Lords Sitting of 3 April 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
QUEEN'S FERRY BRIDGE BILL.
Read 2a.
SPENCER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

THE EASTER RECESS.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, before the business of the House commences may I, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Curzon, ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he can say what the Government propose with regard to the Easter adjournment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the Government desire to consult the convenience of the House in this matter. If we rise on the 5th of this month probably there would be no business ready for us immediately after the other House resumes its sittings. I thought we might adjourn for a week longer than the other House. It is suggested that the other House shall meet again on the 29th. We need not sit in that case till the following Tuesday, May 6, which would give us a week longer than the other House. If that arrangement meets with the convenience of the House, I would propose that we should adopt it, subject to this. One never knows what emergencies may turn up, and it will be well to pass the Motion in the form which we have adopted on former occasions, and under which the Lord Chancellor would have power to convene a sitting of the House in case of emergency.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I shall not offer any opposition to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, but what I would submit is that it is not very convenient to ask your Lordships to come back and sit on Tuesday, the 15th, only. It is depriving members of the House of the opportunity
112
of being away for a considerably longer period. If we were to sit on the Thursday in the preceding week, and, if necessary, meet also on Friday, I venture to think that would be much more convenient to your Lordships' House. Perhaps when the noble and learned Viscount finds whether or not that will be convenient, he will be good enough to take it into consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider that suggestion.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN COM MERCIAL AGREEMENTS (PROTOCOL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Short Title.
2. This Act may be cited as the Arbitration Clauses in Commercial Agreements (Protocol) Act, 1924.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR) moved to leave out "in commercial agreements." The noble Lord said: The object of the Protocol was that arbitration should be applied generally with a power for any particular Government who desired to do so to limit it merely for commercial purposes. It is a drafting mistake that the words were ever introduced.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out ("in commercial agreements").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Protocol on Arbitration Clauses in Commercial Agreements.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out "in commercial agreements" in the heading to the Schedule. The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 3, line 3, leave out ("in commercial agreements").—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: I apprehend that this does not alter the actual agreement, made between countries.
LORD PARMOOR: No, I can assure, the noble and learned Viscount that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Preamble:

PREAMBLE:
Whereas at a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations held on the twenty-fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, the protocol respecting arbitration clauses in commercial agreements set forth in the Schedule to this Act was signed on behalf of His Majesty:
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in the Preamble, to leave out "respecting arbitration clauses in commercial agreements" and insert "on arbitration clauses." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
In the Preamble, page 1, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("respecting arbitration clauses in commercial agreements") and insert ("on arbitration clauses").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title:

TITLE.
An Act to give effect to a Protocol respecting arbitration clauses in commercial agreements, signed on behalf of His Majesty at a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations held on the twenty-fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out "respecting arbitration clauses in commercial agreements" and insert "on arbitration clauses." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a similar amendment.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, page 1, leave out ("respecting arbitration clauses in commercial agreements") and insert ("on arbitration clauses").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I propose to put down the Report stage of this Bill for Tuesday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNA TIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5. In this Act—
The expression "young person" means a person who is under the age of eighteen years:
The expression "ship" means any sea-going ship or boat of any description which is registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship, and includes any British fishing-boat entered in the fishing-boat register.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after "British ship", to insert "other than tugs, dredgers, sludge vessels, barges, and other craft whose ordinary course of navigation does not extend beyond the seaward limits of the jurisdiction of the harbour or pilotage authority of the port at which such vessels are regularly employed". The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which I am asking your Lordships to accept has been put before me by the combined Associations of Docks and Harbour Authorities. It would have been more properly moved by Lord Devonport, but he is absent abroad. I need hardly tell you that I should not have proposed this Amendment, though it comes from a very authoritative quarter, if I had not satisfied myself that it was reasonable. The point of the matter is this. The Bill is only intended to apply to vessels that go to sea, and in Clause 5 there is a definition of the word "ship." It means "any sea-going ship or boat of any description which is registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship, and includes any British fishing boat entered

115
in the fishing boat register." Many more years ago than I like to think of I was engaged in a trial at Bristol in which it was decided that any ship which went on any small portion of its voyage to sea was a sea-going ship.
There are a number of vessels employed by docks and harbour authorities for dredging purposes which, when their cargo is of a heavy description, such as mud and stones, have to go outside the limits of the port; they have to go to sea. It is not often that they go to sea, it is no distance that they go to sea, and none of the clauses of this Bill which apply to sea-going ships, such as the provision in Clause 3, which deals with the health of the crew, are intended to apply to this class of vessels. But, inasmuch as they do go to sea, they would fall within the provision of such a clause as Clause 3, which would be very annoying to dock and harbour authorities. No good purpose will be served by making this Bill apply to such vessels. There are other vessels of a similar description. Some corporations of maritime towns get rid of their refuse by taking it out to sea, and I submit that it is very desirable that this clause should be qualified by the words I propose to insert.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("ship") insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD PARMOOR: This is not a very important matter, though I am glad it has been raised. I appreciate the point that there is no necessity so far as the Protocol is concerned, or as regards the real purpose of this Bill, that such ships shall be included as will be in terms excluded if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is adopted. If he desires to press the Amendment, I shall not raise any further objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Application of Act to British possessions.
6.—(1) The provisions of this Act shall, subject as hereinafter provided, apply to ships registered in any British possession outside the United Kingdom (other than the Dominions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act), as they apply to ships registered in the United Kingdom:
Provided that His Majesty may, by Order in Council—

(a) except any British possession from the operation of any of the said provisions, if it appears to him that those provisions are inapplicable, having regard to the special circumstances of the possession; and

(b) if satisfied that the legislature of any British possession to which this section applies have by Act or Ordinance made proper provision for carrying out as respects that possession the Conventions set out in the First Schedule to this Act or any of those Conventions, direct that all the provisions of this Act, or the provisions of this Act for carrying that Convention into effect, as the case may be, shall cease to apply to that possession: and

(c) make such adaptations of any of the provisions of this Act an may appear necessary to make those provisions applicable in any British possession to which they apply by virtue of this section.

(2) References in this section to British possessions include references to territories which are under His Majesty's protection.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble and learned Lord said: I think it will be more convenient if I move to leave out this clause and then we can insert the proposed new clause which is on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new Clause 6:—
".—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act shall, subject to such modifications and adaptations to be specified in the Order, as appear to His Majesty necessary or expedient in the circumstances of the case, apply to ships registered in any British possession outside the United Kingdom, other than the Dominions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, as they apply-to ships registered in the United Kingdom.
(2) The reference in this section to British possessions shall include a reference to territories which are under His Majesty's protection and territories in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, other than the Government of any of the Dominions mentioned in the said Second Schedule.
(3) An Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order."
The noble and learned Lord said: I understand that an Amendment is to be suggested to subsection (1) of this new Clause 6. The new clause takes power to apply the Act under Orders in Council to British Possessions, but under the Bill as it originally stood the Order in Council did apply, except in the case of particular Dominions and Crown Colonies mentioned in the Second Schedule. It was thought better that the Bill should stand in the form now proposed and be applied, as may be thought necessary or expedient, to ships registered in any British Possession outside the United Kingdom, other than the Dominions mentioned in the Second Schedule, as it applies to ships registered in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, has given me private notice that he objects to the words "and adaptations" in subsection (1). I shall wait to hear the nature of his objection. It appears to me that the words "modifications and adaptations" really suit the case. You might have either modifications or adaptations in making the Order applicable in particular cases, and therefore I move this new subsection as it stands on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following now clause:—
("—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act shall, subject to such modifications and adaptations to be specified in the Order, as appear to His Majesty necessary or expedient in the circumstances of the case, apply to ships registered in any British possession outside the United Kingdom, other than the Dominions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, as they apply to ships registered in the United Kingdom."—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "and adaptations." The noble Lord said: I desire to leave out the words "and adaptations" because I think they are very vague. I do not know exactly what they mean, and I think it would be very difficult for a Court to decide their meaning. Your Lordships will agree that it is not wise to pass measures which are complicated and difficult to under-stand. It only gives rise to litigation and trouble in the Courts. Further, I object very strongly to the practice which has become prevalent during the last eight or ten years of passing a measure
118
in Parliament and putting into that measure power to His Majesty in Council—that is, to the Government to alter the Bill, and to make Orders in Council without coming to Parliament for their authority. It seems to me that by doing so you deprive Parliament of the very functions for which it was instituted, and you hand over to His Majesty's Government powers which they were never meant to have. For these reasons I hope that His Majesty's Government will consent to leave out the words "and adaptations."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out ("and adaptations").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I appreciate the noble Lord's general objection, which I think he has made elsewhere on several occasions, but, the present proposal is really in an ordinary form, particularly since we are seeking to apply the Order in the way in which it is sought to be applied to particular portions of our Dominions. Here you have a measure applying certain provisions generally within the United Kingdom. You desire that the same Act should be applied, if an Order in Council is made, to our Dominions, and, in so applying it you take power to subject it to "such modifications and adaptations to be specified in the Order, as appear to His Majesty necessary or expedient," and so on. I think that the noble Lord's objection might apply equally to the word "modifications" as to the word "adaptations." I do not think that the matter would really come before the Courts, or, at least, if it did, that any difficulty would arise, for it would be for the Council to decide whether their action came within the powers which were given under the Act of Parliament. That is to say, if they thought a particular matter was a modification or adaptation, I think their decision on a point of that kind would be final. I would ask the noble Lord whether he thinks it worth while to press his Amendment?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do think it worth while to press the Amendment, and for this reason: I propose to leave in the word "modifications," and this will permit His Majesty in Council to make such alterations in the Order, providing they do not go

