Lords Sitting of 16 December 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, the EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN.
The Right Honourable Bertrand Edward, Baron Dawson of Penn, G. C. V. O., K. C. B., K. C.M. G., having been created Viscount Dawson of Penn, of Penn in the County of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY.
William Alexander Evering Baron Amherst of Hackney, having succeeded to that title on the death of his grandmother Mary Rothes Margaret Baroness Amherst of Hackney by virtue of a special remainder contained in a Patent bearing date the 26th day of August, 1892—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—Affirmed.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

NATIONAL SAVINGS.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government how much they estimate that the people of this country must save every year so as to ensure that the value of the national estate shall not diminish through the processes of ordinary wear and tear and obsolescence; whether they consider that the requisite sum is being saved, and, if not, what plans they have to meet the situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you are aware that a great many people who have studied finance have deep and serious misgivings about the so-called economic recovery of this country. The subject could easily be treated at great length, but it will now be sufficient to
936
mention those points which are causing these doubts and misgivings. They are more or less progressive depreciation of the currency, an intense and widespread system of subsidies, and crippling taxation of the investing public. The prosperity and even the existence of every civilised country must obviously depend upon the regular production year by year of all those things which constitute civilisation, and means of production must be continuously available. It is not sufficient to build or manufacture or lay down means by which wealth is produced. Every material object is constantly wearing out and must be regularly repaired or replaced if it is to continue to fulfil the intention with which it was made.
The question that is causing doubt and misgiving is whether national savings are great enough to maintain the efficiency of our means of production. I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to allow me to give you a few figures. Most authorities, such as bankers and statisticians, agree in placing the total capital wealth of this country somewhere between £30,000,000,000 and £40,000,000,000. The wealth represented by this sum is based on material objects, all of which are wearing out at different rates. It is probably a fair estimate to assume that the average depreciation due to wear and tear or obsolescence is 2 per cent. per annum. This means that to keep in good working order the whole of the property of the whole nation or, as the case may be, to replace obsolete material, the sum of £600,000,000 must be provided every year over and above the living expenses of the whole nation. This is assuming the national wealth to amount to £30,000,000,000. If it amounts to £40,000,000,000 the sum required will be £800,000,000. In each case the sum of approximately £100,000,000 taken out of capital in the form of Death Duties and devoted to current expenditure must be added. Taking the lower estimate, it therefore appears that 700,000,000 must be saved every year merely to prevent the nation from becoming poorer. If increased prosperity is desired the sum must be greater.
It does not matter where the money required for maintenance comes from. It may be a proportion of the taxes or

937
rates, it may be company reserves, or it may be private savings, but wherever it comes from it must be surplus to the whole annual sum spent on the living expenses of every man, woman and child in the country. It must be surplus to everything, including education, health services, amusements and so on. If it is not there is automatic impoverishment. We learn from noble Lords and others who take an interest in national saving that working-class savings amount to a capital sum of about £3,000,000,000, and so far as I can make out are increasing at a rate certainly not greater than £200,000,000 per annum. This is perhaps half of the amount distributed to the working classes every year out of the proceeds of taxation alone without taking increased wages into account. The whole of the rest of the wages and subsidies received by the working classes is apparently spent in raising their standard of living which, whatever advantages may thereby be secured, means that it is spent without doing anything to maintain the material wealth of the country.
There appears to be too much reason to fear that the present system works somewhat as follows. Money which was formerly invested is now distributed as largess to the working classes, who are encouraged to spend it in ways that do nothing to increase the productive power of the country but artificially stimulate the output of heavily taxed luxuries like tobacco and spirits. Out of this taxation the National Revenue is in turn heavily subsidised. The while crazy system thus depends on draining away at the source the supplies of new capital which ought to be used to maintain and increase our means of production. Up to about 1910 there is no doubt that savings were on a scale sufficiently large not only to maintain but to increase the national wealth. These savings came from the incomes of the thrifty of all classes, and principally from big incomes. In 1914 came the War with its colossal waste on the one hand, and huge increases in the wages of the working classes on the other. When the War came to an end these increases, or a great part of them, in most cases remained, and they have been constantly supplemented by enormous fresh subsidies of many kinds.
All political parties have raised the cry of redistribution of wealth by taxation
938
and have acted accordingly. So great drafts of money have been diverted from the people who were rich enough and thrifty enough to save, and handed over to the working classes not as payment for increased production on their part but as a free gift. The natural consequence has been that this money, which in the hands of the rich and thrifty had mostly been reinvested in new and improved means of production, has been and is mostly spent in raising the standard of living of the working classes. When it is remembered that, as I have already pointed out, something like £400,000,000 a year is diverted in this way by taxation alone, quite apart from increases in wages, and that production where it has increased at all has increased at a very much slower rate, it is obvious that the sources from which new investment used to be fed are largely dried up. Have any other sources appeared, and if so, what are they? If not, this country is manifestly becoming progressively poorer with nothing to look forward to but a pauper's funeral. Are the Government, who must be aware of these facts, doing anything about them?
I beg to move.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for having brought forward this matter, but I feel bound to say that I shall try to show that his gloomy prophecy of impending disaster is not supported either by facts or by the opinion of any of those best qualified to judge. Is it true or not that we are living on capital, and that if we go on raising the standard of life of the poorer classes and increasing their wages we are doomed, as he says, to a pauper's funeral? I believe that this is far from the truth, although the noble Lord has produced certain facts and figures to support his view. I propose with your Lordships' permission, as Chairman of the National Savings Committee, and therefore cognisant with the arguments on both sides and with the facts of the matter, to give the answer as I see it, and the answer of those who work with me in the great movement for national savings, whether through State-controlled or other agencies.
As I have so often said that we ought to speak without notes in this House I must apologise to your Lordships for

