SECOND READING.

HL Deb 12 March 1903 vol 119 cc526-41

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

*LORD RIBBLESDALE

My Lords, I commend this Bill to your Lordships as not being a Party Bill, and T think I can also recommend it to the House as a body,' and to your Lordships as individuals, on the public grounds of advantage and necessity. I daresay it will be within your Lordships' recollection that in the House of Commons the other night, on Mr. Price's Motion on the Address, there was a quick-firing debate on this very subject. The public grounds of advantage and necessity to which I have alluded were admitted on both sides of the House, and in that respect two main propositions were well stated by Mr. Asquith as now being matters of common agreement. The first of these propositions was the gravity of the evil which this Bill is drafted to remedy, and the second proposition was the inefficiency, so far, of voluntary effort to deal with the evil. Alas, from its very nativity, my Bill attracted the attention of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) who guards with such zeal and capacity the paradise of liberty and property. His flaming but ever chivalrous sword leapt from its scabbard, and, if the House will forgive a mixed metaphor, he put a Motion down at once on the Paper for the rejection of my Bill. I feel that I shall have to address one or two observations to the noble Earl, and the first question I should like to ask him, though I quite admit the sonorous sound of the "liberty of the subject," is whether in social matters then are any such things as abstract rights, or absolute principles, or indefeasible laws. I hold with Hobbes the philosopher, that in these days the liberty of the subject is very like the desolate freedom of the wild ass, and I think that telephones, motor cars, and wireless telegraphy have more or less upset most of our ideas of being able to carry abstract notions of that sort into everyday life. However, my Lords, I quite recognise that this is not a debating society—I sometimes wish we were a little more like, one—and I will not therefore pursue this rather unfertile inquiry further. I will come down to more common ground.

I think the noble Earl might very justly say, "Why should a man who pays rent, rates, and taxes, and takes the risk of business, and so on, not be allowed to keep his place open as long as he likes, as long as he can get people to work, and to conduct his business in the way which he chooses and which he considers suits his particular trade best?" My answer there again depends upon the two propositions which Mr. Asquith put in the House of Commons, and I say that what I think would justify us in preventing him doing so in these days, is the welfare of the community and our general responsibility to do all that we can to improve a certain set of social conditions, which, as I have just said, it is a matter of common agreement on both sides, merit and justify attention, or, as the noble Earl, I suppose, would describe it, interference. I will try to convince the noble Earl of the moderation of my Bill, and also of the fact that its provisions are drafted with due regard to sensitive and complicated considerations, which I recognise quite as fully as the noble Earl does, and which make this a difficult, and at the same time an interesting, question. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the vantage ground—the "jumping off place"—of my Bill is the Report of the Select Committee on Shop Hours in 1901, and that it gives expression to what I conceive to be not merely the spirit, but the letter, of Lord Salisbury's recommendation. I think the House will agree that Lord Salisbury's opinion on any question of this sort will always be entitled to great consideration. But I would remind the House that Lord Salisbury served upon this particular Committee, that he heard all the evidence, that the case which was being investigated before him and the Committee was to the satisfaction of the Committee proved up to the hilt, and that it was agreed that something must be done; and I feel convinced that in these circumstances Lord Salisbury's special recommendation that Town Councils should be given the power to grant provisional orders to deal with this question of shop hours is entitled to every acceptation from your Lordships.

Now, my Lords, I turn to the other Bill which is to come before you to-night—viz., the one standing in the name of Lord Avebury. That is a Bill with which we have already been made familiar. I think it has been introduced in this House twice, though perhaps not in the same form; and I hope, although I am running, as it were, a Bill of my own, that the noble Lord will allow me to pay him the high tribute to which I feel he is entitled for the work he has done in regard to this question. I look upon him as the Admirable Crichton and the past-master in the matter of shop hours and a great many social subjects of the same kind. But at the same time I should also like to remind him that when we were very feeble folk on this question, when opinion was not at all formed into the mass that it now assumes, I was one of a minority of those who voted, against the opinion of my own Front Bench, with the noble Lord behind me. I have been thinking over this Bill a long while, and have had a great many conversations with those who know something about the question and are in touch with the people most affected, and with every regard for the noble Lord's Bill, I very much prefer my own. I will state briefly the grounds of preference. In the first place, I claim that my Bill sticks more topically to the Report of the Select Committee, and especially to Lord Salisbury's recom- mendation. In the next place, I claim for it greater simplicity and flexibility; and thirdly, I attach great importance to this, that my Bill is more obedient to the wise tendency of the present day, which recognises that the success of this kind of legislation must largely be a matter of circumstance, and which therefore trusts the local authorities to adopt the principle, to deal with details, and to frame provisions to meet the needs and the convenience of the communities they represent.

