Lords Sitting of 7 July 1932

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
HIRE PURCHASE AND SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
EXTRADITION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we proceed with to-day's business may I be allowed to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House whether he would be good enough to give us some idea of the work to be got through before the end of this Session?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am glad to answer the noble Lord's question. To-morrow I propose to ask the House to have a purely formal meeting at four o'clock to receive from another place the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill, which is expected to pass there some time to-morrow. I thought we might take the same opportunity of giving a Third Reading to the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill, which I do not think any of your Lordships would desire to debate on Third Reading. As the Amendments will have to go to another place it would be a great convenience if we could get that disposed of.
650
I am afraid that on Monday I shall have to put down a Motion to suspend Standing Orders to pass the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill through all its stages. Your Lordships will realise that it is a matter of urgency. It will, of course, be a certified Bill so, presumably, there will be no Committee or Report stage. I thought also that it would be well on the same occasion to take the Report and Third Reading of the Sunday Entertainments Bill. Otherwise it will be almost impossible to get our Amendments discussed in another place. Then there will be the Public Works Loans Bill and the Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill—both certified Bills—which are down for Second Reading to-day. I thought we might also take the Third Reading of those Bills.
On Tuesday there will be the Commons agreement or disagreement with your Lordships' Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Commons agreement or disagreement with Amendments to the Sunday Entertainments Bill and possibly—it depends on what happens to-day—any discussion which may be necessitated by disagreement between the two Houses with regard to the Children and Young Persons Bill. There is also a Motion by Lord Lovat in regard to piers in the Highland counties. If all goes well we propose on Wednesday to ask the House to adjourn till October 27, with what is now becoming the usual power for the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons to summon us at short notice if emergency should arise.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There is one other point I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount. I presume that on Monday we shall sit at three o'clock?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I had not intended to propose that, but if the noble Lord thinks there will be any prolonged discussion we could do so. I had rather anticipated that there would be no very long debate on the Second Reading of the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill and I thought that a quarter past four would be soon enough. If the noble Lord or any other member of your Lordships' House thinks that will not give satisfaction I shall be glad to meet the convenience of the House.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not want to press the point at all. I only thought that possibly on the Irish Duties Bill there might be a certain number of your Lordships who would wish to speak. It has become rather convenient to meet at an earlier hour.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make inquiry through the usual channels and decide that in consultation with other members of your Lordships' House before we adjourn this evening.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.
Clause 1:
Provisions as to cinematograph entertainments.
1.—(1) The authority having power, in any area to which this section extends, to grant licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to Sunday observance, allow places in that area licensed under the said Act to be opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, subject to such conditions as the authority think fit to impose:
Provided that no place shall be allowed to be so opened and used unless among the conditions subject to which it is allowed to be so opened and used there are included conditions for securing—
(b) that such sums as may be specified by the authority not exceeding the amount estimated by the authority as the amount of the profits which will be received from cinematograph entertainments given while the place is open on Sundays, and from any other entertainment or exhibition given therewith, and calculated by reference to such estimated profits or to such proportion of them as the authority think fit, will be paid as to the prescribed percentage thereof to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and as to the remainder thereof to such persons as may be specified by the authority for the purpose of being applied to charitable objects;
and for the purpose of any conditions imposed by an authority as to the payment of sums calculated by reference to such estimated profits as aforesaid, the profits shall be computed in such manner as the authority may direct.
(3) If, in any place allowed under this section to be opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, any person is employed on any Sunday contrary to the conditions subject to which the place was allowed to be so opened and used, and it is proved—

(a) that the employment was solely due to an emergency caused by a mechanical breakdown, or to the unavoidable absence of a skilled worker due to attend on that Sunday for whom no substitute could readily have been obtained; and

(b) that the emergency was notified, within twenty-four hours after it occurred, to the authority by whom the place is licensed under the Cinematograph Act, 1909; and

(c) that the person employed on that Sunday contrary to the said conditions received a day's rest in lieu of that Sunday;

that employment shall be deemed not to have been a contravention of the conditions subject to which the place was allowed to be so opened and used as aforesaid.
(5) This section extends to every area in which places licensed by the authority having power in that area to grant licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, were, within the period of twelve months ending on the sixth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, in pursuance of arrangements (not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions) purported to have been made with the authority, and shall also extend to any borough or county district to which it may be extended by an order laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, and approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved in paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), after "percentage thereof," to insert "if any." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is one which I think will meet with general approval. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that there will be no obligation upon the Secretary of State to prescribe that any percentage shall be set aside for the purposes described in Clause 2. It was never intended that it should be obligatory on the Secretary of State to set aside a sum of money in any one year. The maximum limit was prescribed of 5 per cent., but it was always intended that he should only have power to prescribe such a percentage as seemed to him, after consultation with the authorities and the Privy Council, could be usefully spent. If it turned out in any

653
one year there were no useful means of spending the money the percentage would be annulled.
It was not quite clear in the Bill, or at least it was thought it might not be, that it was open to the Secretary of State to say that there should be no percentage and the words "if any" are proposed to be inserted so that the paragraph will read:
"calculated by reference to such estimated profits or to such proportion of them as the authority think fit, will be paid as to the prescribed percentage thereof, if any, to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund."
I have to explain that there is another Amendment down with regard to Clause 5. Those two Amendments read together make it certain that the Secretary of State will not be under any obligation to prescribe any percentage at all in any year unless he thinks it useful so to do.
As I am mentioning this Fund I do not know whether it would be convenient to your Lordships if I were to answer the questions raised by the most rev. Primate yesterday. The most natural place would be on the question that Clause 2 stand part and perhaps the Committee would prefer it to come then. I was only wondering whether we should not approach that discussion a little more intelligently if I were to give now an answer to those questions.
LORD ASKWITH: I think it would be more clear if it were done now—certainly with regard to my own Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Before the noble and learned Viscount continues there is one point I should like to mention. I think the noble and learned Viscount stated that the amount to be taken from the profits and put into the Fund was in no case to exceed 5 per cent., but in lines 3, 4 and 5 of page 2 the Bill says:
"such sums as may be specified by the authority not exceeding the amount estimated by the authority as the amount of the profits,"
and there it would seem they could take the whole of the profits. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will explain how those two things work in.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If my noble friend looks through the clause carefully he will see that he is dealing with two different things. Where it is said that
654
the authority may take away the whole of the profits that is the sum which they may insist on being paid over to charitable purposes. Lower down in the part we are now discussing, where we are dealing with the percentage, that is where the amount must not exceed 5 per cent. of the total taken away. The 5 per cent. will be found in the Definition Clause which states that the prescribed percentage "means such percentage, not exceeding 5 per cent." I hope that point is cleared up.
I will now just answer the two or three questions which the most rev. Primate was good enough to address to me yesterday with regard to the Cinematograph Fund and its application. The most rev Primate summarised his questions at the end of his speech in column 630 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He asked first: "Is this Fund to be earmarked specially for a proposed film institute or available for all concerned in the development of the industry?" The answer is that it is not to be specially earmarked for a proposed film institute and that it is to be available for all concerned in the development of the industry. As the most rev. Primate told your Lordships, there is at present no film institute. There is no reference to it in the Bill. It is true that in the debate in the Committee stage in another place the mover of the original Amendment moved it largely on the ground that a very influential committee had made a report which suggested the creation of such an institute. If such an institute be created it will be eligible to apply for a share in the Fund. Whether it will get any such assistance will depend on the nature of its constitution and the nature of the work it is performing. I think therefore I can answer that first question in a way which will be entirely satisfactory to the most rev. Primate.
The second question addressed to me was: "If a film institute is contemplated and if it is to have any public character, before any money is given to it will its constitution and powers be submitted to Parliament?" Quite obviously if the film institute is constituted and if it is to have a public character it will be necessary that its constitution and powers should be submitted to Parliament, because you cannot set up a public body without public assent through Parliament. I cannot

655
answer whether the film institute will ever be created. It exists at present only in the report of the committee which has only just been made and has not even been considered by the Government as a whole. Whether or not any such institute will be created and, if it is, whether it will be given a public character are matters which rest with the future. If it is to be given a public character obviously it will be a matter for public discussion.
Then the most rev. Primate, although I do not think he refers to it in his summary at the end, asked whether this film institute was to have any kind of censorship over the films? As I understand, there is no suggestion that it is to have a censorship and so far as I am aware there is no sort of idea that any such duplication of censorship powers is desirable in the public interest or likely to be created. I can assure any of your Lordships who are concerned about the matter that we are not in any way committing ourselves to a film institute whose existence, powers and character are at present unknown, and I am glad to give those assurances which I think would have been satisfactory to the most rev. Primate had he been here, because he said they would largely influence his mind in deciding how far the establishment of the proposed Fund was desirable or not.
The position is that under Clause 2 a Fund is to be administered by the Privy Council for the purpose of the improvement of films and of the character of cinema entertainments, an object which I am sure, after some of the speeches that we have heard from Lord Danesfort and others, will commend itself to your Lordships' House; and we provide by Amendments that we are coming to presently for the most careful audit and for account being given to Parliament of any use that is made of the money paid into that Cinematograph Fund. We are not in any way proposing to give this money to the film institute, if such Fund comes into being, nor are we pledged as to the character that the film institute, if it ever exists, will assume. I am much obliged to your Lordships for allowing me to explain that now, and it will probably be more convenient to discuss the nature of the institute when we come to Clause 2. Possibly, also, my explana-
656
tion will make it easier to concentrate upon relevant points, rather than debate something which is not mentioned in the Bill and is not now in existence, and of the nature of which your Lordships possibly have no more definite idea than I have. My explanation will make it clear that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to prescribe any particular percentage.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, after ("thereof") insert ("if any").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had on the Paper an Amendment, in paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The noble Lord said: I do not know if your Lordships would discuss this now.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment is consequential on the omission of Clause 2.
LORD LAMINGTON: I quite agree, and I do not know whether your Lordships would wish to discuss this Amendment now or wait until we reach Clause 2, which I hope will be deleted from the Bill.
LORD IRWIN: Might I suggest that the Amendment should not be moved at this stage? Then, if we are successful in moving out Clause 2, no doubt the House would be willing to accept this Amendment, as consequential, on the Report stage.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM,LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had placed on the Paper an Amendment in the same terms, said: I quite agree with the suggestion which has just been made.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There seems to be complete unanimity, and I was going to make the same suggestion. I am much obliged to Lord Irwin for his suggestion.
LORD GREVILLE LORD GREVILLE moved to omit from paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), "to such persons as may be specified by the authority for the purpose of being applied." The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is to ask the noble and learned

657
Viscount if, under this Bill, the authorities have power to delegate to an outside body the distribution of the Fund for charitable purposes. My reason for asking this question is that on Tuesday there was a meeting of a great many charities of London—about 190 were represented—and they were asked which of three bodies they would like to have the power of distributing the Fund. The bodies mentioned were, I think, the London County Council, the Cinematograph Proprietors' Association and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware how at present charities obtain their share of the money from the Sunday performances. It is left to the charities themselves to go round and visit the various cinemas in their district, and anywhere else, and endeavour to get their names on the list and obtain a share of the profits. This may or may not be a very good way of doing it, but what I want to be assured of is that if these powers are delegated by the local authorities to outside bodies, there should be some proper rule and method for allocating these profits. At present it is rather in the nature of a cat and dog fight as to which charity can get to the door of the cinema first and get a share of the profits. That is the reason for putting down the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("thereof") to ("applied") in line 18.—(Lord Greville.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is obviously a matter very proper to be raised and considered. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord's description of the present position is quite complete. No doubt it is true that the charities go to the cinemas and try to pursuade the cinemas to allocate some of their profits to them, but before that takes place the council itself has to draw up a list of approved charities. What happens then is that there is a list made up by the County Council—I am speaking of London, because that is what principally matters now—on which certain charities are placed, when the County Council has satisfied itself—or themselves, whichever Lord Bertie pleases—as to the position and objects of the charity. The County Council also assign for each charity on its list a maximum sum beyond which it
658
may not receive any moneys out of this Fund. When that has been done the approved charities can obtain from the different cinemas any sums not exceeding in the aggregate that maximum. As I understand it, and as my noble friend has told your Lordships, there has been some discussion as to the best plan for the future, and I gather that that discussion has not so far resulted in any agreement.
As I understand it, under the Bill there will be one of two different methods which will be open to the licensing authority. Firstly, it will be open to the licensing authority to require all the payments by the different cinemas to be made to certain persons nominated by the London County Council who will be responsible for the distribution. I suppose they will set up a committee which will deal with it themselves. The other plan is to require each cinema to make its payments to persons specified, who would presumably be the secretaries of the charity or charities which are to benefit from the Sunday opening of the particular cinema or cinemas. So that under the terms of the Bill it is open to the licensing authority to keep the distribution in their own hands and it will be possible for the charities themselves to urge the authority to adopt that plan. Personally, if I may express an opinion, I think it would be a very great pity if the distribution of the money were not kept under the more direct control of the London County Council or the licensing authority, and I very much hope that agreement between the cinema industry and the local authorities and the charities may be reached on those lines. My noble friend put down the Amendment in order that the matter might be discussed, and not with a view of pressing it to a Division. Therefore I am not dealing with the technical difficulties of form to which the Amendment would give rise.
LORD GREVILLE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. My only reason for putting down this Amendment was to draw attention to the fact that when a charity got on this list it was entirely at the good will of the various cinema concerns. The actual authority did not place any charity on the list, but accepted the list of charities from the Cinema Association, or whatever the body was.

