Lords Sitting of 6 May 1931

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EPSOM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CORBY (NORTHANTS) AND DIS TRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PUBLICITY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DE GREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST ELLOE JOINT WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a, (according to order), with the Amendments, and passes, and returned to the Commons.
ALEXANDER SCOTT'S HOSPITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, That in accordance with the recommendations of the Home Office Committee appointed in 1919 to report upon the advisability of adopting, for official and other purposes, the twenty-four-hour method of expressing time, the Ministry of Transport should invite the railway companies to adopt this system from a certain date, and that it should be simultaneously introduced into the Post Office. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in bringing forward this Motion, I presume that I can assume that everybody here is well acquainted with the fact that when we entered upon hostilities in the Great War, our present system of computing time was shown to be thoroughly impracticable, and we were obliged to resort to the system that is advocated in my Motion—namely, what is called the twenty-four-hour system. That system proved to be so satisfactory that it has since been permanently adopted by the Navy, partially adopted, if I am not mistaken, by the Army, and almost completely adopted by the Air Force. The results were so satisfactory that, apparently at the instigation of the Navy, the Government in 1919 appointed a Joint Committee for the purpose of considering whether this new system should be adopted for what were termed "official and public purposes generally."
The Committee, which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, examined a large number of witnesses of all kinds, scientific, commercial, persons interested in the shipping trade, military and naval authorities, and railway authorities. They reported—I will not

1021
read their recommendations in full—that this system had been found completely satisfactory wherever it had been tried, and that it caused no inconvenience because the old and the new systems were quite easily worked together. They recommended that the railways should be invited to put the new system into effect, and that at the same time the Post Office should give the railways the necessary lead by introducing it into their services. They further pointed out—and this is of importance to note—that no legislation was required for the purpose and that, in effect, no public expenditure was required because the railways were prepared to make such expenditure as was necessary in view of the greater convenience that would result. The sole expenditure of public money related to the Post Office, and this would only involve the alteration of date stamps and of the hours on pillar boxes. I might add that as the pillar boxes have to be repainted at regular intervals, no additional expenditure would be involved and it might even turn out in the long run to be an economy, because they would be able to do away with the word "midnight" after twelve o'clock, which is at present added.
In view of those recommendations, and of the facts that no legislation is required, that there would practically be no public expenditure, and that it did not violate any principles of Magna Carta, which is the usual objection brought forward when any sensible proposal is made, it seems surprising that they did not take the opportunity of introducing this measure. But so far from anything being done, the recommendations of the Committee were completely ignored. To use a phrase which is common with regard to this Assembly, "the subject dropped," and it dropped to such an extent that it was not revived for eight years. At the end of the year 1928 the Astronomer Royal, assisted by other scientific authorities, wrote a letter to The Times in which he strongly advocated this proposal. That letter produced much correspondence in the columns of The Times, which lasted for a long time. I will not enter into the details of that correspondence, but the significant fact about it was that, whereas opinion largely preponderated in favour of the change, those who were in favour were those who had had experience of
1022
the system, either during the War or in India or elsewhere. Opposition to the change proceeded solely from persons of what I might venture to call a more insular character—such persons, for instance, if I may say so without offence, as my noble friend Lord Banbury, who, I believe, has never ventured further from this country than Boulogne, and who quite conceivably, I should think, has never undertaken a night journey in the course of his life.
The result of this correspondence was that the question was raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Lamington in March, 1929. At that period a Conservative Government was in office and he was answered by my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who was then Postmaster-General. Lord Londonderry, while expressing himself as personally in favour of the proposal, thought that action ought in the first place to be taken by the railway companies. The railway companies naturally thought that the example ought to be set them by the Post Office, and there the matter rested. In the following year my noble friend Lord Lamington raised the question again. On that occasion the Party opposite was in power and he was replied to by the late Earl Russell, who opposed the proposal on two grounds. The first ground was the somewhat remarkable one that he was a strong Conservative and deprecated any change of this nature—a curious argument to come from a Labour Minister. His second objection lay in the fact that there had been no public demand for any change of this character.
I should like to ask when the public ever does demand anything of the kind. When does the public signify its desire for any legislation? I can hardly remember any instance in which the public has expressed a burning desire for legislation of any kind. On the other hand, I can recall many instances in which legislation has been introduced in which the public has showed no interest whatever. I might instance the vote for "flappers." Nobody pretends that there was any demand for that. On the other hand, I can say with great confidence that there is no large body of public opinion in the country passionately distressed at the fact that the late Education Bill has been lost. I am inclined to think myself that the public is only

1023
deeply agitated when its own pleasures are threatened, and if noble Lords opposite were rash enough, for instance, to shut up cinemas on Sundays or to suppress the betting intelligence in the daily newspapers, I think they would very soon find out that the public would become violently excited.
