Lords Sitting of 13 March 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES) BILL. [H.L.I
Read 2a
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

DOGS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill dealing with the protection of dogs, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

WHITEHILLS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Buckmtaster.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, after a consultation with some other Lords I think is right that I should take this opportunity to mention a matter which some of us forgot—I certainly did—when the Bill was in Committee. I mention it now solely that the noble and learned Lord who has charge of the Bill should be made aware of the views which have occurred to some of us, for consideration as to whether the matter should be dealt with. The Bill provides that in certain circumstances persons should be treated as legitimate. That is the case where the parents have married, although the child was born before marriage. With that proposition we are all in sympathy, and with the Bill we are all in sympathy.
But, unquestionably, some matters seem to have been omitted, and I shall refer to one of them now which will be obvious when it is mentioned. It was only suggested to me when, for the purpose of obtaining information, I happened to look at the French Code to see how the matter was dealt with there. There is a case, not, I should say, a very uncommon case, of a man having relations with a woman who does not confine herself to him. She has a child. That child may be his, or it may not be his. Afterwards the two may marry. Now prima facie it would be open to any such child, even after the death of the parent, to raise the question that he was the child of A. and B. who were subsequently married and that he was legitimated by reason of that marriage. A thing of that-kind would certainly lead to very considerable embarrassment, I should have thought, having regard to the fact that the Bill naturally leaves our law of evidence on the matter just as it was.
It is of course, in theory open to any person who disputes the parentage of a child to prove that the child was not the child of A. and B. But it is an extremely difficult thing to do, I should have thought, in the circumstances. That our neighbours on the other side of the Channel must have thought so, too, is shown by the fact that they passed at least four amending Statutes to the

731
original Code, the last of them dealing with this very question. From that I assume that it is not a mere theoretical case, but one which has actually arisen. Had it not escaped my attention when the Bill was in Committee, I should have proposed to deal with that question in some way ; but I must confess that there is a good deal of practical difficulty in dealing with it, unless we adopt the procedure which is followed in other countries, and I should not be in favour of that procedure.
It is quite simple and effective. With regard to the case which I have put, one section of the, Act of 1912 amending the French Code deals with it in this way : If a child is born of a woman who at the date of the birth was leading a notoriously immoral life, in that case prima facie the child was not to be recognised unless the parties had in some solemn way declared that it was their child and not the child of this woman and some other man. Whether it is feasible to deal with such a case in this particular Bill I do not for a moment express an opinion. It is easy to do it on the basis of the French system, but it is not easy to do it with our system ; and for this reason. In order that the legitimation should be effective under the Code, you must have a solemn act of some kind. You must either have something notorious—a declaration before the marriage, or a declaration at the marriage, or a declaration subsequent to the marriage. We have set our faces, and I certainly set my face, against these technical methods of doing things which are common and natural to other codes but are not common and natural to our procedure. We should leave the matter to be proved and any evidence which was material would be accepted.
I thought there was a subsection which would have dealt with the matter, and that was subsection (4) of Clause 1, which is as follows :—
(4) The Registrar-General may on production of satisfactory evidence, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
Unfortunately, it does not deal with it, because it is not obligatory, and I do not know whether, in such a case as I have
732
put, it would be feasible at all to make it obligatory. I greatly doubt it. But there must be some solution of the matter, short of the drastic system of requiring an act of an unequivocal nature ; otherwise, I should have thought that difficulties of a very unpleasant character might arise. I have no intention now of moving an Amendment, and I should not like to delay the passage of the Bill here, but I think it is right I should mention something that seems to me, rightly or wrongly, to be a point that ought to be covered if it can be covered. I mention it so that the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill may consider it if he thinks it worth while, and raise it perhaps m another place.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it is obvious that whatever point it is that the noble Lord desires to call to your Lordships' attention, that might better have been done on the Second Reading of the Bill on the Motion that the Bill should be committed, or by amendment in the Committee stage. That he recognises himself. He states that he does not propose to move any Amendment, and I am not certain whether his observations are directed against the Motion that the Report be now received or for any other purpose. I am not prepared to accept any postponement of the Report stage of the Bill, and I press the Motion that the Report be now received.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 :
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
1.—(1) Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall, if the father of the illegitimate person was or is at the date of the marriage domiciled in England or Wales, render that person, if living, legitimate from the commencement of this Act, or from the date of the marriage, which last happens; and such person is in this Act referred to as a "legitimated person."
(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born.
(3) This section does not enable a legitimated person to take any interest in real or personal property which he would not have taken if this section had not been passed.
(4) The Registrar-General may, on production of satisfactory evidence, authorise

733
at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall he effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL had an Amendment on the Paper to insert in subsection (1), after "living," "or he have a child living." The noble Lord said : My Lords, this Amendment was one which I moved during the Committee stage when I gave your Lordships my reasons for moving it. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill was kind enough to say that he would look into the matter between then and now, and on that understanding I withdrew my Amendment in Committee. He has been courteous enough to inform me that, having looked into it, he does not think there is any objection from his point of view to the inclusion of the Amendment and, therefore, I move it again. It is one that affects only a small number of people ; but I think it gives them rights which it is the purpose of the Bill to give to others, and I hope there will be no objection to its inclusion. The Amendment has been misprinted on the Paper. I think the word "if" has been omitted, and the words that I move in, after the word "living," are" or if he have a child living." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1 line 11, after ("living") insert (" or if he have a child living ").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Lord has stated quite accurately what transpired with regard to this Amendment. I think it is possible that, in certain events which may be rare, there might be people excluded from the benefit of the Bill if this Amendment is not inserted. If your Lordships have no objection to its insertion I have no desire to oppose it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I have something to say about this Amendment, not so much from the point of view of those who would be excluded as from the point of view of those who would be included if the Amendment were accepted. Take this case, which I will give your Lordships. A. dies intestate in 1927, leaving no lineal descendant or ancestor, and no brother or sister, but leaving a cousin B. the son of an illegitimate brother of A.'s father.
734
B.'s father was born a century earlier, in 1827, His parents married in 1830 and he died in 1860. Under the Bill as amended, if B. could prove these facts he would succeed as next of kin of A. It seems to me that the Amendment would involve going into questions of remote history and not really to be required for the purpose of the Bill, which is to remove a stigma attaching to living persons and not to cure blemishes in pedigrees. I am prepared not to object to this Amendment, subject to the Government being free to put in at some later stage, if it is thought desirable, an alteration to meet the point which I have indicated.
LOUD GORELL: I should be prepared to accept that, but I do not quite understand one observation of the noble and learned Viscount. He said, in regard to the rather difficult case that he mentioned, which I confess I was not entirely able to follow, that if the person referred to was able to substantiate those elaborate facts he would succeed as next of kin. Surely, the third subsection of this clause rules out all question of succession. It is purely a question of status. I should like the Amendment put in. I understand that if the experts later consider it unnecessary or dangerous, an alteration will be proposed, and I should raise no objection whatever to that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: After what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount, we shall agree that this is an important matter, and I think it should be put right in this House and not left to a later stage. I therefore suggest that it should be put right on the Third Reading, if necessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment is not mine. I had an objection to the words as I have stated. I am in your Lordships' hands in this matter, and have no views as to whether it should be done here or elsewhere. I do not think there is much danger in leaving the matter open. All I want to do is to protect myself, so to speak, and keep the matter open.
LORD GORELL: The words should not be as they are printed on the Paper, but should read "or if he have a child living." The word" if "has dropped out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "which" [" which last happens "] and insert "whichever." The noble and learned Lord said : This Amendment can hardly be dignified as even a drafting Amendment. It is strictly a grammatical Amendment. I ask to substitute the word "whichever" for the word "which."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out (" which ") and insert (" whichever ").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
" (3) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate an illegitimate person whose father or mother has after the birth of the illegitimate person married a third person and has had surviving issue of that marriage before marrying the parent of the illegitimate person."
The noble Earl said : My Lords, when this Bill was in Committee of your Lordships' House I moved an Amendment of a somewhat similar character. The object of the Amendment is to provide for the case of a man who had lived with a woman by whom he had issue, had subsequently married another woman and had legitimate issue. In the event of his lawful wife dying, the man in question might then, after many years had elapsed, think it his duty, for the sake of making amends or for some other cause, to marry the woman with whom he had lived and by whom he had illegitimate issue previous to his regular marriage. In this case the legitimate offspring of the wife might suddenly find themselves compelled to share the father's fortune with bastard children, brought in years after their birth. I think your Lordships must, on reflection, surely agree that this is a most important Amendment, if the rights of the legitimate offspring are to be safeguarded.
This Bill is an extremely dangerous one, and I should be sorry to see it pass into law without its being amended in this respect at least. I am not concerned very much at the moment with the mistress, or the wife, or the illegitmate children. I am far more concerned about the rights of children born in lawful wedlock, and with the status of the family in general. This Bill seems to me to be one of those hysterical efforts which, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying
736
so, while it seeks to right a wrong in one direction, is in fact going to impose hardship in another.
I was much interested in what understood was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon. Suppose, for example, a woman lived first with one man by whom she had issue, but that man then proceeded to make a regular marriage. His wife dies, and, after many years he marries his old love with whom he had formerly lived. Suppose the woman, in the meantime, had lived with one or two, or even more men at irregular intervals. Are we to suppose that any illegitimate children to which she might have given birth are to be legitimated by her subsequent marriage to the first man ? Is he to carry the burden of all her irregular connections ? This is a point upon which your Lordships ought to be quite clear. I believe the canon law recognised the legitimation of illegitimate children by subsequent marriage of the parents, but that was surely where the marriage took place fairly soon, and without the interposition of another marriage. How can it be said that if a man makes a regular marriage after living previously with another woman, he ever intended to marry his previous mistress? So far as he knew his lawful wife might survive him for many years. It seems to me that this Bill will only tend to belittle the status of the lawful issue by placing bastards almost upon an equal footing with legitimate children. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I had an Amendment on the Paper in somewhat broader language, for the Committee stage, but unfortunately I had to be absent on public business, and was unable to be here when this Bill went through Committee. I now desire to support the somewhat restricted Amendment of the noble Earl. This matter, though probably not one of common occurrence, has given rise to an enormous amount of consideration and discussion among learned men. I am free to confess that my first impression was wrong, and that according to the more prevailing opinion of canon law and of jurists on the Continent the provision as it stands in the Bill would be right, but those writers are very