659
Having drawn attention to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "it is proved" and insert "either (i) it is proved." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the following Amendment go together. If your Lordships are good enough to accept them, the effect will be to give an employer a good defence who not only genuinely believes, but also has reasonable grounds for his belief, that the person whom he is charged with employing contrary to this Act has not been engaged by somebody else during the six previous days. He will have to prove to the satisfaction of a Court two things: (i) his genuine belief, and (2) that he has reasonable grounds for it. I think in many Acts there are similar provisions, and I hope on this occasion that the suggestions that such a provision should be inserted will appeal to your Lordships; otherwise, however unwittingly an employer has acted, he may find himself convicted quite unjustly on technical grounds, and such conviction will always stand on record against him, which would be manifestly unfair.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("it is proved") and insert ("either (i) it is proved").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Government agree that it is reasonable that an employer should not be mulcted if he can prove that he did not knowingly contravene the Statute in question. I understand that the noble Viscount's words are calculated to protect the employer to that extent, and the Government are therefore willing to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of paragraph (c) in subsection (3), to insert:
"or (ii) it is proved—

(a) that the person was employed contrary to the said conditions only by reason of his having been employed on each of the six days previous to that Sunday in connection with similar entertainments or exhibitions by an employer other than the employer who employed him on that Sunday; and

660

(b) that the last-mentioned employer had, after making due inquiry, reasonable ground for believing that he had not been so employed as aforesaid."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential, and is the one to which I referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "(not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions)." The noble Lord said: The object of Clause 1 of the Bill as it originally stood was to enable the practice of granting licences for Sunday entertainments to continue where licences have been granted in the past. The Bill has been so amended that past practice cannot be taken into account where permission granted to cinema owners has related only to specific occasions. The alteration has been made by the insertion in subsection (5) of the words "(not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions)." If these words were allowed to remain subsection (5) will not operate in the West Riding of Yorkshire, on whose behalf I have the honour to move this Amendment, unless a Special Order is made pursuant to the latter part of subsection (5) and the Schedule of the Bill, for the reason that all Sunday openings of cinemas in the West Riding are under arrangements relating only to specific occasions. The general rule is not to grant more than one permit per month. As there is no difference in principle between the conditions on which Sunday permits are given in the West Riding for specific occasions and the conditions included in subsection (5), there would appear to be no satisfactory reason for the retention of these words in the Bill. In fact, if they are left there they will interfere with a good many charities getting a considerable amount of money which they are now obtaining.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, lines 32 and 33, leave out from ("arrangements") to ("purported") in line 34.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, but in fact the words which are in brackets are put in for the deliberate purpose of preventing what the

661
noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, would like to see happen. The position is this. This Bill is in the nature of a compromise and the purpose of the Bill is primarily to preserve the status quo; that is to say, that in areas in which Sunday openings have taken place regularly in the past without apparent objection by the people Sunday opening shall continue, but that in other places it shall not take place unless the procedure is gone through which is set out in the Schedule and under which it will be necessary to ascertain that the people of any fresh district really desire a change and really desire to adopt Sunday performances.
It so happens that there are three or four areas in this country—the West Riding seems to be one; I believe Birmingham is another—where there has not been regular Sunday opening but where occasionally, for some particular charitable purpose, the authority has seen fit to license an opening. The best instance., I think, is Birmingham where there is known what is known as Cinema Hospital Sunday and on one Sunday in the year all the cinemas are open in order to raise a fund for charitable purposes. If these words which my noble friend seeks to delete are omitted the result will be that in such a place as Birmingham—which I take as a very convenient instance, because once a year the people do not mind, they probably approve of, the practice of opening cinemas to provide a fund for hospitals—it would be possible, without the people being consulted at all, to open the cinemas every Sunday of the year as a regular thing. It may be desirable, of course, to open cinemas all over the country, but that is not the scheme of this Bill. The scheme is that it shall only be done in places where it has commanded assent up to the present, and if any new area wishes to adopt the move of opening on Sunday that shall be done by at first ascertaining that the people of the district want it.
That arrangement, which is really a compromise accepted—I will not say agreed to—by each side, is completely destroyed if the Amendment is carried, because the result then is that without any such consultation of the people of the district, without any inquiry such as is prescribed by the Schedule, wherever it can be shown that once a year, for
662
example, a cinema has been licensed to open for a special purpose, hereafter it may be possible under the terms of the Bill for every cinema in the district to open every Sunday in the year. I am quite sure that is not a proposal which would commend itself to your Lordships because, quite irrespective of whether or not any of us think that it is a good or bad thing to open cinemas on Sundays, the whole scheme underlying this particular Bill is to ensure that you shall not upset the existing arrangement under which cinemas are regularly opened, without giving the people power to be consulted. It will still be open for West Riding, if it sees fit, to take advantage of the Schedule, and if the people desire regular openings they can get them by the machinery of that Schedule without any great loss of time and without great expense; but if this Amendment is carried, then, without the people being consulted, it will be possible to open not merely occasionally but regularly, and to make the Sunday opening of cinemas a regular practice in districts where hitherto it has been the practice for them to open only occasionally. On those grounds the Government hope that this Amendment will not be carried.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved to add to the clause:
"(6) This section shall not extend to Wales and Monmouthshire."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name seeks to exclude from the provisions of the Bill Wales and Monmouthshire so far as they relate to the granting of licences on Sunday. When I ventured to express the views of Wales upon this measure on Second Reading the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House, with his usual courtesy and fairmindedness, said he was quite prepared to listen to any arguments I might be able to bring forward to-day in Committee, but he indicated that there were elements of doubt in his mind whether those arguments would finally convince him. I think the Committee will, however, allow me a few moments to express as briefly as I can the position of Wales in regard to this Bill.
I begin with legislative precedents. I will remind the Committee once more of the two precedents which I adduced on Second Reading, the passing of the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill and the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. All I wish to say in regard to those precedents is this. It seems to me that they are an evidence of the fact that Parliament has, in the past, recognised the special conditions and needs of Wales in legislation. Another thing I should like to say in regard to both those special Welsh measures passed by Parliament is that there is not a shadow of doubt as to the value, the benefit and advantage of those measures to the public life of Wales.
Another point which I might be allowed to mention in connection with those Parliamentary precedents is this. When we are endeavouring to appraise the importance of Parliamentary precedents in a case of this sort, I think we ought to remind ourselves that these special precedents made in the case of Wales are only incidents in a long-continued demand for a certain degree of devolution of Parliamentary powers in relation to strictly local affairs. That is a big question, and I will not attempt to go into it to-day, but I think the time must come when, in the interests of the public business of the nation, some form or degree of devolution in regard to the treatment of local affairs must be carried into Parliamentary practice, and in that Wales has a very distinct and vital interest.
In the meantime, what are we in Wales to do? The only thing we can do when a Bill like this is presented, which has behind it undoubtedly the general assent of the majority in England and is passed against the majority view of the people in Wales, is to move, as I am doing, to exclude Wales. Here we come to the crux of the situation in regard to what we have for a long time regarded in Wales as a Parliamentary injustice—namely, that in relation to a great deal of the legislation passed by Parliament, it must be passed with the support of the majority of the representatives of England but against the wishes and views of the majority of the representatives of Wales, and this has happened in this case. As I reminded the House on Second Reading, in regard to the first form of this measure in the House of Commons twenty-five Welsh Members voted against it and five
664
for it, and when the second form of the measure came up for discussion—the Bill which we are to-day discussing here—in Committee eighteen voted for the exemption of Wales from the operation of the Bill and only two were found to support its inclusion. That, I think, will show the House what the position is. It does seem to me that it is a case which ought, at all events, to receive some consideration.
There is this further point in considering the situation of the Bill in regard to Wales. This Bill is not the result of a long-continued demand from the electorate of the country. It is not the result of the verdict of any Parliamentary Election. This Bill, as it comes before us to-day, is the result of what might be termed almost an accident—the wrong interpretation placed upon the law of the land by a certain number of local authorities. Because of that the necessity has arisen for dealing with this legal difficulty. Let me say at once that I recognise the necessity for dealing in some way with that legal difficulty, but the question that is raised in my Amendment to-day—namely, the exemption of Wales and Monmouthshire from the operation of this clause—is not whether that is necessary or not, neither is it a question of whether it is desirable or not that there should be some amendment of the law to meet the undoubted changes which are taking place in public opinion in regard to Sunday observance. The sole point which is raised in my Amendment to-day is whether it is desirable, whether it is right, whether it is just to force the consequences of this special legislation, which has become necessary owing to this accident in the legal position, upon Wales against the views and wishes of the great majority of the people.
I am not going to detain the Committee longer. I think I have stated, in outline at all events, the main reasons why I move this Amendment. The people of Wales open this Bill and they see in it the words: "This Act shall not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland," and they ask the question: "Why should it extend to Wales?" I think I may be allowed to say this much. The people of Scotland have every right to their views in regard to Sabbath observance, and I recognise the strength of the feeling they entertain with respect to that matter. The feeling in Wales

665
upon that point is at least as strong as it is in Scotland, and I venture to submit to the noble and learned Viscount and to noble Lords behind him that if it is right that the feeling of Scotland upon this point should be regarded, what is right for Scotland, it seems to me, should not be denied to Wales. I therefore move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("(6) This section shall not extend to Wales and Monmouthshire.")—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I really do not appreciate what the grievance of the noble Lord is. He says this Bill is being forced upon Wales. Nothing is being forced upon Wales. Nothing can happen until the local authorities with the approval of the inhabitants of those localities ask for a draft order. There is a complete safeguard for Wales, and home rule.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Nobody can doubt the sincerity with which this Amendment was moved, or fail to appreciate the moderation of the language in which the argument was couched. I venture respectfully to agree with my noble friend Lord Mount Temple that if this were forcing Sunday opening upon Wales it ought not to be allowed. I see no reason why Parliament should compel any part of the country to open its cinemas on Sundays when that is repugnant to the wishes of the inhabitants. The noble Lord dealt with the necessity of devolution, and for a wider power of local government in Wales. I will not enter into that topic, but in fact this Bill gives it to him because he will no doubt be aware that at the present moment there is no area in Wales which satisfies the condition of Clause 1 (5) of the Bill, and there is only one district in Monmouthshire—Bargoed—which, so far as we know, has Sunday opening. With that solitary exception of the district of Bargoed there is nowhere in Wales where there will be Sunday opening. The only effect of the Bill as far as Wales is concerned will be that if the majority of the people in a particular district of Wales want Sunday opening they will be able to get it by means of a draft order after public inquiry instead of by more expensive and cumbersome means of a Private Bill.
666
My noble friend says the people of Wales do not want Sunday opening. Then they will never get it. The Bill only provides in a case like Wales, where there is no Sunday opening, that if the people of a district make up their minds that they want Sunday opening, and if after all these precautions have been taken of inquiry and investigation by the Secretary of State it is determined that the people really want Sunday opening, it shall be possible for them to get it by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament instead of by a more expensive Private Bill. Why should Wales be denied this privilege which is being extended to England? I think the noble Lord is really getting the local option which he so earnestly desires. If Wales does not want Sunday opening she will not have it, but if she wants Sunday opening it seems very unfair that we should make it snore expensive for her to get it than the rest of the Kingdom.
LORD CLWYD: I do not of course intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. I fully recognise the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that there is no coercion in the Bill on this matter and that if local authorities wish to take advantage of the Bill they can do so. The view, however, of those whom I represent to-day is that a change would be made by the passing of this Bill in regard to the law governing Sunday entertainments. It will bring Wales at all events within the possibility of being involved in, that change. Those whom I represent to-day hold very strongly the view that no such change should be made and that Wales should not be brought within that possibility until the people of Wales have had an opportunity of saying that they wish it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD RHAYADER LORD RHAYADER moved to insert the following new subsection:
(6) This section shall also extend to every county area in which places licensed by the authority having power in that area to grant licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, were within the period of twelve months aforesaid opened and used on Sundays for the purposes aforesaid for occasional performances conditional upon the profits being applied to charitable purposes provided that no licences for such occasional performances shall be granted in excess of twenty-four in any one year."
The noble Lord said: I desire to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Earl of Strafford, but not exactly in the form in which it appears on the Paper. I propose to put in the word "county" and move it in this form: "This section shall also apply to every county area" and so on. The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with the point which was raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax. The cause of the Amendment is the insertion of the words in subsection (5) "(not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions)". Those words were not in the Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons. They were put in, I think, on the Report stage in the other House. The effect is to deprive the West Riding of Yorkshire and the County of Middlesex of the power to allow cinemas to open on specific occasions on Sundays for charitable purposes.
I move this Amendment on behalf of the County of Middlesex. I do not think that when the Bill was introduced it was intended to interfere with that County, where the County Council have kept the licensing of cinemas in their own hands. They have not delegated the power of licensing to the magistrates or to anyone else. They have kept the licensing of cinemas in their own hands and they have on rare occasions allowed cinemas to open in certain places in their area on not more than twenty or twenty-four Sundays in the year. There seems no good reason, when you are sanctioning what has been done in London in the matter of Sunday opening, for depriving the County of Middlesex of the power to continue what they have been doing. If this Amendment or some Amendment to the same effect is not made in the Bill the result will be that the County Council of Middlesex will be quite unable to allow an occasional Sunday cinema opening for charitable purposes. It will have to be all or nothing. Either they must allow cinemas all over the County to be opened on Sundays or none at all. They wish, and I think rightly wish, to have this discretionary power, which they have certainly not abused. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment in the exact form in which I move it, I hope they will take the matter into careful consideration and see whether
668
they cannot meet the wishes of the County Council on the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rhayader.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment, I think, raises the same point as the one we dealt with on the Amendment of Lord Fairfax a little while ago and I really said most of what I had to say on that Amendment. I would like, however, to point out that the proposal which the noble Lord puts forward would put the County Council in a very invidious position. They are to be allowed, if his proposal is carried, to license twenty-four performances in any one year. I gather that that does not mean twenty-four performances in every cinema in any one year. I observe that he agrees that it does not mean that. It means therefore that the County Council would have the very invidious task of selecting a certain limited number of cinemas. The Amendment does not even meet the point which my noble friend said he wanted to meet—namely, that of allowing in some cases occasional performances for charitable purposes. I will take again the instance of Birmingham, where the practice is to license every cinema on one Sunday which is called Cinema Hospital Sunday and to give all the proceeds to charity on that occasion. Obviously that could not be done under this Amendment. There are many more than twenty-four cinemas in the City of Birmingham. I think the simpler course is to adhere to the principle which has been laid down in the Bill—that is to say, where Sunday opening is a regular thing it should go on and where it is not then the neighbourhood must be consulted before it is adopted as a practice. I am sorry I am not able to give a more encouraging answer, but that is the view which the Home Office has formed after considering the merits of the proposal which my noble friend has brought forward.
LORD ARNOLD: May I take this opportunity to make a very mild, but still a firm objection to the use of the term which the noble and learned Viscount has just employed? The noble and learned Viscount did the same yesterday. Technically, the Home Office has no place under the Constitution at all, and if I may say so with great respect I do not