939
having to use notes on this occasion, because some of the figures which I shall have to quote were only supplied to me a few minutes before the noble Lord began his speech. First of all I should like to deal with the question whether capital is being increased in sufficient volume to make up for wastage. I have some figures here showing how capital is being increased from year to year. The figures do not make up the total which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, says is essential, but I can only tell him that no serious authority, whether economist or banker, will agree to the vast total that he postulates. The figures which I shall quote are all either official or supplied to me by economists and bankers who are in touch with official sources of information. Let us see, then, what has been happening since the great blizzard of the depression took place. I will take first the three great State-controlled agencies for saving—the Post Office Savings Bank, the Trustee Savings Banks, and National Savings Certificates. In December, 1932, the amounts standing to the credit of depositors amounted to £1,173,000,000; in 1933, £1,206,000,000; in 1934, £1,238,000,000; in 1935, £1,292,000,000, and up to October this year £1,347,000,000. Those figures show an increase, since the slump, in the first year of £33,000,000, in the next year of £32,000,000, followed by £54,000,000 and then £55,000,000, all added to the already vast total of money due to the small investor. I have been dealing with figures relating to the State-controlled agencies for saving.
I will next deal with the total volume of what are called the small investors savings to see whether they are increasing or whether, as the noble Lord fears, they are diminishing, and then I will give brief consideration to the big items accounted for by the large investor. If you include with the savings to which I have referred the money in the building societies, friendly societies, industrial and provident societies, and industrial insurance—which is apart from general insurance such as your Lordships indulge in when you can afford it—it will be found that in 1932 the total was £2,470,000,000; in 1933, £2,573,000,000, an increase of £103,000,000; in 1934, £2,705,000,000, an increase of £132,000,000; and in 1935, £2,794,000,000, an increase of £89,000,000. For this year the latest available figure is £2,862,000,000, showing an increase of
940
£68,000,000, but to that will have to be aided the figure for the remaining three months of the year which will no doubt make up the increase to well over £100,000,000. Those are very remarkable figures. They are going up, and up, and up by an average of over £100,000,000 a year.
Now I will turn from the small investor, as he is termed, to the investor who is supposed to be better off. Take the amount put to reserve by public companies in the last few years. The figures are based on the published report of some 2,000 companies—not a bad basis. The amounts drawn from reserve have been allowed for, and it, is fair to say that these, again, are national savings. They are savings of the nation. Now in 1932 these reserves were £7,600,000; in 1933 they were £12,100,000; in 1934 they were 227,400,000; in 1935 they were £40,300,000; and in 1936, up to date, they were £05,300,000. These are very striking figures, showing the continuous advance of the savings of the people.
LORD MONKSWELL: Are those figures hundreds of millions?
LORD MOTTISTONE: No, these are actual millions, just little quiet millions. For the last period it was £55,300,000, not hundreds of millions, and if we divided it between us we should be very well off! Then we come to capital issues, excluding the great conversion issues—with one of which I was myself concerned, as your Lordships may remember—which are, I think, rightly regarded by the economists, who differ on all subjects except on this on which I am now addressing your Lordships, as in a sense the savings of the nation, because you cannot invest something unless you have it to invest. Here we come to the hundreds of millions. For the year ending December 31, 1932, the amount of capital issues, excluding the great conversions, was £189,000,000; in 1933 it was £215,000,000; in 1934 it was £169,000,000; in 1935 it was £236,000,000, and from January 1 to December 12 of this year—so that it will be seen that a considerable sum has to be added up to date it has been £240,000,000. Those are hundreds of millions.
There is one little item, but I think it is of importance, which your Lordships might be interested to hear about,

941
and that is life assurance apart from what they call industrial assurance. I am told by men of renown in the economic world that insurance is a very sure index of the wealth, and indeed of the prosperity, of a people in comparison with other peoples. Of course, I hasten to say that I do not think everything is all right; I shall come to that in one moment before I sit down. But as compared with other things, with other peoples, and with ourselves in previous times, this final figure is, I think, interesting. It concerns the people who want to insure their lives, apart from the poorer people. In 1932 the amount paid in premiums was £68,000,000; in 1933 it was £71,000,000; in 1934 It was the same sum; in 1933 it was £77,000,000; and, though I have not the amount for this year, I am told on good authority that the figure still continues to rise.
If, my Lords, you take the whole picture as I have put it before you by these figures, which I have been able to obtain from various Government and other official sources, as checked by the best economists, I think you will be inclined to agree: with the view which I venture to put forward; that, far from the gloomy prophecy of Lord Monkswell that we are living on our capital and that unless we manage to reduce our expenditure, and especially, I think he said, make sure that there is no increase in wages or increase in extravagance by the working classes, we are doomed to a pauper's funeral, e truth is really quite otherwise. If we manage to escape being involved in a great war or some other catastrophe, which will cause these figures to be completely altered and of no avail, I foresee, and others who are much wiser than myself foresee, a period of ever-increasing prosperity for all classes in this country. But in the speeches I have had to make in the country as Chairman of National Savings, I have always ventured to indicate that the danger lies in the possibility that this ever-increasing wealth may not be distributed sufficiently widely to enable the whole volume of prosperity to proceed unimpeded owing to the discontent of large numbers of people who think they are not getting a fair deal. I have sometimes been told that I am a wicked Radical or even a Socialist; yet the fact is that those who really think, and think
942
deeply, about this question, even if they are of the most extreme Conservative school, agree with the view I have put forward.
I do not know if your Lordships saw—it was reported very fully in The Times—a most remarkable speech made by one of the leaders of finance, a director of the Bank of England, Sir Robert Kindersley, in October. I have the record here. He happens to be my predecessor but one as Chairman of National Savings; my immediate predecessor was a noble Lord much respected in this House, Lord Islington, whose death I am sure we all deplore. Sir Robert was his immediate predecessor. In this speech this director of the Bank of England, whose politics I do not know, but I think they would satisfy all reasonable tests in any Tory community, said:
"Without fair distribution prosperity will be short-lived; but with fair distribution and a sane and just improvement in the standard of living, we can look forward to a period of world prosperity which will surprise the most optimistic."
In a previous part of that speech, which was delivered on October 8 at Southport, Sir Robert pointed out what he thought was the danger: do the country understand and realise that only 4 per cent. of the people of this country, which, as he was pointing out, is getting richer and richer every day, have incomes of over £8 a week? A very striking speech and a very striking fact.
Then he went on to say, this director of the Bank of England, this ex-President of National Savings:
"If I am right in thinking that we are at the commencement of a long period of prosperity, that prosperity must be made to be productive of good and not of evil. Much will depend on how we as individuals conduct ourselves and one of the crucial tests will be that of how we spend our money. The necessity for new capital will be insistent and a large part of that capital will have to be found by small investors."
I am sure that that is a true doctrine. I am sure that it is not the least bit true to say that we are living on our capital and are going to have a pauper's funeral. The reverse is the case. But we must see to it first of all that all classes, especially the small investor, are encouraged to plan their income and expenditure so that there will be something saved up, in order that they may be able to look after their children and

