Lords Sitting of 27 May 1930

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

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE ARCHBISHOP LORD DAVIDSON OF LAMBETH.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am sure that, on the first meeting of your Lordships' House after the loss which we and all his fellow-countrymen have suffered through the death of Archbishop Davidson, your Lordships would like this House to have an opportunity of expressing or hearing a short reference to his work and life. I feel that much of his public life was spent in this House. He often addressed us, and we were always grateful to him for his wise and far-seeing guidance, particularly as it was directed towards the spirit of conciliation. To-day I should like to say a few words from the point of view of an Anglican laymen who, for the greater part of the late Archiepiscopate, occupied a confidential position in relation to the Archbishop and constantly went to him in all questions of doubt and difficulty. I believe that to the laity of the Anglican Church the late Archbishop was and will remain an example of a great Archbishop, perhaps the greatest of modern times. I do not pause to make anything like a relative appreciation, but I know of no Archiepiscopate in modern times that is more likely to be remembered in the historical evolution of Christianity in this country than that of the late Archbishop Davidson.
It was my good fortune, as I have stated, to be closely associated with him over a number of years. I was confidential adviser to Archbishop Temple, and succeeded to the same position, which I held for many years, in relation to Archbishop Davidson, and I think, when we remember what he did here and outside, we shall feel that his years of public duty will long leave their mark on the history of the recognition of Christian understanding and Christian obligation, both in this country and in the Empire, and through all parts of the world. It was,

1067
I think, chiefly because he was endowed with a wise and far-seeing spirit of conciliation, tolerant in his sense of sympathetic understanding, but was rightly and strongly—that is not always appreciated—rightly and strongly tenacious on matters which appeared to him to be fundamental matters of Christian principle. In order to summarise in the most convenient form what I know his views to have been, I should ask leave to quote one passage from the historical charge delivered at the Second Visitation of the Diocese of Canterbury in 1912, which I think contains a more considered account of the deeper meanings which he attached to his Christian obligations than I can find in any other record or document. I know that he sent me a copy of this Visitation Charge at the time, and later, when under conditions of doubt and difficulty I appealed to him, he sent me a further copy with this passage underlined; and your Lordships must recollect that it was not addressed to any one individual, but was a public exhortation during his Visitation to his Diocese. He said—this was the answer I received to a doubt and difficulty—
"I believe unreservedly that it is the duty of every man to pursue unflinchingly the search for truth, and to free himself so far as he can from narrowing and fettering preconceptions as to the conclusions to which his search will lead him."
They are words very similar to those that we find in the writings of that great churchman and statesman, Sir Thomas More. They are, I think, the true touchstone by which we can test whether a particular action constitutes true sincerity or not.
During the later years of his Archiepiscopate, he largely gave his time to leading the movement which resulted in the passing of the Enabling Act, the purpose of which he expressed to be, and is, to secure a fuller expression of the spiritual independence of the Church, as well as of the national recognition of religion. In other words, he desired the maximum of spiritual independence consistent with what he believed to be one of the great matters for the good of the whole world and mankind, that is, the preservation of our establishment. Those who were present in your Lordships' House will not forget the speech with which he introduced the Enabling Bill to the notice of your
1068
Lordships. He described the Bill, in the simple and direct language which we so often heard from him, as one to enable the Anglican Church to do its work properly, and expressed the belief that disestablishment would be an immeasurable loss to the whole nation. This is no occasion, of course, to enter upon the differences of opinion that arose in connection with the Prayer Book. Those must be left to the judgment of time.
The late Archbishop, as we know, constantly addressed us, particularly on social matters. He gave us his guidance, counselling moderation, and ever asked for time for the adjustment of difficulties as against what I think he once called, in one of his Visitation addresses, the principle of short cuts. He urgently desired to relieve human suffering and to alleviate human sorrow in all parts of the world, expressing the view that in a Christian land, happily constituted like our own, degrading poverty ought to be, and might be, practically abolished altogether. He was not of course, appealing to political thought and still less to a political Party. He was above Party, and addressed himself from a higher level than ordinary political thought. He was thinking of the gospel of Christianity, as taught in the words and actions of its Founder. No guidance, not even his guidance, can be without its share of error and failure, but all who knew him will treasure the life and work of the late Archbishop, and will cherish the hope that in this case the good which he has done will live after him, and constitute a real advance in the progress of human content and Christian friendliness. We shall miss him long in this House, where he so often assisted us in our deliberations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to add one or two words to the observations which have fallen from the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House. I think he was especially wise to have marked for his notice of this great man's life the knowledge which we had of him in your Lordships' House. As to his attitude towards the House of Lords, much of it would be spoken of with greater effect by one of his brethren on that Bench, but we laymen, as we listened to him day after day—for he was almost always in 'attendance—could not fail to note that he spoke as one having

1069
authority; that is to say, that he represented in his person the opinion, as he believed, of the Church at large and of his brethren with whom he sat. I do not pretend that I had the same official connection with Archbishop Davidson which the Leader of the House possessed, but it was my privilege to act with him on many occasions and frequently to be in council with him; and the impression left upon my mind was that of a man who was almost wholly selfless in his attitude towards public affairs. I need not say there was no vanity, but there did not appear to be any thought at all except for the public good. There was no bitterness. Everything was for peace. And, as the noble and learned Lord has said, his greatest title to the memory and affection of us all lay in his efforts for conciliation—conciliation amongst Churchmen, amongst Christians, amongst his own countrymen, to whatever faith they belonged.
This is not the place and I am not the man to speak of his great position in the Christian world, but there is none of us but must be conscious of the great change which took place in the Church of England under his leadership—a change almost overwhelming. There was, as it were, a quickening of the spiritual consciousness of the Church in this country amongst Churchmen, but also of its marvellous influence with its allied Churches throughout the world. The great power And authority and influence of the Church of England has multiplied tenfold during the time that Archbishop Davidson presided over the See of Canterbury. It is not possible yet to realise how much he himself contributed to these great developments, but at any rate it was his guiding leadership and his moderating influence that were largely responsible for the wonderful result. We may be grateful that we had for so many years amongst our most eminent members this great Archbishop, and we shall all join in deeply regretting his death.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the sincere and admirable words which have just been spoken by the Leader of the House and by the noble Marquess who has just sat down have fully expressed the thoughts which fill our minds when we think of Lord Davidson, yet it may be fitting that I should add some words. I do not find
1070
it easy to speak. It is difficult to hold oneself, so to say, in detachment from one who was bound to me by the ties of a close friendship—on my part always reverent, on his always most generous—and to summarise in a few sentences the impressions left upon my mind after twenty-five years of the closest association with all his thoughts and plans. I must needs have other opportunities of speaking of his great work for the Church and for the country. I would confine myself in what I venture to say to the place he filled in this House.
It is not, I think, too much to say that; to this House he was not merely attached, he was devoted. It was a place to him not only of responsibility, but also of real recreation. It was a stimulus to him to be in the midst of its historical memories, of the movement of great affairs—to be in contact with the men who took a leading part in their settlement. Again and again when some of us, knowing the pressure upon his time, used to urge upon him that, as there was no business of great importance before this House, he might well take some needed rest, he would for the moment acquiesce and, after a short time, we would find that, moved as it were by an irresistible impulse, he had found his way from Lambeth to his familiar seat in this House. And perhaps nothing gave him greater consolation in what was to him the great trial of his retirement than the fact that, by His Majesty's gracious kindness, he was permitted to the end of his life to remain a member of this House.
He did not claim to be an orator. He was not even ready in speech, sometimes perhaps even laboured; but the very absence of everything that was unreal and artificial, of any striving after effect, gave to his words a greater weight. We felt that we were listening to a man of transparent honesty and integrity, whose only desire was to speak truthfully what was in his mind and to reach himself, and to help others to reach, a right judgment in all that concerned the public weal. Most of all he valued his place in this House because it symbolised that long association of the Church and the Realm which to him had the deepest spiritual significance, and because it gave him an opportunity of speaking and acting as a representative of Christian

