CLAUSE 2.—(Short title, commencement, and extent.) (Hansard, 15 June 1928)

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "a draft thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(a) a Secretary of State shall certify to His Majesty that he has ascertained that the proposed appointment of a fixed date for Easter will be generally acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom and is approved by the Convocations of Canterbury and York and the National Assembly of the Church of England; and

(b) a draft of the proposed Order."
This Amendment is really only to carry out what the Home Secretary said he would actually do on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is, I think, common ground with everybody that those words were used in supporting the Bill. It is not at all desirable to alter the principal Christian feast of Easter except with the approbation of Christian people, and it is very desirable that that approbation should be the same all over the world. We have one date for Faster and the French have another. Therefore, what is intended to be achieved by the Amendment is common ground. No one doubts that it is desirable that the fixing of a date should be generally reasonable to Christian people, and that that date should be approved by the authorities of the Church at home. Accordingly, there does not seem to be anything in the Amendment which differs from the purpose of those who are in charge of the Bill. They desire to have an Easter acceptable to Christian people. They desire to have an Easter approved by the authorities of the Church of England. There is no reason to suppose that, as far as the Church of England is concerned, they have not already ascertained that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not disapprove of it. Therefore, it is a most seemly and proper thing that their approbation should be officially stated. It does not seem to me that the Bill, as it is at present framed, is quite decorous, if I may say so. It is hardly conceivable that when you are dealing with the great Christian feast there should be no men- 1341 tion at all of the Church of England. I submit that this will not make any substantial difference to the, purpose which the Members in charge of the Bill have in view, but that it will be decorous by recognising on the face of the Bill that Easter is a Christian feast. This Amendment is a perfectly simple one and carries out what the Home Secretary said he is prepared to do if the Bill passes.

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
I assume that in the Noble Lord's Amendment the phrase generally acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom would include the Free Churches of England and Wales.

§ Lord H. CECIL
Yes, certainly.

§ Mr. BROWN
Since I assume that this Bill will apply to Scotland equally with England and Wales, ought not this also to include the Church of Scotland, which, of course, is the Established Church in Scotland. I desire to raise the point, and, if the Noble Lord agrees that it is material to the Amendment, I shall ask him to add it to the Amendment.

§ Mr. LEE
May I suggest that the Amendment should stop at the word "Christendom." Surely, by "Christian people" it is meant that all Christian people are affected, the National Assembly of the Church of England and the Free Churches as well. You may have objections to the Amendment if it is allowed to stand as it is.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson)
This Amendment is practically a repetition of the Amendment which the Noble Lord moved during the Committee stage of the Bill.

