Lords Sitting of 29 May 1923

Preamble
Re-assembling after the Whitsuntide Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGH-MORE on the Woolsack.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LYTHAM ST. ANNES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Deputy Leader of the House whether he has any information to give us with regard to the course of business.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. In regard to The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Bill, which stands for Second Reading to-day in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I am sure that your Lordships will be sorry to hear that he is detained by indisposition from the service of your Lordships' House. In the circumstances I propose to postpone the consideration of that Bill until Tuesday next. The Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Bill does not present any difficulties and I propose to proceed with that Bill as it stands upon the Paper.
In addition to that, I am informed that it is likely that the Restoration of Order in Ireland (Indemnity) Bill will pass through another place in the course of to-day's sitting and will be in your Lordships' House to-morrow. That is a Bill which ought not to be unduly delayed if your Lordships will be good enough to consent to expedite its passage. I should propose, therefore, with the consent of
252
your Lordships, to take the First and Second Readings to-morrow; but only if your Lordships are perfectly willing to take that course. I do not desire to suggest that it would be right to suspend the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House to that extent except with the general consent of the House. But I judge from the speech which was delivered by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition upon a previous occasion, just before the Recess, that the Second Reading of the Bill is not likely to receive any opposition. In those circumstances I suggest that that course might be pursued. Then, with the consent of the House, we would take the remaining stages of the Bill on the next day and so deal with it completely in the present week. But that also is for your Lordships to decide. If it is thought that that would mean dealing with the Bill in too great a hurry, and there was any substantial opposition to the Bill, or any desire to amend it, the Government would reconsider their attitude in respect of the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I can speak only for a small number of your Lordships, but the arrangement which is proposed by the noble Marquess seems to me to meet the case. It is obvious that the Indemnity Bill is one which ought to be pushed through the House and there is no reason why we should delay dealing with it to-morrow on First and Second Readings. In regard to the Motion which has been placed upon the Paper by my noble friend Viscount Grey of Fallodon—namely, to move to resolve, That this House affirms the long established principle of the Constitution that the Executive should not without the previous and special authority of Parliament exercise the power of arrest without bringing to trial by due process of law—it must be obvious to the noble Marquess that we should be delighted if, when we came to discuss the Bill either on Second Reading or during the Committee stage, we knew that that Resolution, which arises out of a discussion upon a similar question, was likely to meet with the approval of His Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have just been informed that there may be some difficulty in taking the

253
Rent Restrictions Bill to-day. The difficulty would not have arisen but for the sudden indisposition of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and perhaps we shall not be able to take that Bill after all at this sitting.