In order to convince the House, if it be necessary, that I am not a kind of solitary crank urging your Lordships to accept an impracticable proposal, I should like to quote certain witnesses in my favour. Perhaps noble Lords will have noticed that recently there have appeared letters in The Times from various eminent people strongly urging the adoption of this proposal. The first correspondent whom I desire to quote is again the Astronomer Royal. The Astronomer Royal, in a letter addressed to The Times only last Saturday, I believe, pointed out that the 24-hour notation is universally vised by scientific bodies, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, for meteorological warnings, by the B.B.C. and all the Continental railway and Continental Post Offices as well as by the most valuable book of reference in this country, Whitaker's Almanack. He goes on to point out that:—
"Most people have to think twice before they are quite sure what 12.30 p.m. means. I imagine that many letters have been wrongly posted and many trains lost by a mistake of 12 hours arising from the a.m. and p.m. nomenclature."
I had an experience of this myself only a few days ago. I was directed to take a train at 9.30 in the morning. As my letter came from a lady and I have not complete confidence in the accuracy of the sex, I made inquiries and found there was no such train, but that there was a train which left at 9.30 in the evening. That is an experience which might happen to anybody, but which could not happen if you had the sensible 24-hour system.
Among the other witnesses I adduce are Mr. Harold Cox, well known as an economist in this country, and Mr. Pick, Manager of the Underground Railway. I think it will be generally admitted that no more efficient organisation exists in this country than the Underground, and that is possibly the reason why the Government are anxious to obtain control over it sooner or later. Mr. Pick may be taken as representing the railway view and, although the Underground is
1024
naturally less concerned in this particular question than any of the main lines, nevertheless it is quite ready to spend the small sum of money involved in view of the resulting convenience. We know perfectly well, not only from evidence before the Committee but from what has been said in this House, that the railway companies are only waiting for a lead, and are perfectly prepared to act and to incur the necessary expense provided the Post Office will give them a lead.
To turn for a moment from the railways, it seems to me a singularly ludicrous circumstance that at the present moment when we are hysterically imploring foreign tourists to come to Britain, when they come they should find a perfectly unintelligible labyrinth, representing the British railway time-tables, which even natives find it difficult to explain, in place of their own sensible and easily understandable time-tables. In view of what I have stated, and in view of the fact that no expense or legislation is necessary, it really does not seem as if much reason existed for opposition; but nevertheless there is opposition. When you reflect upon the millions and millions which we spend upon education it is extraordinary to find that this proposal is opposed on the ground that the task of transposing a.m. and p.m. into the figures proposed in this scheme is too baffling for the ordinary citizen.
That seems to me a remarkable assertion to make. I had an instance of it this afternoon, because my noble friend Lord Banbury asked me, when we were about to begin the proceedings, whether it was then 14 o'clock. There is some sort of warrant for this scepticism as to the ability of the ordinary individual to count, because one of the most eminent British writers that ever lived, in the Bab Ballads, with which some noble Lords must be acquainted, presents a picture of a practical-joking London police constable, who, when asked the time of day by Kindly Bumpkin Green, would not infrequently reply, a quarter past thirteen. This presumably too baffling reply to the ordinary rustic is simple to answer. I can give the clue to it myself. If Lord Banbury finds it difficult to answer the conundrum let him substitute in his imagination a shilling—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have not any imagination.
LORD NEWTON: Nor have I very much, but let him substitute a shilling for the figure 12, and add a penny for every hour after twelve. He will then have no difficulty in arriving at a complete solution. If the figure is 1s. 3d. he will know that it is 3 p.m., and if it is 1s. 6d., then the time will be 6 o'clock in the afternoon, and so forth. There really is no trouble about it at all. But I do not want to set anyone these intellectual problems. There is no occasion to be worried over the answer to questions of this kind, because they never would arise. I am not dealing with the spoken word, but really with the written or rather printed word, and as far as I know it is not the practice of the nations which have adopted this system to make any use of the 24-hour system in ordinary conversation. Therefore, in the family circle or elsewhere people will still be at liberty to talk about a.m. and p.m. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the French—possibly in order to pay us a compliment—have actually invented the word fivoclocquer, which is intended to comprehend all the different forms of social amusement which take place at five o'clock in the afternoon.