§ Lord H. CECIL
Not quite.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
I said "practically a repetition." I gather that his object is to assure himself that before a fixed Easter is settled the ecclesiastical authorities shall give their approval, and he wishes to insert words to that effect in the Bill. There are several serious objections to that proposal. One of them is that if you are going to give the power to the Secretary of State to 1342 negotiate on this question—which you are going to do, and which he stated on the Second Reading he contemplated—you are obviously tying his hands, for the people with whom he is going to negotiate know all the time that they have a rower of veto. You might as well really not carry out any negotiations at all. Therefore, I do not think that it is at all desirable that these words should be inserted.
There is an even stronger reason, and that is, that the House itself is definitely retaining unto itself the power to bring this Measure into operation by passing a Resolution. The House represents the nation and the nation is a Christian nation—at least we hope so—and the head of the Church is the King. Parliament in this matter is and must be supreme, and you cannot say that Parliament's power of decision is to be fettered in one way or the other. After all, if the House of Commons considers that the Secretary of State of the day, whoever he may be, has not taken proper steps to consult either this ecclesiastical authority, or this Church or that Church, members have the power in their own hands in refusing to bring the Measure into operation. You cannot take away that power, and to suggest that that power should in any way be modified is, in my opinion, suggesting that the House of Commons is incapable of carrying out the functions which are placed upon it. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
I regret, speaking for myself that the Under-Secretary cannot accept this Amendment. His last argument would apply to any proposed legislation. It is true that in a matter of civil law Parliament is the final authority, but if Parliament likes to say that it will only entrust a particular executive officer with a power, or will itself not make an Order unless it is satisfied that the executive authority has been properly informed on the matter, surely Parliament can do that just as well as anything else. It is a question entirely of what Parliament wishes to do. If we pass this Amendment, and Parliament thinks it wise so to do, it is just as much exercising its sovereignty in passing the Amendment as it would be in refusing to pass the Amendment. Therefore, any 1343 argument based on the sovereignty of Parliament can touch the question one way or another.
What is the reality of the case? The Noble Lord has pointed out, and it is true, that this Bill, which is a Bill to alter the date of what has been described in these debates as one of the most holy festivals of the Church, does not refer in any of its Clauses to any church or to any Christian authority of any kind. If we read this Bill from the beginning to the end, there is not a single referencce to any Christian authority, the Church of England, the Free Churches or any other church or any religious opinion whatsoever. It is said that Parliament can always ask whether the Secretary of State, in asking for the adoption of the Order, has or has not acted upon sufficient information to justify his action, but I think even those of us who have not been in this House very long will not place too much reliance upon the protection of Parliament in merely seeing that a resolution was or was not approved. What does this provision say? It was not in the Bill originally: it was a provision which I got inserted in the Bill, given by way of concession. The Clause says: … and the Order shall not be made unless both Houses of Parliament by resolution hare approved the draft. It is no derogation of the powers or discretion of this House to say, in a provision of this sort, that a Resolution that the draft Order be approved is not the sort of occasion when we can rely upon the House to give that close and careful attention to such a critical matter as the alteration of the date of Easter. It is a matter which may be raised late in the evening, when most hon. Members have gone to their beds. Draft Resolutions are approved in all sorts of ways. A draft Resolution brought forward by a Secretary of State is made a matter of party discipline and if the Secretary of State recommends that the Resolution be carried, no doubt in an ordinary case the Party Whips would be put on.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
The hon. and learned Member has no right to make that statement about my right hon. Friend.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
The Under-Secretary must not misunderstand me. I am not making any reflection upon the present Home Secretary. It may rest with a Home Secretary who is far less interested in these matters than the present Home Secretary. I hope that we shall get away from thinking of the present Home Secretary or of the present House of Commons in this matter. We are giving power here to a Home Secretary, who in the future, I do not know to what Party he may belong, may be most unsympathetic to the opinions which underlie the conception of Easter. We are giving power to the Home Secretary to bring an Order to this House and to ask that a Resolution should be passed providing that an alteration of the date of Easter should take place. That may happen any evening under the circumstances which I have described and not under such circumstances as prevail when we are considering a Bill and carrying it through the House, and in such circumstances the Home Secretary may rely upon the Party Whips. The present Home Secretary has been known to seek the assistance of the Party Whips from time to time, and that is no reflection against him, and a future Home Secretary may make such a matter a question of Government confidence. Therefore, the reliance which we have to place upon this provision in the Bill is worth very little, without a qualifying Amendment. Why should the Under-Secretary object to our qualifying this provision?
If the House of Commons wish to know for certain before they exercise their judgment whether the consent of Christendom has or has not been obtained to the alteration of the date of Easter, why should it not have that opinion fortified by a certificate? It will give Parliament some material on which to come to judgment. The Home Secretary—I am not now speaking personally of the present Home Secretary—may not be well instructed, and Parliament—I am not now speaking of the present Parliament—may be even less instructed than the Home Secretary, and we are entitled to say that we do not want the opinion of the Home Secretary expressed but that we want to know that the matter has been properly considered by all concerned, and that the certificate is real 1345 evidence that the authorities have consulted all those who ought to be consulted on such an important matter. Take the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He wanted to know whether the Free Churches and the Church of Scotland were to be consulted. If we place a provision like that in the Bill, we know that the Home Secretary—who is, after all, only a Member of Parliament like ourselves and is not to be treated as sacrosanct simply because he is in the Government—as the principal officer of State concerned will be bound to go through certain processes to get certain opinions. It we put such a provision in the Bill we should know that he has consulted the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches and the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, but as the Bill now stands he might simply say: "It is convenient that this Order be made."
The grounds on which the Home Secretary might call upon the House to make the Order are not in the Bill necessarily religious grounds at all. He may argue, as I think it was argued on the Second Reading, that a change of the date of Easter was more convenient for secondary schoolmasters, or he might argue it on some ground in connection with the Federation of British Industries or something to do with the facilities provided by railway companies. There is not a word in the Bill to say that he has to consult religious opinion. Religious opinion is never mentioned. Surely, we are entitled to say that before an Order can be made, those shall be consulted who are most likely to be affected. If the promoters of the Bill and the Government would accept the Amendment, provided the Noble Lord will accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North Eastern (Mr. Lee) that the Amendment should end at the word "Christendom." I think that would be a sufficient protection. Then, we should know that religious consideration had been before the authorities and the House would know that the question of religion had been given consideration, and, what is more important that approval had been given from those sources. For all these reasons, I hope that the Amendment either as moved or as amended, if the Noble Lord can see his way so to amend it, will be accepted, 1346 and that this Bill will not go down to posterity as a Bill for altering the date of Easter without a single reference to religious opinion.