669
think it is in accordance with Parliamentary practice to quote Government Departments in that way. Quite properly we are not allowed in this House to criticise civil servants and I do not see why they should be quoted against us. Surely the noble and learned Viscount could either say "the Government" or "the Secretary of State."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly did not mean to quote a civil servant. That would be most irregular. The reason I referred to the Home Office or the Home Secretary rather than to anybody else is that I am here speaking on behalf of a Minister whose Department is not in my charge, and I thought "the Home Office" was a convenient expression to cover that Department. I am obliged to the noble Lord for suggesting that we should not use any language which could be construed as invoking the opinions of civil servants, who do their work most excellently and certainly ought not to be drawn into any sort of controversy. If any word I used could be so construed I unhesitatingly withdraw it.
LORD RHAYADER: I confess to some disappointment with the answer which has been given to me. I was led to hope that some more favourable opinion would have emanated, if I may use the expression, from the Home Office. The noble and learned Viscount has not met the point of the Middlesex County Council who are not in the same position as Birmingham. The only course open there is to get some local authority in a given area to make application and that application can only be, not for a specific, but for a general performance. I will not press the matter now, but I will put down the Amendment again on Report and I do ask the noble and learned Viscount to give the matter further consideration because I think he has not really met the difficulty which confronts either the West Riding or the Middlesex County Council.
LORD DANESFORT: May I support the appeal of the noble Lord opposite that, the noble and learned Viscount will give this matter further consideration before Report? This is regarded as a subject of great importance by some very important local authorities in the country. There is the Middlesex County Council and I am also asked to support
670
it on behalf of the West Riding County Council. As to the dislike of the Home Office I have some hesitation in always accepting a view put forward by a particular Department, and I venture to urge that before this Bill comes before us again the noble and learned Viscount may not merely take the view of the Home Office, who do not seem very favourable to any change in the law however reasonable, but will possibly consult some other members of the Cabinet with a view to meeting the opinion of important local bodies which he must be anxious to conciliate in order that the Bill may work smoothly.
LORD RHAYADER: In the circumstances I will withdraw the Amendment. I intend to put it down again on Report when I hope it will receive more favourable consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provisions as to Cinematograph Fund.
2.—(1) There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a fund, to be called the "Cinematograph Fund," and all sums paid to an authority in accordance with conditions imposed by them under the last foregoing section for the purpose of being transmitted to that fund shall be so transmitted at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.
(2) The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund shall be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.
(3) The accounts of the Cinematograph Fund shall be audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Privy Council, and his report thereon shall be laid before Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "shall," to insert, "subject as hereinafter provided". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, and the one a little later in my name, at line 11, are both part of the same plan. Their object is to ensure that both the creation of the Fund and the administration of it shall not involve any burden on the taxpayer. Your Lordships will appreciate that that is an object which is important at any time and imperative at the present time. It is not anticipated that the cost of administration will be

671
other than negligible but, whatever it is, clearly it is desirable that it should be met from the Fund itself. The method deducting from the Fund a contribution in aid of the Privy Council vote is the normal method prescribed by the Treasury in such cases. I move this Amendment in order to make intelligible and feasible the proviso which I shall presently move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("shall") insert (",subject as hereinafter provided,").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "encouraging." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment and the two succeeding ones standing in my name is to give a free hand to the Privy Council. To follow out what the noble and learned Viscount has said, this would leave it open for the best man to come in and win. If a film institute ever exists it may apply for a grant; if there were a particular branch of research it might be made available for it to have some grant for that. Again, if schools desired to purchase projectors and hire films they could become applicants whose claims might be considered. The Fund would be open. On the other hand, if the Fund was to be devoted entirely to an institute which may come up later on I should feel grave doubts about considering any Fund at all. But the noble and learned Viscount, in answer to a question of mine on the Second Reading, convinced me that the Privy Council would not have powers under the Bill to appoint a Board which would absorb all the Fund for objects which could not possibly be developed with the money that would be available. Research costs vast sums if properly conducted and it is being conducted in America and in this country by the industry itself.
The noble and learned Viscount has convinced me on that and still more he has convinced me by the answers he has given to the questions of the most rev. Primate. Those answers show that this Fund could not possibly be devoted to a film institute in the manner which has been foreshadowed in another place and elsewhere throughout the country. In those circumstances I suggest that the Privy Council be given the fullest oppor-
672
tunity of giving to all who come, according to their deserts and according to the decision which the Privy Council may arrive at, without any restriction saying that it shall be devoted specially to the use of the cinematograph for entertainment or instruction.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, leave out ("encouraging").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I really do not think there is any difference between us as to what we want to do in this clause, or the purpose for which this Fund is to be devoted. Really, I think, what we are discussing in this Amendment is a matter of language rather than of principle.
LORD ASKWITH: I entirely agree, and I thought the best way of attaining our object was by cutting out the words which I suggest should be omitted by this and my other Amendments.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Then it really is only a question as to which words are most apt to carry out the object which we both have in view? If the noble Lord's Amendments are carried Clause 2, subsection (2) would then read:
"The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of the development of the cinematograph,"
whereas at present the moneys are to be applied "for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." The reason why we suggest that it is wiser to keep the language as it is drafted in the Bill is that one wants to indicate the sort of direction in which this development is to take place. I think that it is not only as a source of amusement, but also as a source of education and improvement, that one of the main uses of the cinematograph lies, and we think that by keeping in the words "entertainment and instruction" we place no undue limitation on the Privy Council, because it is difficult to think of any use of the cinematograph which would not fall within one or other of those two words.
The fact that we mention instruction as one of the things which we have in mind does give an indication to those

673
who administer the Fund that they are to use it in the direction of raising the tone and increasing the usefulness of the cinematograph, and gives them a better lead and a better signpost as to the sort of way in which Parliament expects the money to be spent, than if we were merely to leave the language as "for the purpose of the development of the cinematograph." That might be taken to mean only the perfection of the instrument mechanically, which none of us intends. It is because we think that the subsection as it stands carries out what the noble Lord desires a little better than the words which he proposes, that we prefer to keep the subsection as it is.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The trouble is that the words in the Bill do not conform to the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount. If his speech governed the matter I should be quite satisfied, but his speech is quite different from the phraseology of the Bill. He says that it is merely a matter of words, and that Lord Askwith wants the money to be used for the development of the cinematograph. How can the Privy Council develop the cinematograph? That is being done by people who have millions in their pocket, and how is the Privy Council to do it with only a few thousands in their pockets and no knowledge of the matter whatever? Then, it is "to encourage the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." What business has the Privy Council got to encourage the cinematograph for entertainment? It is being done for us already. Lord Hailsham says that the object is to raise the tone, and earlier on he said that their object was to improve the character of the entertainment. There is nothing of that in the Bill. I look upon Hollywood as one of the most corrupting influences in the world, and if they would try to take up cinematograph censorship and try to stop what is a growing scandal I would support them, but to give them power to spend money "for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction" seems to me to be really farcical.
LORD ASKWITH: It seems to me to be really a matter of words, and I am prepared to bow to the legal opinion of the noble Viscount. On the understanding
674
that the clause carries out my object I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that a sum equal to the amount certified by the Treasury as the amount of the expenses incurred by the Privy Council in the administration of the said Fund shall be deducted annually from the Fund and applied in accordance with directions given by the Treasury as an appropriation-in-aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Privy Council."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment which I explained to your Lordships a little while ago, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Privy Council and his report thereon," and insert "kept in such form as may be directed by the Treasury, and an account showing the revenue and expenditure of the Fund shall be transmitted annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall certify and report upon the account, and the account and report." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment designed to ensure that there shall be effective control over the Fund, and that the audit shall be kept in such a way that it shall satisfy both the Treasury and, what is more important, Parliament itself through its servant and steward, the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("be") to ("shall") in line 14, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move that Clause 2 be deleted from the Bill. Clause 2 says:
"There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a Fund to be called the Cinematograph Fund."
Then, on page 4 of the Bill, it says:
"The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund

675
shall be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction."
If I may be allowed to say so, I agree with what Lord Crawford said—namely, that the Privy Council, great body as it is, is not the body, nor has it the means, to decide the best way of developing the cinematograph. It is a novel and dangerous principle to introduce, to give power to the Privy Council to use money which, as I understood, was originally intended to be given for charitable purposes, for assisting and developing an industry—for that is what it really comes to.
I am informed that in another place the proposal was introduced on the Report stage, and was carried only by a very small majority. The Government, as I am informed, took no part in the matter, but left it to a free vote of the House, and it seems to me that it is utterly outside the purpose and scope of the Bill. The Title of the Bill is this:
"An Act to permit and regulate the opening and use of places on Sundays for certain entertainments and for debates, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
There is nothing there which says that it is an Act for enabling the Privy Council or any other body to use funds for the development of the cinematograph, and it seems to me, therefore, that it is outside the Title, besides introducing a very dangerous precedent.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, replied to the criticisms of the most rev. Primate yesterday, and said that the most rev. Primate, in thinking that there was to be a Fund given to a certain body, was really anticipating something which could not occur at present, because before such a body could be created Parliament would have to be consulted. But that has nothing whatever to do with this clause. The clause gives to the Privy Council power to spend certain money. There is no need to go to Parliament for its consent. The clause would give to the Privy Council power to take money which was originally intended to be devoted to charitable purposes, and use it for the development of an industry. As Lord Crawford said, what knowledge have the Privy Council of the cinematograph industry? They know nothing about it. I think my noble
676
friend is a member of the Privy Council, but I do not know whether he knows anything about the development of the cinematograph. I am a member of the Privy Council, and I know nothing about it. If the clause is passed the result Will be that the Privy Council will have to set up a new body—more officials, more inspectors, more spending of money; and apparently all because a certain private Member in another place chose on the Report stage to introduce this clause. I shall certainly go to a Division if I can get anybody to tell with me against the insertion of this most iniquitous clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD LAMINGTON: I trust that this clause will disappear from the Bill. It was only introduced at quite a late stage in another place, and in a House of over 300 members there was a majority of only eighteen. I had hoped that after the very incisive remarks made by the most rev. Primate the noble and learned Viscount would have withdrawn the clause altogether. I think it would do nothing but mischief. Why should we have a new taxing authority created to get such an amount of revenue for the purpose of a film fund? My noble friend Lord Crawford asked what was going to happen to this money. How much is to be collected? What will be the real authority to deal with it, and to what purpose is the money going to be devoted? I know nothing about cinemas. My noble friend suggested the other day that I was a great frequenter of films. Any attraction they had for me disappeared when they became "talkies."
The only argument for a film institute is that every other country in Europe has got one. I should not mind a film institute, but let us know more about it. It may be a very good thing indeed, but, as this proposal comes before us, it is very nebulous, and I believe it will be a very great mistake to institute this Fund. If it is desirable to have a film fund, let the cinema companies develop it from within, do not let it be imposed by the Government from without. I trust the Government will withdraw this proposal. I do not believe it has any real support anywhere. Possibly theatres might be opened on Sundays: would you impose a special levy upon them in order

677
to have a better theatre atmosphere? Or, as Lord Marshall said the other day in The Times, you might have a special levy put on Sunday newspapers. Why not? Why should you have a special authority for this purpose? I will tell with my noble friend with great pleasure.
LORD IRWIN: Whenever I find myself disposed to differ from my noble friend Lord Banbury I always search my judgment with great anxiety, and indeed I have been in great doubt as to whether on this occasion he was not giving us the right lead. But on the whole I am not disposed, I think, to support him in the Division Lobby if he takes this Amendment to a Division. I think we are it some danger of being misled by the argument that was advanced with great force on the Amendment that preceded this by my noble friend Lord Crawford. It is certainly true, as both he and Lord Banbury have said, that neither I nor, I presume, many members of your Lordships' House are entitled to compete in the actual business of cinema production with those who are already engaged in that line of business. But that is not what I conceive that we are here concerned to do. The purpose of this Fund, if and when established under the Privy Council, is not, surely, to teach the cinema producers how to run their business for profit, but it is rather to use means, and exercise influence, for the creation of a public opinion that will demand a better type of film. If and when that public opinion is created, as those who know say that it can be created, then I think, and only then, are you on the track of getting better films than you in all cases get to-day.
That does not demand technical knowledge, but it does demand a form of propaganda, organisation, education and so on which will gradually give a commercial value to that which, for want of organisation, does not possess a commercial value to-day. On the whole I am inclined to think the case for such an effort as that has been made out. I am not greatly attracted—and in this I agree with my other noble friends—with the proposition for a national film institute. It may, or may not, be a good plan. I certainly do not know enough about it, and the whole project is too vague at the present stage. But that is not the proposal with which this Bill is concerned.
678
Your Lordships have heard what my noble friend the Leader of the House said at an earlier stage in reply to the questions of the most rev. Primate, that if and when it was proposed to set up any kind of statutory body analogous to that of the British Broadcasting Corporation the personnel and powers of such a body would properly be brought before Parliament for discussion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Might I ask my noble friend if he would read subsection (2)? He will see that the Privy Council can do whatever they like with the money as long as they use it for encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph. There is nothing about saying the films should be good, bad or indifferent. They can use the money in any kind of way they like to encourage the use and development of cinematographs.
LORD IRWIN: If my noble friend means they may in fact apply it badly for purposes other than those of improvement, I suppose the only answer is that the Privy Council on the whole may be trusted to improve rather than deteriorate cinematographs. If he means that under that subsection they can in fact ignore the undertaking that the Leader of the House gave to the most rev. Primate, there again I would venture to differ from him, because the question that my noble friend was answering was whether, if the proposal was to give power analogous to that possessed by the Broadcasting Corporation, that would require to be brought before Parliament. I think it would.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My point was that if this clause is passed we give to the Privy Council the power—Parliament has no control over the Privy Council—to spend a certain sum of money, not for good or bad films but for encouraging or developing the industry. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is a new procedure that the Privy Council should be given power to do this sort of thing. It seems to me to be all wrong.
LORD IRWIN: My noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, is entirely at liberty to entertain the opinion that it is not right to give this power to the Privy Council, but he and I hold different views as to that, and his are as tenable as my own. I am arguing that on the