This request which I am putting forward is one of a very modest—one might almost say of a very insignificant—character. At all events, it is of an insignificant character when you compare it with the much greater reform of summer time—the greatest boon, perhaps, which this generation has ever experienced, and which caused a greater revolution in our habits than anything in this Motion is likely to do. But, at the same time, if the change is adopted, it will remove certain minor inconveniences. We shall, at all events, know when we ought to start, and when we shall arrive, which it is difficult to ascertain at the present moment; and we shall also know, when letters arrive at their destination, when they were sent off. Also, there will be much less doubt than there is now about the date upon which telegrams are sent off and received. As I have shown that no trouble is incurred, and that a certain amount of general convenience will ensue,
1026
I cannot help hoping that I shall receive on the whole a favourable response from the Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the recommendations of the Home Office Committee appointed in 1919 to report upon the advisability of adopting, for official and other purposes, the 24-hour method of expressing time, the Ministry of Transport should invite the railway companies to adopt this system from a certain date, and that it should be simultaneously introduced into the Post Office.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, my noble friend has stated the case in favour of this change so clearly that very little remains to be said. I am hopeful that we may be more fortunate in getting this reform adopted than we have been before, because, though it is not one of those things for which there is a strong demand, I have never noticed that noble Lords opposite and their friends wait for a strong demand in order to carry out what they, in their greater wisdom, know would be good for the country. My friends, like myself, are rather apt to say "Let well alone," but noble Lords opposite will forgive me if I say the impression one gets is that they do not want to let anything alone; they are prepared to improve almost anything, and I have some hope, therefore, that this change, which did not commend itself to my noble friends in the past, may be looked upon more favourably by noble Lords opposite to-day. The real substance of the change is to eliminate the letters a.m. and p.m. and to come into line in that respect with the other countries of the world that have adopted this change—France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and India; while among ourselves, as my noble friend has stated, the change has been adopted by the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force.
It was interesting when the Committee sat and examined this question—and my only excuse for troubling your Lordships at all is that I happened to be Chairman of that Committee—that there were no wild enthusiasts for this change, but those who had experience of it were all in favour of it. In addition to the railway companies which had direct connection with the Continent, we received

1027
from people who had lived in India or on the Continent encouraging letters expressing the hope that we should succeed in getting this change adopted here. It does not appear that it is going to involve any expenditure. Certainly it does not involve any legislation; and indeed the recommendation that we made with a view to getting this change adopted was that the Ministry of Transport should be asked to call on the railway companies to adopt the 24-hour system from a certain date. That was all that was necessary. The Post Office would automatically come into line. The change is not a very big one, but it would prevent my noble friend from suffering the inconvenience, which he described to your Lordships, of trying to catch a train at 9.30 a.m. which did not start till 9.30 p.m. That could not occur if this change were made. We should also come into line with our friends on the Continent.
I was in favour of the change in the year 1919, when we sat and examined this question, and nothing that has occurred since has led me to think we were wrong in submitting, as we did, that it was an advantage and an improvement. It did not find favour on that occasion. and I believe it has not found favour on subsequent occasions, but, as we now have in office a Government which is not opposed to changing anything—indeed rather likes change—I hope we shall have a favourable response this afternoon.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I hope the Government will adhere to their former decision. I can see no object in changing what we have been accustomed to all our lives, nor in asking the railway companies to spend money in altering their time-tables, clocks, and various other things. I see a noble Viscount who is connected with the railways (Lord Churchill) coming into the House, and I think he would tell your Lordships that it would be far better for the railway companies to employ their money in paying a small dividend to their shareholders than to mess about altering the hours of the clock.
LORD LAMINGTON: My noble friend who introduced the Motion said that I have on two occasions addressed your Lordships on this matter; therefore I
1028
have little to say to-day. Our present system is distinctly an artificial system. Primitive man no doubt took his day from the midday sun to the following midday sun—twenty-four hours. The system that we follow now is purely artificial, and the reasons given for the change to a much simpler system are, I think, overwhelming. It is bound to come. In these days, when inter-communication from one part of the world to another is so rapidly developing, it is impossible to conceive that the various air services could work on any other system than the 24-hour table.
The future will show the necessity of this change and as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has mentioned, it involves no expense to the Government except in altering the stamps for letters and telegrams. Already the 24-hour system is in use for cablegrams. Why should it not be generally extended to all the services? Noble Lords might oppose it on the ground of economy because the pillar boxes would have to have alterations made, but, of course, it would only be necessary to put up slips of paper showing when the next collection would take place. Far from there being any public expense, I believe it would be a great economy. I am sure that few people go long journeys, to Scotland for example, without being often troubled in trying to find out whether the train arrives or starts a.m. or p.m. It is very easy to make a mistake. You work out an itinerary, you think your train starts at a certain hour a.m. and you find you are at p.m. As to those who offer objection to the change, I think they are chiefly ladies who pretend that they are lacking in mathematical knowledge.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, as civilisation, of which we are all so proud, proceeds, it occasionally throws off some quite good ideas. One of those good ideas seems to be the time notation which my noble friend is advocating to-day. For a long time something simple and convenient of that kind has been a crying necessity both with regard to timetables and any other matter upon which doubt may arise as to which side of midday is intended. Nothing is more likely to lead to difficulty than conventional signs. All kinds of dodges have been tried and have only served to make confusion worse confounded. It is possible,

1029
for instance, to underline the minutes between 6 p.m. and 5.59 a.m. or between 12.1 p.m. and midnight, or to use dark type for the midnight hours, or italics, subject to rules that have to be carefully consulted in an appendix. The whole thing is complicated and unsatisfactory. The 24-hour day does away with all difficulties which apply, and there is clearly no reasonable cause why it should not be adopted both by the railways and the Post Office.