§ Sir JOHN MARRIOTT
Will the hon. and learned Member be kind enough to indicate how he would obtain, as we should all like to obtain, the opinion of Christendom on this subject?

§ Sir H. SLESSER
That question should have been addressed to the Noble Lord who has moved the Amendment. He has drafted it with his usual skill and has not laid down any hard and fast line. He says he is content that the Secretary of State shall certify that this date is acceptable generally to Christian people. It is like the words which we frequently get in Acts of Parliament, "regard shall be had". I think the Noble Lord had better answer the question himself.

§ Major BIRCHALL
I hope the Government will not accept the suggestion in the Amendment. I am opposed to it as it stands, not on the grounds urged by the Under-Secretary of State but because it will be impracticable in operation and will really wreck the Bill. How is anybody to ascertain the views which would be acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom? It would be beyond the powers of the present most versatile Home Secretary, and I do not think we shall have anyone who will be more capable of ascertaining their opinions than the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment, in disguise, is a wrecking Amendment. I prefer the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), which provides that before such an Order is made regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies. It is exceedingly desirable that the secular authority should agree with the Christian authorities. It is not essential, but it is very desirable, and the only way to get that agreement is for the secular authority to act after consultation with the religious authorities. I do not say that they should be bound by the decision of the religious authorities or should be unable to act without their support, but I do not think it would be well to act without 1347 consultation with them. It is one thing to consult religious authorities and quite another thing to say that you must not act without the support of Christian people throughout Christendom. I hope no Home Secretary will act without due consultation with representative bodies of Christian communities, but I do not think the Amendment would secure that and I hope it will be withdrawn.

§ Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON
This is an extremely ingenious Amendment. There is a useful legal maxim: Expressio unius, exclusio alterius. It is suggested that as the Bill is only to come into operation after consultation with the Church of England would not that exclude consultation with other Churches; and the suggestion has been made to include the Church of Scotland. But if we include the Church of Scotland, what about the Free Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland? What about the Baptist Union and the Congregational Union? We should have a long schedule if we were to include all Christian bodies whose assent might be included. That disposes completely of the second part of the proposed Amendment. Then it is proposed that the Home Secretary, before he gives a certificate under this Bill, should satisfy himself that it is generally acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom. That is a very large order for the Home Secretary. It is quite impossible to carry it out. It will not work; and, what is more, it is not intended to work. It must not be forgotten that the matter will have to come before Parliament as provided by the Bill. The Home Secretary has not only to satisfy himself that something has been done to meet religious views but before coming into force the Bill has to come before Parliament.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
The hon. and learned Member says that the Bill provides that the religious opinions of some people have to be consulted. Where does he find that in the Bill?

§ Sir A. HOPKINSON
I did not say that. It does not say so in the Bill, but the Home Secretary will act like a reasonable man. The proposal in the Amendment is impossible, and it is known to be impossible by those who have moved it, and that assent will not be given unless 1348 the House is satisfied on the evidence before it that the leaders of religious thought over a wide area have been consulted. The proper course for the House to adopt at the moment is not to destroy the effect of the Bill but to reject the Amendment.