943
do things which otherwise the State may have to take on; because they will thus be adding to the general pool of capital, which cannot now be filled up so much by the wealthy classes for the obvious reason that the very high taxation takes so much larger a proportion than it took in days gone by.
It is up to all of us so to plan our lives as to do the thing which I have never yet succeeded in doing: to make our income slightly exceed our expenditure. I will own up to your Lordships that I have tried to do it all my life and I have never succeeded yet; but we know that it is our duty to try to do it, so that we shall all be adding to the pool of capital. My consolation for the fact that, although having eight children, I have not been able myself to do it, is that there are others sitting round me who have done it through generations and centuries and thus have enabled the world to go on and prosperity to increase. Far from it being the case that we ought to try and draw in our horns, and pay less wages, and encourage poor people to spend less money, we ought in my judgment to encourage everybody so to plan his life that he can save a bit for the good of the State, and then spend the rest on a good plan and not fritter it away in small ways.
I am sure that if we continue, as we are doing now, to make ourselves secure from outside attack, if we remain a good humoured, quiet and friendly people, without envy or hatred, and if we are determined to see that no particular body of citizens are harshly dealt with, as in the case of the Special Areas, as I have said more than once to your Lordships, and if we try to remove every grievance which we can remove, and see, so far as possible, that nobody shall be very, very rich whilst others are dreadfully poor—if we continue on those good old English lines, with all the help that modern science gives us, there can be no doubt that, as Sir Robert Kindersley prophesies, we shall go forward to greater and greater prosperity and wealth which, wisely spent, will add to the happiness of the people of this land.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monkswell has introduced a very interesting and very important topic to your Lordships' attention.
944
I had it in mind that possibly the noble Lord's Question might induce some of your Lordships' financiers to come down to this House to take part in this debate. I am sure we are the poorer for the absence of their contributions, but as regards the unfortunate individual who addresses you now, I am not sure that I am not rather relieved, because, although I understand that mathematics is an enact science, the opinions of financiers in discussing financial questions, when I have had the pleasure of listening to them, have been very wide and somewhat varied, and I might have found myself faced with a more difficult task than I dc at the moment. My noble friend, as usual—as a rule it is with regard to railways, but this time he has attacked the finances of the people—is a kind of Cassandra. He might reply to me that Cassandra, although nobody took much notice of her at the time, was always right, and I believe that was one of the most disagreeable traits of that individual. I hope to show your Lordships be fore I have done that things are not quite so bad as they seem, and that your Lordships may more or less rest quiet in your beds at night.
There are really two questions, as your Lordships will see, in the noble Lord's Notice. The first is: How much ought the people of this country to save every year to ensure that the value of the national estate shall not diminish through the process of ordinary wear and tear and obsolescence? Secondly: Is the requisite sum being saved? First of all the noble Lord estimated the wealth of the country, the capital wealth of the country, at £30,000,000,000 or £40,000,000,000. As I think my noble friend on the Liberal Benches, Lord Mottistone, said, that really, in the opinion of the Government, is a great deal too high. His Majesty's Government prefer to take the estimate of Sir Josiah Stamp, issued some years ago, which put the capital wealth of the United Kingdom at a great deal less. In fact, excluding the National Debt, he put it at about £18,000,000,000, and this figure would be reduced to £16,250,000,000 if we excluded the property belonging to the Government, to local authorities and to railways. As your Lordships are aware, depreciation is provided in those cases either by special sinking funds, by voted

945
expenditure on new works and replacements, or, in the case of the railway companies, by maintenance allowances. I do not think it can be argued that depreciation is insufficient in these cases, but even after that there are still many deductions to be made from the figure I have quoted.
I need hardly remind your Lordships that the greater part of the national wealth consists of the moveable property of private persons, such property in fact Us household goods, motor cars, jewellery, etc., and I think in the case of these matters hardly anyone—probably not one per cent. of the population—really makes any provision for depreciation and obsolescence other than by buying new articles when the old ones are worn out. I think everyone would agree that purchases of this kind are very heavy at the present time. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it does answer the noble Lord's question about depreciation and obsolescence. These things are being taken care of in the only way possible, by the purchase of new articles, and the national wealth under these heads is certainly not diminishing. Then there is the question of working capital, which is very large arid is not subject to depreciation or obsolescence in the same manner as fixed capital.
Now, there is a further element of uncertainty arising from the nature of the statistical estimates which even the greatest experts are compelled to make. Such estimates are based necessarily on the market value of shares, and include a large element of capitalised profit and goodwill. The real figure we need is that of the value of physical property which is subject to depreciation. I take it that there are two headings of this: real property, which I will take at £5,500,000,000, and other kinds of property, £6,500,000,00. I have tried to estimate a figure which they cannot well exceed—in fact I am advised that £12,000,000,000 may be much too high. If I applied to such a total the provision of 2 per cent., which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested—though again I ought properly to point out that it is too high an allowance for real property—it works out at a maximum conceivable charge of £240,000,000, which is of course much less than half the lowest figure
946
which the noble Lord suggested in his speech. I think I have dealt with the first part of the noble Lord's Question.
I pass to the noble Lord's second Question, as to whether the requisite amount is being saved in order to ensure that the value of the national estate shall not diminish. I have no reliable estimate of the total savings of the country, except such as may be got from the excellent speech made this afternoon by my noble friend who is Chairman of the National Savings Committee; but I think I can satisfy your Lordships that the savings are far more than sufficient to take charge of the processes of depreciation and obsolescence. As regards real property, everybody knows that the amount of new building and new construction going on has been unprecedently high in recent years, and I think we may say that new construction has been and is taking place on a scale which is manifestly far and away higher than existing property can be deteriorating. As regards property other than real property, this is largely in the hands of industrial and business concerns. I should like to refer to a well-known estimate, also I think by Sir Josiah Stamp, that in 1928 public companies representing about two-thirds of the total capital placed about 21 per cent. of their profits to reserve. And I am informed by my advisers that the proportion has now grown to 25 per cent. I would remind your Lordships what this means. Public companies have to provide for depreciation before they reckon their profits. But we find that after providing for depreciation to the satisfaction of their auditors they place a further large and growing sum to reserve. And all this is done by the companies themselves: it is independent of the question what savings people who receive dividends may make out of their incomes. Thus while insufficient provision might be made for depreciation and obsolescence in particular cases, it would seem impossible to credit that over the whole field the provision is insufficient.
At the same time, I would not wish your Lordships to imagine that I am decrying thrift, or that His Majesty's Government consider the amount of the national savings to be excessive. On the contrary, as Lord Mottistone said just now, one of the most encouraging signs of our economic state is the fact that savings have been maintained at such a

