HL Deb 28 November 1927 vol 69 cc271-305

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, this Bill is described in the Title as a Bill "to restrict blind booking and advance booking of cinematograph films, and to secure the renting and exhibition of a certain proportion of British films, and for purposes connected therewith." I should make it plain to your Lordships at the outset that it is a temporary Bill. It comes into operation on January 1, 1928, and ends after the expiration of ten "quota" years in 1938. There are certain subsidiary provisions which survive that period for a brief time.

Before I give some account of the detailed provisions of the Bill, your Lordships no doubt will expect me to say something about the present position of the film industry. It has been estimated that in the year 1934 some 25 per cent, of the films shown in the cinemas of this country were of British make. The intervention of the War, however, caused production to decline, and simultaneously the United States output of films increased with great rapidity. The dominating position thus secured by the United States served to render British recovery of film production after the War increasingly difficult. Although in the year 1923 it was estimated that about 10 per cent, of British films were exhibited in this country, yet the proportion of British films exhibited to-day in the 4,000 cinemas of Great Britain is on the whole not more than 5 per cent. Of the balance 85 to 90 per cent., or say about 700, are of United States origin. Moreover, as American films, owing to the system of blind booking, obtain a larger percentage of exhibition dates than the British films, the proportion of exhibition of British films is much below 5 per cent. I dare say your Lordships are familiar with the system known as blind booking, by which a renter may acquire or an exhibitor may rent a number of films which he has never seen, many of which probably have not been produced at the time he enters into the agreement with regard to them. Therefore the system is fairly called blind booking, because the eyes of the renter or exhibitor, as the case may be, are entirely closed as to the nature of those particular films.

EARL RUSSELL

Would the noble Viscount say whether block booking is the same thing or is different from blind booking, and, if so, how?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Block booking is not altogether the same thing as blind booking, because block booking probably includes blind booking, but is rather a larger term. If you block book, that is to say, book a quantity of films, you may or may not have seen those films and you may know something about them. You may know, for instance, that certain stars appear in them, and matters of that kind. I think the noble Earl will see therefore that although blind booking does, I think, imply generally block booking, yet block booking is a larger term than blind booking. In the year 1924 the total number of British feature or story films—and those are the ones with which we are really dealing—trade shown, that is to say shown to exhibitors before being hired by them, appears to have been 58. The output had fallen in 1925 to 34, and in 1926 to 26, exclusive of short films of one and two reels not generally counted in output statistics, together, perhaps, with three or four from the Empire overseas. Under the stimulus of the present proposals the output of British films has already increased considerably, and the number of feature films made will probably amount in the present year to nearly 60. The number of makers of British films in the film group of the Federation of British Industries is now 17, and several firms in the country who have not hitherto made films have announced their intention of so doing. Efforts are also being made in Canada, Australia and New Zealand and other parts of the Empire, to establish or increase the output of British Empire films. The New Zealand Government have already indicated their intention of bringing forward legislation on the lines of the proposals made in this country.

The difficulty confronting attempts to increase the production of British films is largely economic. Owing to the vast market for his films at home—I think there are something like 16,000 or 17,000 cinemas in that country—the United States film manufacturer is able to recover the entire costs of the manufacture of the film negative by the exhibition of the film in the home market, with the result that receipts in this country represent, apart from the mere cost of negative and of distribution, additional profits. Charges for the hire of United States films by British exhibitors can thus be reduced by the distributors of such films to a figure which is an entirely uneconomic one for competing British films. The producer here has to meet his negative and other costs, which have to be got from this country and such small markets as exist abroad. This would be a great difficulty, of course, if the market in this country was free, but as I have already alluded to the process of blind booking, advance booking and so on, the market is not free. In addition to the economic difficulty you have this tremendous system of acquiring (shall I say?) a market here which makes it almost impossible for British film makers to compete with the foreign makers.

I wish now to speak of some of the outside support that has been received for this measure and on which it is to some extent based. In July, 1925, a deputation consisting of the Federation of British Industries—I must read the list of Associations because it is important: the British Empire League, the British Empire Producers Organisation, the Empire Development Union, the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers, the League of Empire, the National Union of Teachers, the Navy League, the Overseas League, the Royal Colonial Institute, the Royal Society of Arts and the Stage Guild—called upon the President of the Board of Trade to complain of the inadequate output of British films. Many methods of dealing with the problem were discussed. A substantial ad valorem, duty on foreign films—a duty per foot—to be levied on the exhibitor, guarantees under the Trade Facilities Acts, the setting up of a national studio, and a number of other proposals were put forward to meet the difficulty. The President of the Board of Trade suggested to the trade that they should endeavour to set up a quota system on a voluntary basis, and also to restrict blind booking. These attempts failed. They could not agree as to the precise scheme; but at the various meetings held on the subject it became abundantly clear that the trade was prepared to accept in substance the provisions set out in the Bill. I mention this because I do not want it to be suggested that any hardships are being inflicted on the trade. But of course I rest the case for the Bill on far wider considerations than just the interest of the trade itself.

Then, at the Imperial Conference of 1926, the General Economic Sub-Com- mittee called attention to the small proportion of films of British Empire origin shown in the Empire. In Great Britain it was about 10 per cent., in Australia 8 per cent., in New Zealand 10 per cent., and very small and almost negligible in South Africa and Canada. The Sub-Committee attached great importance to the larger production in the Empire of films of a high entertainment value and sound educational merit, and to their increased exhibition throughout the Empire and the rest of the world. They pointed out that in foreign films the conditions in the several parts of the Empire and the habits of the people, even when represented at all, were not always represented faithfully and at times were misrepresented. Moreover, the constant exhibition of foreign scenes or settings and the absence of any corresponding showing of Empire scenes or settings, powerfully advertised foreign places and foreign goods. They suggested certain remedial measures, including effective Customs Duties, ample preference or free entry for Empire films, legislation for the prevention of blind booking and block booking, and the imposition of requirements as to the renting or exhibition of a minimum quota of Empire films; and they pointed out that, as Great Britain and Northern Ireland were the largest producers of films, any action taken in this country would undoubtedly be of the greatest assistance to other parts of the Empire in dealing with the film problem. The State of Victoria had already produced legislation providing for the exhibitors' quota. New South Wales was reported to be on the point of proceeding on similar lines.