I will now pass to my Bill, and explain it as clearly as I can. Fortunately, in addition to being simple, it is very short. In the first clause, my Bill goes a little beyond the recommendations of the Lords Committee by empowering both Urban and District Councils, as well as Borough Councils, to make these Provisional Orders. The reason for that, I think, is simple. There are big urban districts, larger and more important than many boroughs, which could not very well be left out. Some rural districts are really more urban in character than rural. I will take, for instance, the mining districts in South Wales, and I have no doubt instances could easily be multiplied. The distinction, indeed, is only technical. As your Lordships know, rural districts now have, under the general law, means of acquiring the sanitary powers of Urban District Councils.; Here I would point out that the making of a provisional order is purely voluntary under this Bill. It is almost only an enabling Bill, and there is nothing to enforce early closing in any form in a reluctant district.

Now I come to the only coercive part of the Bill. In the second clause I use the word "shall" instead of "may." I make it absolutely compulsory on the central authority, which I define later in the Bill, to lay the Provisional Order before Parliament; that is, the central authority have not the power under my Bill to rejecter to amend it. I have, unfortunately, come away without the reference in my pocket, but I believe there is a precedent for that—I don't say an exact analogy—in the Allotment Act of 1887. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I don't attach very much importance to it one way or the other. I think it is a good clause by itself whether it has a precedent or not. It would be wasting a good deal of time if the whole matter was gone into after the Provisional Order had been put before the central authority by the local authority, and the principle of my Bill is the principle which noble Lords opposite followed so implicitly in their own Education Act of last year, when they handed over the whole of the education of the country to local authorities.

As to the third clause, which deals with expenses, I think that is quite plain sailing. It would have added considerably to the length of the Bill if I had defined exactly the source from which the money to be paid, for the expenses consequent upon getting the Provisional Orders, was to be found in each case. Nor have I found it necessary to limit expenditure, though I believe some limit of expenditure was suggested in the recommendations of the Committee. The definitions call for no comment. I am glad to see that my definitions are practically in agreement with Lord Avebury's. My "shop" definition is the same as Lord Avebury's, except that he includes the barber, and I do not. I leave it to the local authority to define and to specialise particular shops. That, I think, concludes my explanation. of the Bill.

I might here go into the ethical and hygienic aspects of this question,—I might, but I will not. I think those are very fully dealt with in the Memorandum to Lord Avebury's Bid, besides which I see around me many noble Lords, both spiritual and temporal who have given great attention to this subject, who have studied it longer than, I have, and who no doubt will have something to say with authority on these matters. I think we shall all agree that people who have to serve very long hours in shops, often in bad air, must lead rather dull lives. The man who is known as the "Guv'nor"' may derive a great deal of amusement out of keeping his shop open late, but I am thinking more of the shop assistants, who arenot dealing on their own account, and are kept long hours at the dull business of serving customers. That, of course, I only put forward in a very general way, and I leave it to other noble Lords, who are more competent to do so, and especially to the noble Lord behind me, to enlarge upon that aspect of the question. I need hardly say that I prefer my own Bill. I declare to win with mine if I can, but I shall be very glad to win with either. My noble friend and I both recognise that we are working towards the same end. If I cannot get my Bill I hope my noble friend will get his; but I confess I can hardly conceive, having regard to what the Home Secretary said in the debates in the House of Commons on Mr. Price's Amendment to the Address, that there will be any hostility on the part of the noble Lords opposite to my Bill. Encouraged again by what the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons, and inasmuch as my Bill sticks closely to Lord Salisbury's recommendation, and to the Report of the Select Committee, I hope that it may be given a cordial welcome, and that its passage will be facilitated in another place. I address myself once more to those who may be disposed to follow the noble Earl on the Cross Benches in the "undue interference "ground of objection which I assume he will take to this Bill, and I would remind them of a maxim which may serve to appease their conscientious objections—Salus populi suprema lex.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY)