119
beyond the powers which Parliament has granted, as will apply to the particular Dominions which it is desired to include. But if you put in "and adaptations," that may mean anything. It may mean, so far as I understand it, that His Majesty in Council may extend the powers of this Bill, because the Government might say that, in order to bring in some particular Dominion, it was necessary to extend these powers. That is what I want to avoid. I think the Government might accept my proposal, because, as I have said, I leave in the word "modifications," which would enable them to adapt the Bill to the particular requirements of the Dominion which they desired to bring in, without going beyond the province of the Bill. If I receive any support, I shall certainly divide on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after subsection (1) of the new Clause 6, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) The reference in this section to British possessions shall include a reference to territories which are under His Majesty's protection and territories in respect of which a mandate has been accepted by His Majesty, other than any such territories in respect of which the mandate is being exercised by the Government of any of the Dominions mentioned in the said Second Schedule."
The noble and learned Lord said: As regards the proposed subsection (2), a drafting alteration is desired in the subsection as it appears upon the Paper. I should like to read to your Lordships the terms of the subsection now proposed. I am sorry it is not on the Paper, but it was only recently put in my hands.
It is desired that the new subsection (2) should read as follows:—
"(2) The reference in this section to British possessions shall include a reference to territories which are under His Majesty's protection and territories in respect of which a mandate has been accepted by His Majesty, other than any such territories in respect of which the mandate is being exercised by the Government of any of the Dominions mentioned in the said Second Schedule."
I am told that this is more accurate than the words which appear on the Paper. It is certainly not intended to introduce more than a drafting alteration, but the draftsman has desired that the words should be put in this amended form.
Amendment moved—
After subsection (1), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) An Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order."
Amendment moved—
After subsection (2), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to move, my Lords, that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this is the first time that I have ventured to address you, and I will therefore ask the House to accord me the kind indulgence and encouragement which it invariably gives to those who address it for the first time. I am the more diffident in addressing your Lordships because the matter that I have to speak about has a somewhat personal aspect, and I can assure the House that I shall confine my remarks within the narrowest possible limits. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was last before the House the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made a rather bitter attack upon the True Temperance Association, which is more or less responsible for this Bill, and of which I happen to be Chairman. I do not think I should be exaggerating if I said that the noble Viscount struck me as being somewhat intemperate in his advocacy of temperance.

121
There followed, after this attack, on the following Sunday, in a newspaper with which the noble Viscount is connected, an equally bitter attack upon the True Temperance Association, in which it was remarked that I sat in eloquent silence and refrained from replying to the charges made by Lord Astor. I therefore feel that it is incumbent upon me to do so at the earliest opportunity. I can quite easily explain why I did not reply when the Bill was last before this House. The reason was that the charges which Lord Astor made were so numerous, and so varied, and so entirely new to me in the main, that it was, literally impossible for me to deal with them at the moment, and I had to take the necessary time to find out the exact facts with regard to all the points which he raised.
I think the gravamen of the charge which Lord Astor made against the True Temperance Association was that it was not a genuine and independent temperance society, and that it had, on the other hand, acted continually as an ally of the trade. To substantiate this he pointed out that we did not publish our annual subscription list. He further suggested that the test of our genuineness depended upon the proportion of our income which we did, or did not, derive from those directly connected with the trade. I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount that it would be wiser for us to publish our annual subscription list, if only to render ourselves immune from the kind of attack which he made upon us when this Bill was last before the House; but I entirely and most emphatically disagree with him that the amount of annual income which we derive from the trade has anything whatsoever to do with the genuineness or independence of our society.
The genuineness of our society depends entirely and solely upon the objects which we have in view, and the efforts which we make to translate those objects from ideals into realities. I can go further than this. I am sure the greater number of your Lordships will agree with me when I say that unless a society or movement such as ours has the support of, at any rate, the best elements in the trade, it stands but very little chance of succeeding. It is natural that the brewers, and the trade generally should be interested in this subject of public-house
122
improvement. So they ought to be, and I quite frankly admit that we do derive a considerable proportion of our income from the trade, but we do not receive by any means unanimous support from the trade. In fact, I know that on a number of occasions we have requested support from those members of the trade who have proved themselves either indifferent to or suspicious of the principles for which we stand.
I can go even further than this, and I can allude to the opinion of the trade with regard to this very Bill which is at present before your Lordships. In the Licensing World it was stated quite frankly that "as a matter of fact it [the Bill] excites no enthusiasm whatsoever in the trade." Then again the Brewing Trade Review says this:—
"Lord Lamington's Public-house Improvement Bill passed through its first stages in the House of Lords, hut … notwithstanding the desire in sonic; quarters to represent the measure as a trade Bill, it has never awakened any enthusiasm in trade circles."
I think that is conclusive evidence. In further connection with this charge which Lord Astor made I should like to point out two other facts which seem to me quite conclusive. The first is that our annual income and expenditure is under £1,000 a year. I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether, if he seriously suggests that we are a tool of the trade and being used merely to undermine the morals of the public, he thinks that the trade would be satisfied to subsidise us to the extent of a paltry few hundred pounds a year. I suggest that it really is absurd. The other point which I wish to make is that every publication of the True Temperance Association is submitted for approval to each member of the Executive Committee, not one of whom is connected with the trade, and, what is more important still, these publications are not submitted to any one else whatsoever. I think that I can claim to have absolved the True Temperance Association from the charge that it is run by the trade.
I now go to the other charges made against the Association—namely, that it supports every single measure which emanates from the drink trade, and opposes every single measure put forward by the temperance forces. So far as I can make out, the only Bill which can by any possible stretch of imagination

123
be called a trade measure which has lately been introduced is Colonel Gretton's Bill of 1921, and I think your Lordships will agree that it was a very harmless measure, too. But I would like to point out that the True Temperance Association did not take a strong line about that Bill at all, and merely summed up the position by saying that, although the Bill was susceptible of improvement in detail, it demanded sympathetic consideration. I do not think those are strong words to use.
Next I come to the other side—the Bill which was referred to when this measure was last before the House, and which was introduced and passed last year, to prevent young persons under eighteen years of age from going into drinking bars. Neither the trade nor the True Temperance Association opposed this Bill officially. The only way in which the True Temperance Association was connected with it was by its women's committee becoming involved in a rather lengthy correspondence about it, mainly as to the probable efficacy of the measure in the long run. Not even the most ardent advocates of temperance, I think, would claim for that measure that it really struck at the root of the great drink problem in this country. I submit that this is really very flimsy evidence on which to make such definite and serious charges as have been made against the Association. And if it is really true that we are not in favour of temperance, but are rather, in a clandestine way, doing what we can to increase the consumption of liquor in the country, I should like to ask why we have issued a pamphlet entitled "Why you should be temperate," enumerating five very excellent reasons why people should be temperate. I admit that there are probably other reasons than those, but the True Temperance Association ought to get the credit of having found out those five good reasons for being temperate.
I think the next charge which the noble Viscount has made against the Association is really quite ridiculous. He said that at the last Election we invited voters to support Socialist candidates because they gave approval to a certain legislative proposal. Of course, we have supporters in every political Party, and all that we did was to draw up a list of the candidates who gave a favourable reply regarding our Bill, and to ask the voters in those
124
constituencies to give those candidates what help they could. That was not very much to do in recognition of the fact that those candidates had given support to our measure. Does Lord Astor suggest that we ought to have advised everybody in those constituencies to vote specifically against the Socialist candidate, in spite of the fact that he had given support to the measure which we hoped to bring before your Lordships' House? I really think that is quite absurd. One Socialist candidate whom we communicated with wrote back a very polite letter, and said that, while he sympathised very strongly with our views, he was afraid that we were offending in his constituency both the trade and what he called the temperance folk.
All these gibes on the part of Lord Astor merely go to show that the True Temperance Association is, and is quite rightly, a non-political body. And the Association was not by any means solitary in the very moderate course which it pursued on this matter. I note that at the last Election Mrs. Wintringham, a Liberal member of another place, found time to telegraph to the noble Lady who represents one of the Divisions at Plymouth:
"I hope Plymouth women of all Parties will remember that they have a national responsibility to return you to Parliament."
Just as the noble Lady, the member for Plymouth, is non-political, in that very same degree is the True Temperance Association non-political. Then again, the Temperance Legislation League boasts that it has among its members people of all shades of political thought. I think that the noble Viscount, on reflecting, will see how ridiculous is this charge which he has made.
The next charge which he makes is, to me, quite unintelligible, because I cannot imagine where on earth he got his evidence from. He states that the True Temperance Association is opposed to disinterested management, and is in favour of tied houses. There is not a shred of truth in those two accusations. So far as disinterested management is concerned, I have been unable to find anything which the Association has ever written or said which could possibly be construed into opposition to disinterested management. And, speaking for myself, I am strongly in favour of that system. With regard to tied houses, the noble