Your Lordships will have gathered there are three main elements in the trade. There are the makers of films, then the renters who are said, in technical language, to acquire the films from the makers—they are distributors or middlemen — and, thirdly, there are the exhibitors themselves who rent the films from the renters and exhibit them in the cinemas. The Imperial Conference adopted the following Resolution:— The Imperial Conference, recognising that it is of the greatest importance that a larger and increasing proportion of the films exhibited throughout the Empire should be of Empire production, commends the matter and the remedial measures proposed to the consideration of the Governments of the various parts of the Empire with a view to such early and effective action to deal with the serious situation now existing as they may severally find possible. I may add that in December, 1926, Victoria legislated for a quota of nearly 25 per cent, of Empire films. The same experience as we have had, or a somewhat similar experience, is leading to similar results in other countries. For instance, schemes to ensure the exhibition of a proportion of national films exist in Germany, Austria and Hungary, while the French film makers and the Italian exhibitors are urging that their Governments should take action to secure the exhibition of a proportion of native films.

I should like now to tell your Lordships what in my view are the general causes which have made a Bill of this kind necessary. There are, indeed, several grounds why the securing of the exhibition of British films is highly important. First of all, the film industry is a very technical one, involving the application of highly scientific processes in photography and in optics. There are obvious advantages in having a large number of highly-trained specialists dealing with those subjects in this country. The benefits of research and inquiry will be felt not only by this but by other industries. Again, there is undoubtedly a trade value as well as an amusement value in the exhibition of films. A Report by His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Canada and Newfoundland on the market for British goods in 1926, contained the following paragraph: The cinema film has also operated against British trade. The production, distribution and exhibition of films in Canada are almost entirely controlled by foreign interests. A single foreign firm controls eighty per cent, of the 'first run' theatres in the Dominion. Approximately 1,750,000 people attend the cinema theatres every week in Canada. The effect of the constant exhibition of foreign films on the sentiment, habits and thoughts of the people is obvious. The pictures show the foreign flags, styles, standards, habits, advertisements, etc. His Majesty's Commissioner for New Zealand, in a Report on economic and commercial conditions in the Dominion during 1924, 1925 and the first seven months of 1926, reports as follows: Imports in 1925 were higher in value than for any previous year. … The share secured by the United Kingdom shows a decline—small, but steady—year by year. . … even in New Zealand, with its staunch British traditions, one finds evidence that customs and the demand for goods are being largely influenced by changes in ideas and fashions other than those associated with British habits and tastes. Such preferences are, without comment, accepted as desirable, and there seems little doubt that American films have played a part in moulding public taste in many directions. These views are not confined to ourselves or to observers in the Dominions. They are shared also by the supporters of the industry in the United States, the great home of the cinema industry at present.

I will give a summary of a statement made in January, 1926, by Dr. Julius Klein, director of the United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, before a sub-committee of a House Committee on Appropriations. It gives the American point of view, but it is too long to read to your Lordships and you will perhaps allow me to give one or two extracts from it. He says in regard to the exhibition of American films: It was also proving invaluable in China and indeed in all markets where there is a high percentage of illiteracy among the people. From the films they see, such people receive their impressions of how the people of the United States live and of the clothes they wear. There had been a complete change in the demand for commodities in a large number of countries consequent on American films seen abroad. He also says: The demand for shoes in the Near East had completely changed as a result of the showing of American films, the people of Near Eastern countries wishing to dress as American film stars dress. In 1919 there was no difficulty in obtaining in small stores in Peru ready-made clothing, shoes, hats and other men's wear of United States manufacture of exactly the kind which would be found in any small town in the United States itself. Inquiry proved that the stocks of such goods in the Peruvian stores could be traced directly to the influence upon the inhabitants of films displaying United States' styles. You have, therefore, the trade influence referred to not only by our own observers, but by those interested in industry in the United States, who are anxious, and properly so, to push the trade of their own country.

The third point on which I desire to rest the case is the result in the broadest sense on the education of our people. Vast numbers of young people attend the cinemas and it is common ground that the influences of the eye are more powerful than those of the ear in affecting character. As has been observed, "it is engendered in the eyes by gazing fed." I do not wish to decry either the American or any other form of civilisation. The former is no doubt suited to the physical conditions and to the character of the inhabitants, as well as to the variety of races which for historic reasons inhabit that vast country. But we have our own typical civilisation and our own standards, and it surely is unfortunate that through an economic accident this vast range of influence should shower upon our people through foreign rather than through domestic sources. We are not asking for the exclusive exhibition of British habits, customs and ideals. We are not so insular as that. But we do ask that foreign countries should not have nearly a complete monopoly of our exhibition resources. Should this Bill pass, British films on a gradually ascending scale, reaching a limit of 20 per cent., will for the next few years be shown in our cinemas. Different observers will attach different degrees of importance to those factors that I have mentioned, but undoubtedly in the minds of a great many of us the influence on the minds and sympathy of the rising generation is by far the most important.

Having dealt briefly with some of the reasons on which this Bill is based, I will now give a very rapid summary of the general scope and the chief machinery of the Bill. There are a great many minor details which, if the Bill passes the Second Reading, as I hope it will, may conveniently be dealt with when we come to the Committee stage. The Bill applies to all films, with the exception of certain limited classes, which are defined in Clause 26, but I may say that the Bill really deals generally with feature films and the effect of the exclusion in Clause 26 is to limit the Bill in the main to films depicting stories and dramas which are known in the trade as feature films. The machinery of the Bill has two pivots. One is the introduction of the quota system, and the second is the abolition of blind booking and the restriction of advance booking. These two methods are really complementary one to the other. The quota is the percentage of British films which the renter, who is the middleman, must take, or the exhibitor must show, in each year over a period of ten years ending in the year 1938.

There is, of course, a lag in the percentage of the exhibitors' quota, because the films must be in the hands of the renter before they can be taken and shown by the exhibitors. But these provisions certainly could not have their full value in the present system by which films and dates of exhibition are booked for long periods ahead. It would be of little value to say that so many British films should be exhibited when all the available space for some time to come has been occupied by foreign films. In Clauses 1 and 2 restrictions are placed both on blind booking and on advance booking. Under Clause 1 agreements cannot be entered into to rent films for public exhibition unless such films have been registered, and before they can be registered they must be trade shown. "Trade shown" means shown at exhibitions from which the public are excluded, but to which the trade is admitted.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Viscount, but I think exhibition to the public is also included in the definition clause.

VISCOUNT PEEL

In one special case it is—in the case of certain special films which can be shown at one theatre for a time while the public are admitted. That is an exceptional case for certain films, but the noble Earl is quite right. This, of course, gives the exhibitor the opportunity of seeing the film which he agrees to exhibit. Under Clause 2 agreements for the exhibition of films cannot be entered into in advance of the date of exhibition by more than what are called the authorised periods, which are set out in the clause. I will read only the last. In the case of an agreement made on and after October 1, 1930, the time will be six months. It is rather longer up to that period, to allow the trade to adapt itself. Further, the films have to be registered with the Board of Trade under the provisions of Clauses 5 to 12. The register will contain, among other matters, words indicating whether they are British films or foreign films. There are special provisions about the registration of what are known as serial films or series of films, but films that have not been registered cannot be exhibited.

