Lords Sitting of 19 February 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

OFFENCES BY MOTORISTS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to call attention to several cases in which persons convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor ear have been sentenced only to the payment of fines, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to issue a circular to magistrates advising sentences of imprisonment in all similar cases. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I imagine that most of your Lordships will be inclined to support the view that I am going to lay before you on the matter concerned in my Question, and I hope that I shall have the general assent of this House in the measures that I shall venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government. In the course of reading the ordinary daily Press my attention has been called a great deal lately to the very large increase in the number of cases of motorists who are drunk when driving motor cars. I think most of your Lordships know—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him, but Lord Parmoor, who is going to answer this Question, is not at present in his place, but will be here in a moment. I hope it may be convenient to take the next Question on the Paper first—that of the noble Viscount, Lord Novar.
EARL RUSSELL: I If Lord Novar is here, and if that course is convenient to the noble Viscount, I would, of course, assent.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I found myself in considerable trouble through adopting this procedure on a previous occasion, but if the noble and learned Viscount desires, I will simply put my Question without making any further observation. It is to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to take up the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill now awaiting Second Beading in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount is quite right in suggesting that this procedure should be taken only with the assent of the House, and I ought to move, for the convenience of the noble Viscount as well as of myself, that the noble Viscount's Question should take precedence of that of the noble Earl. This is a formality which should not be omitted, and I beg, therefore, to move that the Question of the noble Viscount take precedence over the Question of the noble Earl.
Moved, That the Question standing in the name of Viscount Novar on the Order Paper this day have precedence over that of Earl Russell.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am afraid, if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to say so, that I could not hear what he was saying, and I do not quite know what is the Motion before the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The Motion before the House is to the effect that the Question of the noble Viscount should be taken before that of the noble Earl, as Lord Parmoor cannot, for the moment, be here. By the time it has been disposed of, I hope that Lord Parmoor will have arrived.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to offer, but I really think we are entitled—
LORD PARMOOR [who at this moment, entered the House]: I must apologise to your Lordships, but there is sometimes unavoidable delay in the crossing to the House. I am aware of the Question that has been asked.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: I It has not been asked.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will withdraw my Motion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the Motion is withdrawn of course I will say no more.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: I find myself very much embarrassed by this interlude, but if your Lordships will allow me to continue, I was about to remark, before the noble and learned Lord came in, that I

189
have been for the past quarter of a century driving motor cars, and I have driven 200,000 miles with my own hands. Your Lordships will therefore understand that I am not unfamiliar with traffic conditions of modern development. During that time I have always tried to stand up for the rights of motorists to the reasonable use of the roads, and I have always deprecated anything in the nature of persecution by useless police traps; but I have never supported the improper use of the roads by motorists, and I find, on looking at the newspapers, that there is a very considerable number of cases of drunkenness. I also find that there is a remarkable difference in the sentences imposed when conviction has been obtained.
I have here a set of cuttings taken as random, and on the first I find these headlines: "Forty miles an hour: Driving in traffic when staggering drunk: £23 fine." They relate to a case at the South Western Police Court. I may say that these are not all cases in which there is a difference between the provinces and the Stipendiaries in London. There is a considerable difference in the practice which obtains in the London Stipendiary Courts. I find that at the Mansion House a man charged with being drunk was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. I find that at Caterham a man driving an army wagon without lights when drunk, was sent to prison. I also find, which I think is a matter of some importance, that two of these cases relate to people who, having been sentenced to imprisonment, have appealed to Quarter Sessions and had their sentences of imprisonment reduced to fines. There seems to me to be two objections to that course. One is that if you do get inequality of sentence by the magistrates, it is important that it should not be put right by the Quarter Sessions. The other objection is that poor men are not able to appeal to the Quarter Sessions, and therefore do not get the same chance as rich motorists. Then, at Bow Street, a drunken driver was sent to prison for a month's hard labour, and at Worcester a farmer was sent to prison for being drunk in charge of a motor car. I recollect a case, too, in which a motorist was charged with driving in a drunken manner between Kew and Richmond. He had driven zigzag all
190
over the road for a distance of three miles, and had driven into three people, and he was let off with a fine of £40.