1071
citizenship throughout the land. We, in our turn, valued increasingly the guidance of a wisdom which was the fruit of a singularly balanced and fair mind, and was matured by an unrivalled experience of men and affairs in all parts of the world. We learned to value his counsel the more because we felt that it was disinterested, and was deepened and disciplined by a great sense of responsibility. May I say that we discerned in him, though we might not always have expressed it, the truth of the old words that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"?
As he advanced in influence, in reputation, in authority, the essential character of the man became more and more apparent to his contemporaries—his sincerity, his simplicity, his honesty and humility, his single-minded desire to be of service to his country and his Church and, so far as he could, to the whole human race throughout the world. I have never known a man in whom there were combined a more exalted sense of the responsibilities of his office and a more humble sense of himself. Thus it was that to trust there was added more and more surely and on the part of many who only knew him as a public man a deep and reverent affection. In this House, the place where he sat for many years will know him no more; but, surely, the memory will long be treasured of this great-hearted single-minded servant of God and of the Church and Realm of England.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should not like this occasion to pass without saying something, however inadequate it may be, in addition to what has already been said by those who have spoken, on behalf of my noble friends. We are all deeply conscious of the loss which this House has suffered in the death of Archbishop Lord Davidson. I was profoundly impressed by what was said by the most rev. Primate in the course of his remarks. Nothing struck me more in the character of Archbishop Lord Davidson than his manifest modesty and humility. It showed itself constantly in private life. Great Prelate as he was, there was nobody less assuming than he or more ready to learn from those whom he met. That modesty showed itself in public life too. Sound as most of us thought his judgment to be, he never was content,
1072
I think, to express his own opinion without having consulted the very best advice which he could possibly consult. No doubt we should find that no speech was ever made in your Lordships' House or elsewhere and no opinion was ever expressed without the Archbishop having taken a very great deal of trouble in getting hold of the very best advice before he said anything upon any particular subject. In those circumstances we all of us learned to trust his judgment. If he was cautious, as becomes those who come from his own country, he at any rate never made mistakes. Thinking over the speeches which he made in this House I would venture to think that there is not one of your Lordships who would not say that the advice which he gave on many occasions was always sound, right and wise.
The noble Marquess who sits beside me spoke of the increase in the importance of the Church of England throughout the world since the late Archbishop assumed office. That, I think, is profoundly true and is largely due to his personality. But what we feel now is that if the position of the Church of England to-day is greater, and it is greater, the importance attaches, just as Archbishop Lord Davidson himself would have wished, not to the person but to the office itself. In all communications with other Churches—Churdhes in direct communion with the Church of England, and also the Orthodox Churches of the East—there is, I think, no doubt at all that the position of the Archbishopric of Canterbury is far higher than it was when Lord Davidson assumed his office. I think we can say in regard to this House that if in any coming reform such as will probably take place one day, we insist upon the representation of the Church of England, it will be largely due to the constant attendance of, and to the wise advice which was given to your Lordships' House by, the late Archbishop. May I, in conclusion, say one more intimate word? May I not venture to express, on behalf of your Lordships, our deepest sympathy with his constant and loved partner, Lady Davidson?

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.

RIVER LEE (FLOOD RELIEF, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to this Bill, I move that Standing Order No. 91 be dispensed with. There are public reasons for this course.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and read 2a accordingly.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (NO. 2) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ESSEX) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I ask leave to present a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Essex, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MACCLESFIELD, SETTLE AND WILLESDEN) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I ask leave to present a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Macclesfield, Settle and Willesden, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Procedure for valuing railway hereditaments in England.
(3) For the purposes of this Act—
"Railway company" means a railway company to which this Act for the time being applies;
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE) moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "Railway company" after "means," to insert "except in the First Schedule to this Act." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I might explain the number of Amendments that appear on the Paper in my name. They are really drafting Amendments, or Amendments clarifying particular points, or explanatory Amendments of small technical points of detail; but there is no alteration whatever in the general principles and the chief clauses of the Bill. The alterations have been due to the fact that the authorities concerned, the local government authorities and the railway companies, have been in very close consultation with the Government, and the Bill has gone through very careful scrutiny up to the last moment. Agreement has been reached on all the clauses of the Bill. In cases where there is anything more than an actual drafting Amendment I will make any explanation that may be necessary. There is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. The Government are quite prepared to accept that Amendment if he will be good enough to move it after Clause 18 instead of in the place where he has put it down.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("means") insert ("(except in the First Schedule to this Act)").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("railway").
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("not being a road transport, sea transport or air transport undertaking").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Constitution of Railway Assessment Authority and Anglo-Scottish Railways Assessment Authority.
(2) The Chairman of the Railway Assessment Authority shall be an experienced lawyer to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and of the other members of the Authority three shall be appointed by the Minister at his discretion and one shall
1076
be appointed by him on the recommendation of each of the following bodies, that is to say, the London County Council, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (2) "It shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, if he think fit, to remove any member of the authority." The noble Viscount said: This is the usual sort of clause to have in this class of Bill. It is always rather difficult to choose a precedent, and if one takes the Port of London Authority one is told one is impolite. This particular precedent I have taken from the Railway and Canal Commissions Bill, and as appeals lie from this court to the Railway and Canal Commission I think this is the best precedent to follow.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I think the noble Viscount will see that really it is not necessary. The present assessment authorities are chosen by the county council; and there is no question of any interference from the Crown in that case. The assessment authority to be set up under the Bill will be appointed by the Minister of Health. Six of the members will be from local authority organisations, and three members will be appointed by the Minister at his discretion, but of course in consultation with the local authorities. They will be practically all elected members, and only the Chairman, who is to be an experienced lawyer, is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Government consider it would be an invidious responsibility to place on the Lord Chancellor the authority which the noble Viscount desires by this Amendment. I am afraid we cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Do I understand from the noble Lord that no authority whatever is to be able to get rid of these people? The Railway and Canal Commission surely is a higher Court, and in that case the Lord Chancellor