679
whole for general reasons it is a good thing to give the Privy Council the power. I was further arguing, and I understand my noble friend would now agree, that if they chose to exercise their power by working through something analogous to the British Broadcasting Corporation then they would come back to Parliament.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think so. I think they could do anything they liked.
LORD IRWIN: I cannot carry the matter further with my noble friend. I am content to rely on the assurance given by the Leader of the House. I do not know whether your Lordships have seen the report that the most rev. Primate referred to in his speech yesterday. I have, and I fancy it must have been sent to a great many of your Lordships, and certainly for my own part, reading it as an outside layman, I am impressed both with the example in foreign countries of what has been done, with the potentialities of what might be done here, and generally with the case which is there established. From one point of view particularly I am not on the whole disposed to support this. We have heard a great deal about film censors and film censorship. That is only the negative side of our problem as I see it. Censors are designed to prevent anything too bad being put before the public. I want to see something a little more constructive. I want to see some positive effort made to improve the character of films, to counterbalance the negative effort that censors make to prevent films being too bad, and it is along that line, by development, by education and in other ways that I can see a good deal might be done by intelligent action on the part of the Privy Council.
I am impressed with it from another angle. A short time ago I had the privilege of paying a visit to Canada. There I found that a great deal of thinking opinion was greatly concerned by the degree to which Canadian film presentation was influenced and coloured by the film productions from the United States. I am very anxious indeed to try and get more film contact between the United Kingdom and the British Empire. It is difficult to do. I do not pretend to understand exactly how the machine works, but I cannot help
680
supposing that if you could get an intelligent directing central plan organised in this country, encouraging the production or the exchange of a better class of film, that would be an improvement.
There is one objection I might mention before I sit down in which I have considerable sympathy with noble Lords who are supporting the Amendment, and that is—I think Lord Lamington criticised it—that the method of financing this business is very illogical, and upon that ground open to attack. He said quite truly it would be possible on similar grounds to justify expenditure on films and to have a levy on Sunday newspapers and so on. I think that is true, and I think it is a fair logical argument, but I am not greatly affected by it, although I admit that I think the proposed action of the Bill of taking 5 per cent. of Sunday profits in order to improve the quality of films rather resembles the action of the village parson who, on the occasion of the death of a local notable, or the jubilee of a reigning monarch, or the termination of a War, calls a village meeting to collect subscriptions for the renewal of the church heating system. I admit there is no logical connection between the two but on the whole I am prepared to take things as they are. I definitely want to see the purpose achieved of improving the cinema level. I do not think that we can get the money for it at present in any other way. I would have preferred to see the Government, for example, put a duty on all foreign films, but I do not anticipate that is at the moment possible.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We have one.
LORD IRWIN: A further duty on foreign films, and, therefore, being a practical politician, I am disposed to get the money where I can in order to achieve the object I have at heart.
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord, Lord Irwin, said that whenever he found himself differing from the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, he felt distressed. I hope the House will not think me discourteous if I say that whenever I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I have the very greatest misgiving as to my decision. He is a very old colleague of mine in the House of Commons, and

681
he has always rendered me the service of keeping me up to my own convictions. I am ready to believe that the method proposed is not the best way of dealing with this very great problem. As a noble Lord said this afternoon, the Hollywood influence is one of the major disasters of the world. Whatever it is, it is there and that is the problem before us. It is not something that we have to create, but it is there before us. We have to make up our minds whether we will allow that to go on or will in some way attempt by educational means to create another standard for film development in our own land.
I have reason to believe from letters I have received recently from cinema proprietors in this country, that they themselves are greatly distressed at the kind of film they are compelled to show in the places they control. One of them, writing to me only two or three weeks ago, said:
"As a matter of fact British pictures, instead of seeming to get better, are in most instances much worse than they were a year ago."
In another phrase he says:
"In the last month I have trade viewed about.a dozen British pictures and there is not a single one of them fit, for showing in a decent hall."
If that is true, we cannot meet the problem merely by saying that Hollywood is not all that it ought to be. In reality the question of film improvement is one of the very greatest urgency and importance. It is not only Canada that feels this question of the American film but it is our far-flung Colonies less able to protect themselves than Canada happens to be. I am not sure that this is the best method of doing it, but I have not the least doubt that your Lordships' House would be wise to pass this as the beginning of a great new development.
The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, in criticising the Privy Council, seemed to imagine that the Privy Council would have control over a matter about which it had no experience. I have not the honour of being a member of the Privy Council but I believe it appoints and controls expert committees and research committees and that it is those committees that do the work. Yet, such is my faith in the Privy Council that I believe, in spite of all, the Privy Council would know a good film from a bad one if they
682
saw it. I beg the Committee to believe that this great new medium of the film, so potent for future good or evil, ought to receive the serious attention of your Lordships and that you ought not to reject this proposal without having something better to substitute in its place.
LORD JESSEL: I did not have the privilege of receiving this report which has been referred to. I see that it was referred to yesterday as the report of a Commission with the ambitious title of a Commission on Cultural Films. The noble Lord on my right has read it and he proposes that it should be sent to every member of your Lordships' House. No doubt the persons interested in this matter did not send it to the members of your Lordships' House and therefore we are at a great disadvantage in dealing with this matter. I agree with much that has been said as to the necessity of improving our films, and also of showing many things which interest people in the Empire and generally of taking a higher view than many of the films exhibited now. I cannot understand how that is to be done by the machinery which is to be set up. The Privy Council are to have a certain amount of money to develop the cinematograph film but it was calculated in another place that it would only come to about £8,000. If they are going to create a film, everybody knows what enormous expenditure films entail to make and to create. In some cases sums of no less than £100,000 have been spent in making a film. This money is not sufficient.
Another point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who said that he believed there were certain committees of the Privy Council set up for scientific purposes. There are these committees dealing with scientific and medical research and doing very useful work. Why cannot some other means be adopted in this case? It is very wrong too that this clause should have been inserted in this Bill, which was originally intended to regulate a proceeding which had gone on for twenty years in London but which was challenged under the Sunday Observance Act and taken to the Court of Appeal, who decided that the system in London was a breach of that Act. This Bill was brought forward to remedy that state of affairs and was drafted so that

683
other parts of the country should have the same opportunity if they wished. It is not right from the constitutional point of view that another project, which is quite foreign to this Bill, should be put in on the Report stage in another place, especially when it was only carried by eighteen votes in a biggish House.
An excellent speech was made by a member of the Labour Party, Mr. Jack Jones, who knows the working classes as well as anybody in this country, and who said:
"As far as we are concerned, we have improved pictures. The pictures of twenty years ago used to entertain the people of my division but those pictures would not be looked at to-day by the same people. They want better pictures. They have been educated by experience. What was good enough for our grandfathers is not good enough for us. We ought to have a little more trust in the common people. Trust in the common people is gradually being brought about by educational methods, not only inside a cinema, but outside."
Here is another argument for your Lordships' consideration from the speech of the hon. Member and it applies to putting a tax on certain newspapers so as to improve the general quality of the Press. He says:
"Public houses are open on Sunday. Some people do not like the idea. Why not make a fellow who uses the public house on Sunday pay an extra tax? If you have a levy, it should be on the principle that, whether you use a commodity on Sunday or not, it should be applied all round the map, and not laid down as a special principle confined to a particular industry.''
That is the whole of the argument in a nutshell. The whole idea is that this should be a contribution to the hospitals by the cinemas for the privilege of opening on Sundays. You are taking away this sum—it is true it may not be a large sum—from the hospitals. To sum up, I think that there may be a good argument for improving the films but I cannot see how it is going to be done under this clause. We have still got to learn what is done in Japan, which has been quoted, in Italy, where the right rev. Prelate told us the other day an institute exists, and also in Russia. I think it is very dangerous for us to pass in this Bill at this very late period of the Session a far-reaching provision of this kind. If necessity requires it the Government of the day can introduce another Bill, although I personally think it is not necessary. I hope for these
684
reasons your Lordships will support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Banbury. I think it is a pity the subject should have been introduced into a Bill which has nothing to do with it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree with much that has fallen from my noble friend Lord Jessel. This proposal is entirely foreign to the Bill. It was introduced at the last moment in another place. It is an extemporised Amendment. It was not proposed by the Government, it was not supported by the Government, and in point of fact they took no responsibility for it. The Whips of the Government were not put on in the House of Commons and I assume that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House will not put on the Government Whips this afternoon. As I say, it is an extemporised Amendment—a scheme obviously, on its surface, not thought out. My noble friend beside me, Lord Askwith, thinks the Amendment attains certain things and the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House claims that the clause attains other things. We have heard entirely contradictory speeches and entirely contradictory interpretations of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said that at any rate it is a beginning. I think it is better not to make a beginning at all if the beginning is going to be a bad beginning. We are going to prejudice what may be a very fruitful and what I think is a very necessary instrument if we start off badly, and we are in prospect, with this muddle-headed, ill-defined clause, of starting this thing on thoroughly bad lines.
My noble friend Lord Irwin said: "Trust the Privy Council." Well, I do not trust the Privy Council. In a matter of this kind the Privy Council are not merely amateurs but they are ignoramuses. This is not a matter of scientific research. There is a regular organisation existing, the Committee for Scientific Research, upon which serious responsibility is placed, through votes, I may say, which are voted in the estimates year by year and not in a block scheme such as this clause indicates. Through the Royal Society and other accredited societies they are carrying out specific bits of work. There is no analogy here with the work of the Committee for Scientific Research. My noble friend Lord Irwin says that no technical knowledge

685
is needed for propaganda and organisation. Really propaganda and organisation are the two most intricate and delicate mechanisms of industry and commerce which exist.
LORD IRWIN: I do not want to interrupt but the purport of my remarks was not that no scientific knowledge was required for propaganda but that no technical knowledge was required from the members of the Privy Council who would select persons who had it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not believe that for a minute. I do not believe that persons who have no interest in the matter and no knowledge can appoint proper experts. This is entirely different from the Committee for Scientific Research which is based upon very clear-cut methods. I should like this clause to be withdrawn and the matter given further consideration by the Cabinet—I do not want a Select Committee—so that the matter can be brought up in proper form at a later date.
LORD JESSEL: In another Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, a Bill would be required, a Bill ad hoc, a. Bill the title of which would cover it—the title of this Bill does not—a Bill which does not take funds from the hospitals of the country either. If my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham and his colleagues will not agree to that, I at least ask them to accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Irwin, and regard this as a positive effort to be made. The suggestion I advance as to the best positive effort would be to accept the words from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham's speech and insert them in the clause—that one object of this new committee shall be the improvement of the character of the films or raising the tone of the films. If he will do that, I will oppose my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam when he goes to a Division. Failing that I shall support him and vote against the clause.
LORD DANESFORT: I am in entire sympathy with the desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, and other members of your Lordships' House that there should be an improvement in the character of the films exhibited not only on Sundays, but on every day of the
686
week. There is room for improvement. I think we are all agreed on that. But I am satisfied that this clause will not advance us one inch in the direction which is desired. In the first place the language of the clause, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, pointed out, does not indicate the object which we desire—namely, the improvement of films. The clause speaks of "encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." If the real object is the improvement of films, why not say so in definite terms? That, however, is not my main objection because that could be got over by a change of words on Report. My second objection, and it is a very far-reaching one, is that the Privy Council is not a suitable body. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has already pointed that out and so have other members. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, paid what was no doubt intended to be a compliment to the members of the Privy Council when he said they could go round and judge the films themselves.
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord I am sure does not wish to misrepresent me. I said they might not be qualified to judge of the technique of a film, but I had faith enough to think that they would know a good film from a bad one.
LORD DANESFORT: I accept the explanation of the noble Lord, but I am not so sure about that. I am not sure they would know a good film from a bad one. I should be sorry to have a committee composed of my noble friends Lord Banbury, the Earl of Crawford and Lord Irwin deputed to go round the cinema houses of London and tell us what were good and bad films. To my mind the Privy Council are a totally unsuitable body. They have neither the staff nor the organisation for conducting such operations. There is a third objection, and that is that the amount of money they would get under this Bill is ridiculously inadequate. They would not be able to effect anything. Surely, it would be far better to postpone this matter of improving films until we can get a properly organised body supplied with funds—I hope not from the public Exchequer—to deal with this matter. If we start now with the totally inadequate machinery of the Privy Council we shall postpone the appointment of a really

687
effective body perhaps for years. We shall make a failure of the experiment and the experiment may not be made again.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies may I express the hope that, as in another place Government Whips were not put on, if he argues in favour of the retention of the clause he will leave the question to a free vote of the House?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The history of this clause which has been given by a number of your Lordships will have satisfied your Lordships that this was not an essential part of the Bill as originally introduced by the Government and nothing that has happened since makes it into an essential part of the Bill. The clause was introduced in pursuance of a suggestion made in Committee. It was left to a free vote of the House of Commons and the majority of the House of Commons were in favour of the insertion of the clause.
A NOBLE LORD: Eighteen.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The point is that there were eighteen less opposed to the clause than there were of those who wanted it in, and that was without pressure from the Government Whips. I think that the right method in approaching the consideration of this clause is not to see how large a majority was in a free vote in another place, but whether this is a desirable clause. If it is a desirable clause the fact that it is being passed at a late period of the Session or was inserted by the free wish of the House of Commons instead of by the dictation of the Government, seems in neither case a reason why your Lordships should reject it. If it is a bad clause out it ought to go. Therefore the question we have to consider is whether or not it is desirable that this clause or some clause substantially in this form should be part of the Bill.
It has been suggested that it is not within the Title of the Bill, but that is disposed of by the decision of the Speaker in another place. It is also suggested—and I am clearing away the things that do not matter in order to come to the ones that do—that this is a tax on the industry, but I am sure your Lordships appreciate that this money is a specified percentage with a moderate maximum of a fund raised before ever this Fund
688
comes to be created, and therefore it does not mean that the consumer, as Mr. Jack Jones seems to think, would pay more for seeing the cinema in the same way as he might be called upon to pay more for his beer.
The reasons why this clause was regarded as valuable were stated very fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, and were set out in the discussions in another place. There is no doubt, I think, that the cinema has become a part of the daily life of the nation. The great bulk of our people habitually go to the cinema. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is a fact. There is no doubt, I fear, that the cinema and the sort of entertainment which is given there does not always tend to raise the moral sense or to have a salutary effect on the character of those who go to those places. It has been suggested that there should be a rigid censorship of films. There is a Board of Censors which does exercise a certain and valuable control, but I do not believe that you are ever going to get the cinematograph and the picture theatre to become what we should like them to become as instruments of good and not of evil by merely negative methods of censorship. You want some positive and constructive means of improving the cinema and those who support this clause think that there is here given an opportunity of trying an experiment.
I do not deny that it is an experiment. Just before this Bill came to be discussed in another place there had been a report of a careful inquiry to which the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, referred, in which a great deal of the information about what happens in foreign countries had no doubt been considered. I have not had the opportunity of studying the report myself, but I understand that in most other countries there is some organisation which is directed towards the purpose of improving the standard of films displayed. It was thought that here was an opportunity of seeing whether we could not do something of the kind in this country. Admittedly it is on a moderate scale. I think it was said that the amount available would be about £8,000. It would be done, if this remains part of the Bill, in a way that involves no cost to the taxpayer, and in these days that is a valuable provision.