947
satisfactory level. This applies with particular force to small savings, the amounts which the wage-earner puts by: they have been wonderfully maintained during the slump, and now, in conditions of recovery, are constantly increasing. So eminent an authority as Professor Clay has put the total of small savings throughout the country at about £3,000,000,000 and he believes that they are increasing, as Lord Mottistone said, at the rate of over £100,000,000 a year.
I have done my best to answer the noble Lord's points, and I think I have covered the whole ground. In conclusion, I may say that His Majesty's Government are fully in agreement with the noble Lord in regarding the maintenance of national savings as a matter of great importance. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for having drawn the attention of your Lordships to this important subject. While His Majesty's Government must, and will, watch the financial situation of the country with the strictest care, I venture to say that there has been no more careful guardian of the national finances than my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope I have been able to show that the noble Lord need not be too uneasy, that matters are not quite as bad as he made out, and that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the national savings are really sufficient to meet the processes of obsolescence and ordinary wear and tear.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, my apology for speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, is that I desired to hear what he was going to say in order to link on to his observations what I had in mind to put before your Lordships. The debate has been an interesting one, but I think the crucial figure even yet has not been given, and I will try to supply it. Before I come to that let me say a few words about the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Monks-well. As the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, has said, the suggestion that the national capital amounts to between £30,000,000,000 and £40,000,000,000 can only be described as fantastic. Lord Monkswell says that is the opinion of most business men and authorities. Personally, I have never heard such a figure given by anybody before. Undoubtedly the figure put forward by the noble Lord,
948
Lord Templemore, is much nearer the mark; that was, £18,000,000,000 some years ago, apart from the National Debt. But in arriving at the total national capital you only have to take into account that portion of the National Debt which is in private hands. A great deal of the National Debt is held by limited companies and so forth, and that is already included in the other heads of Sir Josiah Stamp's estimate. Moreover, that estimate was made some years ago, and prices have gone down since then Probably on balance.
Taking everything into consideration and estimating the amount of National Debt in private hands, which was about £3,000,000,000, probably we should not be far wrong if we took the round figure of £20,000,000,000. From that, for the purposes of the noble Lord's Question, as the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, pointed out, various deductions have to le made. But the question is this, and although I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I did not hear him give what are estimated to be the national savings in the sense of the net accretion of capital in the course of twelve months. We did not get that and that is what really matters. It is a matter of a good deal of argument. Before I come to the figure let me say this. My noble friend Lord Monkswell night say: "Yes, but is the accepted estimate of national savings, in the sense in which I have described them, before allowance for obsolescence and depreciation?" It is. I have satisfied myself about that and I have inquired from the best authorities. Before the War the national savings in the sense in which I am speaking were between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000 a year. The country was growing richer. The Colwyn Committee, which reported in 1927, came to the conclusion that probably the national savings, say in 1926, were about £150,000,000 or £500,000,000. There was of course a change in the value of money, and, taking into account the pre-War figure of £350,000,000 that would have become at that time £650,000,000. Therefore, as against the £450,000,000 to £500,000,000 of 1926, and the estimate of £500,000,000 of Mr. Coates, one of our greatest authorities, there was at that time a slight set-back in the amount of national savings in actual value.

949
What are the national savings now? It is impossible to say with certainty. When the economic crisis came, they naturally declined, but it is improbable that they were ever less than £100,000,000 to £200,000,000 a year. I think I should be within the mark if I say that now they are probably about £400,000,000, possibly more, for the national income is increasing rapidly at the moment. I suggest to your Lordships that that is really the figure that matters: after obsolescence and depreciation and after Death Duties have been paid, there is an accretion of the national income of about £400,000,000. I hope that will be some comfort to the noble Lord. As the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, said, Lord Monkswell comes here with these gloomy forebodings, and if I can do anything to cheer hire up I shall feel that my day's work has not been wasted. I hope he will, after this debate, sleep a little more easily at night and not be obsessed with these fears about obsolescence and depreciation.
There can be no doubt that the national income is increasing by something like the figure I have put forward. At the same time I wish to say this, and I think it is an appropriate opportunity. There is no official estimate, and why is there no official estimate? Because we have not got sufficient official statistics in this country. I have put forward this plea in your Lordships' House before. On that occasion I was replied to by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who, if I may say so with respect, was not quite as adequate in his rejoinder as he usually is. He said you did not want to ask people to fill in a lot more forms; we have enough forms to fill in already. I think we all agree about that. But that is not the point. We ought to have better official statistics prepared by the Government. Many other countries have them—Germany and the United States for example. I consider that the minimum requirements are that the Government ought to have official estimates of the national savings, of the national income, arid of the national capital. These three I think should be the minimum. I do not think you would need to have these estimates year after year, but only at frequent intervals. They could then be quoted with authority.
What do we do now? If I want any figure in particular I have to ring up
950
Sir Josiah Stamp or Professor Henry Clay, and although their economic and statistical knowledge is almost as great as their good nature, I do not think it is right that busy politicians should trouble busy men like them to get information that ought to be available from Government sources. I put forward the plea very earnestly that the Government should consider the matter. I am sure that what I am saying will be supported by the statistical societies of the country—the Royal Statistical Society and the Manchester Statistical Society, which, as a matter of fact, is the oldest statistical society in the world with the exception, oddly enough, of one in Mexico. I am sure this request would be supported by them and that it would be of the greatest value to have figures. At the present time the Government give one or two estimates year after year. They give an estimate of the balance of overseas trade, and we have their cost of living figure, but these other matters could be arrived at without any very great labour.
If the Government will not go straight forward and do what I am asking, would they consider taking an intermediate step and set up a Committee to consider this whole question of official statistics? I do not think they can object to the suggestion that they should set up another Committee. They have set up countless Committees, and another one would be little more than another wave on the shore; and it would arrive, I believe, at the conclusion that something ought to be done in this matter so that this country could come into line, I do not say with all the great countries of the world, but with most of them which have official statistics. I think we could undertake that any official statistics compiled in this country would be as reliable as it is possible to make them. I believe they would have advantages in many directions.
I cannot discuss that point this afternoon, because it is not the subject matter of the Motion, but, in conclusion, on this question of the national savings, if anybody is sufficiently interested, he should read Mr. Coates, our greatest authority on this matter, who arrived at a figure of £500,000,000 in 1926. It is all given in the Report of the Committee on National Debt and Taxation that came

951
out in 1927. The reserve by companies he put at £194,000,000 after depreciation and obsolescence, as the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has intimated. Therefore I think we may take a cheerful view of the future. I even go one step further than Lord Mottistone. I do not want to bind Mr. Keynes to this, because it is some time ago, but I remember that Mr. Keynes, perhaps in a moment of enthusiasm, indulged in this prophecy. He said—this is not very many years ago—that apart from another war or some calamity of that kind, he thought there was good reason to suppose that in another hundred years this country would be eight times as well off as it was then. That, as I have said, was some years ago, and I do not know whether he would say that now.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House. I should like to reply to the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. He asked if the Government would consider setting up a Committee on this question of official statistics. I can only say to him that I will see that this matter is put before my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, no doubt, will give due weight to any suggestion coming from the noble Lord or from any other member of your Lordships' House.
LORD ARNOLD: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, one question. He talked a good deal about depreciation. Was that a net figure after allowing for appreciation as an offset against depreciation? Your Lordships will realise that there are certain forms of property—for instance, land near large towns and certain forms of personal property which do not depreciate but appreciate if the noble Lord had had in his possession a First Folio of Shakespeare thirty years ago it would have been worth £1,000; to-day it is worth about £15,000. There are many forms of property which appreciate, and what I should like to know is whether in the Treasury figures they have struck a balance and given the net result.
952
On the general question I would take the argumentum ad hominem, one's own personal experience and that of other people one knows. I do believe that the insurance system which this country has embarked on during the last twenty-five years has been of immensevalue. There are very few people, even lowly-paid labourers in the country and the less well-paid classes of working men in the towns, who do not now possess some form of insurance, saving certificates, or something of that sort. I believe that has made greatly for thrift. I know that in a different class the position is perhaps not so satisfactory. I remember only too well that sixty years ago my grandfather used to save half his income; thirty years ago my father used to save one-third of his income; to-day I have the greatest difficulty, living in a modest way, to save one-quarter. The only consolation in that is that the money is going to the Exchequer where I hope it is doing more good than it otherwise night do.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, again, by leave of the House, I will say in answer to the noble Viscount that I understand the figures I gave are net figures. The only other thing I have to say is to congratulate most heartily the noble Viscount on being able to save one-quarter of his income.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, there are one or two points in the speeches of noble Lords to which I should like to reply. To begin with Lord Mottistone, I did not gather that the figures he gave for working-class savings differed very materially from my own. They came pretty much to the same thing —£3,000,000,000. There is not a very great difference between us. The noble Lord made the remark that I was against an increase in wages. Of course I am against increased wages unless you get value for money, but I am enthusiastically in favour of increased wages if they are increased by increased production. That is the whole matter. The idea of raising wages without an increase in production is impossible. It cannot be done. That is exactly the trouble we are suffering from at the present time. Then he said it was desirable that nobody should be very rich. That seems to me to be a hopeless