But there is officialdom. Such of your Lordships as have been present on the occasions, I am afraid rather numerous, on which I have ventured to criticise our railway companies, will be aware that I have had special opportunities for observing the habits and manners of railway officials at close quarters. I have also been a civil servant and, though the Department in which I served does not happen to have been the Post Office, I imagine the mentality of the chiefs of the Post Office does not differ in any material degree from the mentality of the chiefs of the Foreign Office. This is the conclusion to which I have been led after a close study of officialdom both on the railways and in the Civil Service: If there is one thing above all others that no true blue official will tolerate for an instant, it is any suggestion coming from an outside source, and it is impossible to find words too strong to describe his indifference to anything intended to benefit the public.
Confronted by criticism, he has a regular modus operandi, consisting of a number of well thought out steps intended to defeat all criticism. The first step is to ignore criticism altogether, and just to sit still and say nothing. If for any reason he is unable to persist in this attitude, the next step is to assume that his critic has said something quite different from what he actually has said and to argue at great length that this is impossible. The third step, as has already been pointed out, is to say that no public demand has made itself felt. This is often true enough, because officials have taken excellent care, as my noble friend has pointed out, that the public should not be in a position to express an opinion. If even this fails, the next step is to say that if patience is exercised it is probable that something still better will be evolved and, there-
1030
fore, it is best to wait. In those circumstances, it is only the most persistent critic that cares to go on. For all practical purposes, strongly entrenched officialdom can snap its fingers at all criticism. Something of this kind appears to be happening in this case. I hope that we shall hear to-day from the representatives of the Post Office and of the railways that they will abandon an attitude which is really little more than obstruction and will accept a reasonable reform with a good grace.
LORD TRENCHARD: My Lords, I would like to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, though I do not altogether agree with the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that Government Departments never initiate anything, when already we know that three Government Departments have adopted the 24-hour system. From a time point of view, I think it is most essential that we should keep as far as possible to the twenty-four hours. It is a development that has been found necessary in connection with flying and I hope it will be adopted universally.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I venture to hope that the Government will not listen to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I think that no greater mistake can be made than to suppose that the people of this country desire to live under good laws. They desire only to live under laws which they make themselves, and the law which divides the day into two periods of twelve hours seems to me so consonant with the wishes of the people of this country that there is no desire whatever on their part for any change to take place. The period of twelve hours counted twice in the twenty-four is that which we all feel distinctly to be a proper and very necessary division of the day. The grievance that has been chiefly insisted upon by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is concerned with the time-tables. I think I may make the claim—I hope it is not an arrogant one—that in my very brief life I have travelled more upon the railways than any other noble Lord who is present. I am not accustomed to consult my lady friends with regard to the times of arrival or departure of my trains, and I have never yet been in a

1031
position to confuse a.m. with p.m., nor do I think it is in the least likely that I shall ever make so grave a, mistake.
If we are to have a 24-hour day, I would ask your Lordships to consider what the more numerous divisions of the clock face may mean. Even if you took so large a clock as that attached to Big Ben, I think you would find great difficulty in distinguishing exactly to what hour the hour hand pointed, the figures would lie so close together. I think we should be replacing what is an unsubstantial grievance by a real difficulty in distinguishing the time. It is true that very high, perhaps the highest, scientific authority in this country, the Astronomer Royal, has on two occasions forcibly expressed himself as in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I have every consideration for the opinion of my old friend Sir Frank Dyson, but I would like to point out that the language of the laboratory is not the language of the every day common room. We do not speak ordinarily in the language of the laboratory. We speak of the daisy and the primrose. We do not speak of ranunculus, which is qualified by some hideous epithet or another. And I think it would be a pity if we allowed the language of science to step in and replace the common every-day and much more attractive words that are in use.
I do not know whether your Lordships have recently been so happy as to consult your physicians. If you have, you will find on the prescription you received some sort of hieroglyph which looks as though a fly had dropped into the ink bottle, had managed to escape and deposit itself on the top left-hand corner of the prescription paper and there had suffered many seizures of epilepsy. That hieroglyph is really an invocation to the god Jupiter that he will bless the various ingredients of the prescription, which are written in Latin. I would remind your Lordships, if you are not familiar with the fact, that the names of drugs are written in Latin in order that your Lordships may not in the least understand what drugs you are taking and that psycho-therapy may be added to the benefit which you derive from the prescription.