689
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who said the Government should introduce some other Bill setting up some other plan, which I was not very clear about, and finding money from a source he did not certify, but which should not come out of the pocket of the Exchequer, in order to do what we are trying to do here. But it is difficult to see what other source of money and what other scheme can be suggested. It is true that individual members of the Privy Council are not experts on the subject of films any more than upon medical or scientific research, but the Privy Council habitually acts through committees in matters of this kind and it was thought that it was not an unwise choice to select a body which was accustomed to handling matters which are outside the ordinary scope of strictly business considerations for the duty of trying to administer this Fund and to achieve the object which I think appeals to most of your Lordships—the object of improving the standard and raising the tone of the films.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Might that be put into the Bill? That is all I ask.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As I gather, the noble Earl would approve of a proposal to use a Fund of this character to improve the tone of the cinematograph. That is exactly what this clause is intended to provide, but one necessarily finds rather wide language because you are dealing with a subject about which it is difficult to be precise. When you are handing over this comparatively small sum of money for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph "as a means of entertainment and instruction"—those words are retained because we want to make it clear what Parliament has in mind—surely any committee set up by the Privy Council to administer the Fund must see that the purpose is that which I indicated in the speech I delivered a little earlier.
It is suggested they may use the money in some undesirable way. We have done our best to make sure that a full control is to be kept over the administration. In the clause as amended at the instance of the Government provisions were put in to make it even more clear than originally. We have to have the Treasury satisfied, and also the Comptroller and Auditor-General who, as your Lordships know, is the watchdog and steward of the House of Commons. We have to have
690
from him a report as to what happens each year, and it is to be laid before Parliament, in order that Parliament may be satisfied that the money is being used in the way and for the purpose it intended. Surely, that does safeguard the position. We have provided that there need be no money given in any year unless a useful purpose can be found to which it should be devoted within the meaning of the clause. We have provided that the way in which the money has been spent shall be laid before Parliament each year, after audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and we have therefore, I suggest, an ample assurance that Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that the money is being used in the way it and the Government intend, if this clause stands part of the Bill.
As I have said, this is not in its origin a Government proposal. In another place it was left to the free vote of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, whether we put on the Whips in this House or not it does not have quite that effect which those of us who have sat in another place so rejoice to recognise when we are in the Government, but which we are not quite so pleased to see when we are in Opposition. It is not a matter of confidence in the Government, and it is for your Lordships to make up your own minds, but I beg of you in making up your minds not to be led astray by considerations as to whether or not this clause was passed by a small majority, whether or not it was introduced at a late period of the Session, or whether or not there has been exhaustive inquiry by the Government. I ask you to bear in mind also that this is at any rate an attempt, which has commended itself to a great many people, after a great deal of thought and after considerable examination by the Committee to which reference has been made, to do something to raise the standard of films in this country, which sorely needs raising—an attempt which, if it fails, cannot cost the country anything, which can annually be reviewed, and which cannot in my submission do any harm and can be easily productive of a great deal of good. With those words I leave the matter to the decision of the House.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hailsham, V.

Heneage, L.

Mersey, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Irwin, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Latymer, L.

Wellington, D.

Alvingham, L.

Marks, L.

Askwith, L.

Marley, L.

Reading, M.

Barnard, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Salisbury, M.

Cawley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rhayader, L.

Bradford, E.

Rochester, L.

Buxton, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Cavan, E.

Desborough, L.

Snell, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Somerleyton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Ernle, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Morton, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Templemore, L.

Poulett, E.

Forester, L.

Teynham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Trent, L.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Vivian, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bathurst, E.

Armstrong, L.

Joicey, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Mount Temple, L.

Midleton, E.

Bayford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnock, L.

Remnant, L.

Allendale, V.

Clwyd, L.

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Cranworth, L.

Wharton, L.

Brentford, V.

Danesfort, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Prescribed percentage" means such percentage not exceeding 5 per cent., as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament;
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in the definition of "prescribed percentage," to leave out "may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State," and insert "a Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, prescribe by regulations made by him." The noble Viscount said: This is the consequential Amendment on the first Amendment I moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("as") to ("and") in line 25 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Extension of Powers to allow Cinematograph Entertainments.
Supplementary.
9. No order laid before Parliament under the provisions of this Schedule shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament, to be a Special Order, unless that House, by order made after the passing of this Act, directs that such orders shall be deemed to be Special Orders.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out paragraph 9. The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I move to give effect to the promise which I gave to my noble friend the Chairman of Committee, in order to enable it to remain clear that no attempt at all is being made to interfere in any way with the power of each House of Parliament to control its own procedure and I think the method which he suggested is the one which I am now moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out paragraph 9.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may supplement what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House by information of which noble Lords may not be aware, that I have put down for "No day named"—because of course we cannot say when the Bill will receive the Royal Assent—an Amendment to the Standing Order in fulfilment of the suggestions I made to your Lordships, which I gathered found favour with your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN): My Lords, it will be a relief to your Lordships to turn for a few moments from a controversial measure to one which is not a matter of controversy. The Isle of Man (Customs) Bill is an old friend and appears with unfailing regularity every year. But during this Session it has been necessary to introduce two Bills dealing with Isle of Man Customs. This Bill has been rendered necessary by the passing of the Import Duties Act, and the Bill in the main gives power to the Governor of the Isle of Man to adopt the draft orders which have been made by the Treasury and any regulations which have been made by the Board of Trade. In short the Bill proposes to make the Customs Duties and regulations in the Isle of Man the same as they are in the United Kingdom, which, of course, your Lordships will appreciate is a very necessary thing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, this is another familiar measure. It also appears with unfailing regularity every year and your Lordships are perfectly aware of its purpose. It is to enable the
694
Public Works Loans Commissioners to continue to make comparatively small grants to the poorer local authorities who are not able to raise loans in the market. The Bill is an annual Bill in order to protect the rights of Parliament to regulate the amount of the expenditure, or rather the amount of loans that can be sanctioned by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Sankey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 32, page 13, line 33, leave out ("no person shall,") and insert ("a person articled to a solicitor after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall not")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am going to ask the House to agree to the Commons Amendments under these circumstances. The first Amendment is in Clause 32. It is rather a technical one, but, as your Lordships know, this was a measure for consolidation, and in a consolidation measure you cannot alter the law. The old law read:
"A person articled to a solicitor after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall not "
and the draftsman, thinking it would make rather better sense—and I think he was right in thinking so—altered it to "No person shall." But unfortunately when we looked at it that made a great difference. It was thought that this change of wording did not alter the law. It has now been found that a barrister of more than five years standing, referred to in Clause 34, would be or might be affected by the change. It is clearly undesirable to run any risk of having altered the law, and, our attention being called to this, the Government pro-

695
posed that this Amendment should be put down in order that the law should not be changed. I beg therefore to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 14, line 27, leave out from ("term") to the end of subsection (1).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is really a consequential Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 53, page 25, line 13, leave out ("confined in prison") and insert ("a prisoner in any prison").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The third Amendment is rather a curious one. Clause 53 reads thus:
"No solicitor whilst confined in prison shall act as a solicitor."
A lynx-eyed member of the House of Commons, quite rightly, saw that the old Act instead of saying, "No solicitor whilst confined in prison" read: "No solicitor whilst a prisoner in any prison." We have no objection to sticking to the words of the old Act. I move that we agree with that Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I move that this House do now consider the Commons Amendments to the Children and Young Persons Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the subsection and insert ("sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held.")
The Commons propose to amend the above Amendment as follows:
Line 4, leave out ("or at different times")
Line 5, leave out ("or at").
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I think you will agree that the other place has dealt very kindly with the almost innumerable Amendments which were made to the Children and Young Persons Bill. They have disagreed totally only with one Amendment, and they are proposing not to disagree with the others, subject to comparatively slight Amendments or alterations. The first matter that arises is on Page 2 of the Bill, line 31. It deals with the building in which the juvenile courts are held. It was the purpose of the Bill as far as possible to dissociate the juvenile court from the ordinary court, and for that reason it was proposed in the Bill that the court should not be held without the permission of the Secretary of State in the ordinary police court room.
Your Lordships will note that the Commons do not disagree with the Amendment which was made by your Lordships, but suggest two rather small Amendments. They suggest that we shall leave out in line 4 "or at different times" and then in line 5 leave out "or at", so that your Lordships' Amendment will read:
"sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days from those on which sittings of such other courts are held."
The Amendment which is suggested by the House of Commons is in order to avoid what is considered to be very undesirable, that at the end of the ordinary police court's proceedings the court shall be turned into a juvenile court in the same room, still leaving it possible,

697
and indeed in most eases, I suppose, the common practice, to use the police courts but at different times. The Amendment which was made by your Lordships was urged mainly on the ground of economy, and the Amendment which is suggested by the House of Commons will not, of course, involve any additional expense. I beg to move that this House agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Amendments made by the Commons.—(Viscount Snowden.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I hope you will agree with the Amendments made by another place. It does not involve any extra expense. That is, I think, a great matter. It ought not to involve any extra trouble, because no fresh arrangements would be needed, and it does avoid the objectionable practice of having an ordinary court, closing that down, hanging a label on the door and saying, "Now we have started a juvenile court." Another place has met all our views in regard to this subsection, and I would submit most respectfully that we should agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 12, line 5, at end insert ("and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable, privately whipped with not more than six strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they deem it desirable that the birching of young boys by the police should be discontinued.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, we come now to the one matter on which the House of Commons has totally disagreed with the Amendment which was inserted in the Bill. It deals with the question of birching boys. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of whipping as a corrective of juvenile delinquencies. Your Lordships are perfectly familiar with all the arguments for and against. I propose, therefore, to devote the few words that I shall offer on this Amendment to the question whether it is desirable that your Lordships should insist upon your Amendment. I would point out that on the
698
various stages of the Bill in the House of Commons, although divergent opinions were expressed, neither when this matter was before the Standing Committee, nor on Report or Second Reading or Third Reading did a Division take place upon this matter.
When your Lordships' Amendment was under discussion in the House of Commons there was quite a long discussion. It occupied something like two hours, and, as I have said, at the end of that discussion your Lordships' Amendment was disagreed to without any dissentient voice. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I venture to say that I think from many points of view it would be undesirable that your Lordships should insist upon your Amendment, especially in the face of the unanimity of the House of Commons. It would, if I might be permitted to say so, put your Lordships in a rather unenviable position in the country if your Lordships figured as the body that wanted to maintain whipping. For those reasons I ask your Lordships not to insist upon your Amendment. I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment at page 12, line 5.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Snowden.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have read and re-read many times the OFFICIAL REPORT in another place on the objections to this Amendment which was passed by your Lordships by such an overwhelming majority. I am afraid that the more I study it the less am I convinced that your Lordships were wrong in passing it. If I may detain your Lordships at somewhat unusual length I will try to deal with some of the arguments put forward against the Amendments in the House of Commons. Mr. Stanley said:
"The Amendment is to restore in the Bill the provisions for the whipping of boys under fourteen which we took out of the original Bill."
He was addressing members of the House of Commons. It was not the House of Commons who took it out of the Bill. It was taken out as the Bill was introduced into another place. It was done by the Government without any reference to members of the House of Commons, and it was taken out in the

699
face of recommendations to the contrary by such a sacrosanct body as a Committee appointed by Government is generally supposed to be. One can imagine what the arguments would have been supposing the Committee had recommended anything against whipping. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, would have shaken the document in your Lordships' faces and said "This Report is sacrosanct." Of course he would.
Then Mr. Stanley said that, although the topic was discussed, the Bill received a Second Reading without a Division. This however, is not a one-clause Bill dealing only with the abolition of the rod and it is unthinkable that its rejection should be moved solely on that ground. Then we come to the arguments that it is not the parent or the schoolmaster who administers the punishment but the policeman and also that this form of punishment is on the decrease. I can tell your Lordships why it is on the decrease. The magistrates all over the country frequently say to the father: "We have the power to whip this boy. Are you going to deal with him? If not, we will." If the power is taken away from the magistrates to inflict this punishment, this power of compromise is lost and the boy may get off without any punishment. The hon. Member talked of the boy best adapted to corporal punishment being guilty of petty offences. Surely you cannot regard endangering life or cruelty to children or animals as petty offences. Then he said there was nothing romantic in being sent to an approved school. I agree, but it is extremely expensive to the community at large and, if he repeated the offence, that would be soon enough to send him to an approved school.
Another hon. Member argued that the boy may be ordered to be whipped in one town for a less serious offence than in a neighbouring town, but you have only to read the newspapers to see that magistrates all over the country mete out different punishments, especially under the Road Traffic Act. There is no better example than the Road Traffic Act of different punishments for the same offence. I would here apologise to that hon. Member for having stated that the Young Offenders Committee were unanimous in their recommendations for I find that they were not. It was stated in
700
another place that this is not a Party Bill. I agree but I would ask the noble Lord why the Party Whips were put on when this Amendment was carried in this House. I saw with great regret that the magistrates in one place had ordered the whipping of a small boy of eight and I shall later on have a proposal to make to your Lordships on that point, which I hope will not only appeal to your Lordships but to another place. Then it is said that the police do not like the task, but such evidence as I have been able to obtain is that they look upon it as part of their duty.
In another passage an hon. Member said of your Lordships:
"If they were dealing with their own sons …I would not care; but they are dealing with the sons and daughters of my class."
If any of your Lordships' children were guilty of endangering the lives of others, they would certainly come before the magistrates and would be convicted. There is not very much in that argument. Then the hon. Member seems to have argued against himself, because he said:
"There has never been so intolerant a House of Commons as the House to-day. This House is more intolerant than it was when I came here ten years ago; and here we have the evidence of it in this Amendment."
But the Amendment was rejected by the House of Commons! In another passage the hon. Member said:
"Think of a mother standing and looking at her own flesh and blood being whipped."
She is not obliged to. It is purely optional whether she goes there or not.
Finally I come to the proposal I have to make and it is that this Amendment should read in the following terms:
"and when the child is a male, who has attained the age of ten years, to adjudge the child to be"
And so on. The remainder of the Amendment will remain as before.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I much prefer listening to the noble Viscount who has just sat down when he is speaking on grammar than when he is speaking about whipping, and I hope very much that your Lordships will follow the advice of the noble Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal, and not insist on this Amendment being retained in the Bill. I think it will really put