It seems to me that a person who drives a motor car upon the public roads ought to be responsible and ought to be made to take full responsibility, for driving safely and without danger to the public. I feel this so much that I should be prepared to support an amendment-of the civil law which would presume negligence on the part of a motorist in case of an accident. I should do that in spite of the fact that every time I go out I see negligence, and, indeed, criminal negligence, on the part of pedestrians. Yet I think it is for the man who brings these dangerous vehicles on to the public roads to take all proper care. If I take that view with regard to the sober, sane and skilful driver, your Lordships can imagine how shocked I am that men should go about in charge of motor cars when they are not sober. I suggest to the Government that they should do something by way of circular from the Home Office to the magistrates, to suggest that in clear cases of drunkenness the sentence should always be one of imprisonment without the option of a fine.
None of us, I am sure, wish to fetter the discretion of the Stipendiary Magistrates or of the Bench of Justices. We realise that only those who hear the case can recognise its true gravity, and that newspaper reports are necessarily only partial reports, but I think that a lead might be given to the magistrates as to what official view is taken of these offences. Circulars of this kind have been issued in the past, and if the Government can issue such a circular with regard to these offences by motorists I think, and I hope, that your Lordships will agree that the circular might add that in all such cases the licence shall be suspended for a period of at least twelve months. It seems to me that the person who drives a motor car upon the public roads in that condition, so utterly careless of the life and limb of His Majesty's other subjects, should be debarred from driving for a very considerable time, and the suspension of the licence I look upon as almost as important as the deterrent of imprisonment. I hope the Government may see their way to take some steps of this sort, and that I may have the general support of your Lordships in the propositions I have enunciated.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is sympathetic in this sense, that I suppose we all agree as to the dangers of any one being drunk when driving a motor car, and that the punishment involved should be one of a serious kind. The objection that I have to give, in answer to the noble Earl, can be stated very shortly, and at the same time I can point out to him an occasion on which the matters that he desires to bring forward can be more fully discussed than on a Question and answer. On the first point, which does not arise directly out of his Question, I do not think it right that the appeal from the magistrates to the superior court of Quarter Sessions should be taken away. It is a very serious matter to take away a right of appeal, which has existed for many centuries, on a question of this sort. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not think that an appeal should be taker away.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble and learned Lord must have misapprehended what I said. I never suggested that the right of appeal should be taken away, but what I meant to suggest was that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions might also receive this circular, and have it in mind when appeals come before them.
LORD PARMOOR: I will deal with the matter in a moment. The second point with which I wish to deal, and to which the noble Earl's Question does not refer, relates to cases of drunken persons driving motor cars to the detriment or danger of the public at all. Although I do not wish to be too technical in what I say, the noble Earl wants to call attention to several cases in which persons have been convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car, which is a different offence altogether. So far as concerns persons drunk in charge of a motor car, which has been held in all our Courts to be an entirely distinct matter from drunkenness whilst driving a motor car, the offence is governed by the old Licensing Act of 1872. I think the penalties there are chiefly applicable to drunkenness in cases where the person is in charge, not of a motor
192
car, but of a carriage or wagon, or some vehicle of that kind.
The present law is this. Drunkenness in charge of a motor car is merely an offence under the Licencing Act of 1872. It is punishable either with a fine of 40 s. or one month's imprisonment. In my view, and in the view of the Government, that is an entirely inadequate penalty, having regard to the nature of the offence, and if the noble Lord will wait until Tuesday next, when the Criminal Justice Bill will be introduced, he will have an opportunity, if he thinks the provision there made is inadequate or unsuitable, of moving an Amendment. I will read to the noble Earl the proposal in that Bill:
"Any person who is drunk while in charge, on any highway or other public place, of any motor car within the meaning of the Motor Car Act, 1903, shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
If the noble Earl thinks that there ought to be no option of a fine, and that in every case of that kind the penalty should be imprisonment, that is a matter for the Legislature to consider and determine, and the noble Earl can move an Amendment.