I interpose thus early in the debate because I think your Lordships are somewhat embarrassed by the form in which these two Bills appear. It seems to me that the noble Lord who has just sat down has, by Parliamentary tactics, obtained precedence over Lord Avebury, who I certainly think is entitled to precedence by reason of the attention he has given to this subject, and the made in which he has brought it forward from time to time. Personally, I should vote against the Bill now before the House, and in favour of Lord Avebury's Bill. It seems to me that it would be extremely unfair to Lord Avebury, who has taken so much trouble over the matter, and whose Bill is very detailed and deals with a great many of the difficulties, if, as would be the case if Lord Ribblesdale's Bill were rejected, he was prevented from moving his. For your Lordships could not, after having rejected one Bill, receive another almost identical with the one you had thrown out, during the same session. Lord Ribblesdale has taken credit for his Bill on the ground that it is a short one; but it is a short one because it has, by not mentioning them, avoided all the difficulties with which Lord Avebury has attempted to deal. The Motion I make is that your Lordships adjourn this debate. You would then be able to hear what Lord Avebury had to say in moving his Bill. I do not think it would be in order to discuss both Bills together. It would be possible to refer both of them to a Committee, but neither of the noble Lords, I understand, desires that that should be done, because it would be regarded, and justly regarded, as a mode of shelving the question. To put your Lordships in a position properly to decide on this question, I move that the debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill be now adjourned.

Moved, "That the debate on the Bill be now adjourned."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Should I be in order in moving the rejection of the Bill as an Amendment to that Motion?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No. The Motion is that this debate be now adjourned.

EARL SPENCER

Do I understand that if the noble and learned Lord's Motion is agreed to, Lord Avebury will introduce his Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

But I put it to the noble and learned Lord, with a view to obtaining the very object which he has in view, that it would be better to adjourn the debate after the debate has been held to some extent; otherwise you are going to burk all discussion of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill. That, I submit, is not fair.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The question is—

LORD RIBBLESDALE

Before the noble and learned Lord puts the Motion, I must say that I do not think the treatment I am receiving is at all fair. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that I was hardly entitled to bring forward this Bill, because I bad not given the same attention to the subject as the noble Lord behind me. I am sure Lord Avebury will bear me out in saying that I recognise to the full all he has done, and that I am only too anxious to work with him. I deny that I have resorted to any Parliamentary wiles in order to obtain first place for my Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did not say that.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

I respectfully submit that I am receiving a scant measure of justice at the hands of the noble and learned Earl.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The question is—

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Before we come to a decision on this subject, I think we should hear what the Leader of the House has to say. The noble Earl on the Woolsack has accused my noble friend of having indulged in Parliamentary wiles—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg your pardon, I did nothing of the kind. I said "tactics."

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I accept the noble and learned Lord's correction. I do not see there is much difference between "wiles" and "tactics." But whatever the charge against my noble friend may be, I submit that you will

be dealing scant courtesy to him if you adjourn the debate in the way proposed. I and many other noble Lords think that Lord Ribblesdale's Bill is a better Bill than Lord Avebury's, and if by no unjustifiable methods, and after reasonable and due notice, my noble friend's Bill happens to have got precedence of Lord Avebury's, I hold that in fairness your Lordships should give first consideration to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill. Decide on that Bill, and, if you reject it, then take Lord Avebury's Bill. For my own part, I hope my noble friend will not consent to an adjournment of the debate, but will test the feeling of the House by going to a division.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE)

I do not think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack either made, or intended to make, any accusation against the noble Lord opposite.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Hear, hear.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

All that is suggested to the House is that considering Lord Avebury's long connection with this question, and also looking at the manner in which the two Bills deal with the subject, it would be more convenient to take the general discussion upon the Bill which happens to stand second rather than that which stands first. The Motion for the adjournment will not get rid of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, and if Lord Avebury's Bill should not commend itself to the House, it will be in the power of Lord Ribblesdale to put the discussion on his Bill down for another day.