§ Captain BOURNE
I ask the House not to accept the Amendment for the reason which so many hon. Members have already given. It places great difficulties in the way of the Home Secretary. It does not define Christendom or what bodies or sects the Home Secretary is to consult and, in fact, it is completely unworkable. If it is any consolation to the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) I shall be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment standing in his name. His Amendment does not compel the Home Secretary to consult a vast number of undefined people but lays it down that if those people officially express an opinion he shall be bound to take it into consideration. We do not want to force this Bill through against the wishes of the Church of England, or any Church, and if the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds thinks his Amendment will be a safeguard, and that the Home Secretary should receive an expression of opinion from religious bodies, I am prepared to accept his proposal.

§ Sir J. MARRIOTT
I hope the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) will withdraw this Amendment. There is sympathy with the object he desires to attain in all parts of the House. No one would wish, at least I cannot think that anybody would wish, that the date of Easter should be fixed by the secular authority in opposition to the views of any Christian Church, but there are enormous difficulties in carrying out the present Amendment. Apart from the fact of the difficulty of ascertaining the opinion of all Christendom, the only way of doing that would be to constitute something in the nature of a Protestant Pope, and there is no one who would be more fitted to fill that position than the present Home Secretary. But that particular office is not likely to be created under this or any other Bill. May I put this point to the Noble Lord, and particularly to the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser).
1349 It is clear in the Bill that the assent of both Houses to a substantive Resolution must be obtained, not merely, as I thought the hon. and learned Member suggested, the assent of the House of Commons. It is stated very definitely that it must be the assent of both Houses of Parliament, and I am quite sure that as long as there is any Second Chamber in this country that that Second Chamber will contain a considerable element of ecclesiastical representatives. I have seen no suggestion for the reconstitution of another place which did not contain a certain representative ecclesiastical element. Therefore, I suggest to my noble Friend that, even if he mistrusts the Home Secretary, as I can well understand he does, and even if he mistrusts the House of Commons, still there is the refuge of a substantive resolution to be obtained from another place. For that reason I hope that the generous offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) will be accepted and that the Noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. TINKER
I hope the Noble Lord will not press the Amendment, which would kill the Bill completely if carried. With the Amendment incorporated it might be 1950 before the Bill would come into operation. I do not see any possible chance of getting any idea of what other people want. The word "generally" appears in the Amendment. What does it mean? Does it mean 90 per cent.? To my mind the Amendment has no logic in it at all. I was a Member of the Standing Committee and knew very well that the Bill was not very important, but it has come down to this House and, owing to that, assumes some importance, and as it has gone through Committee it ought to have a fair chance here.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I took part in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and I am now surprised that the Standing Committee have not been able to do a little better with it. I am still more surprised at the terms of the Amendment. We have heard opinions expressed to-day about something being generally acceptable to Christian people throughout 1350 Christendom. For the last two days this House I as been crowded while we have tried to come to an agreement on another point relating to Christendom, and I thought, when I saw this Amendment on the Paper, that the House would be crowded to-day by those who have been crowding it during the last two days and trying to make us believe that they were interested in the realities of Christendom. The Amendment would make it appear that we must have some form of unity before we can proceed. How are we to get this unity in view of shat took place yesterday? If it is a question of having a conspectus of the opinion of the Churches, and the general approval of the Churches, the Bill will never come into operation, for none of us will Lye long enough to see the unity that is demanded. If there is any advantage to come from the Bill it must come from the Bill's immediate application. Unless we are to have immediate application it is only wasting the time of the House to bring forward such an Amendment. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