Again, renters and exhibitors must be licensed. They must make returns to the Board of Trade, and their films, acquired or exhibited as the case may be, must therefore find their record with the Board of Trade. In this way the Board of Trade will be able to check the numbers and the proportion, that is to say, the proportion between British and foreign, of the films that are acquired by the renters or are exhibited at the public cinemas. It is expected that the demand for films of good quality will make the renter ask for such films from the British maker. The film renter, in order to comply with his quota needs, will acquire from the maker only such films as are of such quality as his customers will accept. This demand will reduce, it is hoped, to a minimum the manufacture of films of poor quality. I have reason to believe that with the stimulus which this Bill has given, and with the increased production taking place this year, there will be sufficient good British films for the year 1928, and that after that production will be substantially in advance of the quota. The competition which will then arise will drive out of the market films which are below a reasonable standard.

As another part of the machinery of the Bill an Advisory Committee will be set up under Clause 29, consisting of representatives of all branches of the trade and of independent members, who will advise the Board in the administration of the Act. If your Lordships will look at Clause 29 you will see that there are to be two representatives of film makers, two representatives of film renters, four representatives of film exhibitors and, from the general public as it were, five members, of whom one shall be Chairman and who shall include a woman, being persons having no pecuniary interest in any branch of the film industry. Those persons will be able to inform the Board whether British films sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality are available to satisfy the prescribed quota. They will be able to judge on the reasons put forward for non-compliance with quota obligations and on many other matters which involve intimate technical knowledge of trade conditions. Fees will be charged for registration, inspection, and other matters, and the intention is that the fees to be charged shall cover, and not more than cover, the cost of the administration of the Act. The trade, there- fore, need not fear the intrusive inquisition of hordes of inspectors.

Some discussion has arisen on one salient point in the Bill and that is whether the definition of a British film is too wide; that is to say, whether it would not let in a number of films which, though in name British, were really foreign films. The Bill secures that the majority of the directors of the making company and the scenario writer shall be British, that the studio scenes shall be taken in the Empire and that the actors shall be, for the most part, British subjects or domiciled in the Empire. American films, though often produced by non-Americans with non-American actors, are distinctively American in character, being made in an American atmosphere and chiefly for the American public. We may therefore expect that films which meet with the requirements of the present Bill as to British films will, as a rule, be distinctively British. That is a very short sketch indeed of some of the principal machinery of the Bill.

I would like now, if your Lordships will allow me, to mention two or three of the chief criticisms that have been made on the Bill and the suggestions that I make for their answer. Your Lordships are aware that good Bills like good men have their detractors and I am afraid that this Bill has not escaped criticism. As regards blind booking, in a referendum of exhibitors taken by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association in July, 1926, in which seventy per cent, of the members took part, 1,704 votes were given for abolition and only 198 against. The supporters of blind booking—and there are some supporters—say that the Bill is an artificial restriction on a trade practice found convenient in the industry. But surely it must be wrong in principle that exhibitors should not be able to see films that they have booked in order that, among the blocks of films, they may obtain a few which, owing to their character or the star artists who appear in them, may draw the public. Experience shows that exhibitors are in this way very often saddled with numbers of films of very poor quality. Indeed, even in America at the present time, at the instance of the Federal Trade Commission, steps have been taken by the makers and renters in that country to amend the practice as regards blind advance booking as being in restraint of trade. Undoubtedly there is a very serious disability imposed by this system on British makers who cannot book dates because the exhibitors are engaged so long ahead with block contracts for American films.

The next objection that I would notice is this. "Why," it is said, "interfere and compel the purchase of British goods or the showing of British films? If the British films are competitive in quality with foreign films, exhibitors will show them." But unfortunately British films are not free and they can hardly escape unaided from the foreign stranglehold upon the British market. During the War the United Stales obtained such a dominating position that the British film industry cannot struggle against it without assistance. The United States could dispose of its films by reason of the immense home, market at any price in our market and check the competition of British films. In order to build up the British industry and secure financial support, it is essential that some definite assurance of a minimum scale shall be secured.

Another objection raised is that films of higher quality and artistic merit are required and that nothing in the Bill encourages their production. Poor British films, it is said, will be but a bad advertisement of British character and life, especially among the great native populations. I think your Lordships will agree that you cannot possibly lay down in an Act of Parliament standards of quality. You may deal with quantity, but, the category of quality is beyond the power even of Parliament itself. But the checking of these choking practices will enable the public taste, to assert itself by producing good films which will be able to obtain a booking, and the competition of a living British industry with the American, which has so long dominated the market, must improve the standard of films generally. Then again, it is said that the supply of British films—and this is no doubt a practical objection—will barely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the country and that it will give the British maker a monopoly. But the quota has been fixed at a figure which it will be quite easy for British makers to reach and exceed, and competition among the makers will secure that no unreasonable prices are charged.

I have dealt with the position of the British film industry and I have sketched some of the powerful supports, both at home and in the Empire, on which this Bill is based. I have spoken of the broad reasons of public policy on which the Bill is founded, of the scope and machinery of the Bill, and of some of its leading details. I have also attempted to answer some of the many objections which the critics of the Bill have brought against it, and I have only to add on conclusion that the Bill is an attempt to free a great British industry which, as the result of the War, has been unduly hampered by adverse conditions—an industry which, on the broadest grounds of public policy, is needful for the education of our rising youth. It is not an exclusive Bill, but it welcomes all the knowledge, information, amusement and instruction which foreign films can bring. It gives ample opportunity for the exhibition of foreign manners, customs and habits of thought. Four-fifths of the whole range of exhibition is left open to the enterprise of the foreigner. All we ask is that one-fifth of the whole production should be reserved for the enterprise, the artistic power and the creative energy of British producers. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)

EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2athis day six months. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am almost as ignorant of the practice of this industry as is the noble Earl opposite (Lord Balfour), and I suppose I have been selected to deal with this Bill on the principle on which Cabinet Ministers are sometimes selected for posts of which they know nothing. I have endeavoured, however, like the noble Viscount opposite, to inform myself of some of these very complicated trade terms which have been used and which he has been good enough, I think, to explain to the House in his speech. The objection to this Bill can, I think, be stated quite shortly in saying that it is a very great interference with the freedom of trade in I he cinema industry and that it is doubtful—I think that even the noble Viscount himself seemed to feel that on this point the Bill required some justification—whether it will attain the object which it seeks. There was a moment in the earlier part of his speech when the noble Viscount said that this Bill was founded on wider considerations than those of the interests of the trade. I think that this view is shared by a good many cinematograph exhibitors, and that they do not feel that it is a Bill which they can altogether welcome.