BLASPHEMY LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon deals with the question of blasphemy in its criminal aspect. The criminal aspect of blasphemy rests upon many Statutes, some of which are old and quite out of date in their language and are such as are never applied in these days. There is also a rule of Common Law against blasphemy. I think I may summarise the present position of the matter by saying that it amounts to this—that blasphemy is very rarely prosecuted as such. Actual prosecutions for blasphemy under the head of blasphemy are very few, and when they take place they take place almost invariably—I think it would be fair to say as regards the last thirty or forty years quite invariably—in respect of some attendant circumstance, such as violence of language, or language likely to promote a breach of the peace, or language so offensive that it is felt that it should not be tolerated.
It should be, remembered that blasphemy is an ecclesiastical matter, and that the jurisdiction in respect of blasphemy was originally in the ecclesiastical courts and was only transferred to the secular courts at a later date. In 1883, Lord Coleridge, then Lord Chief Justice, laid down a rule of Common Law that the fundamentals of religion might be attacked provided that the decencies of controversy were observed. That, of course, is by no means the scope or tendency of the earlier Statutes against blasphemy. Their objection was to attacks upon the fundamentals of religion. There is another curious fact about it which, I think, it is worth your Lordships' while to bear in mind. That is, that it is not an offence to attack the Christian religion alone as such, but the offence is limited to that religion which is held by the Church of
254
England. There is nothing in the Blasphemy Laws or in the Common Law which makes it an offence to speak as disrespectfully as you like of the Roman Catholic service of the Mass. That, obviously, makes the law partial in its application and difficult to justify.
The present position in regard to blasphemy is that prosecutions are very infrequent. It may, therefore, be asked: Why is it necessary to repeal these laws? We do not in this country imitate the example of the United States where they put a great many laws, sometimes of an excellent character, upon their Statute Book and never enforce or act upon them. We like the laws that we have upon the Statute Book in this country to be enforced and obeyed, and I think it is unfortunate to retain upon the Statute Book a large number of Statutes which are, in effect, dead letters and to keep in existence laws which are not operative.
It may well be asked, and it is the question that I put to myself when I was asked to take charge of this Bill: "If you do away with prosecution for blasphemy, what protection have you against the use of language of a most offensive character?"—language which all your Lordships would deprecate. The answer to that question is simple. You have the protection of the existing law. If the language is used by a public speaker in a public place and is of so violent a character as to be likely to provoke a breach of the peace, he already commits an offence, whether the particular thing he is attacking is religion, or the Prime Minister, or the Soviet Government; and you can proceed against him in respect of that. If his language is abusive and indecent you can, again, get him irrespective of any attack upon religion or any question of blasphemy.
I think it is worth noticing that there is also a growing dissatisfaction with the existence of this law. There has not been a single case of prosecution in recent years in which numbers of clergymen among others, while not in the least upholding the opinions of the person indicted, have not protested against the existence of such a law. They resent the imputation that their religion needs some other form of protection. I am sure that I should have the most rev. Primate with me when I say that he does not desire to rely upon the secular

255
arm to maintain the truths of the Christian religion, and does not desire to punish people for questioning those truths. All the essentials of the Christian religion are, and may be, daily questioned. They are so questioned by books and pamphlets whose circulation runs into thousands and tens of thousands, and are questioned in their essence and attacked in every possible way without any prosecution ensuing, because the thing is done in a way which is regarded as decent.
I think it is undesirable that the test of an offence should be whether the person who commits it has a sense of literary values or not. Merely because he is an ill-educated man and puts his opinions badly and crudely he ought not to be liable to a prosecution from which an educated man escapes because he is able to use language almost of a dignity suited to your Lordships' House. A deputation upon this matter waited upon Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister, and I should like to read to the House a word or two from the reply Mr. Asquith made to that deputation. He said:
"As regards the Statute Law, I have been looking at this Bill of Mr. Holt's, and I do not imagine that there is anybody who would dissent from the statement that most of these Statutes are altogether obsolete. I do not think any of the recent prosecutions have taken place under them, and I agree with you in thinking they might all be swept off the book with very great advantage, or at least with no real hurt. In fact, the real difficulty is the Common Law—not the Statute Law made by Parliament, but the Common Law as made by the Judges."
Then he went on to deal with it, and after doing so, said:
"That shows, of course, a tendency—I do not say it is other than a very beneficial tendency—on the part of the Judges to restrict the scope within which this doctrine can be applied. Now, I understand your desire to be that we should go a step further, and that even this attenuated fragment, or relic, of the old Blasphemy Law should altogether disappear. And I confess, speaking for myself, and only for myself, I am in sympathy with you. I can see no good object—certainly no object which is bound up in any way with the cause of religion—in the maintenance and enforcement of these laws."
I think that is rather strong support for the view I have been urging upon your Lordships—that these laws are partial in their operation, that they are merely a relic of laws which are no longer in consonance with general public opinion, and
256
no longer in consonance with the desire we all have to promote speech which is free as possible so long as it is kept within reasonable and decent bounds.
When you come to reading I do not believe people have the same right to complain of being offended, because it rests with them whether they should buy or read the book or the pamphlet in which the words objected to are contained. When you have the spoken word you have full powers to deal with it now under the existing law without treating it under this relic of Ecclesiastical Law which always causes a disturbance in the public mind. I think, therefore, we should be well advised, and bring ourselves more in consonance with modern views and opinion, if we were to do away with it.
The Bill of which I move the Second Reading consists really of only one operative clause to the effect that "after the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings shall be instituted in any court against any person for schism, heresy, blasphemy, blasphemous libel, or atheism." I have not thought it necessary to include in the Bill by way of schedule the Acts whose repeal is involved in the passage of this Bill, because they will be impliedly repealed by the Bill. I ask your Lordships this afternoon to say that you cannot properly produce any reasonable or logical justification for maintaining this little remnant of an old law which was, in fact, the law of persecution of the public at large by one religious sect. Many things are said which I find very offensive, connected not with blasphemy, but with other subjects, but I have never desired that the people who said them should be put in prison merely because they hurt my feelings, and I do not think that members of the Church of England are entitled to any special protection of that sort. The books which are already published freely, and which circulate without hindrance, must be of a character, if they were read by believers, which, I should think, would be very painful to their feelings, but they are not suppressed because they have a certain literary quality about them. I cannot think that anyone who values his religion would care nowadays to have it supported by the secular arm, and I cannot think that your Lordships are so out of touch with public feelings as to wish to maintain any longer these rather archaic methods and proceedings.