1077
has the power to get rid of the members. I ask the noble Lord to consider the matter.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think it is unnecessary for us to consider that there will be so many undesirable people on this body that it will be necessary to get rid of them constantly. There is no difficulty on the present county assessment committees. There is no need for Crown interference in order to get rid of one of the members there, and there seems to be no need whatever to have this special provision in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Determination of net annual value of railway undertaking carried on in England but not in Scotland]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendments in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("a joint railway undertaking") and insert ("a share in a joint undertaking").
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("railway").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: With the permission of the Committee, I will move the Amendment which I have put down after Clause 6 after Clause 18.
Clause 7 [Application of Third Schedule]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after ("railway") insert ("company's").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Appeals]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendments in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 5, after ("railway") insert ("company's").
Page 13, line 6, after ("Scotland") insert ("so far as those receipts are to be ascertained by the Joint Authority ").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Alterations of railway valuation roll during quinquennial period.
11.—(1) If at any time during a quinquennial period it is represented to the Railway Assessment Authority by the railway company concerned or by the rating authority of the rating area or the county valuation committee of the county within which the hereditament is situate, or by any person aggrieved, that—
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULEREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULEREDE moved, after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) any premises which have been treated by the Authority as forming part of a railway hereditament occupied by the company, or as not forming part of any railway hereditament so occupied, ought to be treated differently by reason of some change which has, since the date on which the draft of the relevant part of the roll was settled, occurred in the occupation, or the character of the occupation, of those premises; or"
The noble Lord said: This provides machinery for altering entries in the railway valuation roll during a quinquennium on certain specified grounds. It is conceivable that some hereditament might alter its character, and be no longer a railway hereditament, in which case some change would have to be made. This is the machinery, if necessary, for making the change.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 10, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) In any case where a representation is made under this section with respect to any hereditament, the Railway Assessment Authority shall give notice of their determination to the railway company concerned, to the county valuation committee of the county and the rating authority of the rating area within which the hereditament is situate, and to any person who appeared

1079
before the Authority as a party on the consideration of the representation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been moved at the instance of the County Councils Association because they felt it was only fair that notification should be given in order that any appeal that might be made under it should not be forfeited by the authority in question not having been notified by the assessment authority of their determination. We agreed to insert this Amendment to cover that case:
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Valuation lists to conform to railway valuation roll.
(2) Where the Railway Assessment Authority have made any alteration in any part of a railway valuation roll, either in revising that part or at a date subsequent to the revision thereof, they shall send particulars of the alteration to the railway company concerned and to every assessment committee and rating authority in England within whose assessment area or rating area there is any hereditament affected by the alteration, and every assessment committee which receives such information shall cause any necessary amendments of the valuation list to be made.
(3) For the purposes of the liability of a railway company to rates, any amendment of a valuation list made under this section shall have effect—

(i) in the case of an amendment made in consequence of the completion or the revision of any part of the roll or of the decision of any appeal which was outstanding at the date of such revision, as from the date upon which, under the provisions of this Act the roll is to come into operation;

(ii) in the case of an amendment made after the revision of the relevant part of the roll in consequence of a representation under the last preceding section, as from the first day of the period in respect of which the general rate current at the date when the representation was served upon the Railway Assessment Authority was made:

Provided that, in the case of an amendment consisting of the inclusion in the valuation list of a newly-erected or newly-constructed hereditament, or an altered hereditament which has been out of occupation on account of structural alterations or of the amendment in the valuation list
1080
of the value of any hereditament, where the value thereof has been affected by the making of structural alterations, or by the total or partial destruction of any building or other erection by fire or other physical cause, the amendment shall have effect only as from the date when the new or altered hereditament came into occupation, or as from the happening of the event giving rise to the alteration of the value of the hereditament, as the case may be;
(iii) in the case of an amendment made under subsection (4) of the last preceding section, as from the first day of the period in respect of which the next general rate is made;
and where, in pursuance of this section there is made any amendment of a valuation list which affects the amount of any rate levied in respect of any railway hereditament in accordance with the list, the difference, if too much has been paid, shall be repaid or allowed, or if too little has been paid, shall be paid and may be recovered as arrears of the rate.
(4) Where an assessment committee make under this section any amendment of a valuation list, they shall make any necessary amendment in the totals of values shown in that list, and in the case of a rating area in London, any amendment so made in a total of values shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, have effect—

(i) if the date as from which the amendment has effect under the last preceding subsection is the sixth day of April in any year, as from the said date; and

(ii) in any other case, as from the sixth day of April next following the said date;

and where any such amendment in a total of values affects the amount of any sum already assessed on, or any contribution already required from, that area by the London County Council or by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the difference shall be paid or, as the case may be, repaid or allowed.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The first Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, after ("alteration") insert ("and of the grounds upon which it was made").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shutbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to leave out all words in subsection (2) after the last "alteration," subsection (3), and subsection (4) down to and including "any Amendment so made," and to insert:

1081
"(3) Every assessment committee which receives any such information as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection shall cause to be made such amendments of any valuation list (including any valuation list which has ceased to be in force since the date as from which under the provisions of this subsection the amendments are to have effect) as are necessary to secure that the hereditaments, values and particulars which appear in the roll, appear also in the list, and shall also cause to be made any necessary consequential amendments.
For the purposes of the liability of a railway company to rates, an amendment made under this subsection shall in relation to any rate have effect—

(i) in the case of an amendment occasioned by the completion or the revision of the relevant part of the roll, or the decision of any appeal which was outstanding at the date of the revision of that part, as from the commencement of the quinquennial period;

(ii) in the case of an amendment occasioned by an alteration made in any part of the roll after the revision thereof upon a representation under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section, as from the happening of the event which gave rise to the representation, or as from the first day of the period in respect of which the general rate current at the date of the service of the representation upon the Authority was made, whichever may be the later;

(iii) in the case of an amendment occasioned by an alteration made in any part of the roll after the revision thereof upon a representation under paragraph (e) of the said subsection (1), as from the first day of the period in respect of which the general rate current at the date of the service of the representation upon the Authority was made;

(iv) in the case of an amendment occasioned by an alteration made in the roll under subsection (4) of the last preceding section, as from the first day of the period in respect of which the next general rate is made.