I am prepared to give away a good deal of my case at once, in the sense that personally I can conceive nothing more horrible and nothing less valuable, from the point of view either of entertainment or of instruction, than these dreadful American cowboy films, with their mushy sentimentality and their adventures entirely foreign to this country and to the spirit of this country, which are supposed sometimes to do harm to the young—so much so that I believe magistrates sometimes bind them over not to go to the films. I share the dislike of these films as much as any one can, and I am prepared to go further and to say that I regret that British exhibitors and British film makers are not showing and producing their share of films in this country. But to say that is not, in my view, to justify this Bill. If you want to change that sort of thing, I should have thought the best way to change it would be by the manufacture of British films of a quality and standard, and to some extent at a price, which would make it possible and likely that British exhibitors would show them, and I should have thought that the film exhibitors themselves were capable of considering the wishes of their public and that if their public wanted to see some variation upon these eternal films of the character that I have described, they would clamour for it and would themselves create a demand for British films and an endeavour to show them.

This Bill, however, is going to force them to show a quota of British films, rising at the end of a period to 20 per cent. They are to show this quota during their regular performances—that is to say, as part of the paying performances to which most people come. As the noble Viscount had to admit at the end of his speech, you are giving no guarantee, because obviously you can give no guarantee, as to what the quality of these films will be, or whether they will have any public interest, or whether exhibitors will show them if they are not compelled to show them, or whether the public will stop to see them, or whether the interval during which they are shown will be seized upon for refreshments between the acts. If that happens, I am sure your Lordships will agree that it will be worse for the British film industry than the present state of things; but you run the risk of creating that very thing. It is said, and it is true, that in view of the passage of this Bill there have been provision made and organisations created for the manufacture and supply of films, but the noble Viscount docs not tell us, or the exhibitors, that these films are going to be of a quality to attract their public; and, as the noble Viscount also had to admit, you are making no provision at all as to the price at which these films are to be sold to the exhibitors.

What are you doing by the Bill? You are saying to exhibitors: Here, at the time of your performances, to which you endeavour to attract the public, you are to occupy a certain portion of the time by showing films of a special type—namely, British-made films. You have to show those films, whatever the quality is, and you have to show those films whatever the price that is paid or asked for them, because if you do not show them you are guilty of an offence under this measure. It is perfectly true that there is an Advisory Committee, and there is a provision by which exhibitors are to be allowed, I rather gather, to explain or justify, if they can, their failure to show the quota. I do not think, however, you will suppose that you are going to pass a Bill with so many long and complicated clauses in order that it may be evaded so easily.

I am sorry that this Bill should be regarded, or can be regarded, as a Party matter. I think we are all interested, and all may well be interested, in the quality of films shown to the public, because such very large numbers of the public go to these exhibitions that it is undoubtedly true that what they see must have an effect upon their taste, character and habits. You have no guarantee that they will be improved by this Bill. I suppose that the reason why this Bill appeals to noble Lords opposite, and their colleagues in another place, is that it has just a little flavour of Protection about it. You are going to foster an industry and give it a chance to get upon its legs. We on this side never have believed in the hothouse methods of fostering industry. We think an industry must stand upon its own legs, in competition, and justify itself by its own doings. I suppose it is for that reason that the measure is regarded as a Party measure, and why so many noble Lords opposite support this proposal. I would ask your Lordships to consider what, apparently, according to the noble Viscount's own statement, is the real origin of this Bill. It is supported avowedly as a Protectionist measure, and is fostered and fathered by the Federation of British Industries. They brought if in, and the object in effect was to foster the British trade in British films.

I think the noble Viscount stated three reasons why the Bill deserved support: (1), That it would develop and improve the science of optics in this country. I should think that was a rather a fanciful reason, and that the Bill would not really develop and improve that science very much. Then, (2), that it would help and develop and foster a new British trade. Then, (3), he came to the question on which I am in perfect agreement—namely, the question of character; but he gave no indication of why a British film, because it wan British, would necessarily be of a higher and better character than an American film. In view of international relations perhaps he was wise not to pursue that too far. At all events he gave no indication. He also said, on the question of price, that British competition—the competition of British makers among themselves—would bring down the price and keep it at a reasonable figure. Is that necessarily so? You have a protected industry, protected in this case by something even more important than a tariff, and is it not quite possible that the leaders of the industry in this country will combine instead of competing? Does not that generally happen? The idea that, being free from outside competition, there will be free and independent competition among makers in this country, seems to me to be an optimistic idea which may not be borne out by the facts.

I would like your Lordships to look for a moment at the Bill. It contains no fewer than thirty-two clauses and two schedules, and you will find that films have to be registered, renters have to be registered, exhibitors have to be registered, and the character of the films has to be registered and declared, and there are all sorts of technical terms in it. In fact there is very remarkable and considerable interference with the carrying on of a trade, and with that private enterprise which we always understood that noble Lords opposite so much desired to leave unchecked by bureaucratic interference. It is remarkable interference. Exhibitors are liable to penalties for all sorts of things. It is required that— On every copy of a registered film there shall be marked in the prescribed manner:—

  1. (a) the registered number of the film;
  2. (b) the person in whose name the film is registered;
  3. (c) the registered length of the film;
  4. (d) the words "registered as a British film" or "registered as a foreign film," as the case may be:
There are all sorts of provisions like that running through the Bill, which must obviously hamper the trade in its operations.

I should like to say a word on the subject of blind and block booking. It has apparently its advantages and its disadvantages. An exhibitor who knows his business books a considerable quantity of films ahead. I am given to understand that he generally does so because he knows the particular producers of films and is satisfied that they will give him the films he wants. Although it is true that he has not seen the films, he has sufficient indication to enable him to hope that he will get something suitable for exhibition. Let me point out the difference between these films and British films. If they are not suitable for exhibition he is under no obligation to show them if he thinks they are not worth showing, although he must pay for them. In the case of British films, apparently, he will have to show them. People find it convenient to arrange business for some time ahead. I dare say it is true that in some cases long periods of advance booking have been used, as suggested by the noble Viscount, to force upon an exhibitor a string of films which he would rather not take. That is an evil which one would prefer to be restrained by the ordinary operations of trade, if possible. But that is by no means the whole of blind or block booking—they are more or less the same thing, except that in block booking you know to some extent what you are getting.