737
much divided between themselves as to the effect of it. If a child is to be legitimated in this way, is he to take precedence of the children born in lawful wedlock—he is older than they are—or is he to come after them ? A great jurist of the Low Countries said it was a very hard law but, in his opinion, the legitimised child ought to come in front of the children born in wedlock. This Bill, by subsection (3) of Clause 3, provides the other way. In a case which was discussed in Scotland the learned Judges did not come to any decided conclusion—it was not necessary for the purposes of the case—as to which was the true rule.
Let me take it either way. Could there be anything more monstrous than that the children of a legitimate marriage should find in after years that all the rights of the eldest child were prejudiced because their father married late in life a former mistress and put another child in front of him? I do not understand that the Bill intends to do this—see Clause 3, subsection (3). Then look at the contrary conclusion. The contrary conclusion makes the elder child younger than the younger. It is artificial, and, like all artificial proposals, is not likely in the end to stand. That is an objection, taking this matter from the point of view of seniority. Let me take it from the point of view of equality. There may be but one child of the marriage, but he expects and believes that he will, subject to his father's good pleasure, inherit his father's goods. He knows that under settlement he must inherit a great portion of his father's goods. Suddenly he finds that his father has married a former mistress who claims to have had two or three children by him so that his share of the whole will be broken down to a third or fourth.
This question was discussed many years ago, in 1840, in the Courts of Scotland. There are fifty pages of judgments by learned Judges in the book which I have in my hand, and every argument for and against can be found there. It is true that by a majority of seven to six in this particular case the Scottish Court took the view which the noble Lord is urging on your Lordships to-day. The minority was a remarkable one. It contained the two heads of the Scottish Courts, the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, and several of the Judges were
738
anxious to state that the particular circumstances of the case possibly removed it from the general law. In this case it was a woman who married intermediately, and the claim was made to a cousin's inheritance on the father's side, and it was thought that it might make a difference if it was the father and not the mother who had married again. And there was another important point. There had been children of the marriage, but they had all died, and the legitimated illegitimate child was claiming the inheritance in the absence of all legitimate children. The point was made by some of the Judges that there were no children of the legitimate marriage to compete. I think we have gone sufficiently far when we take this Bill at the stage in which it would be if the noble Earl's Amendment was carried; that it is not desirable to give an opportunity to a capricious father to alter the status of his children by marriage, by contracting, late in life, a marriage with his former mistress.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, if it is true that your Lordships granted a Second Beading to this Bill during this Session, and in previous Parliaments, owing to a transitory fit of hysteria, then there is no doubt that it is desirable that you should revise your judgment, but this is the first time I have ever heard that there has ever been any misunderstanding or misgiving about the main principle which forms the structure of this measure. That principle is this—that an illegitimate child suffers wrong through no fault of its own and that, so far as possible, that wrong should be remedied. What are the wrongs that an illegitimate child suffers? The social disadvantage is one that may be impossible to remove by any Statute, but the real wrong that has been endured has been the exclusion from any share in the inheritance left by either of its parents, its inability either to take, or through intestacy to transmit, property of any kind. That being so it is now suggested that great difficulty will arise if you do not exclude from the operation of this Bill an illegitimate child born before one of its parents married another person.
I did not agree, as the most rev. Primate knows, with his Amendment, but

739
at least it had a definite principle behind it. What is the principle behind this? It is not suggested that this is going to disturb the happiness of married life, break up any of those conditions which every one is anxious in his own way to preserve. No. The idea, as I understand it, is that by omitting this Amendment you are going to place the legitimate offspring at a disadvantage as compared with the illegitimate. What are those disadvantages? They are two—the inheritance of estate and the transmission of title. It is expressly provided by the Bill that legitimation shall not affect the transmission of title, so that that can be entirely ignored. Now as to the transmission of property. The truth is that the noble and learned Lord's observations are directed to a state of affairs which will not exist when this Bill becomes law.
LORD PHILLIMOBE: No, surely not. The noble and learned Lord will affect settlements.
LORD BUCKMASTER: When this Bill becomes law the difference between inheriting real and personal estate will have vanished. There will no longer be any transmission to the eldest son ; they will all share equally. That is the main object of the Bill—that the illegitimate child shall share in the inheritance of his father. The noble and learned Lord says : How about settlement ? The Bill does not affect settlements and wills that are made before it comes into operation. Surely you may leave people who dispose of their property with the knowledge of this Bill to make such protection as they think right for the legitimate offspring of their marriage. The discussion of the learned people to whom the noble and learned Lord referred is a discussion in which I obviously could not take any part. I know nothing about it. But the reference he is making is to a state of things which will end on January 1, 1925, when the old division between the two forms of estate will go and real and personal property will descend as one. So much for that argument.
Now for what the noble Earl said. If the noble Earl had been at pains to read,
I think it is Clause 3 of the Bill, he never could have thought that there was any possibility of confusing the provisions owing to the fact that a woman lived with a variety of men, because all that is legitimated is the offspring of the people who marry, and if the woman pursues the devious and immoral course to which he refers and is subsequently married by one of her earlier paramours the irregularities will have no result so far as this Bill is concerned.
Now for the rest. Let me assume that a man has seduced a woman, and has left her with a child and gone away—it is not an uncommon case—has married while he was away, and then come back and found this girl with her child, and married her. I want to know why either a lapse of seven years or the fact that he had married in the interval, and either been divorced or lost his wife, should prevent him from doing that which I have repeated more than once an honest man would desire to do—namely, to do everything in his power to repair the wrong of which he has been guilty and to ensure, so far as possible, that the wrong should not be transmitted to innocent and unoffending offspring. I beg your Lordships, if you were sincere in accepting without qualification the principle of this Bill, not to agree to this Amendment, which is not based upon any such principle as that of the most rev. Primate, but is an attempt to whittle away in a number of cases the rights afforded by subsequent marriage which the children would otherwise enjoy.
LORD RAGLAN: The noble and learned Lord asked what is the principle of this Amendment. The principle, as I understand it, is the principle of monogamy. If this Amendment is not carried, you may, in certain cases, recognise for all practical purposes that a man has had a number of wives at the same time.
On question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted ?
Their Lordships divided :—Contents, 31 : Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Argyll, D.

Midleton, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Morton, E.

Hood, V.

Bath, M.

Stanhope, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.] Lord Buckmaster.

Falmouth, V.