(4) Where the effect of any information given under subsection (2) of this section is that any premises previously treated by the Authority as being a railway hereditament, or part of a railway hereditament, have ceased to be so treated, such amendments may be made of any valuation list (including any valuation list which has ceased to be in force since the date as from which under the provisions of this subsection the amendments are to have effect) by way of proposal or, in London, by way of provisional or supplemental list, as are necessary to secure that those premises and correct values and particulars in respect thereof appear in the appropriate part of the valuation list.
For the purposes of the liability of any person to rates an amendment made under
1082
this subsection shall in relation to any rate have effect, in a case where the variation in the treatment of the premises is due to a change occurring during the quinquennial period in the occupation, or the character of the occupation, of the premises, as from the date of that change, and, in any other case, as from the commencement of the quinquennial period.
(5) Where under this section there is made any amendment of a valuation list which affects the amount of any rate levied in respect of any hereditament in accordance with the list, the difference, if too much has been paid, shall be repaid or allowed to the ratepayer, or if too little has been paid, shall be paid by and may be recovered from him as if it were arrears of the rate.
(6) Where under this section there is made any amendment of a valuation list, the assessment committee shall make any necessary amendment in the totals of values shown in that list.
(7) In the case of a rating area in London, any amendment made under this section"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment appears to be a very long one, but as a matter of fact it is only a recast of the subsections of this clause in order to meet various points of detail and drafting Amendments that have been made. It does not materially alter the sense of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, leave out from the end of line 17 to the second ("in") in line 27 on page 20, and insert the said new subsections. —(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District" and to insert "Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District") and insert ("Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Preparation and approval of apportionment scheme.
(3) The Railway Assessment Authority shall, as soon as they have prepared a scheme in accordance with the provisions of this section, give public notice thereof

1083
in the prescribed form and manner, and after hearing and considering any representations which may be made to them by any railway company, any county valuation committee or the council of any county borough within such period, not being less than two months, as may be specified in the notice, shall make in the scheme such modifications, if any, as they consider necessary and submit the scheme to the Minister.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The first three Amendments in this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 38, after ("railway") insert ("company's").
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("such an").
Page 22, line 6, leave out ("a railway undertaking") and insert ("the undertaking of a railway company").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (3), after "borough," to insert "or any other rating authority whose interests are in the opinion of the Railway Assessment Authority specially affected." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to cover those places which are not actually county boroughs but have great railway interests, such, for instance, as Crewe and Swindon.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 18, after ("borough") insert ("or any other rating authority whose interests are in the opinion of the Railway Assessment Authority specially affected ").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Assistance and information to be given to Railway Assessment Authority]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I beg to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 25, leave out ("railway undertaking") and insert ("undertaking of the company").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
Railway Assessment Authority to apportion value of railway hereditaments if required for certain purposes.
". Where by any enactment or by any scheme or order made under any enactment an assessment committee or rating authority are required or authorised to make any necessary apportionments of the values of hereditaments, the Railway Assessment Authority shall upon the request of the assessment committee or rating authority, as the case may be, make on their behalf the necessary apportionment of the net annual and rateable values of any railway hereditament, and an apportionment so made shall, for the purposes of the said enactment, have the same effect as if it had been made by the assessment committee or, as the case may be, by the rating authority."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really purely one of machinery to meet the case of certain rating authorities in London, which is divided up into several parishes each with special rates. This Amendment will enable the rating authorities to apportion the rate among the parishes.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: We are quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Provisions as to value of Scottish portions of railway undertaking carried on in England and in Scotland]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendments to this clause which are on the Paper are all drafting Amendments with the exception of the third and following Amendments, which deal with special machinery with regard to appeals in Scotland, which has been assented to by the Scottish authorities.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 17, after ("management") insert ("and of repairs to stations and buildings")
Page 27, line 10, after ("such") insert ("average")
Page 27, line 36, after ("railway") insert ("company's")
Page 28, line 20, leave out from ("shall") to ("have") in line 22.
Page 28, line 24, after ("thereby") insert ("respectively")

1085
Page 27, line 24, after ("conferred") insert ("on the railway, canal, or other company and on the county or burgh")
Page 29, line 38 after ("railway") insert ("company's").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There are two drafting Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 31, line 8, leave out ("a railway") and insert ("their").
Page 31, line 12, leave out ("railway").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions with respect to the submission and approval of schemes for applying the Act to a railway company to which it does not apply.
1. A railway company to which this Act does not apply or the Railway Assessment Authority may submit to the Minister a scheme for applying to that company the provisions of this Act subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may appear to the company or the Authority to be necessary or desirable.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to leave out paragraph 1 and to insert:
"1. A scheme for applying all or any of the provisions of this Act, either with or without adaptations and modifications, to a railway company to which this Act does not for the time being apply, being a company whose principal business is the working of a railway or of a light railway as defined in subsection (3) of Section five of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, may be submitted to the Minister by the railway company concerned or by the Railway Assessment Authority."
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendments already made in the clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 7 to 12, and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There are two consequential Amendments in this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 33, leave out ("any railway") and insert ("an").
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There are a number of drafting Amendments to this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("railway")
Page 35, line 36, leave out ("railway")
Page 36, line 15, leave out ("railway"
Page 37, line 9, leave out ("railway")
Page 38, line 5, leave out ("railway"). —(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendments to this Schedule are all consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 39, line 24, leave out from ("cause") to the end of line 29, and insert ("to be made such amendments of any valuation list (including any valuation list which has ceased to be in force since title date as from which under paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule the amendments are to have effect) as are necessary to secure that the hereditaments, values and particulars which appear in the roll appear also in the list, and shall also cause to be made any necessary consequential amendments ")
Page 35, line 31, leave out ("occupied by the company")
Page 35, line 35, leave out from ("hereditament") to the end of line 44, and insert ("Such amendments may be made of any valuation list (including any valuation list which has ceased to be in force since the date as from which under paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule the amendments are to have effect) by way of proposal, or in London by way of provisional or supplemental list, as are necessary to secure that those premises and correct values and particulars in respect thereof appear in the appropriate part of the valuation list.
"4. All the provisions of this Act shall apply as if any amendment made under

1087
paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule had been made under subsection (3) of Section twelve of this Act and as if any amendment made under the last preceding paragraph had been made under subsection (4) of the said Section twelve.")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Rights of third parties against insurers on bankruptcy &c. of the insured.
(4) Upon any such transfer the insurer shall be subject to the same liabilities as if he were the insured so, however, that the insurer shall not be under any greater liability to the third party than he would have been under to the insured.
(5) If the liability of the insurer to the insured is less than the liability of the insured to the third party, nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of the third party in respect of the balance.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, to leave out subsections (4) and (5), and to insert:—
"(4) Upon a transfer under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of Section three of this Act, be under the same liability to the third party as he would have been under to the insured, but—

(a) if the liability of the insurer to the insured exceeds the liability of the insured to the third party, nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of the insured against the insurer in respect of the excess; and