Let me ask your Lordships to have regard for a moment to some analogies in this matter. A publisher has published two books, we will say, by one author, and he is very often, if the books have been successful, not only quite willing but anxious to book a third book by that author, which not only has he not seen, but of which very likely not a line has been written at the time of the contract. That is precisely what happens with films. A producer has produced films which satisfy the exhibitor, and he is perfectly willing to book from him films in advance, even though those films have not been produced. It is a curious thing to endeavour to impose a standard of quality, which in effect is what you are trying to do, upon a public entertainment. If you are going to deal with films, where are you going to stop? Are we to go a little further and to provide that in all concerts in this country 10 per cent., or 20 per cent., of the music must be by living English composers? It would be almost as reasonable in the one case as in the other.

It is for those general reasons that we think that this Bill is really rather an absurd little Bill. The trade would be much better without it. It is not, I venture to think, going to effect its object. I have read the clauses fairly carefully, and it seems to me that many of them can easily be evaded. The description of "British" is fairly elastic, and, although you have to pay a certain amount of wages to a British producer and you have to have British directors, that is nothing. You may have American capital, and you may have American scenes in the film. You cannot make very much change by that. So on the whole we think that there has been a great to-do here about a very little matter, which might well have been left to the operation of competition and the improvement of British films to settle itself; that, if it ever were necessary to interfere, you have interfered very much too soon; and that you have not shown any case for supposing that you will really succeed in your object—in which I think personally I should not differ from the Government—and that is to improve the quality of films and to ensure that some British films are shown, with British scenes in them, instead of foreign films. It is for these reasons that we on this side of the House think it would be very much better, and that it would in the end be to the advantage of the film industry if the Bill did not become law, and on that matter we feel so strongly that at the proper time we shall take the opinion of the House upon it. I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Earl Russell).

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, the few observations that I shall address to the House on this subject will relate almost entirely to the educational aspect of the problem which is now before us, for I think it is quite impossible to exaggerate the educational value and importance of the cinema in conveying ideas, especially to unlearned and simple people. There have been three great inventions which have spread knowledge—printing, broadcasting, and the cinema—and of these three undoubtedly in its widespread appeal the cinema is the greatest. Like broadcasting it appeals to those who are unable to read; unlike broadcasting it is not affected by variations of language. The same pictures can be enjoyed by the Londoner, the Hindu, and the American. And I think when we remember what a vast number of people watch the cinema night after night, we shall realise its great educational possibilities.

It is estimated that in this country week by week there are no fewer than 20,000,000 people attending our picture palaces. This number is small compared with the proportion in the United States. I believe that in the United States there are 20,000 picture palaces, against 3,700 in this country, and probably in the years to come, as the cinema is improved, the attendance in England will also become greater. Therefore it is a matter of real importance to those who are interested in the education and the moral welfare of the citizens of any country to see that the cinema produces and interprets ideas which are in harmony with what is best in the life and history of the nation.

Now the difficulty at the present time is twofold. There is a failure both in the quantity and the quality of the films which are actually produced in this country. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading has pointed out that at the present time only about 5 per cent. of the pictures shown in our cinemas are of British manufacture. But that hardly by itself states the full extent of the gravity of the problem. If you turn to our Colonies you find the position there is almost the same. In South Africa the picture theatres are practically owned by Americans; in Canada and in Australia only 10 per cent. at the outside are British-made pictures; and in India practically all the films are those which are manufactured in America. It is the Americans who, more than any other country in the world, are using the cinema as a channel for conveying ideas to the people. In fairness to the Americans it ought to be admitted that it is comparatively rarely that they deliberately use the cinema for propaganda purposes.

I think we must also all frankly admit that a large number of the pictures which they produce, especially the large ones, are of really good and interesting quality. But these pictures are produced by Americans for an American audience; they have an American atmosphere and an American outlook, and oven the captions are American in their language. Now surely, if in elementary education we found that 90 per cent. of the teachers belonged to a foreign nation, we should feel the position was quite intolerable. The cinema is regarded by many as the university of the poor man, and it is an intolerable position that 90 per cent. of the productions which are shown in our picture palaces in England, in the Colonies, and in our Dependencies should come from Americans, with American civilisation and American ideas.

I do not see any way in which we can remedy this, except by the policy which is embodied in the measure now before the House. The noble Earl who has just spoken says that this measure involves a gross interference with the freedom of trade in the cinema industry. I have always called myself a free trader, but I have never looked upon free trade as a dogma which must be accepted under the penalty of economic condemnation. And at the present time you are not dealing with a position in which there is free trade. How can you say that the cinema industry, as it is to-day, is in a state of free trade, with the blind booking and the block booking? More than that, there is a great trust springing up which holds key theatres in various centres. All over the world you find the Americans obtaining key theatres, in which they present their own productions, and thus they are able to do away with the cost of the middleman and the renter. In some countries this system has advanced to a very much further extent than it has in our own. Many of us feel that in the question of licensed houses the tied-house system is open to very great dangers. But here you have springing up a system of tied-theatres—theatres tied, not to those who are citizens of this country, but to those who are citizens of another nation.

Supposing this measure is defeated, what other policy is there? The noble Earl tells us that the position should be changed by the manufacture of British films, and at a price and of a quality which could face competition. But, even if those films are produced, how is it possible to put them on the market, to have them shown, in face of this system of protection which is caused by block booking and blind booking? It is almost impossible, and I venture to think that such a measure as this is the first step towards improving the quality and the nature of the pictures which are shown in this country. But I found myself to a very large extent in agreement with the noble Earl when he pointed out that this measure does not deal with the quality of the pictures that are shown. It deals with quantity and not with quality; it deals with nationality and not with character. I am not making a sweeping charge against the pictures shown in our cinemas to-day. Some of them no doubt are objectionable and some of them seem to have escaped the vigilance of the censor. But the majority of the pictures I think can justly be charged with stupidity, sentimentalism, and flashy and glittering unreality.

I could almost make my own some rather sweeping words which appeared in The Times some months ago. The writer of a leading article in that newspaper said of the films:— They deliberately inculcate false values. Virtue with them has no rewards but wealth and kisses—the two things which in this world it has most to do without. Envy is neither sinful nor foolish when it is directed by poverty towards luxury; no one who is beautiful ever pays ultimately for her folly: the cherry orchards of the studios are always saved. I am not asking for what is sometimes called a highbrow cinema. I do not expect that we shall ever see the day when in every one of our cinemas there will be a programme which would induce the Bench of Bishops to forget the controversy over the Prayer Book. There would still be a majority of pictures which appealed in the simplest way to very simple people. But I believe there should be some deliberate policy directed towards improving the quality of the films which are shown.