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Denbigh, E.	Hampden, V.
Halsbury, E (L. Chancellor.)	Hardwicke, E.	Ridley, V.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Morley, E.
	Mount Edgenmbe, E.	London, L. Bp.
Marlborough, D.	Portsmouth, E.
	Stamford, E.	Ashcombe, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Stanhope, E.	Balfour, L.
	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Barnard, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Belper, L.
	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	James, L.
Cowper, E.	Goschen, V.	Kinnard, L.
Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)	Oranmore and Browne, L.	Windsor, L.
Muncaster, L.	Suffield, L.	Wolverton, L.
Norton, L.	Wimborne, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Ripon, M.	Aberdare, L.	Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
	Acton, L.	Robertson, L.
Camperdown, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Chesterfield, K. [Teller.]		Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Ducie, E.	Coleridge, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Grey, E.	Davey, L.	Stanmore, L.
Lytton, E.	Denman, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Romney, E.	Farrer, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Russell, E.	Hylton, L.	Wandsworth, L.
Spencer, E.	Kilmarnock, L, (E. Erroll.)	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Gordon, V. (F. Aberdeen.)	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)	Wentworth, L.
Peel. V.	Northbourne, L.

EARL SPENCER

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack having managed to get rid of one Bill by tactics of a kind that we have not been accustomed to in this House, I should like to ask whether it is right and in order, after a Bill has been shunted in this way, to bring on immediately afterwards an almost identical Bill. It seems to me that if the first one was out of order, the other one is too, and I should be disposed to say that the second Bill ought to be adjourned as well. I have never known of a Bill having been got rid of in this manner before. By the Motion which the House has just accepted, Lord Avebury's Bill can now be discussed, whereas Lord Ribblesdale's Bill has been refused any discussion at all.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I should like to support the argument of my noble friend Lord Spencer, and I—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I would point out to noble Lords that there is no Motion before the House.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Then I move the adjournment of the House, and I do so in order to obtain a decision on the Question whether it is in order, one Bill on a particular subject being on the Paper, to pass from that Bill and take up another Bill not differing at all from it in character, and only differing to some small extent in its provisions. What was the reason given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for moving the adjournment of the debate on my noble friend's Bill? It was that if your Lordships gave a Second Reading to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill you would be placed in a very awkward position in not being able to proceed to debate Lord Avebury's Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I said if the Bill was rejected.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I maintain that the question whether the Bill was rejected or not, makes no difference.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would make all the difference. In the event of it being rejected, you would be precluded from discussing the Bill, on the same subject standing in the name of Lord Avebury.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

These Bills are so very much alike that in Committee the terms of one could be substituted for the other. If a second reading had been given to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, the whole of the provisions of Lord Avebury's measure might have been inserted in Committee. In these circumstances, in order to protect the dignity of the House, I move the adjournment.

Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I submit that neither of the noble Lords opposite who have spoken, has brought forward any point of order whatever; certainly they have not supported it by any precedent. The adjournment of the debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill was moved by my noble and learned friend on the ground that of the two Bills before the House, it was desirable that a discussion should be taken on that which stood second. I deny altogether that there was anything either irregular or discourteous in that. What the point of order is that has been raised by noble Lords opposite I am at a loss to discover. The course which has been taken appears to me not, only to be a convenient one, but almost an absolutely necessary one. I am informed that if the Bill which was moved just now had been debated, and rejected after discussion by the House, it would have been impossible for Lord Avebury to have moved his Bill. Therefore, by taking the discussion on that Bill we should have placed ourselves in the position of being unable to discuss the Bill which, in its form and general character, we think the most preferable one of the two.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

If my noble friends are liable to the charge which has been brought against them by the noble Duke of proceeding in this matter without precedent, the have before them, at any rate, the example of the Lord Chancellor, who has proceeded in this matter entirely without precedent. I have had no time, as the noble Duke has apparently had, to ransack the journals of the House for precedents on this matter, since the last division—

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

What I said was, that the noble Lords had risen to a point of order, and they did not explain what the point of order was. I said they ought to have brought forward some precedent to show that the course taken by my noble and learned friend was a breach of order.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Under what Standing Order has the Lord Chancellor proceeded?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Under the Standing Orders relating to the Speaker of the House.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

The adjournment of the House has been moved as a protest against the unprecedented action of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. To wha date is the Bill adjourned?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Till the next meeting of the House.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Then we shall have the advantage to-morrow of a second debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill. Is that the intention of the Motion?