Biddulph, L.

Carson, L.

Morris, L.

Shandon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Sinclair, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Sumner, L. [Teller.]

Foley, L.

Phillimore, L.

Treowen, L.

Hawke, L.

Raglan, L.

Wharton, L.

Lamington, L.

St. Levan, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

MacDonnell, L.

Saltoun, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Erskine, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gainford, L.

Hadaue, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Churchill, V.

Gorell, L. [Teller.]

Wimborne, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Laurence, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Bradford, L. lip.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Aberconway, L.

Muskerry, L.

Bradford, E.

Arnold, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Buxton, E.

Atkinson, L.

Olivier, L.

Chiehester, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Besshorough.)

Dartmouth, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

Byron, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Manfully.)

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Kimberley, E.

Danesfort, L.

South borough, L.

Liverpool, E.

Darling, L.

Southwark, L.

Lucan, E.

Desborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Russell, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Thomson, L.

Searbrough, E.

Dunedin, L.

Wargrave, L.

Strange, E. (Atholl D.)

Emmott, L.

Wavortree, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Leave given to Lord Mertbyr to vote in the House during the remainder of the Session.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I think this is the third time that I have had the honour of introducing this Bill to your attention, and in 1919 it passed through your Lordships' House. At that time, after receiving several Amendments, it had the strong support of noble Lords who are absent to-day. Lord Salisbury supported it, and also our present Ambassador in Paris, the Marquess of Crewe, Lord Cave and Lord Harris, the last-named being first opposed to the Bill and then coming round to support it. He is here to-day, and I hope to receive his support. Moreover, the Lord President of the Council. Lord Parmoor, in my absence took charge of the Bill and passed it through Committee of this House. Therefore I may claim that the Bill is an old friend of your Lordships' House, and on that score alone I might ask you to give it a Second Reading to-day.
742
In addition, however, since 1919 there has been a great revulsion of feeling in this country towards public-houses and their methods of supplying drink to consumers. I think public opinion now has become much more enlightened, and sees the desirability of public-houses, so far as possible, providing facilities not only for the purpose of drinking but also for various forms of innocent recreation and comfort. Yon first of all have the, great experiment made by the Liquor Control Board, who took over the houses in Carlisle and the area around, and went in largely for this policy of improving the structure of the houses, and also the conditions offered to the public for enjoying food as well as drink and other general forms of recreation—writing letters, playing dominoes, anything of that kind, even dancing, and so on. On the whole I believe that that experiment was a pronounced success, although, possibly on account of financial difficulty, the Geddes Committee reported adversely against any extension of State trading in this particular direction.
Then, again, you have Army canteens run now on quite a different footing from that on which they were run years ago. Now every inducement is given to soldiers to go to canteens and enjoy all possible facilities for recreation. Then there has been the Public House Trust movement. Various companies have been started with this idea of providing better accommoda-

743
tion, and have been very successful indeed. Even such a body as the London County Council have also gone in for this policy of allowing people who wish to go to places of refreshment to do so under certain conditions of comfort and decency.
The great object of this Bill is to do away with dens and snuggeries, and all those conditions under which men went to these places for the purpose of drinking solely. Its object is, by altering the structure and the conditions of the houses, to try to give inducement to the people to enjoy themselves in a reasonable manner without indulging over much in actual drinking. As I have said, public opinion has rapidly progressed in this direction, and many licensing benches proceed on those lines. Still, a great many benches are very obdurate and fanatical, and resist all attempts to improve the houses. Recently I had my attention called to one at Dunstable, and I understand that a few days ago there was a case in Derbyshire. Again, in Portsmouth, a firm of brewers have given up the attempt to improve their houses owing to the opposition which they encountered. I believe the firm of Barclays have been more successful, and notably so in the case of "The Rose," a public-house on the south side of the river. The primary object of the Bill is to prevent, so far as possible, licensing benches from prohibiting these improvements taking place. The second object is to encourage licence holders to improve their houses, and that encouragement is sought to be given by providing that if they make a large outlay they shall find themselves recouped by being charged only half the licence fee, and being exempt from the compensation levy.
In this connection I might refer to the attitude adopted by the county licensing committee of Middlesex. Last year they authorised Sir Herbert Nield, M.P., to go as their mouthpiece to a meeting held by the True Temperance Association, who are at the back of this Bill, and he supported a resolution which was carried, to the effect that once we got the improvement of public-houses as a settled matter in this country, we should have established the primary means of securing true temperance in England, and that we should never do it by coercive measures or prohibitive Acts of Parliament. Sir Herbert Nield supported that resolution as the mouthpiece of the Middlesex licensing committee
744
and that licensing committee wrote to the licensing justices asking them to cooperate in this matter. They recommended :
" That the Middlesex licensing justices be informed that in the opinion of the county licensing committee it appears desirable that on the submission of plans for new licensed premises, or for alterations of existing licensed premises, the provision of large rooms for meals and refreshments should be encouraged, and that small compartments and standing bars for drinking only should be eliminated, where possible.
That is very strong testimony, coming from an important body like the Middlesex licensing committee.
The late Lord Plymouth, who was closely identified with this movement, wrote a letter to the various licensing benches asking for their opinions on the Bill. Out of eighty-three replies received, there were only seven unfavourable, and all the rest more or less, some very strongly indeed, supported the object of the Bill. Therefore it shows that there is a strong progressive tendency to allow these improved conditions to obtain. A gentleman who has been connected for twenty-four years with licensed houses and who was managing director for eighteen years of Trust Houses, Limited, and is now an independent adviser with respect to licensed houses, came to see me a few days ago, and he kindly gave me some notes of his experience.
I am only going to read one or two passages. He says:—
" The Public-House Improvement Bill is, in my opinion, a necessity, if any systematic and general improvement in licensed premises is to take place. The best evidence I can give of this is that in improved houses under my control, numbering rather more than two hundred, in different parts of the country … including houses owned by brewers, not a single conviction for permitting drunkenness has ever taken place … Some benches of justices have enlightened views as to permitting improvements. Most have not. These views are largely based upon mistrust of the applicant's real intentions …
" One of the large brewery companies for which I work has its own central kitchen, and the gross rate of profit arising from catering is far in excess of that arising from any alcoholic liquors. Licensed houses ought to be fit for family use, or they ought not to exist."
Later in the letter, he mentions the matter of children being allowed to go on licensed premises :—
"I have experience of many poor districts, and I can say that I know that

745
mental terror is often experienced by young children being locked up at home, and illness by their being left in the streets, while their parents are taking refreshment. Moreover, the parents are obliged to consume all the liquor they require hurriedly, and the public-house becomes, by force of legislation, a mere drinking den and not a place of resort for the public …
" The public-house affords the only place where free entertainment and rest are provided. No one need spend a penny, no one is asked to do so, and some do not in the houses I control."
He further says :
" In my opinion this Bill contains the seeds from which all constructive temperance reform can spring. Without it the owners of licensed houses, who are content with present-day conditions, have a complete excuse for doing very little, and the reformers, in many districts, are up against a cul de sac.''
That is strong evidence from a man who has been for twenty-four years connected with this movement.
I may just quote one other passage. It is from a speech made by Professor Dixon in the course of the Lady Priestley Memorial Lecture, given under the auspices of the National Reform Society:
" One disgraceful state of affairs still required solution, especially in the larger cities—namely, the condition of the public-houses. These must not be allowed to remain as mere drinking palaces. Their place must be taken by decent houses of recreation and refreshment, at which all people might meet in a reasonable and friendly manner."
The gentleman from whom I have previously quoted admitted that this Bill might require amendment in some of its clauses, and I do not suggest for a moment that it is a cast-iron measure, though I think its principles find intentions are sound.
I will very briefly go through some of the clauses. Clause 1 describes the conditions under which it is proposed that a licence should be applied for and the position of the licensing justices. Clause 2 deals with appeals to quarter sessions if a licence is refused or if any onerous terms are imposed. Clause 4 is a new clause, inserted owing to the passing of the Licensing Act of 1921. Clause 5 deals with children on licensed premises unless, owing to special circumstances, a specified part of such premises is reserved for adults. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the "encouragement of this movement by the remission of taxation.
746
This is an old Bill and I need not go more fully into the question of the desirability of improving conditions in public-houses. I have had nothing but support for the Measure. The only opposition I have seen was in last Sunday's Observer, the organ. I believe, of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which published an article, or letter, suggesting, or rather definitely stating, that this was purely a "trade "measure. I think there was a second letter saying that the money for this temperance association is supplied by "the trade." I can categorically deny that. I only hope that the Observer, when it heat's of my statement, will withdraw its innuendo. There is no instance of any of these firms contributing funds to the association. Not only so, but there are many cases in which we have refused large offers of monetary help. We invariably work on our own, without being dependent upon the trade. There may be some subscribers who are interested in breweries, but we are absolutely independent of any trade organisation, and, if it is any satisfaction to the Observer, [note that our total income is less than £1,000 a year, which is not very much in these days for carrying on propaganda. The statement published was an offensive innuendo, and I hope it will be absolutely withdrawn by the paper or by the noble Viscount, if he is here. Personally, I think we are rather quixotic in refusing funds from these trade organisations, for the object is a laudable one. However, that has been our policy.
The only other opposition I know of comes from the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, who has placed on the Paper an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. This is an extraordinary thing, and it shows how very misleading are our Party labels. Here am I, a Conservative of the Conservatives, advocating reform, and there is the noble Lord, who, I suppose, is a strong Radical, and who wants to perpetuate the system of dens and snuggeries, with all their facilities for drinking under disgraceful and disreputable conditions. That is the difference. One matter which may bear upon this point is the question of working men's clubs. There are some which are very respectable and very well managed; there