257
I have pointed out to your Lordships that nothing will be lost in public decency by the passage of this Bill, and I think much will be gained in avoiding disturbances of the public mind. If I may, I will give your Lordships an instance, particularly as the man concerned is dead. A man called Gott, whom many of your Lordships may remember, was prosecuted, under the Blasphemy Laws, I think, and his was a case which no one could possibly have wished to support. The language he used was of a kind we should all deprecate, and one felt it was proper that he should be prevented from using it. But one also felt, and all those whose opinions are similar to mine felt, that it was impossible, or very difficult, to refuse in some way to offer him support when he was prosecuted under this law; whereas, if he had been prosecuted under the ordinary law, we should have been quite pleased to see that he was so dealt with and prosecuted. For these reasons I commend this Bill to your Lordships' notice, and I hope your Lordships will think fit to give it a Second Heading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD PHILLIMOKE: My Lords, I do not think those who entrusted the noble Earl with this Bill have been very clever in their drafting of it. As it stands it would prevent all prosecutions against clergymen in the Church of England who, holding office and deriving revenues from the Church of England, were to preach doctrines entirely contrary to Christianity, and, if I am right in thinking this Bill will refer to Scotland as well as to England, it would equally prevent prosecutions in the Established Church of Scotland against any minister who taught something contrary to the faith that he was paid to teach. That is a criticism on the form of the Bill. I cannot think that those who drew it knew very much about that with which they were dealing.
With regard to the rest of the Bill, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that since the decision of Lord Coleridge in 1883—which I had to follow and apply in a case which is referred to in the little pamphlet from which the noble Earl has been quoting, the case of a man named Boulter in, I think, 1910, and which has been applied by Mr. Justice Avory in a
258
later case—there is in the laws as they are now worked with regard to blasphemy and blasphemous libel nothing but a protection of decent people, not necessarily members of the Church of England, but decent Christians of all kinds, from having their ears and eyes offended by horrors which to them are much worse than assault and battery. That decent men and women should be obliged, as they pass along the street, to see offensive pictures or placards, or to hear orators in Hyde Park shouting the sort of offensive thing which has been the subject of prosecution in all the modern cases, is to interfere with the ordinary comforts and decencies of civilisation with regard to those people.
I am not accepting the view of the noble Earl that that would be sufficiently prevented by saying that the language tended to a broach of the peace, and I cannot conceive how it would apply to placards or to circulars thrust into people's hands which they would have to read before they could reject them. I venture to suggest that as the law now stands it is not a protection to the Church of England, not an enforcement of Christianity or of the Christianity as taught in the Church of England, but a protection to the comfort and ordinary life of ordinary men and women, and that it is very undesirable that it should be interfered with.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill referred to myself as likely not to desire to come forward to seek for secular support in defence of the doctrines of organised Christianity in this country of which I may be supposed to be, at least in some measure, the spokesman. The noble Earl is right in supposing that the last thing I should think of doing would be to come here to deprecate the passing of a Bill like this because the passing of it would be likely to be a serious detriment and harm to organised Christianity in this country. But there may be other very good reasons why the passing of a Bill like this would be misleading in a high degree and to the detriment of the public good in an indirect way.
The noble Earl quoted words used by Mr. Asquith, when he was Prime Minister, to a deputation which waited upon him to urge the necessity of such