But what he is asking is a very different thing. If the Legislature has given the option of a fine it is quite clear that no administrative body has a right to interfere with the option, which, within the discretion of the magistrate, is given by the Legislature itself. No administrative body has the right to say that that option is to be taken away, and that imprisonment is to be the only punishment for the offence. Indeed, I wonder at the noble Earl raising a point of that kind, because I believe he is very strongly in favour of the liberty of the subject being preserved under legislative provisions. I believe it is true that in certain very exceptional cases suggestions have been made to magistrates that imprisonment instead of a fine would be advisable. But unless the case is a very exceptional one, I think interference by an administrative body with the magistrate's discretion, given by the Legislature, is very much to be deprecated. As a Chairman of Quarter Sessions I have had a certain number of these cases before me, and I

193
am advised that where the charge is one not of driving a motor car to the danger of the public, but merely of being in charge of a motor car, which may be absolutely stationary at the time, imprisonment in all cases is thought to be rather extreme.
LORD LAMBOURNE: The noble Earl, in his remarks, spoke of a circular being issued from the Home Office to magistrates generally, suggesting that they should consider, when inflicting a sentence, the extreme danger of reckless driving to the public. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord does not think that advisable?
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad the noble Lord has called my attention to that. I do not think it is advisable to issue instructions which may interfere with the discretion given to magistrates by the Legislature. But the question with which I was dealing was not a question of reckless driving, to which entirely different penalties apply. That is quite a different offence, and has to be dealt with in a different way.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether I am entitled to say a word in reply. The Lord President of the Council indicates that I am not. I am entirely in the hands of the House. But the noble and learned Lord seems to have entirely misapprehended my Question May I make it clear that I asked for no alteration of the law? The law as it stands is sufficient. If the law as it stands were not sufficient, the magistrates would not be able to impose imprisonment in some cases. The really important point, with which the noble and learned Lord has not dealt at all, is the inequality of sentences as between bench and bench. In one quarter a man will be fined 40 s., and in another in a precisely similar case, the penalty will be imprisonment with hard labour. Inequality of sentence is a very undesirable thing.
On the administrative question, as to whether it is wise to issue a circular or not, I am entirely in the hands of the noble and learned Lord. But what I suggested was nothing in the way of instructions to magistrates, and, as I expressly said, nothing in the way of removing their discretion, but merely a suggestion to magistrates that, when they are imposing
194
sentences, they should consider whether a. long suspension of the licence—a point with which the noble and learned Lord did not deal—and a sentence of imprisonment are not desirable, instead of a fine. If my Question on the Paper appears to refer to drunkenness whilst in charge of a motor car, which the noble and learned Lord has misinterpreted as an offence under the Licensing Act, I think it is clear to most of your Lordships, as I certainly made it clear in my observations, that I was referring to cases of dangerous driving in a. motor car. I wished to make my points clear, because I honestly do not think they have been met.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry if the noble Earl does not consider that his points have been met, but I do not think I have in any way misconceived his Question. So long as you have Judges and magistrates dealing with matters of this kind, and acting on their discretion as regards the particular conditions of each case, you will always have the element of inequality. There probably is no inequality if you have all the facts before you, as Judges or magistrates have when they deal with the matter either by imprisonment or by fine. No one can feel more strongly than I do the danger of people driving motor cars when drunk. That is a very serious offence indeed, but it is a different matter from that to which my attention was called. At the same time, I think that all these things are matters for the Legislature, and not for an administrative office.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to take up the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill now awaiting Second Reading in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are giving favourable consideration to this Bill. But there has been a little delay in getting further with it. That there will be even further delay is inevitable, because the noble Viscount will recall that he himself, in drafting his Bill, introduced certain variations from the

195
Committee's Report in which the general scheme was contained. Of that Committee I speak with some knowledge, because I was its Chairman and sat for a year endeavouring to make a settlement between the Church and those interested. The question of teinds which had been raised is due to the circumstance that the Bill has gone to Scotland, where they are now considering it. The state of affairs there is rather like a wasp's nest just at present, and we must let the wasps settle down. We hope that in the end they will come to something like unanimity of mind and as soon as they do we shall know where we stand. But at this moment we have not reached that stage. Until the Bill comes back well considered in Scotland we are, therefore, delayed. I promise various noble Lords, who are interested in this Bill, that there shall be good notice given of the Second Reading in order that they may, too, know that their interests are observed. When we shall reach the Second Reading stage I do not know; but the sooner the better so far as I am concerned. I cannot promise a date until I know what has been done.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: Am I to understand from the noble and learned Viscount that the Bill will be sent to the heritors who are equally interested with the Church in the matter?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill has been read a, first time and printed, and it has gone down to Scotland. I can assure the noble Viscount that everybody there, so far as I can find out, is reading it and making, comments on it.