(b) if the liability of the insurer to the insured is less than the liability of the insured to the third party, nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of the third party against the insured in respect of the balance."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, although the Amendment on the Paper is a long one it is really only a drafting Amendment and it is one to which I called your Lordships' attention at the Committee stage. It is intended to make the meaning of the clause clearer and does not alter the meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, lines 24 to 32, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, upon that Motion I would like to say that we on this side of your Lordships' House are placed in great difficulty because the Amendment Paper may be said to a large extent to have come into our hands only this morning. There are on the Paper a large number of Government Amendments which are "starred." That is to say, Notice of those Amendments was only given last night, and, as I am informed, very late at night. I make no complaint of course of the way in which the noble Earl has conducted the Bill. It has been an experience of great courtesy as far as he is concerned and he has been very conciliatory. But the conduct of the Bill in Committee had the result that it was transformed in many respects. Whole pages of Amendments were inserted—Amendments not merely of a drafting character but Amendments of substance. Personally I was quite aware that the noble Earl would find it very difficult to arrange his Amendments for the Report stage within the time allotted.
No doubt the noble Earl was anxious to get his Bill through, and I hope he will get the Bill through if it deserves to be got through. But the time allotted was really quite insufficient, and now when we look at the Amendments—I am not pronouncing any opinion on them, because for one thing it would be out of order at this moment, and besides I do not wish to anticipate what the opinion of your Lordships' House may be—we find that a great many of the Government Amendments are Amendments of substance dealing with such matters as the Court of Appeal and what questions should be subject to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of the Bill. All these matters

1089
are very intricate and very difficult, and require very careful consideration. Really it is quite impossible for as to consider them between, perhaps, ten o'clock this morning and the meeting of your Lordships' House. That is all the time we have had and we have had no opportunity, of course, of consulting those who advise us in these matters—the representatives of local authorities and of existing drainage boards, not to speak of draftsmen and important officials of that description.
In those circumstances, I desire to make an appeal to the Leader of the House and to suggest to him that it would really be most unwise to take the Bill now. The result might be that we should get the thing into a most tremendous tangle and we might be in the position of sending this Bill back to another place in a condition of which we should not be very proud. I hope your Lordships will agree with my suggestion and that the Leader of the House will be good enough to take into consideration our unfortunate plight and give us a little more time.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Marquess has appealed to the Leader of the House, but I think that I—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you please.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I can give the noble Marquess the necessary information regarding this Bill. This is rather a shock to me, because it is the very first word that I have heard of any request to postpone this Bill. It was mentioned last week that possibly a week before Report was not long enough, but I think it was then settled between us that, if on Thursday any of the supporters of the noble Marquess still felt that it was undesirable to take the Bill to-day, then he would inform me to that effect. If, on the other hand, the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture felt that it was difficult to have their Amendments ready, then I was to inform the noble Marquess. As nothing was said on Thursday, naturally—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl, I am afraid, entirely mistakes me. He has most accurately described what passed, but this is a matter of substance. We did not know
1090
what Amendments the noble Earl was going to put upon the Paper. If they had been drafting Amendments, or merely designed to carry out arrangements foreshadowed in Committee, or similar Amendments such as we are very familiar with, it would be a different matter; but important Amendments of substance are included.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was just coming to that. Really there is no substantial Amendment upon the Paper the principle of which has not been discussed very thoroughly in Committee. I think the main discussion would probably take place on Clause 2, on which we had the principal discussion before, in relation to the application of the clause regarding the appeal tribunal to the various parts of the Bill. That is really the main question that will have to be settled to-day, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is one that has been discussed over and over again in Committee and one with which your Lordships are fully familiar.
Perhaps it would not be out of place if I laid before your Lordships the position of this Bill and the time that we have already taken in discussing it. The Bill came up to your Lordships on March 25. It was read a first time and was put down for Second Reading on April 3. At the request of your Lordship's it was put off until April 8, and again, at the request of your Lordships, it was put off until April 10. It was read a second time on April 10, and then it was put down for Committee on May 6, an interval of very nearly four weeks. It is true that the period of the Easter Recess was included in that time but, even if you subtract that, you have a considerable number of Parliamentary days. Then on May 6 the Committee stage had again to be put off until May 15.
1 would put it to your Lordships that we are not unreasonable in trying to get the Bill taken now. It has been put off in the House of Commons when days have been allotted to it, and it has been put off in this House. At the present moment I am not sure that the House of Commons will be able to find a day for it. I think that we, as a House, shall lay ourselves very open to the charge of obstructing this Bill and not intending to get it through if we now put off the Report stage. After Report, mark you,

1091
we shall have to wait again a few days before we can take the Third Reading. I would therefore appeal to the noble Marquess not to ask me to put this Bill off yet again. I can assure him that there is nothing in the Amendments, although they may be new in themselves, that has not been discussed on principle and with which we are not fully familiar. For that reason I ask the noble Marquess not to persist in this request. I would further remind him that this is not the first moment that we have had—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is the first opportunity that we have had of seeing the Amendments.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am telling the noble Marquess that there is nothing—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I have not spoken merely after glancing at the Amendments. I have been through them as well as I can with the Parliamentary draftsman and I tell the noble Earl that he is wrong when he says there is nothing new in them. There is. There are very important changes.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry to seem persistent, but at the time when we accepted the appeal tribunal I think I made it perfectly clear again and again in our discussions that we were accepting only the establishment of the tribunal and that we should have to go through the Bill carefully on the Report stage and see to what clauses the appeal was suitable for application. The main Amendments, and the most important that stand in my name deal solely with that point and are designed to except the appeal tribunal from certain clauses to which I feel quite sure that it will be possible to show your Lordships that it is not really applicable. Of course we suffer in this House from being very few in numbers and it is quite impossible for us to think of enforcing our will against the noble Marquess; but I do hope he is not going to use his power once again to put off this Bill, for we have already almost killed the Bill by the Amendment deferring its operation for five years and now our action will probably make it very difficult for the Bill to receive consideration in the House of Commons.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I must confess that I think the noble Earl
1092
in charge of the Bill has some very real ground of complaint with regard to the earlier stages of this Bill. Undoubtedly it was postponed on several occasions earlier in the Session, and I very much regret this. On this occasion, however, it seems to me that the noble Marquess has every justification for making his plea that the Report stage should be postponed. He has satisfied himself that the Amendments proposed by the noble Earl are important ones and I am quite certain that we ought to have a little time in which to consider their bearing upon the whole question. The noble Earl complains that he and his Party suffer from small numbers in this House. May I tell him that they also suffer from the bad management of their own business?
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not know whether this Bill has suffered from bad management or not. By continually altering the dates we have only tried to suit your Lordships. That is the only reason why our plans have been changed so repeatedly. I think it is quite impossible to resist the appeal of the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, and the only question that remains now is to try and suit your Lordships' convenience as to when the Report stage should come up next. I gather that Monday has been suggested by certain noble Lords who are interested in the Bill, but I am afraid that it is quite impossible. I would ask your Lordships, if possible, to take it this week, either on Thursday or Friday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl or one of his friends will move the adjournment of the debate, we will settle in the usual way on which date it can be taken.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned sine die accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, now that the debate has been adjourned, I think we might very fairly ask the noble Marquess and his friends who desired the adjournment—I am not saying a word of criticism about that—what would be a convenient day for resuming it without a long delay. My noble

1093
friend has pointed out quite clearly that this Bill has been a long time before your Lordships' House and that we want to make further progress with it as quickly as possible. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has any suggestions to make.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was quite prepared to take it on Monday, but the noble Earl in his speech seemed to think there might be some objection to Monday. So far as I am concerned, I should be content with Monday, but probably it would be wiser for the noble Earl to represent through the usual channels what the Government really wish, before we actually settle the day.
Loan PARMOOR: I assent to what the noble Marquess has said, and hope that arrangements may be made as soon as possible, so that Notice may be given.