§ Lord H. CECIL
I gladly acknowledge the very courteous reception of my proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and I recognise that what he suggests is a very substantial n ark of courtesy and recognition of the point of view that is intended to be expressed by the Amendment. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office made a much less conciliatory speech. He so deeply feels that the Home Secreary is very like Henry VIII., and he himself very like Thomas Cromwell, that he cannot miss the opportunity of portraying the character. I suggest that next time he should come down in the costume of the period, and his speech would be, as between degrees of absurdity, a little less absurd as a masquerade than as a serious contribution to debate. He would very soon find, if the Home Office gave one direction and the Church of England—Convocation and the National Assembly—gave another, which was most obeyed. The Under-Secretary does not seem to learn that conciliation is the art of carrying a Bill. Perhaps he may learn from the hon. Member for Oxford how to do it in future.
As my hon. Friend has made an offer, I am quite willing to withdraw the 1351 Amendment. The Amendment is said to be impracticable. I had not the smallest intention of proposing anything impracticable. The Secretary of State could practically sign a certificate to-morrow, and I do not think there is any likelihood of the National Assembly or Convocation making any opposition. There is no ecclesiastical objection, on the matter of principle, to fixing a date for Easter. You may fix it at any date you please. My reason for moving the Amendment is the same as my reason for being in favour of people wearing trousers; it is a question of decency. It does not make any difference to the substance of the human figure whether you wear trousers or not, but it suggests decency. This is recognition that Easter is a religious feast.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "modifications" to insert the words (which modifications may include a date for Easter-day other than that in section one of this Act provided). I think this Amendment commends itself to the promoters of the Bill. It is moved only for the purpose of facilitating the passage of the Bill. The point is this: In Clause 1 there is fixed, undoubtedly, a definite and specific day for Easter. It is admitted on all sides that this date cannot be fixed until there has been consultation with various Christian bodies and certain secular bodies outside this realm. The results of that consultation may very well produce the position that the agreed date for Easter will not be the date that is contained in Clause 1, and it may be that the promoter of the Bill had that in mind when in Clause 2 he says that the House, by resolution, may approve a draft either without modification or with modifications to which both Houses agree. If the intention of the reference to modifications is that the order may contain a date different from the date' in Clause 1, then I think the words are not apt to produce that result. In other words, Clause 1, having laid down a specific date, I do not think it would be competent by order to modify that date, and I think an order which would modify or alter the date in Clause 1 would be ultra vires the Home Secretary, because the date had already 1352 been fixed. In order that the concession which the hon. Member is prepared to make may be a real one, if a different date be fixed for Easter, I want the Home Secretary to give expression to that with general agreement by modifying the order accordingly. Therefore, I propose, after the word "modifications," to insert the words of the Amendment, so that the Clause will then read— The Order shall not be made unless both Houses approve the draft either without modification or with modifications, which modifications may include a date for Easter Day other than that in section one of this Act. That would enable the Secretary of State, in making his Order, to put in a date other than that in Clause 1, if the secular authorities consented to a date other than that contained in Clause 1, and we would not have to go through the procedure of passing another Act of Parliament.

§ Sir ROBERT NEWMAN
I beg to second the Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS
If the modification had been limited to making the date earlier, I should have been very pleased, but when it comes to making the provision read so that the modification may mean the moving of the date of Easter backwards and forwards, I do not see what is the use of passing the Bill at all. If we are going to fix the date of Easter, we had better fix it. It is all very well talking about other nations, but as far as this country is concerned, I think it is very much better that we should fix the date, and say what we think is best, and allow the others to follow. We arc legislating for our own people.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I thought the hon. Member had risen to second the Amendment.

§ Lord H. CECIL
I am prepared to second it pro forma for purposes of discussion, though I am not sure that I agree entirely with it.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) has already seconded the Amendment formally.