EFFECT OF ROAD WASHINGS ON FISHERIES.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH rose to move for a Return containing a general report of the laboratory experiment and field experiments carried out during the years 1919 to 1921 by the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the effect of washings from tarred roads on fisheries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not make this Motion in any spirit of hostility, but one of very keen anticipation of the Report which I
196
am so anxious to get. England, at the present time, is desolated and violated by motor cars of every sort, kind and description, and life here would be absolutely unendurable if means were not taken to keep down the dust resulting from this species of progress. For this purpose tar has been very largely used. At the same time many fish have died since motoring began, and many people ascribe the death of those fish throughout the country to the effect of tarring the roads. This is a very great misfortune, which I think can be avoided.
I have seen in the Report of the Rivera Pollution Committee, which has been issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the name of a friend of mine with whom I have worked for a. long time. He represents 100,000 anglers. If you multiply that number by that of other representatives throughout the country I think you will find that there are some millions—I am very sorry to have to guess at their numbers—of the poorer classes of the community who are deeply interested in preserving the fish life of this country. This 100,000—I think I am accurate there—arc very harmless people, students of nature who are more addicted to romance than to violence, and it would be a thousand pities to spoil their recreation.
To put it on a more sordid ground. I should like to bring this argument to the notice of His Majesty's Government. I have what used to be one of the finest trout streams in the south of England. Fish of 5 lbs. and even up to II lbs. in weight were taken from it. That did not often happen, but it has been known. When motoring came in these fish disappeared entirely from this river, and the river is now valueless, although I have stocked it three times. This is the argument I should like to address to His Majesty's Government. I believe that this river would be worth—so, at least, I have been told—over £700 a year. I should like to point out to His Majesty's Government that if I got £700 a year for this river they would get more than half of it. I am taxed at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the £ for Income Tax and 6. for Super-Tax. Therefore, if I got £700 for this river the Government would get £350, and more really, because I should have the expense of stocking the river and looking after it, and it is very doubtful whether I should be able to deduct any of those expenses.

197
Anyhow, in regard to this particular river, if the Government could only stop the pollution they would be in a much sounder position than that in which I should be. If that one instance is multiplied by the many all over England which will occur to noble Lords, it will be seen that the fish in our rivers are a great deal too valuable even to His Majesty's Government to be destroyed by tar, if such a process can possibly be prevented.