953
attitude. The whole of civilisation depends on people who have had the efficiency and self-sacrifice to accumulate money and who are able to give other people productive work, so that I am afraid that in that respect I differ in toto from the noble Lord.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I did not say that I did not want anybody to be very rich. What I did say was that if we wanted to be secure, nobody ought to be very poor.
LORD MONKSWELL: It seems to me that that is likely to follow. The richer rich people become the richer poor people are likely to become. I think the principal disagreement between the noble Lord who answered for the Government and myself is mostly in regard to the estimate of national wealth. All I can say is that the estimate I gave was the one I had heard over and over again, and the last time I read it was in a speech by the chairman of a well known bank to its shareholders. So far as I can remember he put it at somewhere about £36,000,000,000 or £37,000,000,000 but I do not think it is worth while saying any more about that. Obviously estimates must vary greatly, and they must also vary greatly according to the basis on which they are made.
All I need now say is this. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said that national capital is increasing. I should feel more happy about that if he could tell us how it is increasing. It seems to me that even if national capital is increasing it is certainly not increasing at anything like the pace at which it used to increase.
LORD ARNOLD: Very little difference.
LORD MONKSWELL: One of the questions I asked in my speech was this. It is a well known fact that something in the region of £400,000,000 a year is now taken in taxation and distributed to the working classes over and above what they used to get. The whole of the working-class savings are certainly not more than £200,000,000 a year, so that that leaves a deficit of at least £200,000,000. I asked if any new sources of capital had been found to cover this deficit. There is no answer at all to that. That really seems to me to go to the root of the matter. I am very much obliged to noble Lords who have spoken
954
and shown such an interest in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRIUNK ROADS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Transfer of trunk roads to Minister of Transport.
(3) If the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient to construct a new road or improve any road with a view to superseding any part of a trunk road by the creation of a new route for through traffic, he may after serving upon the council of every county within whose area the part of the trunk road to be superseded, or the route which is to supersede it, is situated, notice of his intention to do so, and, after considering any representation made by any such council within three months after service of the said notice, and after holding such local inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit, make an order providing that—

(a) upon such date as may be specified in the order, the route which is to supersede the part of the trunk road shall, by virtue of this Act, become a trunk road; and

(b) upon the first day of April next following the date on which the Minister serves upon the councils aforesaid notice that the said route is ready to be used for the purposes of through traffic, the part of the trunk road to be so superseded as aforesaid shall become a county road.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON) moved Amendments to subsection (3)—to leave out "such" ["such local inquiry"] and insert "a," to leave out "any, as" and, after "fit," to insert "to do so or if a request therefor is made by any such council within three months and not withdrawn." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendments in the form in which they are now being moved carry out the undertaking I gave to the House on an Amendment moved, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. We agreed that it was undesirable that the Minister should be forced to hold an inquiry if he and the county were in complete agreement after their negotiations, but there was a general desire that if the county and the Minister were not in agreement the Minister should not make his order until he had held a public inquiry. I undertook to put down Amendments which would give effect to that.

955
That would be the regular practice which I am sure the Minister would wish to pursue and the Amendments now moved give effect to it.
I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Amulree who drew my attention to the fact that if the Amendments were moved in the form in which they stood on the Paper the Minister would actually be precluded from granting an inquiry where a county borough or a district council, who might have a considerable interest in a by-pass, had raised objections to the proposal but the county had not interested itself in the matter. Obviously we do not wish to take away the discretion to grant an inquiry where some local authority other than the county council says that an inquiry is desirable and the Amendments now moved safeguard that. The part of the subsection affected, if these Amendments are made, would read in this way:
"… after holding a local inquiry, if he thinks fit to do so or if a request therefor is made by any such council within three months and not withdrawn.…"
In that form the subsection would safeguard what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, quite rightly wanted to safeguard and also completely meets the undertaking that I gave to the House.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("such") and insert ("a"), leave out ("any, as") and after ("fit") insert ("to do so or if a request therefor is made by any such council within three months and not withdrawn").—(Viscount Swinton).
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. When I saw the Amendments on the Paper it appeared to me that the point which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount had been overlooked. The clause as it stood in the Bill meant that the local inquiry must be held in the discretion of the Minister, and it was proposed by the Amendments on the Paper that the inquiry should be held only at the instance of the county council. By the Amendments in their new form the other authorities mentioned are included. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for meeting the suggestion which I made.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Viscount sincerely for the frank way he met me in this matter, and also the noble Lord,
956
Lord Amulree, for helping to get the Amendments carried.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6:
Miscellaneous provisions as to functions connection, with trunk roads.
(5) The Minister may cause to be placed on or near any road in the vicinity of a trunk road such traffic signs as are in his opinion necessary for the control of traffic entering or leaving the trunk road, and may enter any land and exercise such other powers as may be necessary for that purpose.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved, in subsection (5), to leave out the second "any" and insert "upon." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a question of drafting. The idea is that the expression "any land," giving a lower to enter on any land, is unnecessarily wide, and we are anxious to get id of the word "any" in order that the power of entry on land should be limited to such entry as is necessary for the purpose. I think that is all anybody requires.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("any") and insert ("upon").—(Lord Darcy (de Knayth).)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, no one wants to take a power to enter on Lind which is not necessary for the purpose, but really this would not help us in drafting because land has not been mentioned before:
"The Minister may cause to be placed on o near any road in the vicinity of a trunk road such traffic signs as are in his opinion necessary for the control of traffic entering or leaving the trunk road, and he may enter on any land …"
Land has not been mentioned before. Obviously the land is land you require to enter upon in order to place the sign on or near the trunk road, and the words that are used here exactly follow Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, under which, when the Minister has to do certain things about highways and bridges, he may enter on land and exercise such powers as may be necessary. I think we should be creating difficulties for ourselves and the Courts if we used different words where exactly the same sort of power is required. I think the drafting as it stands is right. I have looked into it with the draftsman.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount and in view of what he has said will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Application to Scotland.
(6) Save as provided in Section forty-three of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, no appeal shall lie from any decision of the Minister or of any authority acting as his agent in relation to a trunk road.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (6) and insert:
"(6) No appeal shall lie under Section one hundred and thirty-two of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, against any terms or conditions arranged by the Minister which he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient and shorten discussion if I am allowed to make a few observations on this Amendment and a whole chain of Amendments which follow in my name on the Paper. I gave the House an undertaking that we would reserve the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions in a number of cases, most of them raised by my noble friend Viscount Bertie, but hat the Minister—I think the House entirely agrees with this—must be the authority to decide what conditions are necessary in the interests of safety and for the efficient conduct of the progress of traffic along the trunk roads. The Amendments to the Schedules which are on the Paper deal with the appeal to Quarter Sessions. They exempt from the right of appeal:
"terms or conditions attached by the Minister to a consent given by him under the said Section twenty-five, being terms or conditions which he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road."
It is essential that where safety and the progress of traffic are concerned the Minister should be the judge, but otherwise appeal is given against any refusal. The Amendment which I row move deals with a point which did not occur to any of us in the debate in Committee. It is a necessary Amendment because if we left the Bill without it a right of appeal would
958
be given in England but not in Scotland. I am sure that none of my noble friends would wish Scotland to be left out of the scope of our generosity in this respect.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for the great care he has taken to give effect to some suggestions I made in the Committee stage I hope I may be allowed, without being thought to be presumptuous, to tell him how very much many noble Lords on this side of the House, including myself, appreciate the very masterly, and at the same time the very conciliatory, way in which he has piloted this Bill through the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Interpretation.
13.—(1) in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Improvement" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909;
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved a manuscript Amendment to add to the interpretation of "improvement" the words "as amended by any subsequent Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put this Amendment on the Paper, but I do not think the Bill was reprinted yesterday and I did not know in which line these words should be inserted. This Amendment deals with a point which is already familiar to the noble Viscount. I wish these words to be added in the interests of a clear interpretation and clear understanding of this Bill by those concerned, including of course local authorities. As the Bill is at present drafted the clerk to a council, if he wants to get the matter right, will look up Part II of the Act of 1909 and will probably feel satisfied, whereas subsection (3) of this clause tells him that no reference to any Act must be taken as it stands but that he must see if any subsequent enactment has altered it. That is an appalling task, but if in a particular case his attention is directed to the Act of 1909 it will limit