But there is really a very profound physiological reason why the day should be divided into two parts. All nature
1032
consists of cycles. There is death and resurrection; there is ascent and decline; there is adolescence and the climacteric. And St. Paul expressed a profound truth when he said, "I die daily." In all matters of this kind there is a sort of rhythm in life. Whether it has to do with your pulse beats or the regularity of your heart or the frequency of respiration or whatnot I cannot say, but there is a feeling that there is a division of your day into two parts, one of increasing activity as the morning goes on reaching an altitude, and from then suffering a decline when a period of repose is due.
I feel myself that this division of the day into two parts is not only in consonance with the wishes of the people of this country but is a recognition of a profound biological truth that there are these two periods in each 24-hour day, a period of what should be activity and a period of what should be repose. I think it is the common sense of the people of this country as against the lack of common sense in the people of other countries which keeps them wishing to have the double cycle in the 24-hour day. I hope very much that the Government will stand firm upon this. We are told that we are in isolation so far as the nations are concerned. I hope we are. I hope that neither for the first time nor yet for the last time shall we have stubborn, infrangible British common sense opposed to the freakishness and vapourishness of some other nations on the Continent.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, and should not have done so but for a word that fell from my noble friend, the noble Lord on my left (Lord Monks-well), who so often treats us to his views on railways. He did us the honour of coupling us, the railway officials, with the permanent officials in the Government Departments. In other words, we were pig-headed mug-wumps, or words to that effect. I must assure the noble Lord that he made one grave error when he said we were opposed to anything new. I happen to have, amongst the few things that under various Chancellors of the Exchequer have been left to me, two most treasured possessions in two grandfather clocks of about the year

1033
1747. Both of those clocks have the dials numbered to 24 o'clock, which shows we are not discussing any newly-discovered suggestion. But to keep to my point—namely, what the main line railway companies feel about this proposal. Undoubtedly, as my noble friend Lord Ban-bury has said, it would cost a certain amount of money, and involve alteration, which of courses is nothing in itself, and if the Government, the Post Office, and the country generally adopt the 24-hour system the railways will naturally fall into line, and, I hope, do all that they generally try to do to accommodate themselves to the convenience of the public who are their patrons. But until that is a fait accompli we naturally are not in a hurry to spend money and alter our time-tables, preferring to wait until the suggestion, if it is adopted, is in universal use.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for his courtesy in writing to me beforehand to indicate the line he proposed to take in this debate. The discussion has produced a number of interesting speeches. In particular we have had speeches from all three members sitting on the Cross Benches at the present moment, and the particularly brilliant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, must have delighted your Lordships. I do not suppose that the rhythm of life would cease even if there were an alteration in the numbering of the hours after mid-day, and although he rather deprecates the use of Latin in prescriptions, I would remind him that he is using it every day when he uses a.m. and p.m. as applied to the hours.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, should be taking a point of view rather different from that which he took in a debate in your Lordships' House in 1929. Then he said that he did not understand why the Government should be dragged into this question at all. He went on to say that it seemed to him a question which might very well be decided by the authorities themselves without dragging His Majesty's Government into the discussion. The Times, in a leader to-day, calls the noble Lord a robust optimist because he now believes that with an alteration in the Govern-
1034
ment he may be able to get something carried out which he was unable to obtain from the previous Administration. He evidently thinks that he is likely to get more help from the Socialist Government than he could get from the previous Government. It is true that the more advanced Departments do use the 24-hour system. The War Office, which is always in the van of progress, uses and has used for many years, the 24-hour system, and its younger sister, the Air Force, has had to come into line, and in civil aviation it is bound to be universal.
It is doubtful whether there is any real public demand for the change. The suggestion, however, that there was no public demand for what the noble Lord termed votes for "flappers" does not seem to have been founded on fact, for votes were very much used by "flappers" at the last General Election, and it may possibly be due to the use of that vote by the young and progressive women of this country that some help may be given to the noble Lord in his suggestion in connection with 24-hour time notation. I think perhaps he was unfortunate in his friends who were unable to quote the hour correctly in connection with the railway journeys which we have heard about. There is the point that perhaps this change would be less valuable in Great Britain than it is on the Continent. Nevertheless, there has been a widespread expression of opinion in your Lordships' House that some examination of this question ought to take place, and that the Government should in some way assist in the consideration of the problem. There have been, as has been pointed out by those who have taken part in this debate, some influential letters in The Times, and the leader in to-day's Times is one of great thoughtfulness, and must carry conviction to many that there is at least a case for inquiry. I am authorised to say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that careful and sympathetic consideration will be given by them to the whole question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my first impulse is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Banbury upon the stalwart auxiliary whom he has secured upon the Cross Benches, but at the same time I confess I was quite unable to follow the

1035
argument of the noble Lord. I may be very dense, but I can see no more reason why it is advisable to divide a day of twenty-four hours into two periods than it is to divide an hour into two half-hours. With regard to what he said about the prescriptions which he and his fraternity prescribe for us, it seems to me that there is a strong resemblance between them and the English railway time-tables, which I find quite impossible on occasions to decipher myself.