The Government have had a very valuable Report. I happen to know some of the gentlemen who served on this Committee. Most excellent laboratory experiments were made with regard to the effect of tar on fish life. Field experiments were also conducted by taking stretches of water and observing the effect of tar on the fish life there. I venture to hope that His Majesty's present Government may succeed where apparently other Governments have failed, through this Report. These experiments were carried out between 1919 and 1921. I think the Report is due and, indeed, overdue, though I know that the Ministry has been very much overworked. I should like also to be assured as to whether it is overwork or want of money which has prevented the issue of this Report, because I can assure the Government that it would be of the most inestimable value to this country if those who are interested in these matters were able to get at this valuable evidence and see the deductions which have been drawn from it. I will not say anything further in regard to the matter, but I venture to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That there be laid before this House a Return containing a general report of the laboratory experiment and field experiments carried out during the years 1919 to 1921 by the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the effect of washings from tarred roads on Fisheries.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the appeal made to His Majesty's Government by the noble Lord opposite. As chairman of a fisheries board and as a member of the Committee (appointed by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, when he was at the Ministry of
198
Agriculture), which has been sitting for two years considering the question of river pollution, I have had some experience in connection with the pollution of rivers. We have realised that pollution exists at present from four causes. One obviously is sewage. But perhaps the most serious causes of pollution are chemical works on the banks of rivers which send in alkaline poisons as well as acids. Another cause of pollution is sheep-dipping, which, of course, generally occurs in the summer, or in the early autumn months. But there is this other item in connection with rivers pollution,—namely, pollution from the tarring of roads which is doing a great deal of harm to our rivers.
Those of us who have looked into this question realise that bitumen can be used in place of tar in the making of roads. The only drawback in connection with the use of bitumen as against tar is that it is more expensive. Experiments have been made which show that even a mixture of 70 per cent. of bitumen and 30 per cent. of tar will make an effluent almost innocuous to fish life. It is most desirable, however, that at danger points, where the tar can reach a river without proper filtration, special precautions should be taken. Tar can reach the river in two ways. It can reach it when there is a shower of rain falling upon tar which has recently been put upon the roads, and also when there is rain and a road, which has been laid with tar, is crumbling. The increased expense of bitumen as compared with tar is really due to the fact that you have to roll the road to a very much greater extent when bitumen is used than when tar is used, and it can only be done, I understand, in a dry period in order to secure the best results. It is most important in the interests of fish life that this method of poisoning fish should be eliminated, if it can possibly be done, and I am sure that the road surveyors and county authorities will do their part in trying to deal with the situation at the danger points.
Members of fishery boards realise that money may be spent for years in fish hatcheries and in developing fisheries in order to secure the sport of all classes in the community, and that all our work and money may be of no avail through the ignorance or the carelessness of a road authority at a particular moment. There-

199
fore it is important that those Reports which have been given to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Transport Department should be published widely to the community in order that fish may be preserved from those sources of pollution which, unhappily, occur too often at the present time.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I shall not detain you for more than a moment. As a member of a county road board I am fully aware of all the difficulties with which we have to contend in order to meet the demands for transport at the present time, and as a member of a fishery board I am also aware of the difficulties that we have to encounter in preventing pollution. I am not going to give a lecture either on road making or on the question of dealing with pollution. Far too many people seem to think that fishing is a sport that merely interests a few people, but, as Lord Desborough has pointed out very clearly, fishing is an enormous source of revenue to the country, and also affords employment to a very considerable number of people. I rise to make the suggestion to His Majesty's Government that, if possible, the Ministry of Transport, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, should frame some Bill which would prevent local authorities using any material for the construction or repair of roads which is injurious to fish life; or, in other words, that any material used by road authorities should first receive the sanction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Government are entirely in accord with the views of Lord Desborough and Lord Gainford. I am not at the moment able to deal with the question of a by-law, but that will be considered. I should like to make one or two statements to show how the matter stands, in order that your Lordships may see what the Government have done. I say at once that we hope to give the general Report, under conditions that I will state, for which Lord Desborough asks. This is not a new matter, as the noble Lord knows very well. Research experiments have been undertaken, and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport are
200
very grateful for what has been done to assist them by the county authorities of Hampshire at Alresford on a site very kindly lent by Sir Joseph Tichborne. Two Interim Reports have already been issued, and, if your Lordships will allow me, I will read one passage from each, because I think it is important, as has been suggested by Lord Gainford, that the matter should be published as widely as possible.