259
a measure as this and said he thought he could quote Mr. Asquith as having given support to the proposals of the deputation. What Mr. Asquith did say was that these things were an anachronism, and might be swept away with advantage; then, apparently, Mr. Asquith corrected himself, and said, "or at least with no real hurt." That is precisely what a great many people would say. It will make no practical difference to organised Christianity in this country whether such a measure as the noble Earl proposes were passed into law or not. It would have no appreciable effect whatever.
But that does not cover all the ground. Whether its passage might have an in direct effect is another thing altogether. If no laws were in existence, no Common Law, declaring the necessity to protect the religious life of this country against occasions of indecent and gross profanity, I should not come here and ask for the enactment of such a law. To do so would be to proclaim that we were in need of such protection. We are not, and the last thing I wish is the buttressing of our religious and ecclesiastical position by an artificial fence of this kind. To take an overt step in order to repeal offences which, by the noble Earl's admission, do not exist to an appreciable degree, for which he is not able to give any historic examples of the least importance, and which he says would be regarded as inoffensive unless they were accompanied by offences and outrages of another sort, would be to mislead the public altogether. It would be believed that we required some protection which we do not require; we should be supposed to be calling for the protection of the public from wrongs and grievances which were pressing on many subjects of the Crown and to remove which required some definite action on our part. But that would be interpreted as meaning some change of judgment on our part. It would be misleading to say that because certain parts of our existing Common Law, and certain parts of our Statute Law, can be found that are not practically operative they ought to be repealed. It would do harm and not good in this country at this moment.
For these reasons I think it would be undesirable to take this step. There are many anachronisms in our laws at the moment, many things which are out of
260
date, which we should not enact now if they were not already on the Statute Book. There are things in our Common Law which no one would desire to make part of our law to-day. But it does not follow that we ought to ferret these things out and bring in a Bill to repeal them, unless some definite grievance is shown of a specific kind, a grievance which can be proved to be pressing hardly upon certain people at the moment. Not a vestige of evidence is brought forward to show that anything of the kind is taking place to-day, and while I should not be afraid of the practical and direct result coming from the Bill, I believe that indirectly it might be extremely mischievous, and I shall vote against the Second Reading.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as far as the Government are concerned we are somewhat surprised that the noble Earl should have introduced this Bill, because the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by the civil court is that in which there is an intention of abusing, insulting or misleading others by means of contumacious abuse of the Christian religion. The noble Earl fully admitted that point. That is the only part of the Blasphemy Laws which is in any way operative. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, called attention to two cases, in one of which he sat as Judge and the other was decided by Mr. Justice Avory. I have a note of the advice which Mr. Justice Avory gave to the jury. He told them that they should ask themselves whether the instincts of a person of strong religious feelings, on seeing or hearing the words complained of, might be to give the man a thrashing or address him in such a manner as to provoke a breach of the peace. And this advice to the jury was approved by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The noble Earl quoted a passage from a ruling of Lord Coleridge in 1883 in which he said that ordinary criticism or an attack in intemperate language on the Christian religion was by no means an offence against the law.
The law is directed against those people who attack the Christian religion in an abusive and outrageous manner, or who distribute pamphlets in the same sense. The noble Earl referred to pamphlets and said that he thought they