What is more important perhaps is the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley. He mentioned an inconsistency on my part, and I am quite ready to make the confession that when I first made a speech upon this particular subject I had not read the Report of the Committee of my noble friend Lord Stonehaven. After reading that Report I have come round to the opinion which I expressed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, has given me some sort of vague encouragement. He says it will be put forward for favourable consideration. I do not know that it matters much whether we divide in this House or not because nobody pays any attention to us, but at all events it is an indication of opinion. If the noble Lord would give me some sort of assurance that the Government will tell me, say "after a given day," to use the words of the Resolution, what the Government are prepared to do, I would not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but unless the Government do make some definite statement I think I should prefer to take the opinion of the House.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I can say that the Government are prepared to examine this question with sympathy.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, but how long are you going to take over it?
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps the noble Lord will put down a Question in six weeks' time if there has been no Report before then.
LORD NEWTON: On the understanding that I am at liberty to question the Government again on the subject I will not insist on a Division now. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

"WITH THE DUBLIN BRIGADE (1917–1921)."
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a book published in London by Peter Davies, Ltd., and written by a man named Charles Dalton, called "With the Dublin Brigade (1917–1921)," in which the author states that he was present and assisted in the murder of eleven English officers in their beds in Dublin on November 21, 1921, though he does not say that he fired any of the shots, and what action they propose to take; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper and I think the simplest thing for me to do is to read to you what the man Dalton actually says In this book. He says:
"We had been engaged for the past three weeks locating the addresses of these Intelligence men. Many of them were officers of high rank. They had taken up their abode in private houses in quiet residential neighbourhoods, where they lived in great seclusion, many of them under assumed names and occupations. By one means and another we had got upon their track.
"At six o'clock I called to see a Volunteer who lived over a shop in Amiens Street. I had tea there with a girl with whom I had an appointment. She was a. country girl employed as a maid in a superior boarding-house in one of the fashionable streets on the south side of the City.
"I was very anxious to have a conversation with Rosie, but I waited until we had finished our tea. We had met her several times already, and she had been able to give us some valuable information.
"When I first met her she had let fall scraps of gossip about her boarders which had aroused my suspicion. They were 'English gentlemen' she thought. They 'looked like military officers,' though they did not wear uniform. They never went out during the day but 'always at night after Curfew.'
"They were 'quiet gentlemen,' she said, 'spending most of their time writing,' and when Rosie had to clean out their rooms she was bothered by the overflowing contents of the waste-paper baskets which she had to dispose of.
"She had, at my suggestion, brought me to these waste papers, and on looking through them and piecing them together … we had not been surprised to find notes relating to the movements of Volunteers and other data which were most interesting to us.

1037
"She had also managed, to get hold of some photographs which were in the possession of these officers. They were of Volunteers who were being pursued by the Authorities, and who we had reason to suppose were on the list for summary execution.
"By now we knew all we needed to know about Rosie's boarders—their names, both their assumed names and their real ones, their appearance, habits, and the nature of their occupation. It had been decided that if we were to survive and our resistance to continue, the time had come to bring their activities to an end, and those of a number of other Secret Service men living secluded in the same way in other private houses in the same district."
Therefore, you will see, my Lords, that having got hold of a servant girl and she having found certain papers which were later pieced together, it was necessary to kill these people because they thought they were English officers. The book goes on:
"Rosie told me that evening that life in the boarding-house was just the same, but that two of her officers had moved to a flat in another street. I asked her had she heard the address. She had, and gave it to me.
"Bidding her good-bye, I hurried to the office used by us as Brigade Headquarters, and found several officers gathered there. I was aware of the arrangements made for the following morning,"—
that is the morning when these gentlemen were killed—
"and gave my information of the change of address of the two officers.
"I did not stay long as I had another appointment to keep. I went to Harcourt Street where I met a Volunteer Officer whom I had not been acquainted with hitherto. I was to accompany him and his men on the following morning. We made our arrangements about meeting.
"It was now near Curfew and I hurried home to the dispensary."
Then he gives an account of what he did at the dispensary and he goes on to say:
"We were awake and dressed by seven o'clock. We breakfasted on the same fare of tea and eggs. I noticed that the men were examining their revolvers, seeing that they were in working order.
"Outwardly we were calm and collected, even jesting with each other. But inwardly I felt that the others were as I was—palpitating with anxiety.
"Shortly after eight o'clock we left the house, as we had a long way to walk to the respective scenes of our operations. Crossing the City we saw but few people astir, save an occasional milkman making his rounds. It was a beautiful, clear morning.
1038
"Coming near Merrion Square we passed several groups of Volunteers with whom we exchanged glances of understanding.