959
his range of inquiry and he will probably be able in some text book on roads to find out what subsequent amendments have taken place. It is really in the interests of easy interpretation of the Act that I venture to suggest that these words should be added. I know that my noble friend has had an arduous task on this Bill, and I cannot expect him to accept this Amendment at the moment, but there is another stage and I hope he will give this matter further attention before the Third Reading of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 13, at the end insert ("as amended by any subsequent Act").—(Lord Bankeillour.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend at once. I appreciate his desire to make this Bill a little plainer to any clerk who may have to read it. Having had to master it myself I can fully sympathise with his difficulties. I am advised, however, that what my noble friend wants to do would not in fact make it plainer but would cast considerable doubt. If we made this amendment I understand that we should have to recast a good many clauses in the Bill. If my noble friend looks at subsection (3) of this clause he will see that it reads:
"Except where the context otherwise requires, references in this Act to any enactment or to any provision of any enactment shall be construed as references to that enactment or provision as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act."
It so happens that in a whole host of Acts Parliament has dealt with roads.
They were dealt with in the Local Government Act, 1929, in another Act of 1930, and in the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. There have been various Amendments made by various Statutes since the Act of 1909 was passed. There are, I think, three or four added kinds of improvement in various Acts. We really should not be making the task of the clerk any easier by adding these words in this place. It might even raise some doubt as to whether "improvement" was to have a different kind of construction from that which it would appear to have on reading subsection (3). I think we must assume that any intelligent clerk will read subsection (3) if he reads Clause 13 at all, and will realise that he has got to construe this Act as
960
if it were one with all the principal Acts and the amending Acts. The only way in which we can simplify this matter is a way which the Minister has under consideration, and that is to produce a complete Consolidation Act embodying all highway legislation, so that one gets, I will not say a plain, but at any rate a complete, presentment of the whole of the law. I think it would be a mistake to attempt to do it on a manuscript Amendment to this Bill.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I realise that my noble friend is in a bog of such depth and magnitude that no amount of expert floundering will get him out of it at this moment, but I hope that tae next time he is in charge of a Bill he will be able to have a word with the draftsman beforehand. This is a Bill of tie most extreme difficulty, not only for clerks but for any one to construe. I welcome the idea of a Consolidation Bill. It will no doubt save the officials of local authorities many a headache. I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments to this Schedule standing in my name.
Amendments moved—
Page 38, in the second column, leave out lines 26 to 31.
Page 38, in the second column, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert ("terms or conditions attached by the Minister to a consent given by him under the said Section twenty-five, being terms or conditions which he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road ")
Page 39, in the second column, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert ("any terms or conditions attached by the Minister to a licence granted by him under the said Section twenty-seven, being terms or conditions which he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road")
Page 41, in the second column, leave out lines 26 to 34.
Page 41, in the first column, line 35, leave out ("Subsection (1) of")
Page 41, in the second column, line 36, insert ("Subsection (2) shall not apply, and in subsection (3) for the words to a petty sessional court within fourteen days after the service of such notice' there shall be

961
substituted the words 'in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a Court of Quarter Sessions '").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 7, leave out paragraph 6.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDIA AND BURMA (EXISTING LAWS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions.
3.—(1) If the chief officer of police, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is taking place or is intended to take place and to the route taken or proposed to be taken by the procession, has reasonable ground for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder, he may give directions imposing upon the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order, including conditions prescribing the route to be taken by the procession and conditions prohibiting the procession from entering any street or public place specified in the directions:
Provided that no conditions restricting the display of flags, banners, or emblems shall be imposed under this subsection except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "street or." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in the debate on the Committee stage my noble friend promised on behalf of the Government to consider
962
whether we should not insert a definition of a public place; and in fact, as your Lordships will see, we have inserted such a definition. As that definition quite clearly covers a street, there is no need for those words in this part of the Bill I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("street or").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment of 8 Edw. 7 c. 66.
6. Section one of the Public Meeting Act, 1908, (which provides that any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together, or incites others so to act, shall be guilty of an offence) shall have effect as if the following subsection were added thereto—
"(3) If any constable reasonably suspects any person of committing an offence under the foregoing provisions of this section he may if requested so to do by the chairman of the meeting require that person to declare to him immediately his name and address and, if that person refuses or fails so to declare his name and address or gives a false name and address he shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and if he refuses or fails so to declare his name and address or if the constable reasonably suspects him of giving a false name and address, the constable may without warrant arrest him.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to substitute "subsections" for "subsection" ["as if the following subsection were added thereto"] in order later to insert the following additional subsection:
"(4) If any person commits an offence against the foregoing provisions of this section at a public meeting stated (by written notice displayed at the public entrances to the building or place in which the meeting is held, or if the meeting is held in the open air by a written notice conspicuously displayed (luring the period of the meeting) to be held in reference to a municipal election for the area or district in which the meeting is held, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in moving this new subsection is to assimilate the procedure in this Bill which applies to Parliamentary elections to municipal elections. The Act of 1908