125
Viscount says that we issued a pamphlet supporting and advocating tied houses. It is true that we did issue a pamphlet about tied houses, but what we said in it was this: "We dislike the tied house"; "but to-day we have to make the best of a bad job." That is what the True Tem perance Association are desirous of doing: they want to face the realities of the present situation, and to do what they can in the present circumstances to help to improve the public house. In face of these facts, and of the very clear and definite denials which I have given, I think that the noble Viscount ought to withdraw the quite baseless accusation which he has made in this respect.
Lastly, the noble Viscount wants to know what is the connection between the True Temperance Association and the Freedom Association. I think I can answer that quite easily. There is no connection between them whatsoever. Membership of the one does not preclude membership of the other, but I can assure the noble Viscount that membership of the True Temperance Association does not in any way entitle the subscriber to the privileges of the Freedom Association, whatever those privileges may be. And, equally, there is not any element of truth in the suggestion that we get correspondents to write to the papers, either in their own names or in assumed names, for financial recompense, or any other recompense at all. So far as I know, we have never suggested doing such a thing, and at the present time we have not got the money with which to do it.
I think that I have now dealt with all the points raised and the accusations made by the noble Viscount, and I believe I can claim that I have, not only given a, complete denial to till of them, but that I have shown that a number of them are nothing short of cruel falsehoods. In the article in the paper with which the noble Viscount is connected, and to which I have already referred, there appears at the end this question—
"What do noble Lords and other members of the True Temperance Association intend to do after the horrible revelations which Lord Astor has made about them and their society?"
Speaking for myself, I intend to conitinue taking the same interest in the Association as I did before, in the firm belief that the object which it has
126
in view, and for which it is working, will appeal to everybody except those who hold the most extreme views with regard to temperance. In conclusion, I would beg the noble. Viscount to believe that, though people, may hold different views from those which be does about temperance, they may at the same time hold them just as sincerely and just as conscientiously as he does his.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I am sure that I shall be expressing what all your Lordships feel when I congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech in this House. I think your Lordships will agree, and the OFFICIAL REPORT will confirm, that when I spoke in your Lordships' House the other day I did not in any way challenge the sincerity of the, noble Earl who has just spoken or of Lord Lamington. The last named had, on the previous occasion, charged me with making innuendoes and I did not want your Lordships to think that I was not prepared to say quite clearly and definitely what I felt about that particular Association; more particularly as I had not suggested outside nor in this House the other day that either of the noble Lords was doing anything dishonestly. I said that I myself had been taken in by the principles, the title and the literature of this Association; that I had for a time been one of its members and that, being dissatisfied with certain things connected with the Association, I had severed my connection with it. I did not want, by being associated with it, to lead the public to believe that it was the same as any other social, or philanthropic, or welfare society. May I deal with the points which the noble Earl has just made. He referred to the fact that this Association has an income of only £l,000.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Of not £1,000.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Of, roughly, £l,000. There are three societies under three different names whose objects and policy are substantially the same—the True Temperance Association, the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform, and the Anti-Prohibition League. They all advocate reform of public-houses and they all oppose the legislative policy of the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, and the rest of the temperance

127
movement. It is true that the income of this particular society is not over £l,000. It is equally true that the income of one of the other societies is about £37,000. As to what the income of the third society may be there is, so far as I know, no indication, but there is no reason to imagine that it is less than the income or the expenditure of the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform.
Now, substantially, the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, accepts as accurate most of what I said the other day. The Association did oppose the Bill relating to young persons. If your Lordships have any doubt, about it I am prepared to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons what was said by a supporter of the Bill on the Second Reading. He stated that, the measure was opposed by the trade, by the Freedom Association and by the True Temperance Association. Literature had been circulated to Members of Parliament from these bodies. It was pointed out in that speech that
"it is worthy of note, that both Associations have their homes in the same street in this city, and that, by a singular accident, both Associations have their literature printed by the same firm. … As there are some hon. Members in this House associated with these Associations. I should he glad if they would explain what sources of wealth there are which make possible a very widespread propaganda throughout the country. If the trade is going to fight they ought to fight under their own name. As a matter of fact, they are following the example of an early King of Israel, who said, 'I will disguise myself to enter into battle.'"
The speaker in another place also referred to the Women's Committee of the True Temperance Association and said that these ladies had misgivings about the Association, had asked certain questions, had got certain replies, and, as a result of that, as honourable women, not wishing to be associated with what was really a fraud upon the public, had immediately dissolved themselves. That was said about the True Temperance Association in another place in the presence of members of the Association, and it is a great pity that those charges were not there replied to. If your Lordships desire it, I can produce a leaflet which was circulated by the Association opposing the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill. I can, if necessary, produce endless letters written
128
to the Press on behalf of the True Temperance Association opposing that Bill. After all, there would be no object in my making those statements if I could not produce that evidence.
The noble Earl has admitted that the Association invited voters in certain constituencies to support Labour candidates. I merely drew the noble Earl's attention to the fact that he, as a Conservative of Conservatives and as President of the Association, was recommending the electors to do that. It is a very different thing for a Liberal to send a message of good wishes to a Conservative where no Liberal is standing. It is a very different proposal then. I have stated that this Association bad acted as though it were an auxiliary of the drink trade; that it had, with the, other two societies, conducted an active propaganda campaign all over the country. It is well known that this is going on continuously. I invited the noble Lord, and I invite him again, to indicate any single temperance proposal put forward by any wing, or branch, or section of the temperance movement which his Association has supported. It is out against every single point which is put forward by the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, which is one of the leading temperance organisations. It has produced literature against the legislative policy of those societies. The chief charge which I made was that the True Temperance Association did not publish a list of its subscribers and subscriptions, and that I knew of no other society that was in such a position.
LORD LAMINGTON: I thought the noble Viscount mentioned one just now at the beginning of his remarks.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I said "any philanthropic, or social, or welfare society." I quite agree that these other societies which conduct a similar campaign, and act as if they were auxiliaries of the trade, also do not publish a list of their subscribers and subscriptions. That, I think, is a pity, and I gather from the noble Lord that he agrees that the position of the Association would be very much stronger if the public knew exactly who was giving the money. The only point which the noble Lord really definitely challenges is in regard to this question of subsidised correspondence.
LORD LAMINGTON: And tied houses.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Yes, tied houses. In order to save your Lordships' time, I am trying to deal with the substantial and main points. I have in my possession a leaflet headed "Notes for the guidance of correspondents," which was sent out. There are two classes of people that I meet occasionally: those who, like myself, have been taken in by the title, or the principles, of these bodies and who then desire to sever their connection with them, or those whose conscience pricks them because they feel that they are doing a wrong thing. It was one of these who brought me this leaflet which, as I say, is headed "Notes for the guidance of correspondents." Let me read to your Lordships one or two extracts from it—
"It will sometimes be advantageous for a correspondent to write us a member of the True Temperance Association or the Freedom Association. On occasions it may be possible, and in such cases it will be desirable for the correspondent to obtain some one else's signature to his letter. … Correspondents should make full use of the handbook which is supplied to them."
So far as I can make out, that refers to the "Handbook for Speakers and Writers on the so-called Temperance Question" which, so far as I can ascertain, is produced by Mr. Ernest E. Williams, who is also prominently associated with the True Temperance Association. This handbook is produced by the Freedom Association. There certainly seems to be a connecting link.
The noble Lord might have been able to give us a great deal more information than he has done about the Freedom Association had he persuaded his deputy-chairman, Mr. Williams, who, as I gather, is associated with the Freedom Association, to tell us a little more about this particular society. In another paragraph the leaflet states that
"correspondents will join the True Temperance Association, the minimum subscription to which is half a crown a year. They will thus not only have a raison d'être for some of their letters and a definite position in the temperance movement, but will also have the advantage of the Association's publications. They will also be regarded as members of the Freedom Association which does not entail any annual subscription."
It was because of that leaflet that I asked definite questions of the noble Lord the other day as to what was the
130
connection between these two bodies that are mentioned in this guide for correspondents who, for certain payments, were to write to the Press. I did not, the other day, suggest that the honorary treasurer of the True Temperance Association sent out the cheques to these correspondents. I do not now suggest it. I do not say exactly who sends the cheques, or how the money goes, for I do not know, but I think the noble Lord might very possibly, if he were to cross-examine those with whom he co-operates and who are associated with the organisation, be in a position to give your Lordships' House some information. I did not originally start any discussion in this House on the True Temperance Association. It was the noble Lord who did it by suggesting that I had made innuendoes. I only felt bound to justify my position, and to reply to the accusation which he made.
I am going to ask the noble Lord this. Does any officer of the True Temperance Association get any addition to his income either from any member of the trade, or from any drink-financed society, or for writing on licensing matters, or for acting in a legal capacity for trade members or for societies? It is quite obvious that a person might get a substantial addition to his income from are of these ways, and be in a position accordingly to give his services perfectly free to his True Temperance society. I hope I have made my point clear, and I hope the noble Lord will take steps to furnish himself with an answer to that question. I do not imagine he-can answer the question to-day, but I hope he will take steps to investigate the matter.
I also ask the noble Lord this further question. Does he approve of a prominent member of the association which is also connected with the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform as one of their paid staff coming to a private meeting of which no notice was given to the public, observing what was going on at this private temperance meeting, and apparently, so far as one could tell, publishing a very inaccurate report of he proceedings in the drink papers? I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord would not attempt to justify anything like spying on the movements of a temperance society; yet that is what happened recently. At a meeting which I addressed a lady who is connected with the True Temperance Association