701
your Lordships in a rather ridiculous light and add another page to the jokes always being made about your Lordships' House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Where?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: In the country, I am afraid. As to this question of whipping, I was whipped when I was ten years old and it did not do me any good whatsoever. I was whipped for organising a steeplechase in the dormitory of my private school. After I had been whipped I felt very bitter resentment against the master, who obviously enjoyed whipping me, and a firm determination to organise another steeplechase as soon as I possibly could. I do not believe that it is a corrective in any way. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, who, in support of this Amendment, went back to history in order to support the argument in favour of the rod. I do not want to go further back than the early Victorian father, with his smoking cap and slippers and a rod in his dressing room. He used to take his children by the scruff of the neck and beat them. We have given up those methods. They are the methods of the lazy man who thinks it is a short cut to use the rod when other forms—much more difficult I own—of correction are much more efficacious. I am convinced that this is a very retrograde step. It will be regarded as such in the country. There is this further point, which was mentioned by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that the fact that a constable is to administer the punishment, not a parent or a, schoolmaster but a constable who is a complete stranger to the child, adds to the undesirability of such a punishment being inflicted. I hope very much that the advice given by the Lord Privy Seal will be followed by your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I can hardly believe that your Lordships will have been much influenced by the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I rarely heard a more inconclusive speech than that of the noble Lord. He thinks that your Lordships will become ridiculous in the country if you insist on a particular form of punishment which has been used by schoolmasters in all times. I happen to have had some little experience of public schools as a governor and also of other schools
702
when I was officially connected with the Government. Schoolmasters almost without exception used to say up to a very few years ago that the one thing you wanted to do by corporal punishment was to avoid prolonged impositions, prolonged detentions and other punishments very deleterious to a boy's health. The noble Lord did not say how he would avoid this. He said that he himself was greatly embittered by being subjected to castigation for a school offence. I do not think that in that respect or in any other the peculiar mentality of the noble Lord impresses your Lordships' House.
I would mention another case which occurred to me when my noble friend below me was defending the measure on the last occasion. I remember a case exactly the opposite. My father was at a private tutor's where his father was also a pupil, and I have heard him relate that his father happened to be a very troublesome little boy. It was almost impossible to get him to do any lessons. Various impositions had been tried and then the unfortunate preceptor, who did not even possess a cane, went out into the garden and cut a green holly stick and applied it to him with such success that he became afterwards one of the best, most virtuous and most reliable boys you could wish for at a public school. I am sure my noble friend would not wish to keep from others that advantage to which your Lordships possibly owe the intellect which we have seen displayed in the debates on this Bill. I have here a cutting from one of the newspapers this morning reporting that at Ramsgate Police Court yesterday two Minster boys were fined one pound each for cruelty by mutilating swans. It is quite obvious that those boys ought to have had half a dozen strokes of the birch. What was good enough for generations of boys should not be done away with in order to save other punishments less effective and much more deleterious to the health of those concerned. I think your Lordships should not be afraid of insisting on this Amendment on which you have as much right to an opinion as any member of the House of Commons.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this subject and to express the hope that we shall not insist on this Amendment. I believe that the principal argument alleged as the reason for putting in the Amendment was the illustration of the

703
case of Solomon. Solomon had at least three hundred children. If any right rev. Prelate were here I might ask the exact number. In a family of that size it would be no uncommon thing if Solomon thoroughly lost his temper. Having to control these three hundred odd children he was quite right in acting just as modern parents act and in quoting or creating some axiom in support of what was plainly and palpably loss of temper. I can give you an instance which I think has a considerable bearing upon this matter. What you have to do with children who are difficult and who are perhaps prone to acts of cruelty is to preserve the instinct of self-respect in them. If you ruin it, if you destroy it, you have parted with your last hope of saving that child from deteriorating in character.
I myself suffered severely from the cane. I will tell you the occasion. I do not think my nervous system was especially acute. What happened was this. A master told me to come to him at noon. I was a very small boy and I had not the ghost of a notion when noon was. I thought it was nine o'clock, and I went to him at nine o'clock. He was very angry, told me to take off my coat and caned me. When he had finished I was burning with indignation and I said: "I wonder, Sir, whether this performance makes you feel as great a brute as it does me." His reply was: "Take off your coat again." That I had expected. I took it off and I stood before him again. Suddenly he changed his mind and said: "No, stay to tea with me." From that day forward I felt a certain degradation and I felt that the instinct of self-respect in me had been permanently wounded. I would ask your Lordships to consider what would be the effect upon children of these public whippings. I believe it would be to destroy the one hope you have of training these children to be useful citizens. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not insist upon this Amendment.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than three minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said he was beaten once at school. I was beaten many times at school and every time it was a deterrent, I have not heard anything from the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal except
704
vague talk about the abolition of whipping. I have heard nothing to make me change my opinion that it would be a very dangerous thing to abolish whipping for juveniles. Since the Second Reading of this Bill I have taken the opinion of many people who have to administer justice in this country and almost every one of them told me that it would be a serious thing if whipping was done away with. I think that they surely are qualified to judge in this matter. I should like to put one point to the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden. He said that great discredit had been brought upon whipping. I have not yet discovered who has brought the discredit, but I do know that two days after I had had the honour of speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill I received a communication from the secretary of one of the branches of the Anti-Blood Sports League. It consisted of a long cutting from a Bristol newspaper with a large headline saying, "All Peers have been whipped" and then there was the ordinary propaganda of the organisation. The only thing I could gather was that I was a monster and your Lordships who voted against the abolition of whipping were monsters and that whipping was a blood sport. I must say that I think, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that the old motto of "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is just as true to-day as it was in the days of your Lordships' grandfathers.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I should like to correct one point in Lord Ernle's speech. He seemed to suggest that we contend that the man who himself had cause of offence might in hot temper be the person to administer chastisement. That is exactly the opposite of what is proposed.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, the speech—I think the powerful speech—of the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, disposes of one of the main arguments which induced your Lordships, I think, to pass this Amendment when it was before you some time ago. He has given emphatic reasons why Solomon believed you might spoil the child by sparing the rod, but I think none of us to-day is faced by the problem which apparently drove Solomon to this conclusion. The noble Earl who has just sat down has surely given us a very strong reason from his own experience why whipping should not be imposed.

705
He told us that he was whipped upon a great many occasions and that it was always a deterrent. May I then ask him how it came to pass that these repeated whippings were necessary? It is evident that the first, second, third and fourth did not act as a deterrent, and if any inference is to be drawn from the remarks of the noble Lord it is that the whipping had the very opposite effect. The noble Earl wanted some evidence for the statement that whipping is discredited. It is discredited by the fact that it is falling into disuse as a punishment inflicted by the courts and for the very reason that it has been proved by practical experience not to be a deterrent.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, raised one or two minor points. He said we had been told that this was not a Party Bill. If that expression was used it was not used in the sense that this was a Bill on which loyal supporters of the Government could vote just as they wished. It can only be regarded as non-Party in the sense that the provisions of the Bill are generally accepted by all Parties. It is a Government Bill and the Government is, of course, responsible for its provisions. The noble Viscount corrected an inference we might have drawn from his first references to the Report of the Committee on Young Offenders and may I therefore also make a correction? I said I was under the impression that whipping could not be inflicted on a child between the ages of eight and ten. I find that whipping can be inflicted on a child between eight and ten years of age.
I think I have dealt with the points raised since I spoke last, but I would again repeat that this is a matter on which there is a great deal of difference of opinion and I would beg your Lordships not to put this House into conflict with another place upon a matter of this sort. I think it would be a great mis-
take and there is no likelihood that the other place would be prepared to agree to your Lordships' Amendment. It is very undesirable that upon this matter there should be a conflict between the two Houses, and a conflict which might involve the loss of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the Reason given for the Commons disagreement is that "they deem it desirable that the birching of young boys by the police should be discontinued." We have not heard very much about that particular side of the argument, but I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether this Reason means that the Commons are not opposed to birching by some other authorised person, but are opposed only when it is administered by the police. I think a good many of us would be satisfied if they would accept a modification in the sense that the birching should be given by some person authorised by the magistrates, the Home Secretary or some properly qualified person. The words seem clearly to indicate that the only objection is to birch-other person.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I do not think the disagreement with your Lordships' Amendment could be interpreted as confined to birching by the police. Those words are put in rather as being the phrase of the Bill and I am sure that all who followed the discussion in another place will agree that the objection was to whipping by order of the magistrates. I am sure there would be no difference in the attitude of the House of Commons as between whipping by the police and whipping by some other person.
On Question, Whether the Motion, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Poulett, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allendale, V.

Ernle, L.

Mersey, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Ullswater, V.

Hanworth, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Cavan, E.

Alvingham, L.

Joicey, L.

De La Warr, E.

Arnold L.

Latymer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Askwith, L.

Marks, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Sanderson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rochester, L.

Stanmore, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Burnham, V.

Heneage, L.

Bradford, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Irwin, L.

Addington, L.

Jessel, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lamington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barnard, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Macclesfield, E.

Bayford, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan- William.)

Mount Temple, L.

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Morton, E.

Cranworth, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strachie, L.

Selborne, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Teynham, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Vivian, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Wharton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 30, line 26, after ("homes") insert
("Provided that, where a place or places of detention have been provided under the principal Act Which are suitable for use as remand homes, and so long as such place or places are adequately maintained, they shall be deemed to be remand homes and there shall be no obligation on any council to provide further or additional accommodation in pursuance of this section.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the standard required in, the case of remand homes will not differ from that required in the case of existing places of detention and because councils may be trusted, without any direction, to arrange for the continual use of such places wherever possible.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, in the Commons they disagreed with our Amendment, and I have to propose that we do not insist upon it, but that we insert the Amendment in lieu thereof which is printed on the Paper. That Amendment, with certain small verbal alterations—namely, substituting "area" for the words "county or borough" in two places, for the purpose of meeting the case of Scotland—is as follows:
"(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a council to provide additional remand homes for their area so long as any places of detention provided under the principal Act and available for use by the council as remand homes remain suitable for that purpose and sufficient for the needs of the area."
I understand that the Government are willing to accept this alternative proposal, and I therefore do not think it necessary to add any words to commend it.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I am prepared to accept the substituted Amendment, and I therefore have to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, but proposes an Amendment in lieu thereof.— (Viscount Snowden.)
Moved, That in lieu thereof the following Amendment be made:— Page 31, line 3, at end, insert: ("(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a council to provide additional remand homes for their area so long as any places of detention provided under the principal Act and available for use by the council as remand homes remain suitable for that purpose and sufficient for the needs of the area.")—(Lord Danesfort.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 37, line 42, leave out from the beginning of line 42 to the end of line 2 in page 38.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:
Page 38, line 2, at end, insert ("in light agricultural or horticultural work").
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This Amendment was moved by Lord Banbury, and is with regard to the employment of children under twelve. The House of Commons disagreed to that Amendment but have amended the words so restored by a slight addition, providing that in the case of children under twelve the prohibition shall not apply where the

709
employment is of a light and seasonable character. I think your Lordships will agree that it is a very reasonable exception. There are many circumstances in which it is very desirable, or not undesirable, that children of eleven or under twelve shall be permitted to engage in seasonable occupation, under care, and I hope that Lord Banbury will agree to this modification. I therefore have to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment, and agree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. The words which the Commons have inserted are "in light agricultural or horticultural work."
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and agrees with the Amendment made by the Commons in lieu thereof.— (Viscount Snowden.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I agree to that.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 39, line 13, at end insert the following new clause:
Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of juvenile persons.
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may make by-laws with respect to the employment of persons under the age of eighteen years, but not being children.
(2) By-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes, and different localities, trade, occupations and circumstances, and may contain provisions for prescribing—

(i) the number of hours in each day or in each week for which and the times of day at which they may be employed;

(ii) the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest;

(iii) the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them;

(iv) any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment.

(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to—

(a) employment in or about the delivery, collection, or transport of goods except in the capacity of van boy, errand boy or messenger;

(b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employment in any capacity as aforesaid;

(c) employment in the building or engineering trades, not being employment in any such capacity as aforesaid;

710

(d) employment in agriculture;

(e) employment in domestic service except as non-resident daily servant;

(f) employment in any ship, as defined in Section four of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920;