It would be impossible, of course, to ask the Government at this moment to change their measure so as to bring this question of quality fully into it. I think we should be optimistic if we expected the Government, in view of the difficulty they had in passing this Bill through another place, to bring in a measure dealing with this matter in the near future. But there is one practical suggestion that I would make. The noble Viscount, in moving the Second Reading, pointed out that an Advisory Committee would be called into existence to advise the Board of Trade on the administrative provisions. I would like to see the scope of that Committee enlarged so that it would advise the Board of Trade not only on the provisions of this Bill but also on the measures to be taken for improving the quality of British films. If the scope of this Committee was enlarged in that way, it would also be necessary to increase the number of members sitting upon it, so that those with no financial interest in the trade should be in the majority. I hope, if such an Amendment should be moved in the Committee stage, the Government will give it sympathetic consideration. I believe that though it would help very little, it might do something towards discovering ways in which the quality of the films might be improved; at any rate, it would show that the Government were no more indifferent to the quality than to the quantity and nationality of the films which are being shown.

But the pathetic, the tragic feature of the whole position, I think, is that while only 5 per cent. of pictures shown in this country are produced by British firms, there is, with the exception of Italy, probably no country in the world which can afford such magnificent material for the films. There is the beauty of our countryside. There is the splendour and interest of our buildings, our country houses and our churches. There is the stirring history of our nation. There are some of the very ideas which have been wrought into our national character which might in some way be embodied in the best of our films. They might express to the people who see them what is best in our national life. They might form a bond of union throughout the Empire. More than that, when they passed into foreign countries they might interpret to foreign nations some idea of our institutions and the genius of our nation.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, in what has been said by the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down in regard to the cinematograph industry I find myself on the whole almost entirely in agreement. Where I part company with him is on the issue as to whether this particular Bill will provide him with the remedies for the evils which he has described. I sympathise with him entirely in regard to most of the evils which he mentioned to your Lordships' House, but I cannot, to my regret, find myself able to discover in the provisions of this Bill the method by which the hopes which he expressed may be attained. Let me take, for instance, one of the matters which he mentioned for deprecation—the fact that in India and in our self-governing Dominions a very small proportion of British films was being shown. There is nothing in this Bill to secure an improvement of that state of things and, naturally, there is nothing to compel the self-governing Dominions, the great Dominion of India or any of our Protectorates to show any larger proportion of British films than they show to-day.

The right rev. Prelate also mentioned the admirable and characteristic energy of the American people and the large number of American films shown in this country. He spoke of the 90 per cent. which are already here as being American, and he deprecated that so many as 90 per cent. should be American films. The provisions of this Bill only provide that 80 per cent. shall be American and that at the utmost 20 per cent. shall be British. But for the sake of that 10 per cent. is he going to throw over all his Free Trade principles? Does he really think that this 10 per cent. will secure the difference which he expects to see in future? And, in regard to the quality, what hope have we that with films produced in this country there will be that improvement in quality which everyone of us desires? I confess I am no "film fan," as I think the phrase is, but I fail to see when I go to the cinema that there is this great distinction between the quality of British films and of foreign films which we should all of us like to see.

I sympathise to the utmost with all that was said by the right rev. Prelate regarding the opportunities which the history and the scenery of this country give for the production of fine and interesting films. I wish I could feel sure that the production of such films would be the result of this Bill. But I fail to see anything in the Bill which will secure such a result. Our climate would always prevent films made in this country from competing on equal terms with those made in other countries. It does not matter whether they are made indoors or out of doors, fog will always show itself on films. Apart from that, it is impossible to expect that films produced in this country, where people have to wait for a great many days before they can get fine weather, can be produced so as to compete on equal terms with films made in other countries more fortunate in their climate and where there is less rain and more sunshine. Obviously, the expense of producing a film in a climate like ours must be very much greater than that of producing a film in such a place as Hollywood. It is not by accident that Hollywood has come to be a centre for the production of films. It is true that the great stars are there; but it is not because of that that it is a centre. It is because of the climate of Hollywood that cinema stars are to be found there and that so many films are produced in that particular place. Film production does demand a climate which will allow you to photograph your scenes on any day without interference from wet, and without the expenditure of that money which would be necessary if you had to wait day after day or week after week before you could photograph the particular scene that you were anxious to produce.

What I feel in this matter is that the people of this country are entitled and ought to be allowed to have the best films that are produced in the world without any kind or sort of hindrance put in their way, and I deprecate this Bill because I am afraid it may mean a lowering in the standard of the films which are shown in this country. Instead of the provisions in this Bill I would very much have welcomed more drastic powers being given to the censor of films. He should have been allowed to prevent the production of a certain number of those films of which one reads descriptions in various newspapers. That, it seems to me, would have been a far better thing than to have proceeded on the basis of nationality. We should, I think, proceed rather in the way of raising the standard than by interfering with the nationality. I believe that would be more likely to produce the result which we want than this Bill is likely to do. I look upon the bureaucracy which is going to be created under this Bill as an unnecessary addition to the too-many officials that we already have in this country.

This Committee is apparently going to be given unusually large powers. I am not quite clear on the point and perhaps the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading would be good enough to tell me whether this interpretation of it is right. Supposing there are not enough films produced in this country, or that their quality is very low, will this new Committee be able to advise the Board of Trade not to put the Act into operation? No doubt it is my own fault, but it is not quite clear to me, and I should be glad if the noble Viscount would be good enough to explain to me exactly what are the powers of the Committee and whether they are so great as to enable the Board of Trade to neglect the provisions of this measure? If that be so, my objections to the Bill will have so far diminished, but there is another point in regard to which I would venture to put a question to the noble Viscount and it is this.

I dislike all trusts, but naturally a Bill of this kind helps the formation of a trust. Any interference with the course of trade naturally helps the formation of a trust. Supposing a trust is formed of the British producers and supposing the price which they charge for their productions is very high, is there any remedy? Will the Committee be obliged to take the question of price into consideration or will the people who show the films be compelled, because of the high prices, to raise their charges for seats to the people who are anxious to go to the cinema theatres? What exactly are the powers of the Committee? Will they be able to say that the price charged is an unfair price? I hope that is not an unfair question to put to the noble Viscount and that when he replies he will be good enough to enlighten me upon that subject. It seems to me quite clear that consumers are very much interested in this matter and they surely ought to have some protection in the event of a trust of this kind being formed. It seems to me that this Bill is an interference with the pleasure of the many for the benefit of the few, and therefore it is that I shall follow the noble Earl who moved the rejection of this Bill into the Division Lobby.

LORD ASKWITH

My Lords, I listened with some astonishment to the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. He divided his speech chiefly into two parts and he asked some questions at the end. One of those questions showed that he has very little reliance indeed upon British industry. He suggested that it might be necessary for the Board of Trade to step in and say that no British films should be exhibited at all, and asked whether they would be able to do it. The noble Earl does not seem to be aware that the British film industry has had a great movement forward and is producing almost weekly some admirable films which nobody would dream of stopping. Another question the noble Earl asked was as to whether there would be a trust which would sell the films at so high a price that nobody would be able to use them. There, again, I do not think the noble Earl can be aware of the number of British producers and of the keen competition that there is between them. I do not think there is the slightest danger of a trust being formed that would send up the charges in the direction the noble Earl indicated.

