it stands at the present time. We have already expressed opposition to Clause 8, and I believe, with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman, that Clause is to be withdrawn. Anyone using inflammable films, however much they might describe them as non-inflammable, would be liable to a penalty of £20. The Bill is experimental in character, and I do hope the Amendment will not be agreed to.

§ Mr. JOHN MOONEY
On a point of Order. I wish to ask if the Amendment is in order. If the Amendment is carried, the Bill ceases to be a Cinematograph Bill, and would apply to any instrument used for an exhibition of pictures. If you take these words out, the Bill would refer to a magic lantern exhibition or any instrument throwing pictures on a screen. This Bill was intended to prevent loss of life from the use of inflammable films used in a cinematograph exhibition, and if the Home Secretary agrees to omit Clause 8, I cannot see how he can possibly accept this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN
There is no objection on a point of Order. The title is sufficiently wide to cover its object even if these words are taken out. It is quite in order.

§ Mr. MOONEY
Should I be in order in moving an Amendment to extend the Bill to any exhibition of any kind?

The CHAIRMAN
No, I think not. Of course, I must see the exact Amendment before I can give any ruling upon it.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
It seems to me that because some little scare somewhere in the 2262 West End of London has occurred over these wretched pictures, immediately these exhibitions must be honoured by a Statute. I think the British Parliament was intended for some better purpose than passing fancy Bills of this character. The real truth is that our minds are so absorbed in the Budget, Irish land legislation, and the visit of the Czar, that we have not had time to look into this proposal, and we do not know were we are. At one time I remember we had exhibitions showing policemen beating a Member of Parliament, and I remember the pictures were greatly objected to by the Tory Members of the House. The Home Secretary would only have to make regulations prohibiting seditious cinematograph exhibitions. Has this Bill been considered by a Committee? I understand it has not. When there is a Liberal Government in office you have always to look out for these wretched small things which some clerk promotes, for which he will probably get a C.B.-ship. If the Tory party were in office they would not stand this kind of thing.

§ Mr. GLADSTONE
It must not be forgotten that crowded audiences go to see these exhibitions, the number of which are increasing I have had the strongest representations made to me by local authorities—borough and other councils—which show plainly that there are crowded attendances at these exhibitions in unlicensed and unsuitable premises; and quite recently there have been very bad accidents through films flaring and consequent panic, which in some cases has entailed loss of life. There was an accident in Mexico in which 300 lives were lost.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Does this Bill apply to Mexico?

§ Mr. GLADSTONE
No; but we want to prevent such accidents occurring in this country. I have done my best to meet the hon. Member who, I understand, represents the London County Council in this matter, and really, so far as I can see, his Amendment makes very little difference. There will have to be regulations, but they will be very simple, and the whole object of them will be to stop danger where it exists. The regulations will not apply to safe exhibitions. I see no objection to accepting the Amendment, though I prefer the Bill as it stands.

§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
The real danger does not come from the films. There was a case at Newmarket where three people were killed, not from the burning of films, but from the escape of compressed gas. The illuminants are a far greater danger than the films. I think the objection of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) is a little farfetched. It will not prevent magic lantern exhibitions at schools, because the words of Clause 1 are: "Exhibitions of pictures by means of cinematograph or other similar apparatus." A cinematograph means a representation of movement, and that obviously cannot include the ordinary magic lantern.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The title of the Bill is, "To make better provision for securing safety at cinematograph and other exhibitions." That might include that dry shampoo case we had the other day. If there is all this danger with regard to these exhibitions, why not punish the owners as you are seeking to punish the man who used something to a lady's head. I have no reason to oppose the Home Secretary, but I think the whole thing is the acme of absurdity.

§ Mr. MOONEY
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring in a Bill dealing with cinematograph entertainments, I am not going to object; but, as I understand the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, the danger arises from the illuminant used. The light of a magic lantern is produced under pressure, and there have been several cases of explosion. My illustration of the magic lantern would undoubtedly come under the provisions of the Bill. It is a Bill for any picture which can be thrown upon a screen by an illuminant. This ceases to be a cinematograph Bill.

§ Mr. CARLILE
I wish to call special attention to the fact that the Amendment of my hon. Friend throws out in bold relief the expression "or similar apparatus." We want to know what is meant by "similar apparatus." It will, I fear, be left to the courts of law to interpret the phrase. Anybody who knows anything about magic lanterns is aware that some of the best pictures are moving ones—such as those often to be seen at Christmas, in which one clown jumps over another. The gases used for magic lanterns at village entertainments are the same as those used for the cinematograph. The danger does 2264 not attach to the films. The real danger arises when an alarm of fire has been raised and the audience, make a rush for the doors. I think on these grounds it is doubly unsuitable that the London County Council should send in these Amendments at five minutes' notice, and that at one o'clock in the morning we should be called upon to insert them in the Bill without any opportunity for adequate discussion. We do not object to the Bill as it stands, but we do consider it unreasonable that we should be asked to introduce under these circumstances Amendments which really alter the character of the measure and bring within its scope a great mass of perfectly harmless apparatus. I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN
I do not think I can accept that Motion.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
It was understood that Clause 8 was going to be dropped; at any rate that was the arrangement yesterday. I had not the slightest idea that Amendments to the Bill were to be taken, and it was not until about ten o'clock to-night that I heard that any Amendments were to be moved. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke to me an hour ago I understood that he agreed to accept the Motion for the omission of Clause 8, but I was not informed that other Amendments were to be accepted. I certainly think that under the circumstances it would be better to adjourn the Debate. We are going to sit for another month, and as a misunderstanding has arisen I really think it would be better to adjourn this.

§ Mr. GLADSTONE
I do not want to dispute with my hon. Friend as to what passed. I did not myself use the word counteract, but I did say it did enlarge the measure. I pointed out that our object is simply to prevent dangerous exhibitions, and if this does widen the scope of the Bill it certainly will not widen the scope of the regulations.

§ Mr. MOONEY
After the Government have agreed to take out Clause 8, which says that the Secretary of State may by Order extend the Measure to any other exhibition at the last moment, the hon. Member proposes these words which practically put Clause S into Clause 1, and the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment. I think in view of the alteration that has been made, we ought not to 2265 be asked to go on with this Bill until the Home Office can give us some explanation of the attitude they have taken up. I think under these circumstances we are perfectly entitled to move to report Progress in order to ascertain whether this is a Cinematograph Bill or not, and whether the Home Secretary intends to stand by his promise in regard to Section 8.

The CHAIRMAN
Before the hon. Member moves the Motion to report Progress again, I should like to know what the Home Secretary has to say about it. There is a charge of a misunderstanding.

§ Mr. GLADSTONE
I am quite willing to stand by what I said, but I would suggest to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that as the County Council desires this Measure to pass, if they could have heard this Debate they would, in face of the feeling of the Committee, say they would not persist in his proposal. Under these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will withdraw.