provided that this section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.")
The Commons propose to amend the above new clause as follows:
line 33, by leaving out from, ("ship,") to the end of paragraph, and inserting ("or boat registered in the United Kingdom, as a British ship, or in any British fishing boat entered in the fishing boot register") instead thereof;
line 36, by leaving out from, the beginning to the end of the Amendment, and inserting:
("(4) An order of the Secretary of State appointing a date for this section to come into operation shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall not make the order until the draft has been approved by Resolutions passed in the same Session of Parliament by both Houses of Parliament.")
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, these are Amendments made by the Commons to the clause that was inserted by Lord Astor. One Amendment is in regard to a ship. The Board of Trade, with their practical experience, think that it is not desirable that the word "ship" should be kept in. With regard to the Commons other Amendment, your Lordships will remember that the proviso that was attached to Lord Astor's clause said that the order should not come into operation until it had been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Amendment in regard to that proviso which the House of Commons has inserted is that it shall be on the order of the Secretary of State, but that the Secretary of State shall not make the order until the draft has been approved by Resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament. The only effect of the change is that it will be left to the Secretary of State to prepare the draft. I think that that is an Amendment with which your Lordships will agree. I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Amendments made by the Commons.—(Viscount Snowden.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 86, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:—
Page 86, line 40, at end insert ("and Section seventy-four of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860, shall, except in so far as it applies to cases tried on indictment, cease to have effect").
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, after the result of the Division which has just been taken upon the question of whipping, I do not think that this need be moved. It was to deal with whipping in Scotland. Now that your Lordships have insisted upon your Amendment I suppose you will insist on this. I formally move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment, but agrees with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and doth agree with the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Motion disagreed to: Lords Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 99, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is inconsistent with other provisions in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This last Amendment is consequential on the previous Amendment, but I formally move that this House cloth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment—(Viscount Snowden.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: But I think it is necessary. It is a drafting Amendment, and necessary.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I hesitate to express an opinion on Scottish law, but I am instructed that this is consequential upon the House of Commons disagreement with your Lordships' Amendment on whipping in the body of the Bill, and that therefore it would be inconsistent in regard to Scotland if the course were not followed by your Lordships' House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We insist.
On Question, Motion disagreed to: Lords Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments: the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee read and agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Amendments and Reasons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 8 [Approval, validity, coming into effect, variation and revocation of schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the first is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("and (ii)").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 10:
Interim development orders.
Provided that—
(b) an application for permission to use any building which is erected in substitution for an existing building, or other such previous building as aforesaid, and is commenced within two years after the destruction or demolition of the previous building, for any purpose of the same or similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition shall not be refused unless such a use would be seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood.
(5) An applicant who is aggrieved by the refusal of the authority to consent to his application, or by any conditions imposed by them, may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he received notice of the decision of the authority, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, after taking into consideration any offer by the authority to make a contribution under the last preceding subsection, may dismiss or allow the appeal, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks proper to impose, but the Minister, before deciding any such appeal, shall, if either the appellant or the authority so desire, afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
The decision of the Minister on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out the last five words of subsection (3) —"seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood"—and insert "of a noxious or otherwise offensive character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment to an Amendment accepted on Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood") and insert ("of a noxious or otherwise offensive character").—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("such an application") and insert ("an application under the last preceding subsection").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out all words in subsection (5) after the second "authority" and insert "appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the property to which the notice relates is situated or to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to insert the petty sessional division as the authority, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor told me he would consider whether or not he could insert on the Third Beading words which would carry out my meaning. I have altered the proposal slightly by putting in the words "a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme"; that is to say, I have taken the words which are in Clauses 12 and 13 of this Bill. I do not see why, if it is right that under Clauses 12 and 13 these words should be inserted, it is wrong to insert them in Clause 10. I understand that one of the reasons against the Amendment is that the officials of the Ministry are more competent to decide cases of this sort than the petty sessional division or a
714
tribunal to be set up ad hoc. I do not know whether that is so or not.
My chief reason in moving to put in these words is that I object very much to the tendency, which is increasing yearly, of officials of the Ministry taking into their hands judicial power. It may be that the officials of the Ministry are very capable persons; probably they are; I would be the last person to say they are not; but they are not a judicial body, and it has always been the rule in England that when Parliament has made the law interpretation of that law should be left to a Court, of Law and not to a Ministry, however capable it is. Of course the Minister does not take any trouble about this. He does not know anything about it. He will leave it to his officials. I object very strongly to the officials taking the place of a Court of Law. Those are the reasons for which I introduced the Amendment, and as the hour is now getting late I will not dilate upon them. I hope I have put them clearly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to the end of subsection (5), and insert the said new words. (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will be as brief as I possibly can in answering the noble Lord. The Government cannot accept this Amendment for a great variety of reasons. I know what the noble Lord said on the last occasion about the Minister being an appeal from himself. That is quite a misapprehension. All that the general interim order issued by the Minister does is to authorise the local authorities to grant permission for interim development. It in no way sets out what the local authority is to do in any particular case. That, in the first place, is wholly a matter for the local authority. The Minister therefore has, and can have, no knowledge of cases until they come before him by way of appeal, and to say this is an appeal to the Minister from the Minister is really a misapprehension of the whole of the clause.
With regard to the next point. This has been the law ever since the Town Planning Act came into existence in 1909. I am perfectly well aware that the noble Lord said to me on one occasion when we were in a difference that he had not

715
been impressed by that argument. What I want to point out is that not only has this been the law since the Town Planning Act came into existence in 1909, but it has worked extremely well and there has been no complaint against it. The next point the noble Lord made is that we have put this in in Clauses 12 and 13, so why not put it in Clause 10? The answer is a simple one. It is an entirely different matter from that dealt with in Clauses 12 and 13. Clauses 12 and 13 certainly give the right of appeal to a special tribunal, but when the scheme contains a provision enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings it also provides that any persons aggrieved by any decision of the responsible authority under the provisions of the clause may appeal to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose. That is a clause taken from an Act of Parliament and is known as the Bath Clause. It gave a special tribunal which, I think, is composed of the President of the Surveyors' Institute, the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and a lawyer—about the most expensive tribunal you could possibly have.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Nominated by them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is not an appropriate body to deal with appeals bearing on the decision of a local authority during the interim period. This is a mere question of administration. With regard to appeals to justices, I dealt with that point upon the last occasion that we discussed this matter, and the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment. Justices are not a proper tribunal to do this. I pointed out on the last occasion that a great deal of the work done by the justices of this country is most admirably done, and I am sure we are all very thankful to the gentlemen who do that work without fee and without reward. I do not want to say too much about this matter, because I am responsible for the appointment of justices, but I do not think the justices are a fit tribunal all over the country to do this kind of work. Many issues cannot be satisfactorily decided without professional advice which is not available to the justices. One of the things the justices would have to do if they had to deal with an appeal of this kind
716
would be to have expert evidence, and that would mean that there would be present at the appeal learned counsel and expert witnesses and that would entail considerable expense. All this could be done much more cheaply by the Minister in London. I do not think I need say any further upon the point of the justices not being the fit and proper persons to do this particular sort of work.
I am sorry to take up so much of your Lordships' time, but I must add one word upon the last point, the question of a special tribunal. We have all heard the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, time after time reminding us of the necessity for economy. I am sorry to find him on this occasion an advocate for expense. All I can say is, "Et tu, Brute!" There are far too many tribunals being set up in this country. Many Acts of Parliament have been passed in which the duty is put upon the Lord Chancellor to appoint somebody as a special tribunal, and your Lordships little know the expense to which the country is being put through the setting up of these special tribunals. Of course you can get a man—you can get hundreds of men—to sit on special tribunals for a guinea, but I would not care to trust them with a matter of this kind. There is the tribunal to which I have already referred. I do not want to say how much the sittings of that tribunal cost a day. If I were to tell your Lordships what sonic of the special tribunals do cost per day I think you would not want any more of them. My final point is that if the parties agree, they can, even under this, refer the matter to an arbitrator. That is an absolute protection for everybody. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, at the end of the Session is attempting to spoil a really valuable and admirable record as an advocate of economy.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out to the noble Lord that the clause says this? A Minister shall make a general order with respect to the interim development of land. Having made that general order the local people have to carry it out. If anybody is aggrieved by the action of the local people on the order of the Minister, then the only appeal is to the Minister. It is true I have put in my Amendment "a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose

717
under the scheme," and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has devoted a good deal of scorn to the idea that there should be an expensive tribunal, but I have only taken his own words. I am taking these words out of Clause 13 in the hope of conciliating the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I am following him. Is not that a good thing to do?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What, not to follow the noble and learned Viscount? I thought it was, and I did it for that reason. Another point is this. The noble and learned Viscount, as I understood him, has not replied to my chief argument, which is now, and which was, that when a person, a subject of His Majesty, is aggrieved by any action taken by any person under the authority of an Act of Parliament, the proper people to whom he should go to ask for redress of his grievance is not an official of the Ministry, but a Court of Law, and on that I believe I shall have the support of the great majority of the people of this country. It is now late and there are not many members of your Lordships' House here and unless my noble friend Lord Halsbury gets up and supports me, and I think he ought to on this question, I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a. Division.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot help my noble friend Lord Banbury. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount on the Woolsack that there are far too many tribunals to-day. I am certain that there are too many in this Bill and we certainly do not want any more. I would only point out this, the noble Viscount on the Woolsack did not say how much these things cost, but some of us can make a shrewd guess. You would not have fewer than three people on the tribunal and, after paying their fees, railway fares, a registrar and a secretary, you would be lucky if you got but of it for less than £120 or £150 a day. My noble friend Lord Banbury seems to forget that at present the clause provides that it shall be a tribunal appointed by the Minister.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That was put in to meet the wishes of the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, after ("was") insert ("confirmed or").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 17:
Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.
17.—(1) Where a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect, the council of any county borough or county district which, or any part of which, is situate within the area to winch the resolution applies or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district, may at any time make an order with respect to any building of special architectural or historic interest within that area and within the district of that council directing that without their consent the building shall not be demolished, and may at any time vary or revoke an order so made by them.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or" before "historic" and after "historic" to insert "or artistic." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I move this Amendment to bring this clause into conformity with Clause 1 in which the word "artistic" appears.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 12, leave out ("or") and after ("historic") insert ("or artistic").— (Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Government are not very enamoured of this Amendment. We admit, of course, that it may be an advantage to have uniformity in drafting, but that is not the only consideration that has to be taken into account. As the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, pointed out earlier in the Bill, the question of what is or what is not artistic varies with time and circumstances. In this particular clause, where we are giving a new power to a local authority for the first time, we ought to avoid as far as possible any ambiguity as to what they can or cannot do. It is comparatively easy to determine what is of architectural interest or what is of historic interest. Those are attributes which instructed opinion will probably agree upon, but, if the local authority is also given power to make an order in respect of what is artistic, they might be given a very wide discretion. "Artistic" might apply to the setting

719
as well as to the structural qualities of the building. A distinction can be drawn between the reference in this clause and in other clauses.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19:
Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases.
(2) The Minister shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding subsection or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—
(ii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (g) of the said subsection, unless the scheme contains also provisions satisfactory to him for securing that—

(a) existing buildings may be maintained and their existing use continued; and

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in subsection (2) (ii) (a), after "existing," to insert "or similar." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in paragraph (ii) (d) of this subsection your Lordships will read:
"A new building so substituted as aforesaid may be used for any purpose of the same or a similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition."
If a new building may be used for any purpose of the same or a similar character, then a fortiori any building which may exist to-day may be able to be used for a similar use.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, after ("existing") insert ("or similar").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this matter is already covered, because Clause 53 defines "existing use" as being a use "of the same or a similar character."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Then I do not quite understand why it occurs in the line I quoted. If the noble Viscount does not wish to accept it, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in value]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, all the Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, lines 23 and 24, after ("agreement") insert ("or determination")
line 25, leave out ("to the") and insert ("in writing to the responsible")
line 28, leave out ("repayment") and insert ("payment")
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("the").(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 46:
Powers as to the preservation of trees.
(2) Where an area is so specified, the scheme may impose an obligation on the owner, if any part of the woodland is felled or otherwise destroyed, to undertake such replanting as would be in accordance with the practice of good forestry, but save as aforesaid the scheme shall not impose any control over forestry operations in the area.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved in subsection (2), to leave out "or otherwise destroyed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment proposed by the Government to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, who urged on Report that the inclusion of these words might be unfair to owners in cases where the woodlands are destroyed by accident. By leaving out these words this point will be met.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 18, leave out ("or otherwise destroyed").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 54 [Repeals]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 26, leave out ("fifty-three"> and insert ("fifty-two").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 55 [Special provisions as to Surrey County Council Act, 1931]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 18, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, it is perhaps rather late in the Bill on one of the last Amendments to make some protest against the wholesale acceptance of suggested alterations in drafting. I must apologise but it has only been recently pointed out that there is a possibility that my noble friend's grammar is not always so superior to that of Government Departments.
VISCOUNT BERTLE OF THAME: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, it is not my grammar. I must make a confession. I think "a court" or "a committee" ought to be treated in the singular, but it would involve two or three hundred Amendments in this Bill and in the Children Bill and, being of an indolent disposition, I have taken the line of least resistance and Followed the grammar of the Government.
VISCOUNT GAGE: That was just the point I wished to develop since I have had an opportunity of consulting the learned draftsmen on this point. What they pointed gut was that, although uniformity is desirable, the main consideration ought to be clearness of intention. Take the case where a multitude is followed by a plural verb. I will give an example where, if that is permitted, it is not too clear:
"Where a court is constituted of the Lord Mayor sitting alone".
If that were to read:
"Where a court are constituted of the Lord Mayor sitting alone"
the noble Lord will agree that it is not a very harmonious phrase.
But that is not strictly germane to the point I have been discussing. On this question of "whom" and "which" we think the meaning of the Bill as drafted is quite clear and that the word in the Bill is better than the one suggested. The phrase is again I think more harmonious. "A joint committee of which the local authorities who have concurred" is better than "a joint committee, of whom the local authorities who have concurred." I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer on this point, but I do think that in view of the very powerful manner in which we were reproved for slovenly drafting it is due to the draftsmen to point out that the question of uniformity has never been
722
considered absolutely essential. The main consideration is clearness of meaning.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the Government do not desire to be consistently bad I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sixth Schedule [Adaptations and Modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 85, line 15, leave out ("For") and insert ("In subsection (5) for the words real or personal' there shall be substituted the words heritable or moveable'; in the proviso to subsection (8) for the words where a disposition is by way of lease or tenancy agreement' there shall be substituted the words 'a claim made on the granting of a lease or tack which is' and the words 'the claim' shall be omitted; and for").
Page 90, line 35, after ("16") insert ("for the words 'real or personal' there shall be substituted the words 'heritabie or moveable' and").—(Viscount Gaye.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word or two about the history of these Amendments. The Bill was originally passed in your Lordships' House for the purpose of effecting economies in the gas industry by enabling gas companies to co-operate with one another in the working up and

723
the marketing of by-products and also to enable gas companies to save expenses in Private Bill legislation and to make economies generally. It was hoped that in that way these by-products would be produced more cheaply and that gas companies would be helped in the keen foreign competition they had to face. The Bill passed this House without dissent and it went to the House of Commons where it was read a second time. Then a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, with Mr. Wrottesley, K.C., as Chairman, recommended the inclusion of municipal gas undertakings as well as gas companies. These Amendments, numbering about a dozen and covering three printed pages, were inserted in the House of Commons in order to include municipal undertakings in the provisions of the Bill. All these Amendments are directed to that end and are either drafting Amendments or Amendments consequential on the introduction of municipal authorities into the Bill. I should point out that there is a printing error on page 2. In paragraph (ii) the word "to" should appear at the end of the third line so that the paragraph should read "in its application to those undertakings." As these Amendments all have the same purpose and as I understand the Government approve of them and they carry out the recommendations of various Committees and Royal Commissions, perhaps we may take them altogether. If your Lordships will allow me I will therefore move them collectively and ask your Lordships to approve of them all.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Bridgemen.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, before this question is put I should like to say a very few words on behalf of the Government. The Amendments which we are now considering were made at the instigation of the Government in order to bring the Bill into line with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses set up to consider the matter. That Committee was presided over by my noble friend Lord Marks, and I think it sat on May 5 and 6 last. I think, and I think most of your Lordships will think, that certain Bills which come up to this House from the House of Commons are
724
better Bills when they have passed through this House. In the case of this Bill I think it is a better Bill now that it has passed through the House of Commons. The Amendments made in it are fully accepted by the interests concerned and are entirely acceptable to the Government.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRUELTY TO DOGS.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government's attention has been drawn to recent prosecutions for cruelty to dogs, and whether action can be taken to ensure that a dog licence shall not be issued to any person who has been convicted of cruelty to dogs or other animals and punished by fine or imprisonment. The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain you more than two or three minutes in raising this question, although I am sure that it is a subject which will appeal to many of your Lordships on all sides of the House, as many, indeed most, of your Lordships own dogs yourselves. No doubt your Lordships' attention has been called to a recent prosecution reported in the Press of an individual named Kay who was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment for cruelty to a dog. This man, who had professed all his life to be a good Christian, and having just come from church one Sunday morning, most foully beat to death his dog with a hatchet because he said the dog was dangerous.
The facts, I understand, were that the dog ran to greet his master and jumped up, causing the man to stumble—so his implication, I suppose, was that because the dog in the exuberance of life and pleasure at seeing his master jumped up and caused him to stumble, it had grown so dangerous that it merited the appalling death that was meted out to it. It was tied up so that it could not get away and beaten over the head with a hatchet. Its struggles were so violent that it did