§ Sir R. NEWMAN
Perhaps the Noble Lord is a better seconder than I am, but I certainly rose to second the Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS
I am sorry if I seemed to jump the claim of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman), which I would not dream of doing on any account. I dislike this method of legislating with reference to prospective Orders in Council. I would prefer to have laid down by an Act of Parliament a definite law. Then we should know where we are, but I dislike anything being put into the Bill which will enable modifications one way or the other to come in later. I have a strong objection to discussing Orders in Council at all, and I think legislation which merely prefaces Orders in Council is apt to be the worst form of legislation. Therefore, I disagree with this part of the Bill.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
I feel sure that the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has put down this Amendment with a desire to assist the passage of the Bill, but I am by no means satisfied that it will do so. He will remember that during the Committee stage there was considerable discussion on the date in relation to the question of weather, arid that I produced a Memorandum from the Meteorological Office to show that, taking the average of the past 100 years, it would make very little difference whether the date fixed was a week or two earlier or a week or two later. The hon. Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) has suggested that the date should be earlier, but I gather that he is actuated by some local motives. I do not mean that they are anything in the nature of selfish motives, but, naturally, the hon. and gallant Member is sent to this House to uphold the interests of that part of the country which he represents. In reference to the weather question, it may interest the House to know that the conclusions of the Memorandum were that, taking a summary of the weather over the last 100 years, the later the date was, the better the weather would probably be, and that, if the date of Easter were fixed according to the Bill, the weather during the holidays would be neither better nor worse on the average than it would be if Easter continued to be fixed by the present methods. Therefore as far as weather is concerned it does not really enter into the question at all.
In regard to the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member who moved 1354 the Amendment, I would remind him of what was said earlier by the promoter of the Fill, namely, that the date here proposed has been generally agreed upon by the League of Nations, and has the general approval of commercial and other organisations which have taken some interest in this question. If you are going to try to negotiate any general international and inter-religious agreement on this question, you are much more likely to reach it if you start with a definite date which is generally agreed upon, rather than if you leave the date open. If you start with a generally agreed date, various people may suggest alternatives and say that the date agreed upon by the League of Nations or by other bodies, and inserted in the Bill, is not satisfactory and that it would be better to have this or that date instead. There is, we have reason to believe, general agreement that the date in the Bill is probably the best and if you are going to try to get agreement, it is better to negotiate round a fixed date rather than round something which is nebulous. I feel the Amendment is not one which ought to be accepted and I do not think it is likely to help the object of the Bill.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
How can you negotiate about a date if your own Parliament has tied you down to a particular date before the commencement of the negotiations? That would be a remarkable method of negotiation.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
Yon can negotiate quite well with other people by asking them whether they are prepared to agree to a definite proposal. It is much more difficult to negotiate with people if you proceed by asking them whether they are prepared to agree to any of several alternative proposals. The hon. and learned Member knows as well as I do that if you go to an individual and say "Are you prepared to consider a particular and definite proposition" and if you put various arguments before him you may get him to agree in due course; but if you say to him "Are you prepared to agree to any of several alternatives" you are not likely to get any agreement at all.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
I think the hon. Member has not got my point exactly. Certainly you would negotiate on a 1355 particular date but if the person with whom you are negotiating suggests another date and, if you have no flexibility in the Bill, then you, in your turn, will not be able to make a counter-offer. Supposing you negotiate with other people on your own fixed date. They say, "We would like to fix Easter, but we offer you the week after that." You say, "I am sorry I cannot accept that because my Parliament will not let me."

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
The hon. and learned Member forgets that the date is fixed because there is already general agreement on it, and if you are going to get away from that, you are going to have to rebuild the whole of the building which you have already so far erected. To please one individual who may wish to change the date, you have to displease a larger number of other people who are already perfectly satisfied. I hope the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) will not consider that this speech of mine is equally unconciliatory with my former one, because I would like to assure him that I fully appreciate the desirability of making conciliatory speeches when one sees the slightest opportunity, by such speeches, of satisfying the people whom one is trying to satisfy, but there are occasions when one realises that that is not possible. In conclusion, I would like to thank him for his very courteous reference to myself and to my resemblance to Thomas Cromwell, but I do not think, so far as I am concerned, that I am likely to lose my head, as he did.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) that I think we have in this Amendment an illustration of a difficulty. It seems to me to propose stabilisation on a sliding scale. As the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay knows, I was born at Torquay, and he and I want Easter early, but the Noble Lady the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) would object. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay and I would say that Torquay is the queen of watering places, but the Noble Lady would say that Southend is. Where we would try to fix Easter early under the sliding scale, she would want it fixed later. As that is only an illustration of the complexity of 1356 trying to apply this Amendment, I think the Under-Secretary is right in saying that it would be unworkable.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert the words: Provided further that before making such draft order regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies. The purpose of this Amendment has already been discussed when the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) was being proposed. The only difference between this and his is that my Amendment merely says that "regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed," whereas his Amendment went further and asked that the Secretary of State should actually give a certificate. This Amendment seems to be valuable because it does, for the first and only time in the Bill, recognise that the various Christian bodies are concerned about the Bill. The phrase which I use is, of course, very frequently adopted when it is not desired to bind down an authority to any specific method, but it is sufficiently elastic to enable him to get that opinion, to compel him to get it, and not to ignore it. I will content myself with moving the Amendment, which I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) is willing to accept.

§ Sir R. NEWMAN
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I should like to be quite sure about this. Would the phrase "other Christian bodies" cover the representative churches in Scotland?