"At Merrion Square I parted with my companions, and I walked on alone until I came to my destination. There I met the Volunteer Officer with whom I had spoken on the previous night. He had several men with him who were waiting round the corner. He looked at his watch and said it wanted five minutes to the appointed hour—nine o'clock.
"We had both received our orders. I told him what mine were: 'I am to get any papers in the house.'
"Those were the longest five minutes of my life. Or were they the shortest? I cannot tell, but they were tense and dreadful.
"Sharp at nine o'clock we walked up the steps of the house. Fortunately the door was open, while the caretaker was shaking the mats on the steps. One of our men held him up, and warned him to keep quiet. (He was blamed for complicity, the poor fellow, and got ten years' penal servitude.)
"We walked into a large hall which had two separate flights of stairs ascending from it. We divided into two parties, four in each, and as I went up one staircase with my companions I saw our other party swiftly mounting the other. The stairs were heavily carpeted and our footsteps made no sound.
"On the landing were two doors which I knew led to the rooms of two of the Secret Service men. Here we divided again, and knocked simultaneously at both doors.
"We identified the men we wanted. Each had a revolver at his hand, but our men were too quick for them.
"Shaking, I said to the officer of my party: 'Wait for me. I have to search for the papers.'
"'Wait be damned! Get out of here as quickly as you can.'
"I was only too glad to take his advice. The noise of the shots must have been heard in the neighbourhood. We hurried down the stairs together.
"In the hall three or four men were lined up against the wall some of our officers facing them. Knowing their fate I felt great pity for them. It was plain they knew it too. As I crossed the threshhold the volley was fired.
"In the street I parted from my companions, they going south."
The next few pages relate only to how he escaped. He ends by saying this:
"Then I heard a bell ringing in a nearby church. It was the Angelus. I remembered I had not been to Mass. I slipped out, and in the silence before the-altar, I thought over our morning's work and offered up a prayer for the fallen."
It is a pity that he did not do it the day before instead of an hour afterwards.
Then there is one other passage:—
"The evening following my interview with Mac I called.… to meet Rosie.
"This was the first time I had seen her since the Sunday morning of the shootings, and I was very anxious to know what had happened afterwards at the boarding house.
"The minute she saw me, she burst into tears. This greatly surprised and distressed me. Putting my arm around her, I asked her what was the matter. This only caused her to cry more convulsively, so that for a while she could not speak to me at all.
"'Oh, why did you shoot them?' she sobbed at last. 'I thought you only meant to kidnap them.'
" 'But Rosie,' said I, 'surely you know we are at war and that these men were shooting our fellows?'
"'I know,' she said, still crying, 'but it was dreadful.'
"After a while she managed to calm herself, and told me her story.
"'After the gentlemen were shot, we were all terribly upset. Military and detectives arrived at the house, and they questioned us for hours. They took lorry loads of papers away with them. I was so upset I did not leave the house for days. You see, I felt I had had a hand in it, and I couldn't bear my thoughts, and at last I felt I must speak to someone. So I went to a friend of mine, who was a priest, and I told him everything.'
"'Well, Rosie, what did he say to you?'
"'He was very nice to me. He told me I needn't blame myself at all. He said that ye were fighting with your backs to the wall. A defensive war, that is what he called it. He said the English had no right to be here at all. Our boys must defend themselves, he said, and a lot more which I did not understand. He was grand and kind to me.'
"'Only when I saw you it all came back to me again.'"
I do not think I need take up more time by attempting to describe the horrible facts that are admitted in this book.
Here is a book published in London, a cheap edition at 2s. 6d., by some people called Peter Davies, Ltd. I should like to know what steps the Government propose to take with regard to the publication of this sort of book, whether it is advisable that a book of this sort should be circulated, a book which apparently gives people to understand that the man in question, if he did not murder these unfortunate gentlemen, assisted in their murder, and was accessory to the fact both before and after, holding himself up as a sort of
1040
hero. Apparently his attitude has been endorsed by a priest.
I do not know, not being a lawyer, what powers the Government have, but I presume that, if this man ventures to come to England, he can be arrested, and I further presume that they have some powers over the publishers of the book. I do not know whether, the South of Ireland being still part of the Empire, the Government here have some influence with the powers there, and can induce them to take steps against a man who glories in having murdered defenceless gentlemen. I am sorry to see that the Liberal Benches are not very full, but I would remind noble Lords who sit there of what their great leader, Lord Palmerston, once said when be applied the phrase, "Civis Romanus sum," to Englishmen. If Lord Palmerston were here now, I am quite certain that action would have been taken.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords. I must confess that I do not understand what object the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, had in giving this very large gratuitous advertisement to this publication of which he disapproves. I do not propose to go into the incidents described in the book in question. I will only point out that this is the story by a boy of his exploits at the time when he was seventeen years of age. I must also point out, since it happens to be a relevant fact, that they occurred in November, 1920, and not in November, 1921, as stated in the Motion. That is a small mistake, but it happens to be of great importance. I must remind your Lordships that in January, 1922, upon the establishment of the provisional Government in the Irish Free State, His Majesty granted a general amnesty in respect of offences committed in Ireland from political motives prior to the operation of the truce—that is to say, prior to July, 1921, which is some eight months after the incidents in question.