725
succeed in breaking away. This man, this human devil, called the poor animal back and the animal, not understanding and trusting its master, came back and was again tied up and beaten until it died. Every bone in that dog's head was found to be smashed. This man, who in my opinion is nothing less than an inhuman monster, admitted treating seven other dogs in a similar way. When he is released from prison what is there to stop him from buying another dog, taking out a dog licence and then treating that dog in the same disgustingly brutal manner?
I want to ask His Majesty's Government if nothing can be done to prevent a man like this from obtaining another licence and owning another dog. I have other recent cases of cruelty about which I should like to speak, but as it is so late I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has introduced two Bills into your Lordships' House with the object of refusing dog licences to people convicted of cruelty to dogs. The noble Lord's first Bill reached the Third Reading stage in your Lordships' House before it was rejected. In 1929 the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, introduced a second Bill and the late Earl Russell, speaking for the Home Office, stated that their objection was that the Bill would be ineffective since any person so convicted could get his wife or daughter or maid or some other member of his household to hold the licence and thus would obtain custody of the dog. The late Lord Brentford stated that he took full responsibility for the attitude of the Home Office.when he was Home Secretary, as any regulations such as these would inflict too much of a burden on the police, and also that any person convicted of cruelty could quite easily go to another part of the country and take out a dog licence without any one being the wiser. If it is still the view of the Home Office that the difficulties would be too great for the police and that other members of the person's household would hold the licence, and thus any such regulation would be ineffective, then I would urge the Government to pass some legislation whereby no person convicted of cruelty, or any member of that person's family, could have control or custody of a dog. I hope the noble Earl who replies for the Government will give me
726
some assurance that something will be done. I think public opinion demands it.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move to resolve, That this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to support as strongly as I can the appeal mace by the noble Earl, and in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing their opinion in a definite form I have put down a Motion which your Lordships will find on the Paper expressing in substance the hope—
"that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty"—
I should be content to leave out the word "gross"—
"to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs."
The case to which the noble Earl referred was one of the most brutal instances of cruelty to a dog that ever came before the courts, but I am sorry to say there are many horrible cases of cruelty to dogs and the penalties for them are often totally inadequate.
It is horrible to think that a man who has tortured a dog to death—it may be a dog long in his household, almost a pet dog—can as soon as he gets out of prison, if he goes there, which he ought to do, immediately apply for and obtain as many licences as he desires and there is nothing to prevent him, if his nature is such, from torturing those dogs as well. This is a matter which has been widely reported in the Press and I think it has deeply stirred the feelings of humanity which exist in this country regarding cruelty to dogs and other animals. I hope most heartily and earnestly that die Government will accept my Motion, which merely expresses the hope on the part of your Lordships that the Government will initiate this legislation which is so earnestly needed. It is really a scandal that as the law stands a man who has behaved in this cruel way should be able to get licences.
When this matter was raised in another place by a Question, the Home Office

727
simply said in reply: "We do not propose to introduce legislation." When pressed for the reason why, they said there were insuperable difficulties, and on being pressed as to what the insuperable difficulties were they did not give an answer beyond stating that it was impossible to say more. I do not believe for one moment that there are any difficulties which cannot be fairly easily surmounted. When the police see a dog in town or country they often make it their business to find out whose dog it is and whether the man bas a licence, and it would throw no undue work on them to find out whether a man had been told he must not have a licence. If that man keeps a dog in violation of such an order any legislation passed would apply an appropriate penalty. I believe the Home Office contains many capable and ingenious persons, and I refuse to believe that they could not get over what relatively small initial difficulties there would be in the way of making such an order effective. I therefore appeal to my noble friend who will answer for the Home Office to allow this expression of opinion of the House to pass without a Division so that the Home Office will then be able to devise means of making it effective. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs.—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hope that His Majesty's Government will accede to the request made by the two noble Lords. The excuse—I do not wish to be rude—or reason that this proposal is impossible because a man might transfer a licence to his daughter, his mother, his grandmother or somebody else, does not seem to be very cogent. If a man brutally maltreats a dog and is fined, or I hope imprisoned, and is then refused a licence, that at any rate will bring home to him and everybody else the fact that he is a person who is not considered suitable to keep a dog, and if a dog is kept in his house by some relative and is maltreated it is surely a presumption that the person who has maltreated it is the one who has been refused the licence and
728
punished for maltreating another dog. I dare say it will be possible to introduce a dog into a house and maltreat it, but the fact that there will be no licence will, I think, be a deterrent. It is said that a man might go to another part of the country, buy another dog and get a licence; perhaps he might. It is said that it would be a trouble to the police to rind it out; perhaps it might. But the man who does that will be committing an offence and if found out he will be punished. Even at present it is not every offence that the police are able to find out. If they catch a man who misbehaves in this way it will be to the advantage of all and I cannot see that the proposal is one which is not feasible. I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer from the noble Earl.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My.Lords, as I was responsible for introducing the Bill two years ago, may I point out that, as has been said, it would be quite easy if the Government introduced another Bill on the same lines to insert in it that magistrates should have the power of ordering that a person convicted of cruelty to a dog should not be allowed to hold a licence, or any member of his family. If that is the insuperable objection it would be easy to overcome. It was also objected that this would cause trouble to the police, but all who are magistrates must know that the police are continually bringing up men or women for keeping dogs without a licence. The police know who are the people who have not got a licence, and it would be perfectly easy for them to find out whether a man who has been convicted and is living in a particular locality has or has not a dog and has or has not taken out a licence. True, the man might go to a distant part of the country, but that would give him a considerable amount of expense and trouble and it is not a good argument against bringing in a law which in many cases can be enforced to say that it is possible i n certain circumstances it may be evaded. You might as well say that because there are many cases where people breaking into houses are not caught it is putting trouble on the police to make house-breaking an offence, and that it would be better not to do so.
From my recollection of the whole thing it is really some fad of the Home

729
Office and from the very beginning it was some official in the Home Office who objected. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, saying it was for your Lordships' House to consider what ought or ought not to be done, not an official of the Home Office. In view of the great cruelty which has taken place in the last few years, in view of the fact that the general opinion of the country is in favour of some sort of regulation, and in view also of the fact that legislation could be passed through this House in a couple of days or less, I trust that the Government will exercise their great talents upon bringing in a workable measure.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I should like to emphasise the fact that this Motion is simply to move to resolve that this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel the licence. I hope the Government will recognise that the House is really united to a great extent in regard to this subject and will see their way to pass the Motion. I am certain that if you consider the view of the average man in this country you will realise that he does not wish that any man capable of cruelty of this kind should have the power of holding a licence.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can answer the two noble Lords at one time, and I will begin by assuring them that the Government are just as sympathetic towards the desire to prevent these cases of cruelty to dogs as either of my noble friends. It is not, therefore, any want of sympathy that compels me to state that the Government do not see their way to bring in the legislation which is asked for. First of all there are administrative difficulties, which it will be understood are considerable. You do not get a dog licence like you do a motor car licence. You simply go to the nearest Money Order Office, of which there are 12,000 in the United Kingdom, and into which any person can walk, pay 7s. 6d., and get a dog licence. There is no check upon that, and it would be impossible almost to trace these people—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I interrupt for one moment? It is quite true that that would happen, but then the Government would receive some
730
money, and they want money very much at the present moment. The applicant would get his licence, and then when the police found that the man ought not to have a licence the Government would get the 7s. 6d. and the man would get the penalties.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My noble friend is very ingenious, and I will submit what he says to the Home Office. It is true that it would be easy to evade this regulation. It has been suggested that that difficulty might be got over; but there is this difficulty with which the police would be faced, that any member of a man's family could get a licence. I understand that Lord Onslow is of opinion that that does not matter, because if it were found that a dog in the same household had been illtreated proceedings could be taken against the man. I should have said there was a very much better way of proceeding in cases of cruelty to dogs—a way which would probably be far more a deterrent than the stopping of licences, which it is not at all certain would be effective. I think the greatest deterrent would be the enforcement of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, under which a person guilty of cruelty is liable to a heavy fine or three months imprisonment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should suggest that also.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can only repeat that the Home Office see great difficulties in the proposal which is made, which would also necessitate the setting up of a very large staff. I know my noble friend would not lightly incur additional expense.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not against incurring expense for a good object.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid that my noble friend would not get the return that he wants, in the way of stopping cruelty to dogs. As I have stated, the proposal would entail enlarging the administration and would be very difficult to enforce. The Government also do not admit that there is any very great necessity for the change, because public notice has been called very extensively to the case of cruelty mentioned by Lord Kinnoull, and these cases are not very numerous, according to the Government's information. Another difficulty,

731
of course, is that certain dogs are exempt from licence, such as animals under six months old, sheep dogs, and dogs belonging to blind persons. I can only repeat that while they feel the greatest sympathy the Government are advised that the difficulties of administration would be very great, and they are not prepared to undertake the legislation which is proposed.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I cannot help being rather disappointed at the speech of the noble Earl, because, although there is difficulty, I cannot believe that it is insuperable, and, as the noble Earl has admitted, the matter really does not refer to a very large number of cases. I want to submit, as a suggestion, that the licence of anybody who behaved in this way should be endorsed; that nobody should get a dog licence without producing his former licence; that if a person moves to a new district, and comes forward as asking for a licence for the first time—I doubt if that would be a very frequent occurrence—his name should be known. There should be a black list. I do not suppose you would have more than a score of names on the black list, which could easily be issued to those who sell the licences up and down the country. I think it would be worth while doing this, because really the case quoted by my noble friend is something that ought not to be allowed to pass without public indignation taking a practical form. I wish the Government would take this matter into their consideration, and let us think it out among ourselves in order to see whether some means cannot be taken to put an end to these brutes acting as they do.
LORD DANESFORT: I think the noble Lord's suggestion as to endorsing licences is an admirable one, and would get over many of the difficulties suggested by the Home Office. The truth is that the difficulties can be got over, and ought to be got over, and I hope that my noble friend, when he hears the result of the Division that is going to take place, will inform the Home Office of our views. The fact that a guilty person may get off, and escape penalties that are imposed, is no reason why the law should not be put upon the Statute Book.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
"That the First Report by the Committee was made to the House on the 18th of December, 1928.
The bronze group by Mr. John Tweed and the panels on either side of the alcove, on which the names are inscribed, were completed in the early part of this year.
The Memorial was unveiled by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on the 10th of March, 1932.
It was decided at a meeting of the Committee held on the 28th of June, 1932, that the names of Scottish and Irish non-representative Peers and their sons who laid down their lives in the War should be added to the Memorial.
The Committee have considered the question of the disposal of the surplus balance of the fund. The total subscriptions, including accrued interest, amounted approximately to £12,000. The total expenditure to date has amounted approximately to £10,000. The surplus, subject to certain further small payments, will amount therefore approximately to £2,000.
The Committee decided that a replica should be made of each page of the Memorial Books and offered to the nearest relatives of those commemorated.
It was further decided that a bed, to be called "The House of Lords War Memorial Bed," be endowed at Westminster Hospital at a cost of £1,000, and that any final balance after all expenses have been met should be given to the Westminster Hospital as a donation.
It was also decided to take out an insurance policy for £1,000 so that in the event of destruction a sum would be available to replace the memorial in some form."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think I should say a few words about the Second Report, which I hope may be the final one, of the Peers' War Memorial Committee. Your Lordships will see that a decision was taken by the Committee to include the Scottish and Irish Peers and their sons—those Peers who are not Peers of Parliament. The original decision was that only Peers of Parliament and their sons should be included but that decision was arrived at, I think, early in the history of the Committee, and mainly in connection with the proposed erection of the War Memorial in the Princes' Chamber, and one of the reasons was that the space there was somewhat small, and it was necessary to keep down the numbers as much as possible. These reasons do not now seem to be cogent,

733
but I think there was a considerable desire expressed by noble Lords who are not Peers of Parliament that this inclusion should be made, and so the Committee have decided to add another panel to those already in the Royal Gallery, which will include the Scottish and Irish Peers, and also two names which were inadvertently omitted from the original panels.
Then we have decided to make an insurance of the Memorial for £1,000. Of course, it would not be possible to replace the Memorial altogether if the buildings were burnt down or some accident occurred by which the Memorial was destroyed, but it would be possible to put up something in its place in the future. Supposing the statue were destroyed or the panels or books were destroyed, it would be possible at any rate to replace them by something which might serve to commemorate those who laid down their lives during the War. Then there is a considerable sum over, and there was difficulty in deciding what should be done with it. In the first place, it was considered that it might be an acceptable gift to the relatives of those commemorated in the Memorial to have a copy of the page of the book on which their relatives' name is inscribed. It was decided therefore to spend some of the surplus money in carrying that out, and a letter will be sent to the nearest relative of everybody commemorated, asking whether they would like to have such a record, and, if so, whether they would communicate with me, stating the address
734
to which it should be sent. I venture to make that observation because I hope that we shall have answers from all those to whom we have written, as it rather complicates the matter if we do not know whether or not they wish to receive the gift. If the nearest relative does not wish to receive it, we shall approach the next nearest, and so on.
There remains another point, that is the residue of £1,000 or so. It was decided to endow a bed to be called the House of Lords War Memorial Bed, or by some such title, in the Westminster Hospital, and the Hospital has accepted the gift, and has agreed that if there are any persons attached to your Lordships' House who should need treatment they would make arrangements, and it would be given there. There probably will be a small sum over after that, and, if so, it is proposed to give it as a donation or subscription to the Hospital. I hope this will be the last time I have to trouble your Lordships with a Report. I do not know whether everything will be wound up by next Session, or whether it will be necessary to appoint the Committee again, but anyhow there will be very little to be done in the future. I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of July 7.]

OXFORD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1932.
SHEFFIELD GAS ORDER, 1932.
YEOVIL GAS ORDER, 1932.
NEWBURY GAS ORDER, 1932.
CAMBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

INVERGORDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Invergordon and District Electricity Special Order, 1923:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.