This is a letter written from the Ministry of Transport on April 18, 1922, and sent to the clerks to county councils, county boroughs, county burghs, borough and burgh councils, district committees and urban and rural councils and other highway authorities in England and Wales and Scotland. I will not read the whole of the letter, but only the material part of it, which, I think, will be found to confirm the views expressed by Lord Desborough;—
"The concluding paragraph in the Committee's Report is as follow:—
"'In view of the extreme precautions which are clearly necessary to avoid damage to fisheries by the washings from tarred roads at certain periods in the life of the surface of such roads, the Committee considers that highway authorities should give a preference to asphaltic bitumen free from tar product" for the treatment of roads draining directly into fishing waters, as there is no evidence before the Committee, so far as preliminary experiments at the Government Laboratory and elsewhere have gone, that washing from such bitumen have any specific deleterious action on fish or other stream life.'"
Perhaps I ought to say that that is a paragraph in a Report which condems very strongly the tarring of roads as leading to the destruction of fish, and that that view was reached as the result of scientific research and actual experiments. Where the tar from the roads was conducted into the artificial ponds for experimental purposes all the trout died. You could not have better evidence than that.
A second Report was issued and sent to all the local authorities on May 5, 1923. This is the second Interim Report of the Committee to which Lord Desborough has referred. I will quote this passage from
it:
"The sub-committee is therefore of opinion that drainage from bituminous roads, of the nature described in paragraphs

201
3 and 5 of the Report and obtained under practical conditions, will show no appreciable toxic character due either to soluble materials extracted by the rain from the bitumen itself, or to colloidal particles derived from the bituminous surface on disintegration."
The two Reports, taken together, show that tar is a source of destruction of fish to the extent which the noble Lord has found, practically destroying the value of fishing rights, and also fishing amenities, in any river that the tar is allowed to reach from the road surface. On the other hand, bituminous material can be used without any damage or danger. The two Interim Reports on these two points have been sent to the local authorities in all parts of the country.
The noble Lord wishes, in addition to that, as I understand, for a Return containing a, general Report of the laboratory experiment and field experiments carried out during the years 1019 to 1921 by the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the effect of washings from tarred roads on fisheries. The desire of the Government is that that Report should be issued and printed as soon as possible, and I can give that undertaking. I can also explain the reason why it has not been issued up to this date. I think the noble Lord has in his mind—because he has always been friendly in these matters—a common desire with the Government to obtain the reform in order to assist the fisheries to which he has referred. No doubt one of the reasons is economy. The other reason has been almost stated by Lord Gainford. There is a small scientific staff dealing with these matters in the Departments of Agriculture and Transport, and that staff has been continuously engaged in preparing material and in assisting the General Committee on Pollution of Rivers—an extremely important matter. Lord Gainford is Chairman of that Committee, and he knows the amount of assistance that has been given by these scientific advisers. All their time has been occupied up to this moment. The desire, of the Government is that this most valuable Report should be widely published at the earliest possible moment. It will not be, to-morrow, of course, but I am told that there is a hope that it may be issued in the course of a few months. The Government
202
entirely agrees with the view that it is a most valuable document, and ought to be made public at the earliest moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is a matter of urgency on which I desire to take the opinion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and also to hear the views of members of your Lordships' House. At the present moment the Unemployment Insurance Bill is passing through the other House. It is a measure on which everyone is agreed, and all Parties in the other House are endeavouring to pass it as quickly as possible. It has not been completed there yet, but my information is that it will pass through the. other House to-night. The object of the Bill is to fill up what are called "gaps." There are certain periods of unemployment insurance which are not covered by the existing law and the result is that there is a great waste of public money in order to fill up those gaps with various kinds of relief. The Bill proposes merely to fill up those gaps and make unemployment insurance continuous. All Parties are in favour of its passing as soon as possible.