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

If the noble Earl wishes to have the debate to-morrow, I suppose he can have it.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I have nothing to do with it. I am neither the Leader of the House nor the promoter of either of the Bills; but what we on this side of the House, and some of the supporters of the noble Duke, would like to know is, why has this extraordinary course been taken? I would undertake to find, if leisure were given me, a dozen precedents on which two Bills on the same subject have been read a second time on the same day and referred to a Select Committee. Is it supposed that the Debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill would have taken so long that it would have interrupted the sacred hour of dinner, and so prevented any discussion being taken on Lord Avebury's Bill? I do not understand that there is any pretext of the kind, and really the object of those who voted against the Lord Chancellor's Motion for Adjournment, and who have brought forward the new Motion for Adjournment, is to discover what underlies this strange proceeding on the part of the Government.

*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

I would venture to remind the House of the particular point which the noble Duke the Leader of the House made, and the reason he gave for the course which has been taken. The point which the noble Duke put was this, that supposing the debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill had gone on, and supposing that Bill had been rejected, it would have been impossible, by the custom, and, I think, the Orders of this House, for the noble Lord Avebury to have moved his Bill. The object which I had thought had been attained by the Motion of the noble and learnedLord on theWoolsack was this, that Lord Ribblesdale's Bill had not been rejected, but thediscussion on it postponed until we saw whether the House would accept Lord Avebury's Bill or not. Lord Ribblesdale's Bill has not been killed, but is kept alive by only being postponed. I think that was a reasonable and rational course under all the circumstances. Having regard to the history of this question, it was only fair that the main discussion should be taken on the Bill introduced by Lord Avebury; and I think it was for the convenience of the House that the main discussion should be taken on the Bill, which, I believe, will be found to be the one most in accord with the wishes of the majority of the House.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

. If the Bill to be moved by Lord Avebury is rejected, then, under the rule which has just been laid down by the noble Duke and by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, Lord Ribblesdale's Bill cannot be discussed at all. That will land the House in a very remarkable position. I have been in this House now for a longer time than I care to recollect, but I have never known such a proceeding as this. I confess it seems to me to be a wholly irregular procedure. This is an attempt to alter the order in which the Bills stand on the Order Paper. It is possible, I suppose, to do it in this way without committing an actual breach of order, but it is entirely contrary, as it seems to me, to the spirit of the Orders of this House; and if Lord Avebury's Bill should not pass, then you will have successfully secured that no consideration whatever shall be given to the other Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I, too, have been in this House for a good many years, and can corroborate every word that has fallen from the noble Marquess. I should like to know why the House is unable to discuss two Bills which deal with the same subject in a different way. I have no recollection of this ever occurring before.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I can off-hand give the noble Earl a precedent. Lord Avebury's Bill was rejected last year, and it was re-introduced without the Clause to which exception was taken, and the previous question was moved and carried on the very ground, that it was out of order to discuss a Bill when one on the same subject had just been rejected.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

If that is all the precedent that the noble Lord can produce, it is no precedent at all. The case which is now before the House is this: Lord Ribblesdale puts down a Bill which he proposes to bring before the House, and Lord Avebury also puts down a Bill which he desires to introduce. The House comes to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill first, and has no reason to know, further than seeing the notice on the Paper, what is in Lord Avebury's Bill. Lord Ribblesdale's Bill comes up for discussion, upon which a Motion is made that it be not discussed. Well, my Lords, I do not see how that can be said to have any reference to what happened with regard to Lord Avebury's Bill last year. Lord Avebury's Bill was introduced in one form on one day and in another form on another day, but I do not see how that has any reference at all to the position now before the House. What is there, or what would there have been, to prevent the House reading Lord Ribblesdale's Bill a second time, as well as Lord Avebury's, if it saw fit? I believe Lord Ribblesdale's Bill is rather more peremptory than Lord Avebury's, but is that any reason why the Bills should not have been discussed in their proper turn; or would it be contrary to practice to refer the two Bills to a Select Committee? I have known the same thing to be done many times since I have had a seat in this House, and it was for that reason that I voted against the Motion moved by the noble and learn ed Lord on the Woolsack.

LORD TWEED MOUTH

I only moved the adjournment of the House to put myself in order. I do not propose, therefore, to press my Motion to a division, but I think I can say, on behalf of my noble friend beside me, that we shall certainly divide on the question of the adjournment of the debate on Lord Avebury's Bill, on the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

*LORD BARNARD

In view of what has been said, I should like to ask whether, assuming Lord Avebury's Bill is read a second time, Lord Ribblesdale's Bill will in that case come on?

Motion for the adjournment of the House (by leave) withdrawn.