But apart from that and apart from the criticism about the increase of the bureaucracy, in which there is some little pith, the noble Earl's speech divided itself into two parts; first, he raised the question as to whether films could or could not be produced in this country; and, secondly, he staled the view that this Bill did not carry out the object of sending to the Dominions and to India films of British origin. Let me take the first point. Has the noble Earl ever been into a studio where films are produced? Does he know the conditions under which films are produced? Is he aware that but a very small portion of them, or rather very few scenes, are produced out in the open air, and that in the film studio there are methods which science has brought in for entirely eliminating any difficulty from the atmosphere? You can get in this country as good films as you can get in Hollywood or in Germany. If the noble Earl would like to see a studio, I am perfectly certain that Wardour Films would be pleased to give him an invitation to Elstree, where at the present moment he could see some of the British stars at work upon three films. All three, I think, have very considerable merit. One of them is a film of "The Farmer's Wife," which, as a play, was produced at the Court Theatre and for which some scenes, it is true, have been obtained in the open air by going down into Somerset and taking photographs of cottages and farms in a most beautiful part of England, in the neighbourhood of Minehead.

With regard to the noble Earl's point about the British Dominions and India, he must be well aware that we cannot provide by legislation what shall happen in India or what shall happen in the Dominions, but I think this Bill does go a step towards ensuring a quality of British films which will lead the Dominions and India to wish to see those films within their territory. We must go step by step. I agree with every word that was spoken by the right rev. Prelate, who not only brought out some good points but brought them out from the point of view of one who certainly cannot be accused of being a strong Party man or of being capable of saying what he has said in the interests of Protection.

I will refer now for a moment to the speech of the noble Earl who moved the rejection of this Bill. He brought forward the old bogeys of Protection and that class of argument, and said something about hothouse forcing methods. If he has not a greenhouse he may find it necessary at the planting of shrubs or bulbs at the beginning of the year, when they are subject to trouble from the weather, to use such a thing as a cold frame or to put them under some sort of shelter. If you do not do that in the early period of their life you may lose very large quantities of them. But that is not a hothouse measure. It is simply protecting these infants for a time until they can go into the open air. This Bill has followed the same idea. This Bill does not provide a statutory obligation for ever. It is only to last for ten years. It is intended to give a chance to a British industry which was hampered by the peculiar circumstances of the War from going forward with the improvement of the film industry. It is to give it a chance of making up time and getting money here in order to do it.

How is that to be accomplished? They found themselves in a position in which there was blind booking, and blind booking of a kind which absolutely forced the exhibitors to take films from America, which obliged them to take films without knowing what the price was, to pay that price without knowing what the quality was, and to pay it whether the quality was good or bad. It forced them to have dates taken up in such a way that even if British films had been produced there would have been no chance of their exhibition at an early date. Therefore if British capital had been put into British films that capital would have been held up for such a long time that it was impossible to acquire it for the purpose.

The noble Earl said he spoke for British exhibitors. I have been asked to mention some of the points upon which British exhibitors rely. I am told that the British Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association represents 2,900 out of an effective 3,000 exhibitors in this country, There have been 3,800 licences issued, but the trade take 3,000 as the effective number of exhibitors with a six-days' show per week in this country. They took a poll with regard to the abolition of blind booking by legislative measures. What was the result? There voted in favour of the abolition of blind booking 1,704, and against, 198, a majority in favour of abolition of 1,506. That shows that that part of the Bill at least is greeted by the exhibitors with practical unanimity.

Then comes the quota. The quota is a point upon which the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill has shown his usual eloquence. He spoke of it in unmeasured terms of abuse, First of all I would point out that the quota is only to last for ten years. There may have been an objection to it at first, When it was introduced it was proposed that it should be 10 per cent. That was reduced to 7½ per cent, and subsequently it was modified to 5 per cent, There was a referendum taken on this question, but only a small number voted against the 10 per cent, proposal. I understand that 5 per cent, is now accepted by the exhibitors as reasonable. It is accepted by the exhibitors for this reason, that they have found it has worked out in practice with this Bill in prospect. The mere prospect of this quota coming in has resulted in a short time in three times as much British capital being put in as there was two years ago, and in a threefold increase of British production. That shows that British capital is not likely to be introduced into a very insecure industry, but that if you give it a good chance then British capital is prepared to support the British film industry, to make British films with British actors, produced by British producers and exhibited by British exhibitors. The result of that may be that films of good quality will be produced and that India and the Dominions will be given the opportunity of obtaining and exhibiting British films.

It is very important in an industry of this kind, which may appear to be to a certain extent speculative, that the future condition of the industry in which the money is to be invested should be known. This Bill is a step towards giving some security. The industry, of course, does not want too much interference, but interference of the kind indicated in this Bill may, if properly exercised, without too much autocracy, be of extreme value to the industry. I think it would give a much better chance to British capital, and give the industry a chance to improve in a way which every one in this House must want, because it is unnecessary at this time to dilate upon the vast value, the unforeseen value, that the cinema may be to the people at large and the effect it may have on the generations to come. For my part I intend to support the Bill.

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I do not intend to detain you very long. I do not quite understand why the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has suddenly taken a tremendous dislike to this Bill. He says that there is going to be bureaucracy. He says that there are going to be a great many people paid to look into this matter. The real truth of it is that there is plenty of money behind this Bill. I know the man who is promoting this really English cinema business. His name is known—that is to say, the name under which he writes. That name is Edgar Wallace. That is only the name he writes under. There is no question of there being want of money. Mr. Wallace has behind him thousands and thousands of pounds, and why on earth the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has set himself up to spoil what is really a perfectly honest attempt at bringing forward a thoroughly British-managed film, I cannot understand.

What is the object of this? I do not understand. I know Mr. Wallace well. That is not his real name. I believe he is a Scotsman, and he can command enormous sums of money for whatever he writes. I cannot understand why Lord Russell has set himself up to kill this purely British film industry, except for motives of contradiction. I should like to tell the House that there is any amount of money behind this gentleman, and if he wants more money he will get it with the greatest of ease, because practically, whenever he writes a book, he can procure whatever he likes from the publishers. In fact, he is well able to take care of himself and the film industry that he is making an honest attempt to start. I wish to tell Lord Russell quite straightly that I intend to vote for the Bill and not against it. I think I have given my reasons, and if any more reasons are wanted I am quite ready to produce them. There is here no question of a trust and no question of bureaucracy. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in any way.