131
was there. No notice had been given of the meeting, and no indication had been sent to her, and yet a very garbled report, a very misleading report, was published very shortly afterwards of the proceedings which had taken place.
The reason I personally have taken this stand about the True Temperance Association is this. When public men lend their names to a society which appeals to the public for money and for support, those public men should be quite certain that no charge can be made against their society to which they cannot effectively reply; and that their society does not engage in any activities, particularly political activities, unless they are prepared to justify and defend those activities. The True Temperance Association has been criticised during the last year or two, not merely in the paper with which I am associated, but in many other papers. I have taken the trouble to ascertain how many copies of a particular pamphlet called, I think, "The Submarine Flotilla of the Drink Trade" have been issued, and I learn that 70,000 copies of that pamphlet have been circulated, making definite charges against this association. If I were associated with a society, and were being criticised in the Press, I should make it my duty to find out exactly what that society was doing. I do not pretend to say that a chairman or a president of an ordinary society is expected to know everything that his society does, but if his society is being attacked, if its bona fides is challenged, then it is the duty, I suggest, of any public man associated with that society to make inquiries and see whether he is prepared to justify its activities.
It has given mo no pleasure to make here the statements which I felt myself called upon to make. I should not have done so had not the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill charged me, on the Second Heading, with making innuendoes. I did not desire the noble Lord to think that I was afraid of stating here, openly and fairly, the charges which are made against the Association. I hope that I have not, to-day, any more than I did the other day, said anything against the personal honour of either of the noble Lords. That was certainly not my intention. If they can do anything to clear up the mystery, or the various mysteries which are connected
132
with this association, I certainly shall not regret the discussion which has taken place.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the discussion to which we have just listened may have been inevitable, but it seems to me certainly to have been irrelevant. We are not, in fact, considering, as your Lordships might have supposed, a Bill for the grant of public money to the True Temperance Association. We are considering the Public-house Improvement Bill, and my only excuse for intervening at this stage is to bring your Lordships' attention back to that measure, and to the Amendments which appear on the Paper, and to ask your Lordships to be so good as to look at them very carefully before we come to them. I should like to say, in general terms, that I think in regard to some of the Amendments which have been put down by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that perhaps they do not carry out what he intends, and that others of them seem to me to make it a worse Bill.
There is also another matter which was not raised in Committee, but to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and that is Clause 3 of the Bill. If there were any reasonable prospect of this Bill going further, I think it would be necessary that we should look very carefully at Clause 3, because when you come to consider what it does you find it is rather remarkable. It says, in effect, that once a public-house has obtained the certificate as an improved public-house that fact alone shall be deemed to comprise in its ordinary public-house licence a licence which would otherwise be necessary in order that musical and similar entertainments might be given, or dancing permitted, upon the licensed premises. Those are matters which, at any rate, in crowded areas, and certainly in London, are given very careful consideration by the elected municipal bodies, and this clause proposes that all these licences shall be automatically granted to these public-houses.
Admitting, which I do not necessarily admit, that it would be desirable and proper that these facilities should be granted, I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that if that clause were not amended, all these facilities would be granted without being accompanied

133
by those other and incidental precautions, such as fire safety and rules for the exhibition of cinematograph pictures, which are laid down very carefully in regulations made by municipal bodies in crowded areas. Apparently, if any regulations are thought to be necessary, they are to be made by the licensing justices, who may impose upon the con-duet of dancing such conditions as may appear to them required in the interests of order and public safety. I do not think a municipal authority even would have the courage, or perhaps the ability, to impose upon the conduct of modern dancing any restrictions that I can conceive of. But they are to have the power to impose those conditions in the interests of order and public safety only upon the conduct of dancing, and not in any sense upon the premises, or the means of escape in case of fire, or precautions against fire on the premises. It is obvious that if this Bill were to go through that clause would require to be altered.
I do not want to detain your Lordships from the consideration of the Amendments which are before us, but merely to enter a caveat against this Bill even as amended now, and still more so if some of the Amendments on the Paper are adopted. It is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory Bill, and one which, it seems to me, in many ways, would be unworkable, and inconsistent with the real object which I think the noble Lord has at heart—namely, the provision of improved public-houses.
LORD LAMINGTON: In regard to the remarks which have just been made by the noble Earl I would point out that this Bill was carefully considered in your Lordships' House in 1919. It was then, I think, partly in charge of Viscount Cave, and partly of the Lord President of the Council, who conducted it through Committee. These points which the noble Earl now raises, therefore, come rather late in the day, this House having already considered them on two, if not on three, previous occasions.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report of Amendments received accordingly.
"Improved public-house" certificate.
1.—(1) Whore licensed premises—

(a)are so constructed and managed as not to be mainly places for the consumption of intoxicating liquors;

(b)contain adequate provision for the supply of food and other refreshments;

(c)contain accommodation, apart from the bar, which is airy, commodious and comfortable;

(d) are provided with tables and proper seating and sanitary accommodation;