963
has been much strengthened by the subsection which has now been added to this Bill on page 6, but my object is to make it an illegal practice at a municipal election just as at a Parliamentary election. I had the good fortune as long ago as 1911 to get a Municipal Elections Act passed through another place which made it an illegal practice to publish a statement reflecting on the personal character of a candidate. I cannot understand why the Government have not put into this Bill, to strengthen the Act, the same procedure as applies at Parliamentary elections. It may be argued that the new powers under this Bill may make it unnecessary.
This, however, is not a new matter. As long ago as 1908, when the Bill, which was successfully piloted through another place by Lord Robert Cecil, now Lord Cecil, came up to your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, tried to get this Amendment put in. I am sure that we must all regret that Lord Midleton is not present to-day, and that those who know him well will rejoice with him and congratulate him on having this month passed his eightieth year. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who was then Leader of the House, expressed his sympathy with Lord Midleton's idea but for some reason or other the matter was dropped. In May, 1933, Sir Gerald Hurst moved in another place a Bill called the Public Meeting Act (1908) Amendment Bill with the same object as I have in this subsection: to assimilate the law. Unfortunately that was a Private Member's Bill, and your Lordships know that there is very little chance of a Private Member's Bill, especially at a late period of the Session, getting through in another place unless the Government take it up.
I am sure that no one in this House objects, as was pointed out yesterday, to fair heckling at an election meeting. It certainly makes election meetings much more lively and interesting than if no interruptions were allowed. On the other hand, the breaking up of meetings by deliberately-organised gangs is not a practice of which anybody can approve. There is no doubt that at these local elections, which become more important every day, scenes of disorder now occur which prevent candidates from speaking, and I know for a fact that many persons are deterred from coming forward as
964
candidates because they are afraid of the violence and disturbances that go on at these meetings. It is well known that such things occur in many large towns. We should all do our best to ensure that free speech and free hearing are allowed to everyone who has a proper case to state. Your Lordships will notice that this new subsection applies not only to indoor but also to outdoor meetings. Outdoor meetings are now very widely held, and the same protection should be given to them as is given to indoor meetings.
Your Lordships will also notice that the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin, in the Amendments which he has put on the Paper, includes a definition of "public place." He has very much enlarged the definition. I do not know whether he got the idea from my subsection, but it certainly looks as if he regarded it as important that outdoor meetings should be looked after as well as indoor meetings. I doubt whether the powers of the police and the increased fines and penalties laid down in this Bill, which it is hoped will be more effective machinery, will in fact be a great deterrent to some of those practices, which are very reprehensible and not at all in the public interest. I earnestly trust that the Government will accept this proposal, because it has long been wanted in connection with these important local elections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I cant to support the Amendment, and in doing so I want to make quite clear, rat her for my own satisfaction, the difference between a municipal and a Parliamentary election. If I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected, but I understand that to create a disturbance at a municipal election is an offence but not an illegality, but to do so in a Parliamentary election is both an illegality and an offence. In other words, if connivance can be proved against the opposinging member (or his agent) then he can be unseated. Now it is only fair, surely, that the protection of the law should be given to a municipal or county council candidate as well as to a Parliamentary candidate. One point may be made by the noble Lord who replies, and that is that the Government do not desire to

965
bring politics into municipal or county council affairs. If the, noble Marquess makes that point he is not really facing the facts, because we all know now that many county council and most municipal elections are run on Party lines, and say that the time has now arrived when the machinery of Party Government should be placed at the disposal of all municipal and county council candidates.
I have attended many county council, municipal and Parliamentary election meetings in the North. I have attended in the capacity of steward, and I have had a large body of stewards under me. When I raised one finger it meant "Stand by." When I raised two fingers it meant "Out," and they went out. I mention this to show that good organisation was necessary in order to counter the excellent organisation on the other side. I may say here that the obstruction that occurs at municipal elections is often greater than, certainly as great as, the obstruction which occurs at Parliamentary elections. The usual procedure is that the man who does the interrupting sits in the centre of the block, and is surrounded on either side, and probably in front and in the rear, by two or three comrades. Your Lordships will understand that some very hard and difficult work is necessary in order to put out the principal interrupter. Noble Lords on the opposite side will probably say it was brutal work.
I should like to take the opportunity now to refute the unfair and unjust criticism in the public Press of the stewards of public meetings, which has been going on during the last two years, and I include Fascist stewards. People allow their dislike of Fascism to run away with their sense of fair play. Fascist stewards are young men who code forward to do their duty, as they consider it, in the defence of free speech at meetings. We are told again and again that they behave in a brutal manner, but the Press and the public never say anything about the brutalities on the other side. Is it likely that stewards are going to say: "Come along quietly with me, and I will put you out in the street," when they see women stewards gashed with razors? What would your Lordships do if you found one of your friends slashed with a razor? Yet you find the Press sticking up for people who interrupt, and not saying a
966
single word in favour of the stewards who are merely doing their duty.
The root of the matter is that many of those interrupters—allies of the Party of noble Lords opposite—are opposed to ordered government. They are determined that free speech shall be denied to the moderates, and to the followers of the National Government, and send their bravoes to smash up meetings. These men are what the Americans call "tough guys," and are fighters, who come there to fight and be ejected. Communists throughout the world believe in force, and the only thing which can possibly meet that force is force—of course the minimum force. The stewards, whether Fascists or not, should be praised and not blamed when they act against these people. I hope that the noble Marquess who replies will realise that this is a very important Amendment and that as much justice and consideration should be given to the patriotic gentlemen who come forward as municipal and county council candidates as is given to Parliamentary candidates.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, the noble Lord, who moved this Amendment has, if I may say so, such vast experience in these matters that one hesitates to entertain or express a different view from his, but at the same time, while humbly agreeing with a good deal that he has said, and with what was said by the noble Earl who followed him, I venture, as one who has had a little experience in another place in the structure and drafting of Bills, to offer one or two considerations before your Lordships proceed finally to deal with the Amendment. The Amendment, as has been truly said, is of an important character. Its purpose, as the noble Lord explained, is to assimilate the procedure at local government election meetings with the procedure at Parliamentary election meetings in the matter both of penalty and disqualification. As I read it, the effect of this subsection, if included in the Bill, would be that instead of the existing law, which imposes a fine of £5 or a month's imprisonment, the noble Lord's Amendment would lay the offender against the Public Meeting Act open to a penalty of £100, and disqualification from voting for a period of five years.
When one has said that I think one has said sufficient to demonstrate the