With your Lordships' permission, I will read the terms of that amnesty:—
"His Majesty the King has been pleased, at the moment when a provisional Irish Government is about to take office, to grant a general amnesty in respect of all offences committed in Ireland from political motives prior to the operation of the truce on July 11 last."

1041
That is to say, from July 11, 1921.
"The release of prisoners to whom the amnesty applies will begin forthwith. It is His Majesty's confident hope that this act of oblivion will aid powerfully in establishing relations of friendship and good will between the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland."
The terms of this amnesty express very definitely His Majesty's proclaimed desire that the unhappy events to which the noble Lord has referred, and others like them, should be consigned to oblivion. Since then the controversies and ugly incidents of the years preceding the establishment of the Irish Free State have been replaced by happier relations and by a spirit of good will. I cannot feel that any useful purpose would be served by reviving now the bitter memories of past events, and I venture to believe that, on further reflection, the noble Lord may think fit to withdraw his Motion for Papers. There are, in fact, no Papers whatever.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will have been very much struck by the speech delivered by the noble Lord who sits behind me, and whilst I am quite sure that the noble Lord who has responded for the Government has probably exactly the same feelings of horror and indignation as exist in our minds, he did not tell us so in the speech which he has just delivered. He certainly has stated, quite correctly, that an amnesty was granted, and there is no need for me to go further into that matter, since the noble Lord has read its terms. I should have thought, however, that your Lordships would form a further opinion on the proceedings to which my noble friend behind me has drawn attention— namely, that the publication of a book in which the writer appears to glory in the deeds which were perpetuated on the date mentioned, calls for some remark. I do not know what the powers of His Majesty's Government are, but I know quite well that they have some jurisdiction over publications that are produced for sale in this country, and I should have thought that it would be possible for them, if their powers are not adequate for the destruction of a book of this description, to have made some remonstrance to the Free State
1042
Government with a view to putting an end to the publication of books of this description.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, it is obvious from what Lord Passfield has said with regard to the amnesty (assuming, as of course I do, that he has accurately stated it) that no prosecution of this infamous criminal—infamous according to his own confession—can take place, but to my mind that does not justify the reproduction in this country of this infamous book, extracts1 from which have been read. Can anything be more pernicious, degrading and criminal than that a self-confessed criminal should publish in this country a justification of one of the basest murders that have ever taken place in Southern Ireland? Do not let us forget that the murder occurred in November, 1920, and was one of those scoundrelly actions of murder and outrage which, I am sorry to say, led up to the appalling surrender to crime in June, 1921.
It is repulsive to go into these old stories, but every one knows that the Government of this; country about November, 1920, or thereabouts, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, declared that nothing would induce them to surrender to the deliberate campaign of outrage and murder which was then going on in Ireland. Just after this atrocious event took place, and the result was, in June, 1921, the surrender of all that we held most sacred in Ireland. That being so, is it decent, is it right, that this scoundrelly criminal should be allowed to produce in this country a book in which he glories in the crime of himself and those other equally infamous ruffians like himself?—not only glories in it but recalls to the minds of the British people what he thinks are the admirable effects of those crimes. To my mind it is a direct incitement to violent crime, if the persons who commit it think that by those methods they are going to get the results for which they ask. I think it would be unfortunate that in. India persons there conspiring against our Government should have an opportunity of reading a book like this, in which an atrocious crime is confessed, with the result that the British Government surrendered. Therefore I beg the Government to consider whether it is a decent

1043
thing to allow the publication in this country of such a book, and if they do not, and I doubt if any right-minded person could think it is decent, I trust that they will take steps to prevent the further publication here of such a book.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I made two suggestions in the remarks which I ventured to address to the House a few moments ago. I said that not being a lawyer I was not aware whether the Government had power to take proceedings. I understand from what the noble Lord opposite has said that owing to these events having occurred before the amnesty was granted, which gave an amnesty to political offenders—this is the first time I have heard murder called a political offence—they can do nothing. My second suggestion was as to the taking of steps to prevent the publication of a book of this sort. Do they consider it right that a book of this sort,
1044
which contains reminiscences and statements regarding murders by a man who evidently thinks he is a wonderful man, and doing the right thing, and which he says a priest of the Christian religion seemed to excuse—do they think it is right to encourage the publication in this country of the cheap edition of a book of this sort? I have not very much opinion of the Government, and I have certainly had less in the last few moments. I shall not withdraw my Motion, but if there are no Papers or the Government refuse to produce them I shall not trouble the House with a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that Lord Passfield has stated that there are no Papers.
On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past five o'clock.