261
would be leas offensive than the actual spoken word, but it is quite possible for pamphlets to be equally offensive as the spoken word. The people who distribute such pamphlets select public places where decent people resort, and in doing so they may promote a breach of the peace. I submit that language of this kind is most offensive to many people and chat they ought to be protected against it. I think the noble Earl admits that. He tells us that the Common Law is at present sufficient, but nobody wishes to give any possible chance for anybody to use language of this kind, and as the Blasphemy Laws, so far as they are operative, are directed against language of this kind I cannot see any necessity for interfering with them.
Let me touch upon the question of schism, heresy, and atheism, mentioned in the Bill. These matters are no longer offences against the Common Law or against any existing Statute cognizable in any secular court. As the most rev. Primate has said, it is scarcely necessary at the present time to interfere with the law as it stands in regard to matters which are cognizable in ecclesiastical courts. As I said before, the offence which is noticeable by the secular court is the offence of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, which is certainly most offensive to everybody in the country, whatever their religious opinion may be. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that it is not necessary to proceed with any modification of the law, and that the House will not give a Second Reading to this Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think it will be quite obvious to those who have listened to this debate that there is a very real element of difficulty in regard to this measure, and it arises chiefly from the use of language, and from the fact that we are not in this country always used to defining exactly what we mean by the words which we employ. There is a great deal of common ground between the noble Earl who has just spoken, the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill. We are all of us agree that blasphemy used with the intention of being offensive to other people ought to be prohibited and punished. I think we are also agreed that blasphemy, in the sense in which the word was used when
262
the original Blasphemy Laws were passed, is not necessarily offensive in the same way. For instance, a great many works of philosophy have been written since the Blasphemy Laws were passed which to members of your Lordships House to-day would not seem to be of such a character that they should be the subject of prosecution, although under the strict letter of the law, interpreted by those who passed the law at the time, those works would have been a ground for prosecution and the people who wrote them would undoubtedly have been punished.
In these circumstances it is obvious that there is a great deal of common ground between noble Lords opposite and the noble Earl behind me, and it seems to me that it ought to be quite possible by a discussion in Committee to arrive at some kind of an agreed measure. As was pointed out by the noble Earl behind me, these laws, as they stand at present, often do not apply in cases when very offensive terms are used, terms, for instance, which are considered offensive by members of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. At present the Blasphemy Laws apply only when terms are used which are offensive to the faith and the feelings of members of the Church of England.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Surely if we wish to protect members of the Church of England who feel strongly in this matter against the use of terms of that kind we ought to be equally severe on those who use expressions offensive to members of the Roman Catholic or other faiths, and they ought to be punished equally with those who use terms offensive to members of the Church of England. I am bound to say that I did feel that the questions mentioned by the noble and learned Lord behind me might quite well have been dealt with in Committee.
One point was mentioned, I think by the most rev. Primate, to which I hope he will allow me to make an addition. I refer to the opinion of Mr. Asquith, which he quoted, because I see that in the speech to which he referred Mr. Asquith said:
"Although…the vote which I gave in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh's Bill"—
which is the same as this Bill—
"was given at a much earlier stage of my political existence, I see no reason to