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. The Bill has been promoted by the hairdressing trade with a view to securing the closing of hairdressers' shops on Sunday. The trade at the present moment is outside the scope of the Lord's Day Observance Act, 1677, as it was held in a certain case in 1900 that a barber was not a tradesman within the meaning of that Act. It is therefore lawful at the present moment for a barber to carry on business on Sunday, although I think your Lordships will recognise the hardship of having to work seven days a week. The trade has for many years endeavoured to escape this hardship by voluntary agreement among themselves, but such agreements have continually broken down under the force of competition. If one hairdresser in a district opens on Sunday, all the other hairdressers in that district are compelled to follow his example. There may be a district in which there are ten or fifteen hairdressers, all perfectly happy, with an arrangement among themselves that they will not open on Sunday. Then along comes another hairdresser who opens up a shop and, in order to try to get trade, opens on
1094
Sunday. All those men who hitherto have been keeping their establishments closed on Sunday will now, under force of competition, be compelled to open their shops on that day.
In these circumstances, the trade asks for compulsory Sunday closing, just as shopkeepers generally have successfully asked for compulsory early closing. The Bill has been before the House of Commons for many years. It has never met with serious opposition in the House of Commons, and it has now passed that House with the support of all Parties, without a Division on either the Second or the Third Reading. Perhaps I may take your Lordships very shortly through the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it unlawful to carry on the business of a hairdresser or barber on Sunday, subject to certain exceptions contained in Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 permits a hairdresser to attend at any time any person who is unable by reason of mental or bodily infirmity to go to his shop. This follows very closely the lines of the Shops Acts, which contain a general exception for cases of illness. Exceptions are also made for hotel residents, in order that there may be no handicap in catering for visitors, and also for sea-going ships, in order to make it clear that it shall not affect passengers arriving in this country on a Sunday morning.
Clause 3 is, I think, a rather more difficult clause. It permits the Jewish barber to close on Saturday instead of Sunday, and to close for his weekly half-holiday on Friday, or some other day, instead of Saturday, or some other day, as required by the Shops Acts. It enables the Jewish barber to arrange for his weekly day of rest and weekly half holiday between sunset on Friday and sunset on Saturday. Jew and Christian alike must close for a day and a half in each week. To Clause 3, possibly, some of your Lordships may object, but it was one which had to be agreed to by the promoters of the Bill because there are a very great number of Jews in the hairdressing trade. It was arranged for, I think, by the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs in the last Government, and finally accepted as a compromise by the hairdressers when the Bill was promoted last year. I think this Bill is really a very uncontroversial Bill, as your Lordships will realise from hearing its clauses and hearing its

1095
record in another place. I am not going to put forward any more arguments for it at the moment, or attempt to meet Lord Banbury's case before he makes it, because I do not know what it is. We will wait and see whether he has really got some good reason against the Bill, or is merely feeling that it is a week or so since he moved the rejection of a measure in this House and that it is time to do it again. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM,LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice to move as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day three months, said: My Lords, I rise to move the rejection of this very foolish little Bill, which aims at the restriction of the liberty of the subject. The noble Earl has said, and said quite truly, that this Bill has been for many years before the House of Commons, but it never achieved any success until this year, by accident, it slipped through after eleven o'clock. This Bill, promoted by a private member, has never had any discussion on the Second Reading in the House of Commons, because it slipped through after eleven o'clock, and it seems to me to be rather unusual for a Government to take up a Private Member's Bill which has slipped through after eleven o'clock without any discussion, and to bring it forward in your Lordships' House. I do not say that in no circumstances have Governments taken up a Private Member's Bill, but it is very unusual for them to do so, and then only if the Bill has had considerable support in the other House of Parliament.
This Bill seeks to interfere, as I have said, with the liberty of the subject. It says that a barber may not carry on his business on Sunday, except in an hotel. He may go to an hotel and there he may shave anybody who happens to be in the hotel, or he may cut his hair. Why he may do it in an hotel but not in his own shop, I do not know, because it is very much more troublesome for a barber to go from his shop to the hotel, and would take up much more of the time that he might devote to other subjects on Sunday than if he were allowed to shave the man in his own shop. He may also shave him on board a ship. Why should he shave
1096
him on board a ship any more than in his own shop on the land? He may also shave a person
"if that person is unable, by reason of bodily or mental infirmity, to go to the place where such business as aforesaid is carried on."
Then there is a clause which says that you may shave somebody on Sunday if you are a Jew. If you are a Jew you may go and shave anybody on Sunday anywhere and at any time, or you may allow anybody to come to your place on Sunday to be shaved or have his hair cut. But we next interfere with the religion of the Jew by saying: "As you are a Jew you must not do anything on Saturday, but, provided you do not do anything on Saturday, you may do anything you like on Sunday." I do not know how you are going to prove that a man is a Jew. Supposing I were a hairdresser and went to shave somebody on Sunday you would have to prove that I was not a Jew. And supposing I had become a convert a week before, and then, as a Jew, went to shave somebody on Sunday, what would happen then? I do not know.
There is no one who would more regret than myself to see the Continental Sunday brought over here. I have always in my life done all that I could in my small way to give everybody who was in any kind of way in my employment full leisure on Sunday. In the old days I never took a horse out on Sunday, unless, of course, it was a question of life or death. But why should you compel people to do what they ought to do by their own free will? It is an example of the tyranny which will descend upon us if the Socialists ever obtain a large majority. And why single out the barber? Does the noble Earl propose to bring in a Bill which will prevent a man from driving a motor coach on Sunday? I understand that large motor coaches go about all day on Sunday, carrying people who ought to go to church or chapel—carrying them, not for health reasons, but for their amusement; and yet the driver of the motor coach may drive those people about all day long. But an unfortunate man who may, perhaps, be starting in business as a barber is treated differently. He may wish in these hard times to work as hard as he can—which, I beg to say is a very good thing, for what we want to do is to inculcate