747
are others whose membership is chiefly made up of very strong Radicals or Socialists.
Perhaps your Lordships may not know-that these clubs have almost absolute freedom in their conduct. Usually on Sundays they start at 10 o'clock or 10.30 in the morning. They begin with a variety entertainment, and follow, with children on the premises, with dancing, gambling, and drunkenness. A single case of drunkenness does not entitle a policeman to enter a club ; it is only when drunkenness becomes of a scandalous or serious nature that the police are entitled to enter a club and remove people who are drunk. Compare that with public-houses which are under strict supervision. The one fear of a publican is that he should have a case of drunkenness on his premises, and his one desire is to conduct his business in a proper, legitimate, and decent fashion. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, is interested in having these advanced Socialistic clubs managed on that system. I am not a great admirer of State interference, but I think it is better to have public-houses with State supervision, from which no serious disadvantage results to the public.
My noble friend Lord Curzon, a few days ago, on the Second Heading of the Matrimonial Causes Bill, expressed the opinion that it was unusual and unwise for the House to reverse its decision on a Bill which had had a Second Reading on a previous occasion. The Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is in precisely the same position, and I only hope that your Lordships will now support the Bill, and not stop the progress of a measure which seeks to enable the masses of the people to spend their hours of recreation under such conditions of comfort, if not of decency, as all the better classes of the country can enjoy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD had given Notice to move as an Amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said : My Lords, in moving this Amendment I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill into any personal question. The only thing I would say is
748
that the grounds on which I oppose this Bill are not those which he anticipated were mine when he referred to me personally during his speech. I sympathise to the full with the noble Lord in his effort to give increased facilities for the recreation of the public. I recognise the sincerity of his motive in bringing forward this Bill, and I know that he will recognise that I am equally sincere in the grounds on which I oppose it. I am aware that the House is anxious to reach the very important subject which is next on the Order Paper, and I will endeavour to compress my remarks into as small a compass as possible.
The object of this Bill is to open the way to increased facilities for recreation in connection with licensed premises. I am opposing the Motion for Second Reading because it seems to me that if the Bill is carried it will materially and injuriously affect the present powers of the licensing justices. Whatever differences of opinion there are, and there are, of course, acute differences of opinion, upon the drink question, we all recognise two facts. The first is that public opinion in this country, as the result of long experience, has created an elaborate system for the regulation and control of the sale of intoxicating liquors. Those regulations are embodied in Parliamentary enactments. The second fact upon which I think we shall all agree is that these limitations and restrictions are necessary in the public interest. There is, perhaps, another fact on which we shall not disagree—that on the whole the licensing justices of this country, who are responsible for exercising these controlling functions, have generally exercised them wisely and usefully.
This Bill proceeds upon the assumption that, in order to secure extended facilities for recreation in connection with licenced premises, it is necessary to grant certain privileges and exemptions for the purpose of inducing licence holders to provide these extended facilities. My opposition is based, in the main, upon my conviction that the privileges and exemptions proposed to be granted for this purpose by this Bill will involve a weakening of the discretionary powers of the justices and will not be for the public good. Let me place before the House in one or two sentences, instances taken from the

749
clauses of this Bill of what I deem to be limitations imposed upon the discretionary powers of the licensing justices. The first instance is Clause 1, which deals with the conditions under which a special certificate can be obtained. The clause provides that where licensed premises are not merely places for the consumption of intoxicating liquors but contain adequate provision for the supply of other refreshments, and are airy, commodious and comfortable, the justices shall issue a certificate. I know that in the London area a certificate has to obtain the confirmation of the London County Council ; but this proposal is a serious infringement of the discretionary powers of the licensing justices, and I should be very much surprised if, as a whole, the licensing justices of the country failed to take serious objection to it.
Another instance o£ what I deem to be limitations imposed upon the discretionary powers of the licensing justices is to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 1, which provides that the licensing justices before whom an application for an improved public-house certificate comes shall not refuse a certificate upon the ground that any alteration of the premises proposed by the applicant would afford "increased accommodation or facilities." As your Lordships know very well the licensing justices have power under Section 71 of the Consolidation Act of 1910 to refuse such alterations when, in their opinion, those alterations might lead to increased facilities for drinking. This Bill would deprive the justices of the right, to refuse a certificate merely on the ground that such alterations would give increased facilities. Whatever our views may be upon the merits of the other clauses in the Bill, I cannot help feeling strongly that this would be a serious limitation of the discretionary powers of the licensing justices.
Then, Clause 3 provides that every licence, if the holder thereof be also the holder of a special certificate, shall be deemed to comprise all licences necessary for the purpose of music and dancing. I think that the change in the law which is proposed by the Bill in regard to the granting of entertainment licences is open to grave objection. It is, indeed, true under this clause of the Bill that if the justices felt that public morals or good order were endangered by
750
the granting of such facilities, they could prohibit dancing and impose conditions upon other forms of entertainments : but I would like to appeal to the experience of licensing justices when I say that in my judgment it would be found impracticable, and that if such a clause became law it would materially affect the powers of the licensing justices. Further, Clause 5 of the Bill says that, unless the licensing justices deem it desirable that a specific portion of the premises should be reserved for adults, no prohibition of the presence of children is to apply to premises which have obtained this special certificate. It will be within the recollection of all your Lordships that, in response, I think, to the general sentiment of the country, an Act was passed in 1908 affording protection to children in relation to public-houses, and this clause would be a virtual reversal of that decision.
In conclusion, may I briefly refer to the financial provisions of the Bill, in Clauses 6 and 7. Clause 6 proposes to halve the licence duty, and in a statement sent out, I think, by the promoters of the Bill it is rightly estimated that the financial result of that provision would be a loss of revenue to the State of one and a half millions a year. I am a little doubtful whether that particular provision in a Bill would rightly come, within our purview, but I let that pass. The second financial exemption is contained in Clause 7—the abolition in the case of these licensed premises of their liability to pay compensation to the compensation authority. I wonder whether your Lordships have realised the practical meaning of this provision. The amount of the compensation levy in 1922 was £850,000. I do not know what portion of the licensed premises of the country the noble Lord opposite thinks would obtain these certificates. Suppose you put the number at 50 per cent. The meaning of that would be that the total of the compensation fund would he reduced from £850,000 to a little over £400,000. As your Lordships well know, that would strike a fatal blow at the whole compensation scheme for the reduction of licensed premises. It is admitted on all hands that, with the full amount available under the compensation levy, the rate of reduction in licensing is very slow, and if this particular clause were passed, I believe the effect would be practically to wreck the whole scheme.
I think I have said enough to set out the main grounds on which my opposition to this Bill is founded. I believe that it would strike a very great blow at the discretionary powers of the licensing justices, and that if the financial provisions in the Bill were to become law the result would be very unfair indeed. It would be very unfair to make a distinction as between the privileged and the non-privileged licensed premises. Speaking for myself I think privileged licensed premises would naturally have more business and make more profits. It seems to me at all events that the privilege thus conferred ought not to lessen, but rather increase, the liability in regard to payment of the compensation levy. I should be surprised if such a Bill as this received the support of His Majesty's Government. In any event I feel pretty certain that it cannot receive the sanction of Parliament. On those grounds, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships have followed, as I have done, with admiration the consistent way in which the noble Lord who has just moved the rejection of this Bill has devoted himself to the question of temperance, and we can feel sure that in taking the course he has done he has acted from the highest motives. Having great sympathy with him and with all he has done, especially in Wales, for temperance, I am very sorry that I cannot follow him on this occasion. For this reason : I think that in the concluding words of his speech he showed a reason—it may not be a good one, but it is a reason—why this Bill should be proceeded with, at any rate to the Committee stage. There is at the present time throughout this country a change in the feeling generally with which we approach what is commonly called the temperance question, and the very difficult question of licensing.
There are two factors which affect it. There is an increasing demand for places of entertainment and refreshment, other than houses which are merely places for the sale of intoxicating liquor. There is, side by side with that, and very closely
752
connected with the causes that lead to it, a great extension of clubs throughout the country. The existence of those two factors, I admit, demand that we should give a fresh consideration to the proposals contained in the noble Lord's Bill. I do not remember whether, on the previous occasion when this Bill was introduced, it went beyond the early stages. I do not think myself that it got beyond a formal Second Reading.
LORD LAMINGTON: It passed this House.
LORD TREOWEN: I was not quite sure of that. I think it certainly ought now to be accorded a Second Reading, if only to enable the noble Lord to show in what way the difficulties—and they are real difficulties—referred to by my noble friend Lord Clwyd might be met. I cannot say that I admire the Bill. It does not seem to be well drafted or well considered, but the principle on which it is based—namely, to provide some places where people can get reasonable refreshment and entertainment—is one which should never be turned down. I shall certainly support the Second Reading, although, like Lord Clywd, I do not think there is much chance of it going any further this year. Still, by discussions in Committee we shall be able to give certain indications to those who are studying this question and enable them to bring forward a better Bill in the future.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, there are few in this House or, indeed, in the country who would not commend the principle which is attempted to be put into practice by this Bill. Its object, its apparent object, is to make public-houses more pleasant places, more sociable places, places to which a man can resort for some other reason than the mere desire for alcoholic liquor. But I must tell you quite explicitly that His Majesty's Government consider the provisions of this Bill to be totally and completely inadequate to deal with the problem they seek to tackle. The concessions with regard to the Licensing Laws and the remissions with regard to duties wholly outweigh any possible benefit, if benefit indeed there be, that will be obtained by the passage of this measure.
The whole of this Bill depends on our definition of the words "improved public-