I am very glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his place and I am very sorry that he was not actually present when I was speaking just now, but I have no doubt that his numerous colleagues on the opposite Bench will tell him exactly what I said. He has plenty of noble Lords to prompt him there. I shall vote for the Bill. I think I have given my reasons for voting for the Bill, and I will not repeat them. I should like just to mention—though I am repeating myself—that there is any amount of money behind this honest attempt to produce British films, and if more is wanted it will be forthcoming. I do not think that I have very much more to say. As to the question of bureaucracy, it is all humbug and nonsense.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, there is no need to detain your Lordships long in offering a few observations in reply. It is quite true that this Bill has been criticised from the Benches opposite and that the rejection has been moved. But the two noble Earls who spoke against it, I was glad to hear, expressed great sympathy with the idea that British films of better quality and greater quantity should be produced in this country. I was very glad of that sympathy, and I am sure that the industry will be very glad of it. But unfortunately their sympathy went exactly as far as the point of action and no further. They wanted to leave the situation just as it was, and they suggested that no action should be taken. The noble Earl opposite made a very fair criticism of the Bill, with his usual skill and eloquence, but I think he was to some extent hampered because he found himself in the position of denouncing Government interference with business and made a eulogy of competition. I think that perhaps his views in other connections somewhat embarrassed him in the energy with which he delivered that diatribe.

There are only two or three points, I think, that I need dwell upon. One was raised both by the noble Earl opposite and by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp—I mean the question of price. They said that there was some danger that prices might be raised, that the exhibitors might have to pay larger sums for these films and that it would be necessary accordingly to raise the price to the public. I do not think there is any serious danger of that, and for this reason: the quota has been so fixed that there is a large quantity of British films already in the market in excess of the number required for filling up the quota. If the quota had been fixed much higher, those dangers might possibly have super- vened. If the quota had been placed too high, some of the dangers suggested by the noble Earl might have arisen.

There are other reasons why there is not much danger as regards price, besides the one that I have mentioned. I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to subsection (2) of Clause 31, which says that:— Where compliance on the part of a renter or exhibitor with the provisions of this Act as to quota was not commercially practicable by reason of the character of the British films available or the excessive cost of such films, non-compliance with those provisions shall … be treated as due to reasons beyond his control. I think that this certainly meets some of the cases to which the noble Earl has referred. There is also, I think, a third reason to be found in the intelligent self-interest of the producers themselves. After all, if they were going to combine so as to raise films to such a price as would compare most unfavourably with that of other films they would have to remember that this is a very temporary Bill, that it lasts only for ten years and that there would not be the slightest chance of such a Bill being renewed if they behaved in such an unreasonable manner. Since film production costs a great deal of money and requires a large amount of capital, I hardly think that they would be so foolish as to risk the whole of their capital because they wished during these few years to reap an unreasonable harvest.

A further point was raised by the noble Earl regarding the Empire. He asks what we are doing regarding films within the Empire, and says that this Bill will not increase the number of films shown in India and the Dominions. May I remind the noble Earl that it was the Imperial Conference that set this Bill on foot? Why? Because they asked us to take the lead in this matter and they declared that if we take the lead they will follow. Therefore we, may assume that their legislation, as in the State of Victoria and New Zealand, will follow our lead, and give that assistance—I do not like to use the word protection—to British films by affording a further market to films produced in this country. The noble Earl disclaimed any idea of being a "film fan," but I do not think he appreciated the conditions under which films are produced, because he asked: How, if you have your quota, are you going to pro- duce films in this foggy country in competition with those produced at Hollywood? He suggested that they are produced in Hollywood because of the clear air there, which the noble Earl no doubt compared with the moist air of Lancashire, which enables us to spin cotton with so much success. I am informed that the noble Earl is not correctly informed—that 90 per cent, of the films produced at Hollywood are produced under artificial conditions, not in the open air but in studios. I am told that the great producers in Berlin, who produce their films on a vast scale, produce them in their own studios—and that they produced one the other day in a most pestilential fog, the only delay being caused by the failure of some of the stars to reach the studio, owing to the fog outside. Those, I think, were the two main objections — namely, price and the capacity to produce films.

I will say a word as to the criticism addressed by Earl Russell, which was dealt with, I think, by my noble friend Lord Askwith—namely, that we were not legislating for the quality of the film. I think the right rev. Prelate also said that he would like to have the Advisory Committee enlarged, so that it could pronounce upon the quality of the

films. They already pronounce upon the character of the films, but I think there is a certain amount of fallacy in the too-strict idea which separates quality from quantity. If you get a certain amount of capital invested in a business, by reason of the security given to it, you will get quantity, and I think quality will follow, because quality means being able to pay sufficiently to buy the ability which makes for the quality of the film. We have excellent stars in this country, but they are attracted to the other side of the water by the salaries which are there paid. If we have larger production in this country, and a larger amount of capital invested, we shall be able to secure the services of these people, and in that way we shall get quality as well as quantity. There is a connection between quantity and quality, and I think we can secure that quality with the consent of large audiences, probably better than by having film censors, whose judgment, however excellent, is invariably criticised by everybody in this country.

On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 68: Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Wicklow, E. Kilmaine, L.
Kinnaird, L.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Bertie of Thame, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Churchill, V. Knaresborough, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Dunedin, V. Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Merrivale, L.
Hampden, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Sutherland, D. Knutsford, V. Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Peel, V. Newton, L.
Camden, M. Younger of Leckie, V. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Airlie, E. Southwark, L. Bp. Queenborough, L.
Albemarle, E. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Cranbrook, E. Askwith, L. Roundway, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Avebury, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Biddulph, L. St. Levan, L.
Eldon, E. Bledisloe, L. Somerleyton, L.
Howe, E. Carson, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Iddlesleigh, E. Castlemaine, L.
Iveagh, E. Danesfort, L. Sudeley, L.
Lovelace, E. Faringdon, L. Sydenham of Combe, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Teynham, L.
Mayo, E. Glenarthur, L. Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)
Midleton, E. Hanworth, L.
Onslow, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Wavertree, L.
Plymouth, E. [Teller.] Howard of Glossop, L. Wittenham, L.
Scarbrough, E. Jessel, L. Wyfold.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) Beauchamp, E. Russell, E.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.] Strafford, E.
Haldane, V. Hemphill, L. Northington, L. (L. Henley.)
Leigh, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Arnold, L. Marshall of Chipstead, L. Rowallan, L.
Buckmaster, L. Morris L. Sandhurst, L.
Clwyd, L. Muir Mackenzie, L. Southwark, L.
Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly, and Bill read 2aand committed to a Committee of the Whole House.