1097
hard work in this country, and not doing nothing, or as little as you possibly can.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Bill is unwanted, is unnecessary, and is a gross interference with the liberty of the subject. In my young days we always prided ourselves on being a free country. I remember perfectly well going abroad with my father, and seeing signs all over the place—c'est défendu—and asked him what it meant. He said: "In foreign countries you are not allowed to do anything you like." It was otherwise in England then; whereas at the present moment you have no liberty to do anything. There is always someone interfering with us. I shall certainly go to a Division, and I really trust your Lordships will support me on this occasion. I forgot to mention—the noble Earl was no doubt unaware of it—that there is at the present moment a Committee sitting dealing with the hours of shops. The proper course would be to wait until this Committee has reported and then deal with every shop and everybody concerned—not pick out one particular class of people and subject them to this legislation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now"), and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day three months.")—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think there is a very real difficulty in taking this trade apart from other trades. The whole question of Sunday trading has more than once been the subject of special investigation in your Lordships' House. There has been either a Select Committee of this House or a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament which dealt with the matter, and when it had been dealt with, at that time at any rate, we thought it had been settled for a long time to come. I think it is very desirable, therefore, that, before any further alterations are made in the law, we should be thoroughly well advised as to what we are doing. The fact that there is a Committee sitting now seems to make it very desirable not to proceed further at the present moment until we see what this Committee says. If the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading had told us that in the opinion of the Home Office there were grave reasons
1098
why this Bill should be passed it would have been very different, but I do not understand that the Home Office has taken a very strong line in the matter. Indeed, this morning when I read the Parliamentary Papers I was a little surprised to see that this Bill, which had apparently been a Private Member's Bill in another place, had been taken up by His Majesty's Government in this House. That, of course, is not entirely unknown, but it is a little bit unusual, and I was rather hoping that the noble Earl would have explained to us the reasons why they have taken this step.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl's speech with some interest, thinking that we should hear some overwhelming, or at any rate strong, reasons for passing a Bill of this extremely unusual character, especially considering that its career in the House of Commons was not such as to recommend it here. It was never discussed at all, as I understand, on Second Reading; it slipped through by accident, as some very bad Bills occasionally do. I have been greatly impressed by what has fallen from the noble Lords who have just spoken, and I think the point they made requires an answer—the point, namely, that a Committee on shop hours is now sitting with a view to considering the whole question of shop hours and cognate matters. Surely that is an unanswerable argument against dealing with one trade in preference to any others at a moment when we know very little about the matter. Therefore I think it would be right to wait until that Committee has reported, when we shall know something more about it. At present it seems to be entirely premature to deal with what, on the face of it, appears to be a very foolish Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think I can offer an explanation in connection with one or two points in this Bill which may make your Lordships feel that you should give it a Second Reading. Perhaps, as the noble Earl said, I ought to have made my position clearer on this Bill, and to have stated that, while the Home Office have followed it with the greatest friendliness in the House of Commons, it has not actually been a Government Bill, and I am moving it rather as an individual than as a member of His Majesty's Government.

1099
Some reference has been made to the fact that there is at present a Committee sitting on the question of shop hours. The whole point of this Bill is that hitherto the hairdressing trade has, by a legal decision taken in 1900, been excepted from the ordinary legislation that affects all other trades. All other shops automatically have to close on Sunday under the Lord's Day Observance Act, 1677. By a decision taken in 1900 it was decreed that legally a hairdresser is not a trader and is, therefore, excepted from those provisions. For the last few years the trade has endeavoured to induce Parliament to alter this law and now at last they have been able to get a Bill through another place. It has been suggested that this Bill slipped through the House of Commons without discussion. It is perfectly true that there was no discussion on the Bill on Second Reading. But there was very considerable discussion at a further stage when it was possible for members on all sides of the House to express their opinion upon it. A number of Amendments were moved and the speeches of those members of another place who moved the Amendments showed that they were entirely friendly to the Bill, that they had considered the Bill thoroughly, and that they desired it to pass.
Let me give your Lordships an example. Sir Rennell Rodd, a Conservative member of another place, moved an Amendment to the Bill. There was a very long discussion on that Amendment and in the end it was pointed out to him that if the Amendment was persisted in it would result in the death of the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: Was this on a Friday when there are usually very few members present?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It was last Friday week.
EARL DE LA WARR: There was a Division taken later, and the figures in that Division show that a considerable number of members were present. There were members on all sides of the House
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What were the figures?
EARL DE LA WARR: In regard to the Amendment that was considered in opposition to the Bill the voting was thirtythree.
1100
Those on the other side were 166, and they included a large number of members of all Parties.
Loan BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The total was under 200.
EARL DE LA WARR: It shows that the feeling against the Bill was not very strong, and I do not know when else the Bill could have been taken. At any rate, the Bill did not slip through without discussion. It has had very considerable discussion. It has been before another place for very many years now and it would be impossible for any member there not to be familiar with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, referred to the liberty of the subject. Surely that is a point which, from the way in which he expressed himself, is not of great interest. We almost all of us recognise that, in almost every piece of legislation which comes before your Lordships' House, in some way or other probably the liberty of the subject is affected. The question is which liberty of what subject we are going to give most attention to. I give your Lordships an instance. You might have a district with fifteen hairdressers' shops in it all working perfectly happily together and under the arrangement that they close their shops on Sunday. A man goes there and decides that he will try to take their trade away by the unfair method, which he would not be allowed to follow if he were a member of another trade, of opening on Sunday and by that action compelling those fifteen men to stop in and work on Sunday. Are you to respect the liberty of those fifteen barbers who have been there for years and have built up their trade on a certain basis, or are you to respect the liberty of an individual who comes in and tries to take away their trade by this unfair method?
I do not think there are any other points that I wish to deal with. I think I mentioned the point about the Committee which is already considering the question of shop hours. I pointed out to your Lordships—I want to stress it again even if I mentioned it before—that the reason for this Bill having to be moved is that hitherto barbers have been excepted from the ordinary legislation that applies to all other tradesmen of all categories. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a

1101
Second Reading. If you feel that it requires further discussion there are always the further stages of Committee and Report when your Lordships can express your views on the details of the measure.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl will allow me to ask a question the answer to which certainly would affect my mind. He has told us that there is a Committee sitting, which, I gather, is competent at any rate to consider this matter. Speaking for myself, I do not think that the noble Earl has quite met the point that whilst there is a Committee sitting it seems undesirable to deal with things piecemeal. If the Bill was given a Second Reading I do not know whether the noble Earl would undertake that it should not go any further until we had the Report of that Committee. If that was so it might affect my mind. I do not speak for anybody but myself and I do not profess to represent any body of opinion on this side of your Lordships' House; but it seems to me to be a possible solution, as there has been a considerable amount of support for the Bill, if we gave it a Second Reading on the understanding that it would go no further until the Committee had reported, when we should know what they think about it. That, I think, would meet my noble friend Lord Banbury and it would prevent piecemeal legislation. On the other hand, it would not jeopardise the Bill altogether if in fact, when the Committee had examined into it, they came to the conclusion that it was not desirable.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is only by your Lordships' leave that I can speak again. I thank the noble and learned Viscount for intervening because he has given me an opportunity of clearing up a point. The Committee that has been mentioned deals only with the question of hours. It does not deal with the question of Sunday closing; and I am informed that its terms of reference would have to be changed if it were to consider this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Has the noble Earl the terms of reference here?
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid I have not, but if the noble Viscount wishes it I will certainly produce them in Committee, if he cares to bring this matter
1102
up again. I think I shall be able to satisfy him on that point. I will certainly consider it.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, before we go to a Division I should like to stress one point. The impulse behind this Bill comes, as I understand it, entirely from those who are directly interested.
EARL DE LA WARR: Hear, hear.
LORD CLWYD: I am informed that there has been no kind of agitation or movement outside of the trade itself, but that for many years this particular trade has been working in order, if possible, to get a Bill providing, as this Bill does, for Sunday closing in their case. It would be rather hard, and it would be doing them scarcely justice in view of that fact, if your Lordships' House were to reject the Bill on Second Reading. It may be desirable that a certain time should elapse before the Committee stage is taken. But in view of the fact, which I believe is a fact, that few Bills produced in either House have had behind them to such an extent the support of those who are directly interested in the case for which the Bill provides, I hope your Lordships will accept it. In another place, as the noble Earl has explained, there was no discussion on Second Reading, but I happen to know, as he has already pointed out, that during the Committee stage there was a full discussion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That was upstairs.
LORD CLWYD: In Grand Committee.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It was upstairs.
LORD CLWYD: At all events, there was a full discussion of the clauses of the Bill, and it comes from another place practically unopposed.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill or whether some other member of the Government would explain it, but I do not quite gather from him, and I should like to know for certain whether it is a fact, that when legislation was passed legalising the carrying on of certain work on Sundays—that is to say, altering the Lord's Day Observance Act