753
house." I have asked myself what is an "improved public-house," and I find it a difficult question to answer. I think the gentlemen who drew up this Bill will also find themselves faced by the same difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, has already drawn attention to a certain phrase, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read it again. It is the phrase "Where licensed premises are not merely places for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, but contain adequate provision, in view of the character of the house and the wants of the neighbourhood." "In view of the character of the house and the wants of the neighbourhood ! "
I ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of licensing justices. You are approached by the publican, let us say of a small public-house in a poor district like Lambeth. He says: "I have a small public-house, I cannot possibly alter it structurally, it is surrounded on all sides by houses, but I am, quite walling to put a couple of tables in my bar parlour and my wife is quite willing to cook a mid-day meal, and we will serve bread and cheese throughout the day." What is the position of the licensing justices? Under this Bill they cannot fail to grant a certificate, and yet not one of your Lordships would seriously say that he considered that this public-house was in any manner really improved. I take the example of the small public-house in a poor neighbourhood because it is the small public-house that is the average public-house and the sort of public-house to which any true temperance reformer has to turn his attention. The whole idea of the improved public-house as contained in this Bill is a pure figment of the imagination of those who have drawn up the measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, has already drawn attention to several of the more flagrant weaknesses of this specious measure. I think he was really a little kind to it. Look at Clause 4. It is a clause which is based on a total misapprehension of the problem. You would think from reading Clause 4, which refers us back to the Licensing Act of 1021, and says that so-called improved public-houses shall be opened for an extra hour, provided they supply meals and provided the bars are closed, that the average English public-house was built
754
primarily as a restaurant, and has a little bar parlour tucked away round the corner which can be closed. Most of us, I think, know enough of the English public-house to know that this is a total misconception. The average English public-house is all bar ; it is impossible, structurally, to close the bar, and if it were structurally possible, I ask you to think of the amount of police supervision that would be needed. This provision would be a complete farce.
Then the next clause, Clause 5, has already been referred to. If I may use a slang phrase, I would like to say that I think it really gives the whole show away to suggest that we should go back on this wholesome development of public opinion. Your Lordships have already heard Lord Clwyd deal with the question of the remission of the duty, but there is one point that I should like to make, and that is that as this Bill is drawn all hotels and restaurants, as they stand, will get the benefit of this remission. We are therefore asked to give them a grant of half their already reduced duty; and they will not have to spend a single penny on alterations. This is a concession which His Majesty's Government could not make at the expense of the laxpayer. I confess that when I first read this Bill it seemed to me that it was just the sort of legislation that the True Temperance Association would like to see on our Statute Book. The small study that I have given to this problem, however, has only convinced me that the True Temperance Association never had a very sincere belief in temperance. The Government would view with great and deep sympathy any legislation that they considered would really deal with the public-house system of this country, would really improve it; but this sincere and deep desire to see the system improved does not, in their mind, in any way justify them in giving any sort of support to what I may call a very specious measure.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am sorry, and I confess a little surprised, to note the attitude of His Majesty's present advisers towards this Bill. I do not think the case is one that ought to be dismissed in the light and airy way of the noble Earl who has just addressed us. I doubt very much whether his experience of public-houses,

755
which is probably not larger than his experience of this House, entitles him to be quite so dogmatic as he was in the utterances, delivered with much grace and charm, to which we have just listened.
Like Lord Clwyd, I am well aware that your Lordships are for the most part assembled here for a discussion which is about to follow, and like him I shall be very brief indeed. I think Lord Laming-ton was quite justified in referring to the argument which I ventured to use yesterday afternoon. I was speaking with regard to the Rill for which Lord Buckmaster was responsible, and the same argument applies to-day. I mean the argument, and the appeal to your Lordships, not to reject the Second Reading of a Bill which has on more than one occasion already been before you and on which you are asked to do no more than give that assent in principle which the acceptance of a Second Reading involves. What has happened in the case of this Bill ? Lord Treowen was informed by Lord Laming-ton that this measure has been before your Lordships' House twice already. It has twice had a Second Reading, and on one occasion not only had it a Second Reading but it passed through Committee stage, through Report, stage and, indeed, passed through your Lordships' House.
It is a very tall order indeed in such circumstances for your Lordships to turn the Bill down, as we have been invited to do by the noble Lord who has just addressed us, on the ground that it is a specious, ill-considered and ridiculous measure. What a reflection that would be upon the previous decisions of the House of Lords; This House contains a number of fairly experienced and sensible people : wisdom has not dawned upon us for the first time since we had this row of phantoms upon that Bench ; and I prefer to think that the House of Lords had some ground for its decisions in previous years, and that we are not assembled to-day to have wisdom preached to us for the first time by a Labour Administration. I most sincerely respect and sympathise with the effort of my noble friend Lord Lamington. He is one of a number of men who for years have been engaged in an effort—to my mind an honourable and entirely disinterested effort—to improve the condition of public-houses in this country. Everyone knows that they stand in need of improvement. Everyone knows that some of the con-
756
ditions are scandalous. Here we have a perfectly sincere endeavour to purify and refine the tone of those institutions, a measure in the interests not merely of the community at large but more particularly of the women, and perhaps more particularly still, of the children of this country. For heaven's sake, when we get an attempt of that sort, do not let us snuff it out as if it were something beneath contempt.
What are the arguments which we hear advanced against the Bill? They have been two-fold, so far as this afternoon's debate is concerned. Nobody knows bettor than I do that Lord Treowen's remarks concerning Lord Clwyd are absolutely true. Lord Clwyd is a noble Lord who has devoted the greater part of his public life to the work of temperance, and we may be certain that he speaks here in no other interest. But what were his objections? They were, in the; main, two-fold. In the first place, he contends that this Bill will interfere with the prerogatives—or rather, I think, the phrase was the discretionary power—of the licensing justices. Then let them get up and say so in this House. There must be plenty of noble Lords in this House with experience of licensing benches, and if the objection be valid—I do not think it is—let us hear their views. But what is the occasion for hearing their objections? Why, in Committee. You do not want these statements made unchallenged, and therefore incapable, for the moment, of contradiction, on the Second Reading. You want to thrash the thing out in Committee. The second objection was the possible financial cost of the exemptions which are suggested in this Bill. The noble Lord produced figures which were calculated on the assumption that every house will necessarily be improved under this Bill. I wish it were so.
LORD CLWYD: Fifty per cent.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Well, my noble friend would be gratified if 50 per cent. were improved. I think he would be gratified if 25 per cent. were improved, and I am not certain that he would refuse 10 per cent. Really, if we are to deal with this question of money, and to be told that a sum of £1,500,000 is a very serious thing, what does the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, say to that ? I had the pleasure