263
repent it, or to doubt that if the opportunity offered I should give a similar vote again."
There is another point in connection with this Bill which I think deserves some attention. Of late years these laws have been put into operation not by the central Government but by local authorities. Generally speaking, I should be very willing to trust in this matter to the enlightened opinion of the Home Office, but I am not quite sure that any of your Lordships would feel that the judgment exercised by local authorities is always so wise as the judgment exercised by the central authority here in London. In these circumstances I think that we might very well proceed further with this Bill and consider it in Committee. As time goes on circumstances change, and the circumstances of this question have changed so largely that I really think we might proceed to make some alteration in this particular law.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down rather suggested to your Lordships that this Bill is open to a considerable amount of criticism but that it could be properly dealt with in Committee. I should be rather sorry if your Lordships allowed this Bill to go into Committee, because there does not appear to be any real case for such a Bill. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, or, indeed, any other noble Lord, could show that what we are accustomed to call the legitimate expression of opinion upon these deep religious subjects is in any way restricted by the present law, and that men who do not agree with us upon these matters are prevented from stating their views even in the most extreme form in order that they may be read and considered by others—if it could be shown, in short, that the present law interfered with the freedom of expression of opinion, then there would be some case for action.
I have no real personal knowledge of this subject, but, as I understand the matter, there really is no such case. There is no difficulty in the way of anybody who forms an opinion which he thinks ought to be expressed upon religions matters of the deepest kind, even though it be most antagonistic to Christianity and to the beliefs to which most of your Lordships are passionately attached. There is nothing to prevent
264
him expressing that view, as the law is now administered, and he is perfectly free to do so. But there is undoubtedly a kind of expression of opinion on religious matters which is profoundly offensive to persons whom we are bound to protect—to all sorts of people who look to the law to protect them against what they regard as outrages, just as they are protected in other matters that have to do with decency. They look for protection, and if it were read in the newspapers to-morrow morning that your Lordships had accorded a Second Reading to a Bill which was going to relax in any degree the protection which these perfectly innocent persons enjoy, it would have a very unfortunate effect on the public mind, and I do not think it would be wise to take this course unless we hoped to achieve some useful purpose. If any useful purpose were effected by this Bill my argument would drop to the ground, but, if no useful purpose is served, it is surely much wiser to allow the law to remain as it is. I venture to suggest therefore that the wisest course for your Lordships to adopt is to refuse to read this Bill a second time.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the trend of the argument shows, I think, the difficulty which confronts perhaps both the supporters and the opponents of a Bill of this character, because, as the noble Earl below me truly said, there is a considerable measure of agreement between us. The noble Marquess who has just spoken says that he would do nothing to prevent the freest expression of opinion. The most rev. Primate said, as I thought he would, that the last thing he wished to ask for was the protection by the secular arm of his or any other Church. We are also agreed that we object to language which is calculated to he so offensive as to wound feelings very deeply or to lead to a breach of the peace. This is a Bill which could perfectly well be amended, if amendment be necessary, in Committee. I think it is hardly necessary here to deal with the minor points of the noble and learned Lord behind me, because I was not really considering the question of contumacious Clerks in Holy Orders.
The Bill might be amended in Committee, if amendment be necessary, so as to protect us from those dangers which we profess to fear, and from which the opponents of this Bill want to be protected.

265
That being so, I could not help asking myself when I listened to the speeches of those who oppose this Bill—Why this insistence upon maintaining a little bit of obsolete law? I will tell you why it is objected to. It is objected to because people who do speak and write—I am speaking of respectable people—against the Christian religion, dislike to think that under the Statutes as they stand they are liable to prosecution and indictment, and they dislike to think that one particular religion is favoured at the expense of others. It is all very well to talk about wounding people's feelings. There are in this country, at, this moment, I am sorry to say, many sincere people who are devotees of a horrible thing called Christian Science, but I may say the most offensive things I can say against Mrs. Eddy on Clapham Common, and I cannot be prosecuted under the Blasphemy Laws, but only under those things which, as has been said, do defend us, because the question that has to be asked is
whether what is said is calculated to cause a breach of the peace.
That is not the question which is involved in blasphemy. The question there is: Is this language which controverts my religious belief, which was, at the time when the law was passed, the religious belief of the majority of the people of this country? I cannot help feeling that there is some reason for retaining this law which goes beyond mere police measures, as has been suggested, and if those who are opposed to this Bill are sincere they can have no objection to giving it a Second Reading and to saying that they will not take proceedings on religious grounds, but limit such proceedings to grounds of social expediency, common decency, and public peace. In the circumstances I feel that it is my duty to press the Motion for the Second Beading to a Division.
On Question, whether the Bill shall be read 2ª?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Charnwood, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Terrington, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lucan, E.

Forester, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Mayo, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Harris, L.

Bedford, D.

Hylton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Astor, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Northumberland, D.

Goschen, V.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Somerset, D.

Hood, V.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monson, L.

Ailsa, M.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Bath, M.

Long, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lansdowne, M.

Novar, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Peel, V.

Phillimore, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Pontypridd, L.

Albemarle, E.

Askwith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ancaster, E.

Biddulph, L.

Saltoun, L.

Bradford, E.

Braye, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Derby, E.