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)
I am sorry I was not able to be here earlier for this discussion. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would realise that. I should be the last person not to pay full attention and have full regard to the wishes of the various Churches in this matter. I thought I made the point quite clear in our previous debate. That being so, I see no objection at all to the inclusion of this Amendment. I should like to assure my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford 1357 University (Lord H. Cecil) that, although I may be in some respects—I hope not in all—rather like Henry VIII, I should prefer the comparison which he has been kind enough to make of my Under-Secretary with Thomas Cromwell, who was known as the first Lay Secretary of State, and as such we have his portrait at the Home Office. We are very proud of it; it is a very excellent portrait, and I shall be glad at any time to show it to the Noble Lord.

§ Lord H. CECIL
Beware of the danger of venerating idols!

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I entirely agree as to the danger. To return to the Amendment, the House may be quite certain that we shall have very great regard to the opinion expressed by the Churches. I have been in consultation with the Archbishop, and he has been in consultation with the Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster, who has communicated with His Holiness the Pope, and I think by that means and after consultation with the Nonconformist Churches, we shall be able to arrive at a friendly settlement in this matter and establish a fixed Easter. I should like to add that if there is any point in regard to the drafting of the Amendment, I will look into it.

Commander WILLIAMS
I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "and the Channel Islands."
My real object is this: It is very seldom that we hear anything about the Channel Islands, and as it is very difficult to know what are the powers of this Parliament in connection with those Islands, it would be well if the House on this occasion could find out one or two things as to how the Channel Islands get into this Bill. I think we have some control there, but we ought to know if that control is of such a kind as would enable us to know whether they, in their turn, want this particular Clause of the Bill. I conclude that in all probability there is some connection between the Home Office and their representative body, but I should like to know whether they have actually given their opinion in connection with the fixing of Easter in this way. We ought also to know, supposing they very strongly object to the fixing of Easter, whether we 1358 have any power of enforcing it there or whether they have any power of so getting it amended that they may come out of the Bill. I simply put these two points because we hear from time to time of curious things happening so far as the Channel Islands are concerned, in other ways, and anything that we can get in this House to elucidate their exact legal position in relation to this country, the better. It is a comparatively minor Amendment, but it is one that will give us an opportunity to deal with a matter which we very seldom have.

Mr. SANDEMAN
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. KELLY
While I hope that an explanation will be given as to the position of these Islands, may I ask what, is the exact position of the Isle of Man and whether the House of Keys have been consulted. I am concerned for my friends it that particular Island and my namesakes, many of whom are in that place.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are, for administrative purposes, both under the Home Office, and, therefore, it is quite proper that the Secretary of State should be the channel of communication, so far as they are concerned. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend or his successor would consult with the representative bodies of these Islands on this question.

§ Mr. KELLY
Before the Order in Council or afterwards?

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
Obviously, before the Order, in the ordinary routine of administration. I do not say that he has done so at present, because he cannot start a consultation of that kind until there was some idea that the Order was to become law. It would be a waste of time.

§ Mr. KELLY
That would make it an accomplished fact.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
No, it does not make it an accomplished fact until it is passed by the Resolution of both Houses. The hon. Member will see that in Subsection (2) of Clause 2. To carry on consultations about a hypothetical subject which might never become anything except hypothetical, would be quite unnecessary, and I am convinced that, if 1359 the hon. Member is ever in the position of being the Secretary of State, he will realise it.