(e) are not under the management of a person who is remunerated by a salary or commission the amount of which depends upon the profits made by the sale of intoxicating liquors;

the licensing justices may, on the application of the licence-holder, when the application for the grant or renewal of the licence is heard, issue a certificate to the effect that the premises form an "improved public-house"; and thereupon, until such certificate shall have been lawfully withdrawn, such premises shall enjoy all the privileges and exemptions attaching to an improved public-house under this Act or any Act to be hereafter passed. Such certificate may be withdrawn by the licensing justices upon any change in the nature of the accommodation or the character of the management which causes the premises to cease to form an improved public-house as provided by this clause after notice to the holder thereof, and to the owner of the premises, and after reasonable opportunity has been given to the said holder and owner to be heard in opposition to such withdrawal.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "so constructed and managed as not to be mainly" and insert "suitable to be used as places of general refreshment and entertainment and not merely as". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet the objection of the noble Earl opposite and a so to get rid of the awkward word "mainly."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("so constructed and managed as not to be mainly") and insert ("suitable to be used as places of general refreshment and entertainment and not merely as").—(Lord Lamington.)
EARL RUSSELL: Do I understand that the Amendment has the approval of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave?
VISCOUNT CAVE: Certainly.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask it it is clear what the words, "suitable to be used as places of general refreshment and entertainment," mean. Is not almost every public-house suitable to be used as a place of "general refreshment and entertainment"? Are not these words very vague? No doubt, they are conditioned by the words which come afterwards—" not merely as places for the consumption of intoxicating liquor"; but is the noble and learned Viscount satisfied that licensing justices will obtain such a definition as will enable them to draw a clear distinction between the drinking shop and the improved public-house? If the noble and learned Viscount is satisfied, I will raise no further objection.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Bill, but I think this Amendment is a great improvement. Objection was taken, and rightly taken, on the last occasion to the word "mainly." It is almost impossible for licensing justices to say whether a house is "mainly" used for one purpose or the other, and the Amendment introduces words which will indicate the real purpose of the Bill, that there shall be this concession to houses which are places of general refreshment and entertainment. I would not say that of an ordinary public-house.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "food" and insert "meals" and at the end of the paragraph to insert "suitable to the character of the premises and the locality." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will recollect that at the request of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill I adopted the word "food" in Committee. I am still under the apprehension that the word "food" is altogether too vague, and that the mere placing of a plate of dry biscuits on the counter might be held to be provision of food. But in order to meet the, reasonable fear of the noble Lord that the word "meals" might be held to mean more than bread and cheese, I am proposing to restore the word "meals" but with the provision that they must be "suitable to the character of the premises and the locality." Those words, I think, will give a definition of meals which licensing justices, as ordinary men of common sense, will have no difficulty in con-
136
struing. I want a meal to imply something to which you sit down, whether it is, bread and cheese, or anything else. The word "food" means nothing; a mere sandwich would do. I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment with these words which leave it open to licensing justices to find what is meant by "meals suitable to the character of the premises and the locality."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("food") and insert ("meals"), and at end insert ("suitable to the character of the premises and the locality").—(Earl Bussell.)
LORD HARRIS: The noble Earl is very anxious for a clear definition, but what is the meaning of the words "suitable to the character of the premises and the locality" so far as they apply to a meal? Does he think that a plate of haggis in Scotland would be a meal suitable to the locality?
EARL RUSSELL: I am only entitled to speak with the consent of your Lordships, but may I point out that in East London you would not expect to find a meal of the same kind of delicacies that you would get in a restaurant in Mayfair? That is what it means.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl and I want to find an intermediate word between "food" and "meals," but I do not think there is one in the dictionary. I should have thought that the word "food" meant something more than a plate of dry biscuits, whereas the word "meals" goes very far indeed. A man may go into a public-house at four o'clock in the afternoon and ask for a five-course dinner. I am advised that the words he proposes to insert would rather complicate matters, and I hope therefore he will withdraw the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot do that.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I rather think these words make the clause much worse. The whole clause owes its authorship to the noble Earl; they are his words. I should have a difficulty in saying what are "meals suitable to the character of the premises and the locality." It would be a terrible burden to throw such a task on licensing justices.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment, and if the noble Earl presses it to a Division I hope he will insist on the word "meals" taking the place of the word "food," but leaving out the qualification, "suitable to the character of the premises and the locality." It would be possible then for the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, later on, to find other qualifying words. It is perfectly-obvious that, on occasions, a plate of dry biscuits is supposed to meet the case of supplying food. That is ridiculous. The noble Earl assented to the word "food" in deference to the wishes of the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Earl desire to move the remainder of the Amendment?
EARL RUSSELL: No, it is consequential, and would not now mean anything.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the owner" ["the owner of the premises"] and to insert "any persons concerned in the ownership." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the Amendment which follows are really only minor Amendments. It often happens that more than one person is concerned in the ownership, and two or three may be interested in holding the licence.
noble Lord, but I do not think it is surprising that on reflection he find some reason to regret his action. I hope the noble Lord will be ready to allow the word "meals" to go in and think over some other form of words which will qualify it to such an extent as will be agreeable both to him and the noble Earl.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Lansdowne, M.

Cave, V.

Danesfort, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Darling, L

Bradford, E.

Cobham, V.

Fairfax of comeron, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hood, V.

Harris, L.

Eldon, E.

Knutsford, V.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, V.

Peel, V.

Merthyr, L.

Mayo, E.

Newton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Onslow, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sumner, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. ClanWilliam.)

Teynham, L.

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Boston, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

L. Hemphill, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Chelmsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Olivier, L.

Beauchamp, E.

London, L. Bp.

Raglan, L.

Buxton, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Shuttleworth, L.

De La Warr, E.

Southborough, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("the owner") and insert ("any persons concerned in the ownership").—(Lord Lamington.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has taken any legal advice on this point, but I am informed that the owner is a registered person, who is known and whom you can get hold of. It is conceivable, on the other hand, that the words "any persons concerned in the ownership" might include every shareholder in a brewery company. I do not know if that is so, but such, at any rate, is hardly his intention.
LORD LAMINGTON: The legal point raised by the noble Earl has not been brought to my notice. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Cave, might be good enough to consider it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I think it would be worth while to consider it. Perhaps my noble friend will not press the Amendment to-day.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:—
Children on licensed premises.
5. The prohibition of the presence of children upon licensed premises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall apply to premises to which an "improved public-house" certificate is attached, unless the licensing justices deem it desirable, owing to the special circumstances of any premises, that a specified part of such premises should be open to children.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to leave out "upon" and to insert "in the bar of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are intended to modify Clause 5, which has caused a good deal of trouble, particularly, I think, to the noble Earl opposite. At present it appears that children are allowed on the premises of a public-house, but not at the bar; but it has been sometimes held by the police that they are not allowed to go into a room where, though there may not be an actual bar, drink may be obtained. The purpose of these Amendments is to make quite clear what may be allowed, and Clause 5, if these Amendments were accepted, would read as follows—
"The prohibition of the presence of children in the bar of licensed premises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall not, unless the justices otherwise direct, apply to premises to which an 'improved public-house' certificate is attached."
The power is still given to magistrates to make regulations as regards the admission of children to improved public-houses, and I hope the noble Earl may consider that this is a better form than that in which the clause was originally drafted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("upon") and insert ("in the bar of").—Lord Lamington).
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I hope the House will take some notice of this clause. The words now proposed by the noble Lord are exactly contrary to the Children Act and to the whole trend of modern legislation in this matter. Your
140
Lordships will notice how the clause reads now. The words are:—
"The prohibition of the presence of children upon licensed premises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall apply to premises to which an 'improved public-house' certificate is attached, unless the licensing justices deem it desirable, owing to the special circumstances of any premises, that a specified part of such premises should be open to children."
Is it not perfectly obvious that the clause as now printed in the Bill gives absolute and complete discretion to the licensing justices to allow children upon any part of the licensed premises upon which they think it fit and proper they should be allowed? Their discretion is not limited or fettered in any way, except by their own judgment of what is right and proper.
Now listen to the clause as it would read when amended in the way which is now proposed:—
"The prohibition of the presence of children in the bar of licensed premises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall not, unless the justices otherwise direct, apply to premises to which an 'improved public-house' certificate is attached."
It goes out of its way to say that the prohibition of the presence of children in the bar of licensed premises shall not apply unless the justices so direct. If it be true that the prohibition in the Act relates only to the bar of licensed premises, it will still be covered by treating it as a prohibition of their being on licensed premises at all. I cannot help thinking that wording the clause in the way which is now suggested rather goes contrary to all the trend of modern legislation, by suggesting that it is fit and proper that children should not only be upon licensed premises but in the bar of licensed premises, unless the justices specifically say that they should not be. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships on the matter, especially as it is doubtful whether this Bill will ever reach the Statute Book, but if I can get support I must trouble your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, the particular Amendment before the House is, I think, purely formal, because there is no prohibition in the existing law which prevents children from being on licensed premises. The only prohibition is in the Act of 1908, which prevents children