Clinton, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Cottesloe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Daryngton, L.

Sumner, L.

Eldon, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Teynham, L.

Harrowby, E.

Donington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Dynevor, L.

Vivian, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ernle, L.

Wharton, L.

Lindsey, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

RENT RESTRICTIONS (NOTICES OF INCREASE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, since the conversation which took place at the beginning of business I find there are Amendments to be moved on this Bill. I am sorry to say that they are Government Amendments, and I beg to postpone the Committee stage till Thursday.
Order discharged: House to be in Committee on Thursday next.

ALDERNEY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health whether he can now state when it is proposed to introduce legislation with regard to Smoke Abatement. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put down this Question because there is a great volume of feeling outside Parliament in favour of legislation on this subject. I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time in making out a case for such legislation. There is a general concensus of opinion that sunshine and clean air are conducive to good health and general contentment and welfare; and that darkness and impure air are not only prejudicial to the public health, but the cause of great and unnecessary expenditure of public money, and that a considerable improvement is possible—how great an improvement was shown during the strike of a couple of years ago. Your Lordships are also aware of the fact that a Committee, presided over by my noble friend Lord Newton, made certain definite and clear recommendations. A year ago a Bill dealing with smoke abatement was introduced and passed, apparently without opposition, but was not further proceeded with. Those of us who are interested in this question have been awaiting the re-introduction of the measure this Session.
I have put down this Question in order, if possible, to elicit from the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Health what are the intentions of the Government. If the Government do not introduce this Bill at an early date it will be impossible to pass it this Session. I therefore sincerely trust that the noble Earl will be able to announce that he proposes to introduce a Bill in the near future, and that it will be a comprehensive Bill, including the recommendations of the Committee which reported on this subject.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Newton asked me a similar Question just before the Recess, and the answer I gave was that we do propose to introduce a Smoke Abatement Bill this Session. I added that it was not proposed to introduce into it any clause likely to hinder the revival of industry. A Bill is in process of being drafted at the present time, and as soon as it is ready I hope to introduce it in your Lordships' House. I am afraid I cannot give a precise date at the present moment, but I can tell the noble Viscount that the delay will not be long. As to the exact contents of the measure, I should prefer not to say anything till it has been drafted, and I am able to lay it before your Lordships. I should like to correct an observation which my noble friend made about the Bill of last year, which I also introduced. That Bill did not proceed beyond the Second Reading stage. It was read a second time with a view to its being criticised and examined by those who are interested in the matter. The Bill, which I hope to introduce shortly, will embody such criticisms as we have heard, for we have met many of those who are interested, and discussed the matter with them.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am glad to find that there is, at all events, one other member of this House who is interested in this subject. Speaking for myself, I confess I am by no means satisfied with the answer which the noble Viscount has just elicited. This Bill was promised by the unfortunate late Minister of Health as far back as last December, and at intervals I have been continually asking the noble Earl who represents that Department when he is going to bring in the Bill. On every occasion I have