§ Mr. KELLY
I am not looking in that direction.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
There is another point, which is more important. If this Amendment be accepted, and this Bill comes into operation, we should find the Channel Islands with a different date for Easter than the rest of the United Kingdom.; and as the Channel Islands depend for their prosperity very largely on Easter holiday traffic, they would lose very heavily. I am convinced, therefore, that the proposal is one which would be most unpopular in the Channel Islands, and I hope that the House will not accept it.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
I have always thought that this Bill was a mistake, though I must admit that it is very much changed from the time when it was first brought into the House. In its original form, the Bill would enable Parliament, without any further consideration, then and there by Order in Council, to alter the date of Easter. Since that time, we have received two important concessions. In the first place, it is not now possible for the Order in Council to be made without a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In the second place, we have now definitely an assurance that before that Order in Council is made, the various Christian bodies will be consulted. Therefore, a great many of the objections, which some of us felt to the Bill when it was first promoted, have disappeared. At the same time, I feel that we are proceeding entirely in the wrong way altogether. There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman negotiating about the date of Easter or about any other subject with anybody he thinks fit, but the curious doctrine has been here laid down that, in order to negotiate with other bodies, we shall do better first of all to tie our own hands. In order, that is, to negotiate with the other countries of the world about the date of Easter, we will first pass an Act of Parliament which 1360 will only enable us, in any event, to fix a certain date for Easter. This is the result of the rejection of one of my Amendments, and the principle that you should first pass an Act of Parliament to enable you to negotiate the date fixed by that Act of Parliament, seems to me an extraordinary one. I do not believe that there is any demand, really, to alter the date of Easter as it has existed for a thousand years. I have a great suspicion of this itch to alter any ancient institution on which hands can be laid. Easter has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work well in the future. From my short experience of the House, there is no one whom I should be less inclined to trust with the custody of ancient institutions, than the present Government. I am quite sure that this Measure will never be agreed to by the various Christian bodies which are here mentioned, and I am sure that it will never be agreed to by the other countries of the world. The point made by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is a good one, that even if this House were foolish enough to welcome this Bill at some future date, there is another place that will reject it. I do not propose to vote against the Measure, for I believe that it is innocuous and largely impotent, though I still see objection to it in any form.

§ Captain BOURNE
We have all enjoyed the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), but apparently he has failed to remember that there is in existence such a body as the League of Nations, which has had this matter under discussion for many years. There is a very large demand, and a large amount of opinion in most of the civilised countries of the world for an Easter which does not migrate quite as much as the present festival, and the date put down in this Bill is a date which is nearly universally agreed. The hon. and learned Member said that the procedure of this Hill is unnecessary. Once you have agreement with the League of Nations, and between the various bodies representing different interests, the next thing you have to get is an agreement with the Governments of the civilised countries. If this Bill does nothing more when it becomes an Act of Parliament, it will at any rate lead to the opening 1361 up of negotiations. I thank the House for the way in which they have taken up this Bill.

§ Captain WATERHOUSE
I did not hear the Debate on the Second Reading, but I read it very carefully, and I find that great regard was taken to the wishes and convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the wishes and convenience of the traffic managers of the railways, of foreign countries, of the Dominions, of education, of industry and of the Church, but very little has been said, in fact nothing, about the needs and desires of the people of this country. After all, this Bill is going to affect one of the holidays of the people, and a very much valued holiday.
I think anybody who, like myself, has had to concern himself with the breaking up of a frost in winter or the time for cutting one's hay in the summer, is clearly of opinion that the moon has a definite effect on weather conditions, and as the Solicitor-General pointed out in his very interesting speech on Second Reading, since the War Easter has proved to he a notably dry holiday. For the eight years the total rainfall during Easter week-end has been only half an inch, while the rainfall for the proposed Easter week-end has been 2¾ inches. It seems to me this Bill has not been sufficiently considered from that point of view. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is a lamentable tendency, and one which is not confined to one side of the House, towards what I would call "legislative fidgets." Because something has been established a long time, many hon. Members think it ought to be altered, and I am indeed sorry to find that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench too often countenance those things and do not rather relegate them to the schools of thought from which they spring. I do not propose to divide on this Measure, because I think it would be only a waste of time, but do wish clearly to register my own opinion that this Bill is not going to be for the general weal of the people of this country.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Before this Bill passes Third Reading, I wish to say that I regret that an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. 1362 Slesser) was accepted in the form in which it was put and is to be added to the Bill. I did not take objection to it at the time, because, after the theological speeches of the past two days, it was probably inadvisable that there should be even an appearance of dividing the House, but I want to protest against the idea getting abroad that this Amendment expresses the unanimous views of the Members of the Opposition. It is stated in the Amendment that before any draft Order is made regard is to be had to the opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies, the other Christian bodies taking second, third, fourth and indeterminate rank after those other two Churches. There is at least one other National Church in the land by law established, that is the Church of Scotland, and there are Nonconformist bodies of very large membership, and I, for one, take exception to the official recognition in an Act of Parliament of only two religious bodies, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, while the other Christian bodies are lumped together. I am not very much surprised at the hon. and learned Member moving the Amendment, but I was surprised at the alacrity with which the Home Secretary, who is usually so very careful, accepted the Amendment in the form in which it was moved.