757
of hearing him make a most excellent speech upon an entirely different subject yesterday in which he told your Lordships that a gain to the Exchequer of a sum of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 was a beggarly and niggardly affair which was not worth looking at.
LORD ARNOLD: Will the noble Marquess permit me to interrupt him? This is rather important. My point yesterday—and, if I may say so, a reference to the Official Report will prove that it was this point that I made—was that £3,50(1,000 was a niggardly sum in relation to the anticipations which had been formed of the yield of this tax, and not that it is a niggardly sum in itself. If your Lordships will allow me to make it clear, I said that this loudly trumpeted fiscal instrument, when gone into, was found to yield only £3,500,000; and though, of course, that sum is not niggardly in itself, it is niggardly in proportion to the anticipations.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not want to enter into controversy with the noble Lord as to what he meant. All I know is what he said, and he did, beginning with an estimate of £5,000,000, proceed to cut it down by saying that so much would be spent in collection, so much would be sacrificed by evasion, and, eventually, that you would be lucky if you got £3,500,000, and that if you got that it was a niggardly sum. There is no doubt that the noble Lord said that. I do not want to push him too far, hut you cannot have one member of your Lordships' House and of His Majesty's Government arguing on one day that £3,500,000 is a niggardly sum, and another member on another day complaining bitterly of a possible loss of £1,500,000 sterling.
I venture to say again, however, that the question of finance is surely one for Committee. I am 6ure that my noble friend Lord Lamington will be only too glad, as will all of us, to examine all these considerations in Committee, as well as the points raised by the noble Lord who spoke just now, and whom I understood to say that the cause of temperance would not be advanced in any way by the passage of a measure of this sort. How does it come, then, that bodies of temperance reformers, who for years have devoted
758
their interest to this matter, have concentrated on this Bill, and are anxious to give it a chance and push it forward by every means in their power ? I must remember my own observation about being brief, but I hope that the little I have said may encourage your Lordships to give my noble friend the support of which he seems to stand in need, and, without hesitation and by a large majority, to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall not stand for one moment between the House and a Division and the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour, but I do wish respectfully to point out to the noble Marquess that he has not interpreted in the least the attitude of the Government as expressed by my noble friend. That attitude' was not directed to affirming that an improved public-house, whatever that may-turn out to be, was not a good thing. If you can conceive an ideal public-house, it would be an excellent place of resort for a great many people. The objection directed to this Bill is that the machinery which it proposes to set up is unworkable, and that the definition of the improved public-house in Clause I is hopeless. I cannot conceive of a Bill more likely to give distress of mind to the unfortunate licensing justices who are to determine whether the conditions of Clause 1 are satisfied. I am quite agreeable to the idea that the matter is one which should be inquired into, but it is a matter that must be inquired into in connection with the Licensing Laws. If this Bill were passed as it stands, it would turn the Licensing Laws topsy turvy. For that reason the Government cannot support the Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a moment, but I would venture to ask the House to consider whether the points which the noble Marquess described as Committee points are not the very essence of the Bill. To cut out these points and to treat them as if they can only be discussed in Committee would, it seems to me, emasculate the Bill, so that it would practically have no interest at all. The points to which I take exception, while they are, if you like, Committee points, are also, as it seems to me, essential to the principle of the Bill
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships more than a minute or two, but I should like to call attention to one point that has not been referred to by any previous speaker. I am not one of those who see the imprint of the cloven hoof upon this Bill. I am sure that no one who knows the noble Lord who introduced it would imagine that he is the owner of a cloven hoof. But I hope the House will not give a Second Reading to this Bill. In my opinion the solution of the temperance problem does not lie in the direction of this measure. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill mentioned the success of the Public House Trust. I venture to say that the success of that Trust is not due to the fact that extended
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR had the following Notice on the Paper :—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information
facilities are granted, but to the principle of disinterested management which is followed by it. In my opinion, disinterested management can, to-day, be attained only in one way, and that is by State purchase. I wish to suggest to the. Government, who came into power on a programme of nationalisation of the means of distribution, production and exchange, that they had, better make a start and nationalise the drink trade. They would obtain, I think, a very much greater measure of support than they may expect.
On Question, Whether the word "now "' shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 66 ; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Bath, M.

Hood, V.

Muskerry, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Newton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Askwith, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Balfour, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Bradford, E.

Carson, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Chichester, E.

Danesfort, L.

Phillimore, L.

Clarendon, E.

Darling, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Hessborough.)

Dartmouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Desart, L. (E.Besart.)

Raglan, L.

Liverpool, E.

Dunedin, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lucan, E.

Erskine, L.

Romilly, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

St. Levan, L.

Midleton, E.

Harris, L.

Saltoun, L.

Morton, E.

Hawke, L.

Sinclair, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Hindlip, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Sumner, L.

Stafford, E.

Lemington, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Yane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lawrence, L.

Treowen, L.

Merthyr, L.

Wargrave, L.

Churchill, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wavertree, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Wharton, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Apb.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clwyd, L. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Emmott, L.

Wimborne, V.

Gainford, L.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Gorell, L.

Bradford, L. Bp.

Hemphill, L.

Beatichamp, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Olivier, L.

Buxton, E.

Pentland, L.

De La Warr, E.

Arnold, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Thomson, L.

to the House with regard to the construction of a naval base at Singapore ; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said : My Lords, I make no apology for addressing your Lordships, even at a rather inconvenient hour, upon this subject, for its importance I believe is universally recognised, and its general importance is augmented at the present moment, because, if the

761
ordinary sources of information: are to be credited, the Government are not yet in possession of all the facts which they desire to have before coming to a final conclusion upon the subject of our naval base at Singapore. I fully recognise that in all the steps the present Government have taken upon military and naval matters since they came into office they have sincerely desired, in so far as it was possible, in so far as it was in conformity with their views, to carry on the principle of continuity. And I am sure they would not break that principle in any given case without having strong reasons, or what they deem to be strong reasons, in support of their views.
And I am ready to make this further concession to those who differ from the views which my friends and I have long held upon this particular subject. I admit, in the first place, that it costs money, and that any scheme which costs money is one which deserves to be severely scrutinised by the financial authorities of the country. I admit, in the second place, that it seems to be somewhat inconsistent, at first sight, with the declarations that we have so frequently made, and in which we so sincerely believe, that one of the greatest needs of the world at the present moment is the diminution of military and naval armaments. And I admit, in the third place, that at first sight the construction of a naval base in the immediate neighbourhood of the Pacific may seem inconsistent, if not with the letter, at all-events with the spirit of the Washington Treaty. I therefore quite admit that not only are the Government within their right, but it is their duty, to consider this particular proposal of their predecessors in the spirit, doubtless of fairness, but of critical fairness.
As regards the last point that I have brought to your Lordships' attention—I mean the relations of the construction of this naval base and the Treaty of Washington—I believe that in one of the previous debates which occurred on the subject in your Lordships' House one noble Lord went the length of suggesting that Singapore was so close to the defined area in the Pacific Ocean where new naval bases were not to be constructed and old naval bases were not to be strengthened—it was so near to this preserve that it was almost a bit of sharp
762
practice on the part of the British Government to take the steps which they did take, and which are now under the critical survey of His Majesty's Government.
I can assure your Lordships, however, that this last fear that the late Government, and the Government that preceded the late Government, were committed to some procedure verging on sharp practice because Singapore is so very close to longitude 110 E. of Greenwich, is a delusion. The idea, for instance, that Baron Kato, the Japanese representative at Washington, and subsequently Prime Minister, with whom I have had many conversations—a most distinguished sailor, and a most admirable and fair-minded statesman, since unfortunately deceased—would awaken one morning after the signature of the Treaty, rub his eyes, and say: "Well, I find, after all, that Singapore is to the west and not to the east of this fixed longitude "is a complete delusion. Everybody concerned with the Washington Treaty was perfectly aware that Singapore was not only excluded, but deliberately excluded, from the area in which it was agreed that no new naval bases should be constructed and no old naval bases strengthened.
Those, therefore, who desire, as I most earnestly desire, that the policy which the present Government found in operation when they came into office should be continued, need have no fear that they are committing any technical breach of the Treaty of Washington, or that they are indulging in anything which can give just cause of offence to any other friendly and neutral nations in connection with this policy. It is perfectly straightforward and above board. It is not only consistent with the Treaty of Washington, but it was known to be consistent with the Treaty of Washington by those who drew up that Treaty. From that point of view, at all events, we need have no scruple.
But some of your Lordships may be inclined to say that, although the British Government is unquestionably within its rights as between itself and other nations, to do what it likes with Singapore, to spend what number of millions it pleases in contriving and in strengthening its defences, there is a more important question behind that. Is that consistent, not