141
from being in the bar of licensed premises. I agree that "the bar" has been construed by the authorities—not by any Court I think—rather widely, as including the whole of a room, although there is a bar only at one end. Still the prohibition is against children being in "the bar," and to word the prohibition in the way in which it is worded in the Bill as it passed through Committee is a mis-description of the present law. I think it is only just that the first Amendment should be made.
As to the second one, to insert, after "shall," "not, unless the justices themselves direct"—I do not know whether I can discuss it now—of course, that is a far more important matter. If I may put the point now, in order to save a second discussion, I would like to say this: The clause, as it stands, is as it was framed by the, noble Earl in the Committee stage. He tells me that I did him an injustice upon another Amendment. If I did I am very sorry, and I will try not to do him an injustice now, but I think my recollection is correct that whereas he had one Amendment on the Paper, he in fact proposed another, which he brought orally before the House and which, in consequence, I think, was not fully considered. The effect was to turn round the clause. As the clause stood in the Bill when it was brought in, it was very much as this Amendment would put it; that is to say, the clause provided that the prohibition of the presence of children should not apply unless the justices thought it ought to do so. The noble Earl turned that clause round to the effect that the prohibition should apply unless the justices thought it should not. I prefer the original form.
I think that in the ease of imp roved public-houses the presumption should be that a man may take his wife and children there. If he cannot, it is not the kind of house which I have in view at all. I want to see under this Bill real, decent places, where a working-man or any other man may go, and take his wife and children with him. Unless it is that kind of place, I do not think the magistrates should give, it the improved public-house certificate. If you keep the clause in the form in which it now stands I think you are really running contrary to the whole object of the Bill, as I see it. I should like the presumption
142
under Clause 5 to be in favour of admitting women and children, and not against that admission. From that point of view I support the two Amendments. As the clause now stands, I think it is exceedingly unfair, because I am not certain that it does not mean that children may not go in any part of a public-house, and I am sure that the noble Earl does not mean that.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, the argument of the noble Viscount who has just spoken in favour of these Amendments is, as I undertsand it, that you want to assume that these public-houses will be of such a character that a man can take his wife or children there in any circumstances. I do not think that that argument really applies to this case, because when you have an improved public-house there will be no question about a wife or husband being able to take a child in. I feel, however, with the noble Earl, that it would be a very serious thing if this House, by a side wind, by means of a Bill of this sort, were to get rid of the presumption that a child ought not to be allowed on licensed premises. That is a presumption of law which I think it would be a great pity to weaken.
LORD LAMINGTON: The prohibition is against, their being in the bar.
EARL BUXTON: I am not competent to discuss the legal question whether the word "bar" ought to be inserted. I am dealing with a question of presumption, and the Bill as it stands presumes that the law is that a child shall not be allowed on licensed premises or in the bar of licensed premises, if you like. The clause says that if the magistrates think a house is of a suitable character they shall allow the presence of children. I think it would be a great pity if the existing prohibition was in any way weakened, and the effect of the proposed Amendments is really, I think, to throw the balance over from the right side to what I consider to be the wrong side. This cannot affect the licence. The magistrates must be generally satisfied that the particular house, is of the character required. Therefore this clause, as it stands, does not affect really the question whether the justices will

143
grant a licence or not. But the proposed Amendment is, I think, going against the general desire or view of the community that there should be a general prohibition, and that children should only under exceptional circumstances be allowed on licensed premises.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to the two very different Amendments. The first one I should not be disposed to oppose, but I oppose very strongly the second, if we are discussing both of them now. I should like to say that I have seen the reforms in Carlisle, but in the case of Carlisle there is no brewers' control at all. The whole point of that experiment is that it is under disinterested management. We, on this Episcopal Bench, do not believe that this Bill is going to do the good that Lord Lamington thinks it is going to do. There is no one for whom I have greater respect than the noble Lord, but, when I made a five weeks' speaking tour for temperance, who opposed me at every turn, who paid agents to give literature away at every corner? This very society which is bringing in this Bill. That is the extraordinary thing to us. When I went round England in support of very moderate temperate reforms—nothing like prohibition, but very moderate reforms agreed to by all the Christian Churches—this society paid agents to heckle me. It opposed me in every quarter in England, and I spoke twice a day, and three times on Sunday. And therefore, in the old phrase, we suspect people who bring gifts, whatever the gifts they bring. I think the most rev-Primate, while I was away, made it plain why we were not supporting the Bill. But it is reactionary to go back on the Children Act and take children into public-houses, and we will fight it to the death. It is a reactionary Bill in any case, although we are acquiescing in it up to a point, but if it is going to be reactionary about children we shall oppose it with the utmost means in our power.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I desire to support Lord Lamington's Amendment. I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, made perfectly clear what the words "in the bar" meant. The bar could be at the end of the room, or it
144
could be a bar itself. I do not agree with the second Amendment, but the first one I shall certainly support.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I have been very much moved by what fell from the right rev. Prelate as to the second Amendment, but I hope that he will agree with me that it is right, as a mere matter of drafting, that the first Amendment should be put in. I do not know at all what my noble friends are going to do about the second Amendment. I admit I should have great difficulty in supporting that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, after "shall," to insert "not, unless the justices otherwise direct." The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, was not enamoured of these words, but I confess that I think myself that, unless he is going to bring forward some strong arguments against them, I should desire to have them inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after ("shall") insert (" not, unless the justices otherwise direct").—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I must say that I very strongly object to this Amendment, though I am not unfriendly to the Bill. The Amendment really does alter what is a provision of very great importance as regards children being brought into the bars of licensed premises. It alters the whole outlook of the law upon this point, because it assumes that the prohibition shall not apply, and that children shall be allowed in bars unless there is a special prohibition by the licensing justices. That is a very strong thing indeed to suggest in a Bill of this sort. On the other hand, as the noble Earl has pointed out, full discretion is left to the justices to allow children to go on the premises under conditions which they think suitable and right. I protest in the very strongest manner against an alteration of the law with respect to children on licensed premises in a clause of this kind.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am greatly impressed by what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave,

145
said as to the new conception of the public-house that he desires to see established. I agree that that is the object of this Bill, and it is the reason why I should certainly vote in favour of it. But I conceive that in that public-house normally there will be one place where the bar will be, and other places where the customers of the public-house might come in, and in that case I think the general rule of the law that children ought not to be brought into the bar of the public-house should be maintained, unless there were some special reasons to the contrary. But where there are some special circumstances about the construction of the public-house and the situation of the bar, then I conceive that the justices might well make an exception and allow children to be brought into a bar of that kind. But I think it would be wrong to break down the general principle that children ought not to be brought into the bars of public-houses where drinking is going on. That is a right and sound principle, and I should feel that the proper compromise had been reached in the words of the Bill as printed, and not in the proposed modification, which would indicate that the rule was to be that the children were to be brought into the bar, and only exceptionally excluded. It seems to me that the rule ought to be exactly the opposite.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not wish to dwell on the merits of the matter, of which I think your Lordships are quite sufficiently seised. But I think the House should understand exactly where we are. We have now inserted the words "in the bar of," and the clause now reads:
"The prohibition of the presence of children in the bar of licensed promises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall——"
The suggestion is that it shall proceed thus:
"not, unless the justices otherwise direct, apply to premises to which an ' improved public-house ' certificate is attached."
That is the issue we are voting on. What the noble Lord is now asking for in this clause is not that children shall be allowed on licensed premises in a proper part, where there are seats and tables for refreshments, because we are told by the noble and learned Viscount that they are already to be allowed there. He is specifically asking that they shall be
146
allowed in the bar, and allowed as a matter of course, unless the licensing justices say they shall not. I would appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to leave this out altogether. He cannot want to introduce children into the bar, and he has already the right to introduce them into other portions of the house.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, it seems to some of us who have maintained a rather detached attitude on this Bill that we are in danger of losing sight of the main purpose, which is that the villagers and the poorest of the population and their families should have the power of obtaining what they get much too little of, and what you may call warmth and light and company in cold weather otherwise than on prohibition principles and without the compulsory segregation of members of the family from each other. I doubt whether my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill wants this clause at all. If it goes out, it will practically compel the structure of these improved public-houses to be such that there shall be a bar in one place distinctly segregated from what might be called the innocent parts of the premises. That is an idea at which we ought to aim. I suppose you cannot entirely refuse accommodation to people who want a drink and nothing else. That must be taken in the bar. But there should be the most complete structural separation of that part of the house from the kind of apartment which we want to see established and encouraged by law.
LORD LAMINGTON: In view of the general expression of anxiety, lest it should be understood that if this Bill passed into law children would henceforth be allowed access to the bar in contravention of all legislation up to the present time, I am willing, to secure the passing of the Bill, to withdraw my Amendment and to let the clause stand as printed in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that the noble Lord does not move the next Amendment to omit all words after "attached"?
LORD LAMINGTON: No.