1103
—this particular industry escaped by reason of some decision of the Legislature that it should not be affected, or whether words were used modifying the Lord's Day Act, and that there has been some judicial construction the result of which is that shaving and hairdressing are said not to be the carrying on of a trade within the Statute which modified the Lord's Day Act? I think that it would make a good deal of difference if this was omitted merely by inadvertence when the Legislature interfered with the very pious Act of Charles II. If it is merely an inadvertence, that would strengthen the case for the Bill very much, but if it was left out on purpose because it was found a number of idle people would not shave themselves on Sunday, and must go to a barber to be shaved, the matter would be in a very different position, especially as there are more and more idle people in this country who insist upon having legislation for their own particular benefit. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us how this comes to be an exceptional case.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, again it is only with your permission that I speak, but from 1677 until 1900, I understand, the hairdressers and barbers of this country did come under the general legislation of the Lord's Day Observance Act. That Act was passed in 1677, and it went on operating with regard to this trade till 1900 when, in a case entitled Palmer versus Snow (1900–1 Queen's Bench, p. 725), there was a decision given that a barber was not technically a tradesman within the meaning of that Act, and from then onwards barbers have been entitled to open on Sunday. It was found within a few years after this decision that it was having a very serious effect on the conditions of life in the whole trade, in that it put the members of the trade into a position, as I have explained, of being compelled by one man in a district to open under force of competition on Sundays. As a result this Bill has been brought forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, stated, with the full agreement of the whole trade and of all those who are really affected by the conditions in that trade.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been said that hairdressers themselves are in favour
1104
of this measure. It seems to me that what we have to look at is whether this is for the public good and not merely for the hairdressers, who, surely, can look after themselves. Clause 2 of this Bill shows that it is a class measure of the worst description, because the well-to-do man sitting in an hotel can make full use of the barber's shop, whereas the working man, who perhaps has only one or two shaves a week, is debarred from having his Sunday shave. I think that is a real hardship on the working man. Noble Lords opposite, or the Socialist Party they represent, are supposed to be imbued with class consciousness. This is class consciousness, but all the sympathy is being given to the rich man, and the poor man is left out. I consider this to be a real hardship to working men, and I hope your Lordships will refuse to pass the Bill.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, my point of view is not quite the same as that of the noble Lord who spoke last. I was rather sorry that the noble Earl did not accept the suggestion made by my noble friend about the Second Reading. He countered that by saying that the Committee does not deal with days, but is really dealing with hours. I think the noble Earl must admit that he did not give us a very full account of the reasons for this Bill in moving the Second Reading, and we have got the information from him rather piecemeal. I am rather unwilling myself to vote against this Bill, and I should much prefer that he would consider the point and adjourn the debate, say for a week or a fortnight, so that we really might have a little more information upon the points on which the noble Earl has been questioned. Until I was informed about it by the noble Earl I was not aware that this matter went back to 1677. There are a good many points in the Bill on which I certainly should feel much happier in voting if one could have this adjournment of a week or a fortnight. I do not know if the noble Earl would consider that suggestion as an alternative to the suggestion of my noble friend which he did not accept?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, if you wish that course to be pursued, I think we certainly ought to consider it, but might I make another suggestion to noble Lords opposite, that se should give this

1105
Bill a Second Reading, and then consider those points which noble Lords have raised, and which will certainly have to be given full consideration, in Committee and on Report? Your Lordships will still have the Bill in your hands, and there will also be the Third Reading. If we agree to the Second Reading to-night it will enable us to get one step further, so that we might be able to get the Bill through, at any rate shortly after Whitsuntide. I would ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading to-night and allow us to deal with all these matters in Committee and on Report, giving an ample interval before the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to urge upon the noble Earl, if he will allow me, that the advice given by my noble friend Lord Peel is very helpful advice so far as the fortunes of the Bill are concerned. This Bill stands in a very special position. The great majority of tradesmen are not allowed to ply their trade on a Sunday. That has come down to us from the long distant past. My noble friend Lord Banbury thinks that it is Socialist legislation. I think the time of Charles II was responsible for it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I termed it tyrannical legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thought the noble Lord said Socialist.
LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM: I said both.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are very nearly the same thing, but I think it is of a good deal older date than the modern Socialist Party. Let me put the case in its most moderate form. There is a prima facie case why hairdressers may come forward and say: "Why should we not be treated like other people?" If the hairdressers want it, it
1106
is not a matter to be rejected out of hand by your Lordships' House. At the same time, the discussion has revealed that there are certain elements in the Bill which are extremely doubtful exceptions, made in order to meet cases which have been put, and which have rendered the Bill rather dislocated in form. I can see that those responsible for the Bill have probably tried to meet the opposition by putting in special Amendments for them, but, as so often happens in a compromise, that has resulted in a very unhappy result. I think, in the circumstances, if the noble Earl would take—I do not know if I might put it in that way—my advice, the best course would be to allow the Second Reading to stand over for a short time. I feel that if he presses the matter to a Division now the Bill will be rejected. I think that would be a pity, until the House has had a little more time to consider it. I hope the noble Earl will consider favourably what my noble friend Lord Peel, who I believe is a friend of his Bill, has suggested.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my only anxiety is to get this Bill accepted by your Lordships' House, and if your Lordships desire opportunity to look into the Bill more thoroughly both as to merits and as to past experience in another place, I am most certainly willing to accept the advice given just now by the noble Marquess and by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, which I am sure was dictated by the most friendly feeling. I think perhaps the correct procedure would be for the debate to be adjourned.
LORD CUSHENDUN: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Cushendun.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned sine die accordingly.
House adojurned at six o'clock.