763
with our Treaty obligations, but with the moral considerations which ought to govern us, with our own consciences as advocates of peace- those of us who are, above all things, anxious that the burden of armaments and the dangers of war should be removed from this suffering world ? Is it, in other words, consistent with those professions which we have so often made, and which we so constantly make at present, that disarmament, or the diminution of armaments, to be more accurate, shall be one of the great objects which civilised mankind should in the present condition of the world aim at attaining ?
To those who approach the problem from that point of view I would most respectfully point out that the disarmament that we all desire is one that will prevent war, and that the increase of armaments that we dread is one that will increase the danger of war. And a very important distinction which lies at the root of some of the most valuable provisions in the Treaty of Washington depends upon the consideration that armaments which are defensive, and purely defensive, in their character are not instruments which encourage war, but instruments which prevent it. And the fundamental defence of our view of Singapore is that by strengthening the defences of the Empire for which we are responsible, without at the same time threatening any other rival Power in those parts of the world, we are taking a step which safeguards peace, which makes in favour of the status quo, and which does nothing whatever, direct or indirect, either to raise legitimate jealousies, or to excite fears, be they right or wrong, or to produce the state of war which is too often the result of armaments designed for a different purpose and capable of being turned to a different use.
I have often thought that if, by any legislative operation or by the action of public opinion, we could have so directed the efforts of science in the generation now coming to an end that all the inventions for which men of science are responsible strengthened the defence of those who were attacked and did nothing to help the efforts of those who were the attackers, science, instead of having added to the terrors and horrors of war, would really have given us that peace,
764
that secure peace, for which the world pants, for which the world has contrived and is contriving various expedients, but which none of us can flatter ourselves that we have already attained. Science, unfortunately, has been totally non-moral and impartial in this matter. It has helped the aggressor at least as much as it has helped the defender. But when you can find a case in which every strengthening of armaments conduces to peace and prevents war, conduces to peace because it makes war useless, and prevents war because the belligerent feels that war can never be worth his while—when armaments conduce to that object, they are, perhaps, the most powerful means of securing peace, locally at all events, that human ingenuity has yet contrived.
Let the House observe that the whole idea of maintaining the status quo in the Pacific—which, no doubt, would have been broken by our doing anything to strengthen Singapore had Singapore been in the forbidden or closed area—and the whole spirit of those provisions of the Treaty of Washington were based largely on the fact that modern fleets of first class ships cannot fight their equals with any hope of success if their equals whom they wish to fight are close to their own bases, while they have to travel thousands of miles before the shock of war can begin. The modern battle fleet cannot operate effectually against ships of equal strength if it be removed too far from its base of operations, too far to keep up the supplies of fuel required by the modern ship of war, too far to carry out those repairs without which an action must be fought under some disadvantage, and the absence of which, after it is fought, may turn a check into a fatal disaster. Therefore it was decided that none of the three Powers which by the Treaty of Washington and by the circumstances of their situation had great fleets, or could have great fleets, in the Pacific, should increase their naval bases, or should create new naval bases of a threatening character so as to disturb that tranquillity which the Treaty of Washington was designed to give and has given, and again produce that competition of armaments and that fear of attack between rival Powers which caused so much anxiety before the Treaty of Washington came to alleviate it.
Does anybody think, does the noble Lord who is at the head of the Admiralty

765
think, or is he prepared to contend, that the creation of a naval base at Singapore is of a character which can be seriously treated as a menace to any other Power at all ? Singapore is very little short of 3,000 miles from Yokohama. Plymouth and Boston are nearer each other than Singapore and Yokohama, and really the idea that building a naval base approximately 3,000 miles from Yokohama can be a menace to our friends the Japanese is a fantastic notion which, I think, would be dissipated if your Lordships or the public in general would take the advice of the late Lord Salisbury, and use large maps. A fleet which has to go 3,000 miles to meet another equal fleet close to its own bases is really risking its existence. I am quite confident that we have never given the least cause for anxiety to any Power in the Pacific by our schemes for strengthening Singapore. They cannot suffer.
It remains to ask what we can gain and what we do gain. What we gain, if the plan of the late Government—which I hope will be the plan of the present Government—is carried to its proper termination, is that feeling of security among all the members of the British Empire in that part of the world which they certainly do not possess at the present moment. It is not that any of them, I imagine, supposes that we are on the eve of an aggressive war on the part of any Power in the Pacific. But if, like prudent men, the statesmen of New Zealand, Australia and India look at the map and consider what their defences are, they must ask themselves whether they have in the last resort any effectual defence from maritime aggression except the British Navy. And the next question they ask themselves is this : "If we depend, as we do depend, for our feeling of absolute security upon the British Fleet, can the British Fleet be in the position to assist us effectually unless there is in our neighbourhood some naval base where it can re-fit re-fuel, and do away with all the paralysing effects that a voyage of thousands of miles over the ocean inevitably has upon a modern fleet ?" And their answer, I believe, is unanimous.
I do not know what information the Government may have upon the subject. The noble Lord who is at the head of the Admiralty has a great acquaintance with Indian affairs, and he will be able to give
766
us first-hand information upon that subject. But when I was at Washington I had among my colleagues representatives both of our self-governing Dominions in the Pacific and of the Indian Empire. We met in constant consultation. I believe I knew all their thoughts. They certainly had an opportunity of knowing all mine. They were, in their turn, in constant communication with their own Governments, and they were all unanimous in feeling that unless the British Fleet was in a position to act effectually in their defence in case of attack, they could not feel that the forces of the Empire were really available to give them that feeling of security to which they justly thought they had a claim.
It is a commonplace—I am almost ashamed to repeat it to your Lordships—'which sometimes in some of our argument we ignore, that the British Fleet ultimately can only be based upon Great Britain. The source of our naval strength is these islands, and that primary base cannot be transferred in existing circumstances to any other part of the world. The attempt to transfer it, or to transfer it in any very large measure!, would be one of extreme cost to the British taxpayer : in fact, a cost which would be absolutely overwhelming. Here is the primary base of the British Fleet. But the British Empire has important fragments all over the world, and no portions of the great Empire more deserve our perpetual consideration and regard than the three great territories that I have already mentioned—the self-governing Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, and our great Indian Empire.
While our first base is within a few miles, as I may say, of this Chamber, its activities may be required in the Antipodes, and the territories that form part of our Empire which are situated in the Antipodes ask how a fleet which is based on Great Britain alone, or in the first place, is to be made available in case they are attacked. If that problem is once put—it is a very simple and a very obvious problem—all the experts, I believe, are agreed upon the answer. If you are going to have a secondary base which will enable you to use your fleet in case your interests in the Far East and in the Antipodes are attacked, Singapore is the place to have it. If His Majesty's Government, having re-examined the