PERFORMING ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of a Bill entitled: "An Act to regulate the exhibition and training of performing animals." This is a Bill which is, or ought to be, I think, quite non-contentious. What has already happened in this regard is this. A Bill for this purpose was introduced in another place last Session. It was read a second time and sent to Grand Committee. At first it was somewhat strenuously opposed in Grand Committee by persons representing what I might call professional interests—the variety artistes and others. But after a full discussion, and after certain concessions had been made by those in charge of the Bill, it ultimately emerged from Grand Committee as an agreed measure, the opposition having been withdrawn. But for the Dissolution of Parliament, which happened shortly afterwards, I think there is very little doubt that it would have been read a third time in another place, and passed.
May I say at once that the present Bill is identical with that agreed Bill, except on two relatively small points to which I will call your Lordships' attention presently? When I speak of an agreed Bill I do not mean to suggest, of course, that your Lordships are not fully entitled to deal with it in any way you like. I merely mention it as showing that the opposition—and practically the only opposition in the other House was of a professional nature—was withdrawn in the circumstances to which I have already alluded.
May I tell your Lordships very shortly how this Bill originated? In February, 1922, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into this subject. I was a member of that Committee which took a very large amount of evidence of all sorts from those who supported, and those who opposed, any regulation of these performances. Ultimately, we made a Report in May, 1922. I need not trouble your Lordships with any lengthy extract from that Report, but may I read just two passages which I think will show how the Bill came into existence. In paragraph 8 of the
148
Report your Lordships will find this statement:—
"Your Committee are convinced that there have been in the past, and certainly still are, many cases of ill-treatment and wanton cruelty in the training and performances of animals, but they also realise that in the large majority of cases the best results obtained in training are effected by kind and patient treatment. On the other hand, a callous trainer will endeavour to attain his object by inspiring his pupil with fear of bodily suffering."
Then, I think it is only fair, in the interests of those who train and exhibit these animals, to read the following passage from paragraph 18 of the Report:—
"Your Committee are impressed with the honest and genuine desire of the profession to eliminate every possibility of cruelty and ill-treatment from their exhibitions of performing animals, and with their willingness to co-operate with the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals in restricting performances to such as will meet with general approval."
And the Committee expressed their opinion that the exhibition of performing animals should not be prohibited, but that measures should be taken for the better supervision of trainers, training establishments, and animal performances, and that the penalties imposed hitherto had been found to be inadequate.
In those circumstances, a Bill founded in substance upon these recommendations was introduced in another place in February, 1923. It was supported by representatives of all Parties in that House, and in March of last year was read a second time by a very large majority; I think the numbers were 169 to 35. I am glad to say that the Home Office of that day gave it their approval, and I am disposed to think that the Home Office of the present day will do likewise. As I have told your Lordships, that Bill was sent to Grand Committee and emerged eventually as an agreed measure.
Now may I call your Lordships' attention very shortly to the general provisions of the Bill? There are those who think, I have no doubt, that the Bill might have been more drastic in character. When it was first introduced it was of a more drastic type, but owing to the concessions that were made in Committee with a view of getting an agreed Bill, certain clauses were eliminated. But it is the hope of those who are now interested in it that, even as it stands, it will operate not to prevent all performances—that is not its

149
object—but to regulate performances and to eliminate the element of cruelty.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the registration of exhibitors and trainers, and that such registration shall take place with the local authority. Clause 2 provides that a court of summary jurisdiction, subject to an appeal to Quarter Sessions, may deal with cases where the training or exhibition comes into those categories which ought to be prohibited. Clause 3 is important because it gives a power which is not possessed at present, and the absence of which I venture to think is very largely responsible for some of the evils which now exist. The clause gives to a constable, or any official of a local authority duly authorised in that behalf, authority to enter at all reasonable times and inspect any premises in which any performing animals are being trained, kept or exhibited. But there is a restriction upon that—namely, that no such constable or official shall be entitled under the clause to go on or behind the stage during a public performance of performing animals. That provision was put in for reasons which I need not give in detail; but it was represented that if there was an inspection behind the stage during the performance it might lead to confusion and unpleasant results.
Clause 4 imposes certain penalties for such things as failure to register, and failure to comply with an order of the Court, such as I indicated, made under Clause 2. It imposes penalties upon people who obstruct various persons from entering or inspecting a place of exhibition or training. The penalties imposed are fines not exceeding £50. In the latter part of the clause there is an alternative or additional penalty imposed upon people who violate the provisions of the Bill, which appears to me quite a reasonable one—namely, that any person who so violates the provisions of the Bill is liable to have his name removed from the register. Clause 5 merely gives power to the Secretary of State to make rules for prescribing anything which has to be prescribed under the Act. Clause 6 makes provision for applying the Bill to Scotland with the proper modifications.
One of the matters which I told your Lordships is new appears in Clause 7, because there was no clause in the agreed Bill corresponding to Clause 7 in this Bill. Clause 7 is of the nature of a definition
150
clause, showing to what character of animals the words "performing animals" are to be confined, and it reads in this way:—
"This Act shall not apply to the training or exhibition of any animal trained or exhibited or used for military, police, agricultural, or sporting purposes."
I think this clause is necessary, though many of us were of the view that the words "performing animals" have practically got a technical meaning, and, in point of fact, all the evidence that was taken during our Inquiry bad reference only to animals which performed on a stage, or in a circus, or in that class of exhibition. But it was pointed out to us, and especially has it been pointed out to me since the Bill was before the House of Commons, that some courts, less reasonable than others, might take it into their heads that this clause is aimed against the training or exhibition of any animal which performs in public, and consequently that the Bill might affect the training of an animal for the "Grand National." We have met that very point, as I venture to think, by Clause 7.
No one imagines for a moment that when we were dealing with animals performing on the stage we were going to prohibit the training of an animal for the "Grand National," or indeed for any other race, or were going to prevent an animal from being trained as a hunter. Nor did anyone suppose that we were going to prevent a dog being trained as a setter, or pointer, or retriever. Therefore these words have been carefully chosen, as your Lordships will see if you will kindly look at them, for the purpose of preventing the Bill operating against horses being trained for military purposes, whether in war or in peace. Nor are we going to interfere with the training or exhibition of animals for police purposes, such as police dogs. Nor are we going to interfere with horses which are used for exhibition at agricultural shows, or animals used for sporting purposes, whether they be dogs or horses. I do not suppose anyone would say that the term "sporting purposes" is not wide enough to cover such things as those to which I have referred—namely, the training of horses for races, or of dogs as retrievers, pointers or setters.
Clause 7, as it stands, would prevent the operation of the Bill against any of those classes of animals, and would con-

151
fine its operation to those animals which may be strictly called performing animals—animals that perform in circuses and on the stage. It has been, indeed, suggested to me that the Bill might be held to apply to animals that are exhibited in the Zoological Gardens. I do not think that possible, but it is a matter upon which I should be willing to take advice, and if, by any conceivable possibility, the Bill could be held to apply to lions and other animals exhibited in the Zoological Gardens I should be ready, and indeed glad, to introduce words into this clause to make it quite clear that the Bill has no such application.
The only other point to which I want to refer is the second one in regard to which this Bill differs from the agreed Bill as it emerged from the Grand Committee in the other House. In the second line of the first clause the word "public" has been inserted. The Bill as it came from Grand Committee in the other House read—
"No person shall exhibit for purposes of entertainment any performing animal,"
That obviously was a mistake, because no one imagined that we "were going to prohibit by this Bill the exhibition of a pet dog in a private drawing room, and it is just conceivably possible that unless the word "public" was inserted before "entertainment" it might have been held that an animal which was exhibited for private entertainment in a drawing room would fall within the prohibition of the Bill. No one desires or intends that that should be done.
I have told your Lordships the only two respects in which this Bill, as now introduced, differs from the Bill that was agreed, and I therefore beg to ask you to give it a Second Reading. In doing so may I summarise the three points that I have tried to make I The first is that it does not prohibit performing animals altogether. Secondly, I think it will be found that it imposes no undue restrictions upon any one who is carrying out his business in a proper and legitimate matter. Thirdly, it will impose regulations and restrictions only when cruelty—which it is the object of the Bill to prevent—exists in some shape or form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That this Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to go into the history of this question, but shall endeavour to convince your Lordships that this Bill contains defects, and that it is inadvisable to give it a Second Reading. The noble Lord expressed doubts as to whether it might, or might not, affect animals in the Zoological Gardens. There are various other classes of animals in regard to which doubts might also be entertained. For instance, organ grinders' monkeys, conjurors' rabbits, and animals of that type might be held to be performing animals If a man threw his stick into the Serpentine for his dog to fetch it might conceivably be held that he was exhibiting a performing animal in public. In fact, as one considers this Bill, there seem very few kinds of captive or domestic animals which it might not conceivably, by some persons, be held to include. The only limitation, as the noble Lord says, is imposed by Clause 7. The noble Lord speaks as if the terms "sporting purposes" was a term well known to the law. I understand that it is quite unknown to the law, and I doubt whether any two of your Lordships would agree on an exact definition of the words "sporting purposes."
Clause 2 empowers courts of summary jurisdiction to prohibit performances, but it does not state any grounds upon which they shall act in so prohibiting. There is nothing about cruelty, and there appears to be no reason why any court of summary jurisdiction should not close down circuses, or the Zoological Gardens, on the ground of general disapproval. I may not be quite right, but that is how I read the clause. Clause 3 empowers a constable or any official of a local authority to enter at all reasonable times and inspect any premises. I am informed that there is no Statute which gives such wide powers to the police as to search private premises without warrant, and if your Lordships pass this clause it would create a very dangerous precedent. There is much vagueness in the phrase "all reasonable times." What is a reasonable time for inspecting a performing animal? And paragraph (b) of subsection (1) says that any constable may require any person whom he has reason to believe is engaged in the training of