If we read the Bill a first time tomorrow there are two courses which may be taken. The Bill is required by Wednesday of next week. We can either put down a Motion of urgency and suspend the Standing Orders on Thursday of this week, or it will be in time if we suspend the Standing Orders on Tuesday of next week and then take the Bill through all its stages, and the Royal Commission, on that day. I am in the hands of your Lordships as to which course will suit your convenience. If we can be assured of getting the Bill through all its stages on Tuesday next we can put down the necessary Motion to suspend the Standing Orders for that day, but if your Lordships are willing to take it on Thursday of this week that can be done.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has asked me a question the answer to which is in the hands of the House, because he, as well as noble Lords on this side, desires to

203
consult the convenience of the House. He first suggested that we should read the, Bill a first time to-morrow and that the Standing Orders should be suspended on Thursday in order that all the other stages of the Bill should be taken on that day in order to carry the measure into law. I should have no objection to that course, assuming that the case, for the Bill is as stated by the noble and learned Viscount, except that Earl Beauchamp has an important Motion dealing with the rescission of the Poplar Order on the Order Paper for that day. It comes after the Second Reading of certain Bills, and, obviously, he and these who follow him will desire to occupy a considerable portion of the time of your Lordships' House on what is an important Motion. If the Unemployment Insurance Bill is taken as suggested by the Lord Chancellor, the Standing Orders being suspended, it would take precedence of Earl Beauchamp's Motion. If the noble Earl thinks the discussion on the Bill can be sufficiently compressed so as not to deprive him of the opportunity which he now enjoys I have no objection, but I think his convenience in the matter should be considered. I think it would he better to take the Bill on Thursday if we can do so, rather than on Tuesday of next week. There are at present on the Order Paper a Question and a Motion for that day, and I understand that the Secretary of State for India desires to take advantage of that occasion to make the statement upon India which he had proposed originally to make to-day but which, for reasons of public interest, he has desired to postpone. That again is a matter of capital importance and we should desire to give him every opportunity we can. Subject, therefore, to what Earl Beauchamp may have to say I should be rather disposed to. dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Bill on Thursday next.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a copy of the Bill in my lands at the moment. It is a single clause measure. There is one single question involved, and it is not ore on which I apprehend there would be a great deal of discussion. It ought not to take a long time.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned
204
Viscount and to the noble Marquess for their references to my Motion. Important matters are connected with the Motion I have on the Order Paper for Thursday and there are difficult legal questions about the rescission of the Poplar Order on which I hope more than one noble and learned Lord in this House will give us their opinion. We want all the help we can get, and I should prefer that the Unemployment Insurance Bill should stand over until next week. If that is a generally acceptable course it would be the best thing to do. We all regret that the Secretary of State for India was unable to make his statement to-day but it might be possible for him to make it to-morrow. If it is postponed until Tuesday of next week then it would have to come after the Unemployment Insurance Bill had been disposed of.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, there are matters already on the Order Paper for to-morrow, and in view of the important decision taken by the National Assembly yesterday I think I should like to consult members of the Government before making my statement. It would be more convenient for me to make it next Tuesday.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Would it not be possible to take the Unemployment Insurance Bill—if it is only a very short measure—after the debate on Poplar on Thursday night?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I gather from what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has just told me that the Unemployment Insurance Bill will take but a very small measure of our time, probably not more than a few moments. Therefore the noble Earl will not be in the least retarded from making his Motion on Thursday nor will its importance be in the least minimised. It will merely mean that the moment when he makes his Motion will be postponed by five minutes, ten minutes, a quarter of an hour, or whatever the period may be. I think, therefore, that the general convenience will, on the whole, be best consulted by taking the Bill upon Thursday and asking the noble Earl then to proceed with his Motion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite agree able to that in the circumstances. I must confess that I understood it was going to be a much longer business. If the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack assures me that his speech on this occasion will not exceed the limits which have been mentioned by the noble Marquees I have no objection to make.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I give my noble friend that promise. I think a Notice of Motion should be given for Thursday to give the Unemployment
206
Insurance Bill precedence and to suspend the Standing Orders in order that it may go through all its stages.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Tuesday last on the subject of Consolidation Bills as desired by this House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.