767
question, come down to this House and tell us that they have studied the map, that they have looked at the trade routes, that they have observed what coasts are most vulnerable to attack and from what place they can be most easily defended, and that they have made the discovery that some place other than Singapore is more useful and suitable to carry out these great tasks, then (if that is their position) we shall be delighted to hear their arguments. All the experts we have had an opportunity of consulting were absolutely unanimous that Singapore had quite exceptional advantages for the purpose which I have endeavoured to describe.
Whatever line the Government may take upon this subject, however much they may differ from other arguments that I have endeavoured to bring before them, I do not think they will say: "We admit that a secondary base which will prevent our fleet being immobile and paralysed when it leaves the North Sea, or the Mediterranean, or the Atlantic, or the Pacific and the Far East is required, but we do not think Singapore is the proper place." I do not believe that is the line they would take. It is Singapore, or it is nothing. To me it seems that if the Government, in their wisdom, decide that it shall not be Singapore, and that, therefore, it shall be nothing, they will really have made a disastrous mistake which will have an echo through all the Dominions and those regions where the British possessions are to be found, of which they can hardly calculate the consequences.
Our brothers in Australia and New Zealand are proud of the Empire. They know that they have grown up under the Empire. They know that without the British Fleet in the background their world-position would be singularly insecure. Their whole scheme of political thought depends upon the idea that they are not only bound to us by legal and constitutional ties, but that we are prepared, and have always been prepared—and I hope always shall be prepared—to throw every ounce of strength we possess to protect them in case of need. You may say that the need is very unlikely to arise in those regions, that the self-governing Dominions are practically safe ; and you may ask, why should you conjure
768
up imaginary dangers, and why should you unnecessarily yield to fears which have but little foundation ?
I am not sure that if your Lordships were to visit Australia and New Zealand yourselves, and were by personal experience to consider the situation and all the peculiarities—such, for instance, as the proportion of population to territory—which mark those great self-governing Dominions, and were to conjure up (perhaps that is the proper phrase) the possible dangers that might arise, you would not say : Well, those dangers may be remote, no cloud is at present on the horizon, and something more than a mere conventional friendship unites the Governments which control the great Navies of the Pacific. That may all be true, yet would you not say : Circumstances change, the clearest skies get most unexpectedly overclouded, preparations for defence, which in earlier and less sophisticated ages could rapidly be improvised, now take years to accomplish, and are we, who have shown in recent years what we are prepared to do for the common cause of Empire, who have made such sacrifices, far as we are ourselves removed from the focus of danger, who have shown what we can do, who have loaded ourselves with debt, who have seen the flower of our youth decimated by years of war—are we to see the British Fleet, the bond of Empire, the pride of Empire, the security of Empire, with all its efficiency, compelled to work in what I may call a geographical framework, which renders it, from our point of view, perfectly useless in certain contingencies, which, however improbable, are not impossible, and which, if they occurred, might be fatal to our very existence ?
That really is the essence of the case that I want to bring before your Lordships. Every Australian and every New Zealander—I do not speak of India and other great communities in that part of the world—is perfectly aware that if the British Government refuses to make Singapore an adequate second base for the British Fleet, the British Fleet, however efficient in quality, however adequate in numbers, will become immobile when sent out from these remote latitudes for their defence at the very moment it comes within the zone of possible danger. He knows that ; and if he reads in the newspapers that the Government, with that

769
knowledge in their possession, that the British people, adequately instructed on the subject by their newspapers and public debates, have, nevertheless, in the face of that situation, refused to spend the money—the magnitude of which I do not wish to minimise but, which is, after all, spread over these years, a relatively small proportion of what we must spend upon our Navy—what a change of heart must not that inevitably produce in the minds of those to whom it occurs.
In order to make the position of these great Dominions secure the most important step—I will not say the only thing required—is the protection of those trade routes upon which not merely our distant Dominions depend but on which we depend ourselves in these islands. I cannot imagine a worse economy than that which saves money on the Fleet and which at the very time it saves money renders that Fleet inefficacious in the greatest ocean in the world and in connection with the interests of perhaps the most important parts of the British Empire. There could not be a worse economy than that. You have your Fleet limited by the Treaty of Washington as regards capital ships, but admirable, though still limited, in quality, and you deliberately refuse to arrange your bases in a manner which will make that Fleet efficacious in parts of the world where it may be required. It seems such bad business. You are practically not merely risking the security of your Dominions : you are halving the value of your Fleet. I do not know whether that trend of thought is one which will have any effect on the Government. I most earnestly hope it may. Let them not be led astray by the idea that this is too expensive, because, costly as it is, it is a course which will make your other expenditure far more fruitful. You have to spend I do not know how many millions on your Navy this year—
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD): £55,000,000.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: You are to spend £55,000,000 on your Navy in a year. The Singapore plan asks you to spend, I suppose, about £1,000,000 a year for ten years, but that £1.000,000 a year makes your £55,000,000 a year effective for purposes all over the world, wherever your Empire may require it. Surely that
770
is good economy. If there ever was a good business proposition, that is a good business proposition. And when you add to than the fact that the sentiment of security based upon the British Fleet is one of the strongest bonds of Empire, when you remember that the Empire itself is one of the strongest securities for peace, when you remember that this money, though spent on armaments, though spent on a naval base, is not only not spent for aggressive purposes but is obviously not spent for aggressive purposes, cannot be used for an aggressive purpose, and is incapable of being an instrument of oppression or aggression—when you think of all those considerations, when yon put them all together, I cannot help hoping that His Majesty's Government will continue, in this branch of their naval, military and air policy, that earnest desire for continuity which they have so laudably shown in other parts of the policy which they have laid before the country.
Moved, That there be laid before this House Papers relating to the naval base at Singapore.—(The Earl of Balfeur.)
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now-adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now-adjourned.—(Viscount Chelmsford.)
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Viscount? I understand that the reason why we have had that portion of the debate to which we have listened to-day is to enable the noble Earl who sits behind me, and who is unlikely to be able to attend our proceedings in the near future, to give to the House the very remarkable and powerful appeal and warning which he has just addressed to us, and I understand further that the reason why the noble Viscount who sits opposite moves the adjournment of the debate is that he hopes to be able to announce at an early date what is the decision of the Government on this important question. I understand from the sources of information available to all of us that the replies of the Dominions who have been consulted upon this matter are likely to roach His Majesty's Government in the course of a few days. Indeed, I think I was told semi-officially that the replies were likely to be in the

771
hands of His Majesty's Government on Monday next. However that may be, we can have little doubt that, when the replies come, His Majesty's Government will wish to give them the most careful and prolonged consideration.
I do not assume for a moment, although I have seen it hinted in some quarters, that the mind of His Majesty's Government is already made up and that they have merely to communicate to the Dominions what is the decision already arrived at. I cannot believe for a moment that such is the case, and assuming, therefore, that when the replies from the Dominions arrive His Majesty's Government will address themselves with great earnestness and sobriety to their consideration, I desire to ask the noble Viscount what space of time he thinks ought to elapse before the resumption of this debate. He moved just now the adjournment of the debate without reference to any particular day, and, on the assumption that the Government will require some time to consider the representations made to them, perhaps he will be able to give me some indication of when he thinks we can resume the discussion.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: I must apologise to the noble Marquess. I moved the adjournment of the debate without further qualification because I saw the time, but if it had not been for that I should have said that I moved the adjournment of the, debate until next Tuesday, for the purpose of then making a statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government. We have now the replies of the various Dominions to the communication that was made to them, and we shall be in a position to make a statement with regard to this very important matter on Tuesday. Does that satisfy the noble Marquess ?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh yes ; the point that I was raising was solely that I felt sure—and I find that I am right—that His Majesty's Government were going to devote very careful attention to these replies. I was not aware that the replies were already in their possession. If His Majesty's Government have these replies, and are ready to consider them in the course of the next few days, we should, of course,
772
place ourselves at the disposal of the Government for the resumption of the debate when they desire. If Tuesday is a convenient day I am quite satisfied.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: When I communicated with the noble Marquess the other day I was not in possession of the replies of the Dominions on that subject. Since then they have come in, and I am in a position to say that we can make statements in both Houses on Tuesday next. My Motion, therefore, is for the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until Tuesday next.

SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Message from the Commons.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely : "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of the Commons be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto." From communications that I have been able to make with different quarters of the House, I have no doubt that this Motion will be agreed to without further remarks from me.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
A Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920 (SPECIAL ORDERS).
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. I do not, think that any remarks are required upon this Motion. It is a common form, which the House always accepts.
Moved, That the Draft Special Orders proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application

773
of the under-mentioned companies, be approved :—

Brierley Hill District Gas Light Company (presented on the 15th January).

Melksham Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited (presented on the 12t.h February).

Newquay (Cornwall) Gas Company, Limited (presented on the 15th January).—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of March 12.]

COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]

  SUTTON HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.