153
performing animals to produce his certificate. That seems to me not only that the proprietor of a circus, but every single one of his employees must be registered. If one of his employees falls sick he will be unable to engage a temporary substitute without rendering himself liable to a fine of £50.
Clause 4 consists of a large number of offences against this Hill, but your Lord ships will note that not one single one of them is remotely connected with the question of cruelty to animals. They are all concerned with various breaches of the regulations set up under this Bill. Let me draw your attention to paragraph (b) of Clause 4 (1). It reads thus: If any person …
(b) being registered under this Act exhibits or trains any performing animal with respect to which or in a manner in respect to which he is not registered …"
I remember once seeing a turn which consisted in the performance of fifty white pigeons. As I read this paragraph it would mean that the proprietor would have to register every one of these pigeons individually. Then Clause 5 says that the expression "animal" includes bird, reptile and fish.
I do not know what a performing fish is. I can only suppose that it must mean gold fish, which are frequently produced by a conjuror out of his hat. If I am right in this supposition, the person who wishes to exhibit a bowl of gold fish must take the following course. He must register himself and his assistant, and perhaps the charwoman' who cleans out the bowl. He must then register each one of the gold fish individually. He must notify the local authority if one of the gold fish dies, and the local authority would have to pass the information on to the Home Office. Finally he would have to open his house at all reasonable times of the day or night to the police constable, or official of a local authority, whose duty it would be to search in his cupboards and under his bed to see if he had any more gold fish concealed there. This Bill is not only very vague, but much too wide in its scope. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Baglan.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I hope we shall pass this Bill. The objections which the noble Lord has just raised can be quite easily met when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. Personally, I dislike very much seeing beautiful animals, cither day after day or night after night, in uncongenial and unnatural surroundings, performing tricks, and I am always struck when I see them with the much greater dignity that there is in the animals than in the man whose commands they obey. But it would be a satisfaction to me to feel that there had been no cruelty in training these animals, and I think we ensure that by this Bill. Everybody who trains animals for public performances must register and be liable to inspection. I have seen a great number of trained animals, and I do not think they could have been trained by cruelty. The one thing an animal cannot disguise is fear, and when I have seen them perform I have never seen the slightest trace of fear in any animal that is doing its tricks.
I have had some experience in training animals, and being also a conjurer by profession, I can assure the noble Lord that the gold fish are not performing when I produce them from a hidden pocket behind my coat. It is I who am performing, not the gold fish. And the same with the rabbit when I produce it out of my pocket. The rabbit is not performing. I am performing. There is no reason why your Lordships should be alarmed at the proposal that all the gold fish I produce should be registered, or that my whole family need be registered also. The animals I have trained, and which other people have trained, are not taught by cruelty. You teach animals by taking advantage of their idiosyncrasies. I have a dog that you cannot keep out of the water if lie sees anything splashing in it. I do not need to take my gaff when I am fishing. The dog will always land my fish. I have another dog which is very fond of carrying things because he likes to have them taken from him. I could give him a note for the Lord Chancellor, and he would take it to the Lord Chancellor because he knows that the Lord Chancellor would take it from him. I have a dog that will not eat cake unless you call it a Banbury cake, But there are cruelties perpetrated

155
that we ought to have registered. I actually know a ruffian now who is training his dog, and whenever he says "Knutsford" the dog sits up and begs. A man who can perpetrate a crime like that should be registered. Let me say this in conclusion. Here is a Bill; if there is no cruelty then the Bill cannot do any harm at all; if there is cruelty then the Bill may be extremely useful, and for the sake of the animals it is quite right that we should pass it.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I do not propose to trouble the House with many remarks. I am in a position which gives me personally the very great satisfaction of being able to say, on behalf of the Government, that they view this Bill with great sympathy, and that, if it were in their power to assist it, they would do so.
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I can explain the provisions of this Bill in a few sentences. The Bill is non-contentious, and is the necessary corollary to an Amendment accepted by the late Government to Section 4 of the Industrial Assurance Bill, 1923. During the Report stage in the House of Commons last summer, the Amendment which the late Government accepted increased
But, as the House knows, the state of business in the House of Commons is such that it is impossible to give a pledge as to what will be the position when this Bill goes down—as I cannot help feeling certain that it will go down—to another place. It is impossible to say in what position that House will find itself with regard to this Bill, when considered in addition to all the other legislation that is before that House. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will refuse the Amendment which has been proposed to-night, and I most earnestly hope that a Second Reading will be given to the Bill.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 3.

CONTENTS

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Emmott, L.

Cave, V.

Harris, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Illingworbh, L.

Cobham, V.

Merthyr, L.

Bradford, E.

Knutsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Buxton, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

De La Warr, E.

Arnold, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Eldon, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Mayo, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Onslow, E.

Teynham, L.

Plymouth, E.

Biddulph, L.

Thomson, L.

Russell, E.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Fairfax of Cameron, L [Teller.]

L. Newton, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

in the case of industrial assurance companies the aggregate amounts which, under Section 62 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, can legally be insured or paid on the death of children under ten. The increased amounts which can be legally insured or paid are set forth in Clause 2 of the Bill. These higher amounts are intended to meet the largely increased cost of funerals and everything connected with them, as compared with many years ago.
The Amendment accepted by the Government last year applied only to industrial assurance companies. It was subsequently found, as a matter of construction, not to apply to collecting societies, and this Bill will adjust that matter. The Amendment did not, and could not, apply to friendly societies and to trade unions. The Solicitor-General

157
accepted the Amendment last year on the strict understanding that the Opposition would not oppose any measure which might be necessary to extend this proposal to friendly societies and trade, unions. He indicated that this extension would be by a short, non-contentious Bill, and it is such a Bill which I now submit to your Lordships. Unless the present Bill is passed, business for the insurance of children under ten at the increased limits can only be effected by industrial assurance companies, and other bodies which normally do this class of assurance will remain confined to the old limits. It is therefore only fair that this Bill should be passed, and, if I may say so, passed as soon as possible, so that the law may apply equally not only to industrial assurance companies, but also to friendly societies, including collecting societies, and to trade unions.
There is one other provision in the Bill about which I ought to say a word. It is in regard to Clause 1, which enacts that a person who has held the office of Assistant Registrar for not less than five years shall be qualified to be appointed Chief Registrar. I may say that Assistant Registrars have always, in fact, been either barristers or solicitors, but, as the Statute stands, an Assistant Registrar who does not happen to be a barrister of twelve years standing could not be considered for the post of Chief Registrar, even though his work as Assistant Registrar may have demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt, his competence to perform the duties of Chief Registrar. I think your Lordships will agree that an artificial barrier of this kind
158
to promotion is obviously undesirable in the organisation of an office. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Earl of Malmesbury be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Earl of Onslow be named of the Committee in his place.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
[From Minutes of April 2.]

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (FERRIES) BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.
LANCASHIRE ASYLUMS BOARD

  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.