269
received vague and what I must call procrastinating replies. Even now we have not got anything out of the noble Earl. I should like to call attention to the somewhat ominous statement that the forthcoming Bill is one which is not likely to hinder the revival of industry. Does anybody in this House or anywhere else, suppose that a Government would bring in a Bill which would hinder the revival of industry? Neither I nor the noble Viscount opposite is anxious to impede industry in any way. What we do ask, and legitimately ask, is that this question, which has been inquired into to such an extent that there is nothing left to inquire about, should now lead to some legislation. I have waited for five months this year. I waited the whole of last year, and I personally inquired about this question for two years myself. Really, it cannot be necessary for a Government Department to take all this time to consider when they should bring in a Bill.
The noble Earl, no doubt with excellent intentions, is literally wasting his time and the time of everybody else by trying to bring in what is termed an agreed Bill. He is innocently under the impression that he can bring in a Bill of this character which will satisfy everybody. I do not mind telling him that it is a perfectly impossible thing to do. However moderate your Bill may be, you will always find some interest which will take violent objection to it and obstruct, either here or in another place. I hope that my noble friend opposite will not lose sight or this question, and that, if possible, he will induce some of his friends to take it up. I want to get a categorical reply from the Ministry or Health as to when this Bill is going to be brought in.
I would earnestly impress it upon my noble friend once more, though I do not suppose it is of the slightest use, that he is simply wasting his time in trying to obtain the consent of the chambers of commerce and heaven knows what. If he is going to continue that line of conduct we shall never get any legislation on this subject at all, and I should like to take this opportunity of adding that I think these bodies of which he stands so much in awe—for instance, the Federation of British Industries—are extremely shortsighted in the attitude they adopt. I am quite convinced that when this country is endowed with a Labour Government,
270
which may be the case sooner than people think, the objections of these bodies will meet with a very short shrift, and they might do better by making terms with a Government that is likely to deal with them in a reasonable and amicable manner.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I may perhaps be permitted to intervene in this debate because the subject we are discussing seems to me to point the moral in regard to certain questions which affect the people of this country at the moment and the difficulties with which Parliament is faced in dealing with them. The noble Viscount has done good service in calling your Lord ships' attention to this evil, which is a very real one. Speeches have been delivered and discussions have taken place in your Lordships' House and in another place upon housing, and the necessity of dealing with slum quarters and so on. Yet notwithstanding all the Acts of Parliament that have been passed and all that has been done during more than the forty years I have spent in Parliament, there has been very little real improvement in the dwellings of the working classes of this country in our large cities. One of the difficulties that has to be contended with is that it is impossible to give within the purlieus of a city anything like a proper supply of clean and fresh air owing to the discharge of the filthy contents of chimneys into the atmosphere, a thing which makes our towns what they are.
The subject to which I am now going to refer for a moment is by no means popular in your Lordships' House, but that will not prevent me from advocating it here and elsewhere so long as I have power to do so. Smoke abatement is not the only matter which needs attention. There have been I do not know how many measures this Session which have either been received benevolently by the Government or have drawn the statement that a benevolent attitude could not be shown and they could not be taken up. Those measures dealt with questions of the utmost importance to the community—such as, for example, rating. There is a substantial difficulty in dealing with rating, owing, among other things, to the fact that there are different laws and customs in regard to it in England and Wales as compared

271
with Scotland, and that complicates legislation. There are also crying difficulties in connection with roads. Roads, like smoke abatement, are of importance to the well-being of the people and ought to be dealt with.
But it is no use my noble friend Lord Newton criticising the Government for what they have or have not done. It has been announced in to-day's paper, apparently with authority, that there is to be an Autumn Session. We know from the examination of the Order Paper in the House of Commons that there is a tremendous congestion of work there. We know that it is absolutely impossible to talk of driving three omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar. But this is not a question of trying to pass three omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar, but of trying to pass thirty or forty abreast through a place which is much smaller than Temple Bar ever was. When will it be recognised in your Lordships' House and in another place that we are confronted by a wall of difficulty which must be removed before this kind of domestic legislation which really means more for the well-being of the people than anything else, can be passed?
It is true that smoke abatement is a matter of first class importance, but is it not ridiculous to suggest that it should be dealt with by a great Imperial Parliament charged with all the burden of work which now falls upon its shoulders? The question of smoke abatement, the question of the roads, the question of rating and a dozen other questions of a domestic character, varying in their application to the different parts of the United Kingdom, will never be dealt with until you do what has been
272
done in every other country in the world—namely, divide the functions of Parliament into those which are of a local and those which are of an Imperial description. It is all very well for my noble friend Lord Newton to blame the Government for what they are trying to do. They are trying to pass legislation, but they have more than they can possibly carry on their shoulders; they are overburdened already; and until this problem is faced in its reality and the functions of Parliament are divided as I have suggested, there will remain the old, old cry: "We cannot get the legislation we want and we cannot remove these evils."
[From Minutes of May 17.]
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (FR1MLEY AND FARN-BOROUGH DISTRICT WATER COMPANY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.