967
importance of the step which the House is being invited to take. I venture to put before the House one or two considerations why in my humble judgment it should hesitate before now taking that step. The first of these has been referred to by the noble Lord himself in moving his Amendment. It is true, as he said, that many attempts have been made in the last few years to reform the law in this direction, and, according to my information, they have all failed. They have failed, if I am not misinformed, either because of the extremely elaborate machinery which would be required to give effect to them, or because the need for such reform at municipal elections was not thought to be demonstrated. At any rate, for one reason or another, these attempts have not been successful. If this subsection is to go into the Bill the consequential machinery which will be required will be of a most complicated and elaborate character, and, if I may take it as an illustration, in the case of Scotland, the machinery—I have looked into the matter—would be of a most difficult and complex character. That will be understood when I state to the House that the Act of Parliament to which reference is made—the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act—does not apply to Scotland at all.
If that be so, does it not seem a little difficult to introduce at this very late stage, in the second House and on the Report stage, an Amendment requiring such consequential provisions to give effect to it, and that at a time when the House has just strengthened the Public Meeting Act by inserting appropriate machinery for that purpose? Would it not be better to wait for a time and see whether that machinery functions successfully and satisfactorily at municipal elections; and if it is found that, even in its strengthened condition, it does not do so, that may be the appropriate time to introduce legislation of this character. And if I may humbly say so, that would be clone much better in a separate Bill than in a pendicle to a Bill which has passed through another place and is just about to pass through this House. I agree with a great deal that has been said by the two noble Lords who preceded me, but I do suggest that it is for consideration, first of all, whether the existence
968
of the mischief which they fear has been made out, and, secondly, whether the remedy proposed to remove that mischief is an appropriate remedy.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I do not know what reply the Government are going to make to this Amendment, but as one of the "tough guys" who have aroused the ire of the noble Earl opposite, your Lordships may expect me just to say this word. The noble Earl speaks of his experience. It may be appropriate therefore that I should speak of mine, which is quite as long as his, and where he has attended one meeting I must have attended ten throughout my life I have taken part in many elections and I have never seen—in England at any rate and I do not believe it exists in England—that there is razor slashing by English people.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: On the noble Lord's side one never sees that kind of thing. It is only on our side that you see it.
LORD SNELL: I do not understand that the noble Earl challenges what I said: we do not in England use razors to enforce political arguments. I agree that organised rowdyism is just as hateful at a municipal meeting as at a Parliamentary meeting, and it is just as hateful whether it is organised by one side or another side. I do not believe that the side with which I am connected has been particularly guilty in this respect. It is quite outside my own experience. I will only say that there is this difference between a municipal election and the case with winch this Bill proposes to deal. At a county council or a borough election imported rowdies are not the custom; wherever there is interruption it is borough-born, as we may say, rather than imported. Do not let us be too sensitive about interruption. If the noble Lord asks your Lordships to believe that the Labour Party receives some special consideration from the capitalist Press in England he has surely got a very hard task before him. I ass Ire him that all the evidence is on the other side. I think I agree that, as the consequential results of the noble Lord's Amendments would be so considerable, we might wait a bit before we deal with this problem. But do not let

969
it go out that I or my Party believes any more in rowdyism for municipal meetings than we do for any other.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships want me to intervene between the noble Lord who has just spoken and my noble friend behind me. I think if I keep to my muttons and to the Amendment I shall serve your Lordships best. The Government can say at once that they have considerable sympathy with the object of the Amendment. It certainly seems not illogical that the Act of 1884 should also apply to municipal elections. I put certain practical difficulties before your Lordships quite frankly. I am advised that for various reasons, into which I do not think I need enter in detail, the Amendment would in practice be quite unworkable. It is not a very easy thing to apply this law to municipal elections because the period of a municipal election is not clearly defined, as is the period of a Parliamentary election when a writ is issued. For that reason and for various others the Amendment could not possibly be accepted.
If the purpose of the noble Lord was to be served it would mean complete redrafting of his Amendment, and that redrafting would have to be done with the very greatest care, because it would be altering the electoral law, which is a delicate and susceptible fabric which no draftsman would care to alter without the very greatest consideration. As my noble friend behind me pointed out, there is also the fact that the Act of 1884 imposes these very severe penalties—£100 and five years' disqualification; and there is, furthermore, the possibility of an election petition. That being so, and the matter being so grave, I do not think that any of your Lordships would have thought it right that I should have come down to this House with a whole host of manuscript Amendments and asked you to pass them straight off. I do not think that that would be a proper procedure in your Lordships' House. As has been said, the Public Meeting Act of 1908 applies to all meetings and £5 and a month's imprisonment are pretty severe penalties. In these circumstances I would ask my noble friend to give the working of this Bill a chance. Let him see whether in practice his difficulties are not met by this Bill, and not press his Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, after the speeches that have been made, and in view of the practical difficulties, I shall not press this Amendment. But I would wish to point out to Lord Alness that these are maximum penalties. As regards the razor slashing, of course that did not occur, I believe, south of the Tweed. I think therefore that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition might be quite satisfied. I was also glad to hear what the noble Lord said. I made my speech in no Party spirit. I did not accuse either one side or the other. Both at Parliamentary elections and municipal elections, I venture to say, I have had a great deal of experience, having sat off and on for nearly twenty-five years in another place, and been through six Parliamentary elections and I do not know how many municipal elections. I do know that at election time—and I am not saying this in order to arouse Party feeling or to arouse the Opposition—both sides have been known to send gangs about from one part of London to another to break up meetings. It is just that that I am sure we all want stopped.
We do want to see that a fair hearing shall be given, and though the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, said that he had had no experience of it I think he will find that, if he makes some inquiry in his own country, there have been certain towns, which have not been mentioned but which we all know, where there has been a great deal of organised rowdy-ism. All I can say is that the expression of hope by the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin, will, I trust, be fulfilled, and that the improved procedure under this Bill may be effective. If not, I hope that, if this evil still continues in the big towns, Government help will be afforded in some other Bill with the same object, but which will not necessitate all these various Amendments which have been indicated. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Interpretation, Etc.
9.—(1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Recognised corps" means a rifle club, miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved by a Secretary of State under the Firearms Acts, 1920 to 1936, for the purposes of those Acts.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved to insert in subsection (1):
"'Public place' means any highway, public park or garden, any sea beach, and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and includes any open space to which, for the time being, the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is in pursuance of a promise made to look into the question of whether it is possible to define a "public place." I think it was Lord Rankeillour who asked for the definition. We have taken this definition from the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and I hope he likes it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I like the definition very much.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before we part from this clause, may I ask what a "recognised corps" is I asked this question yesterday, and was told that the Government would consider the matter before the Report stage.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, "recognised corps" is defined in the Bill itself on page 8. "Recognised corps" means a rifle club, a miniature rifle club, or a cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State under the Firearms Acts, 1920–1936, for the purposes of those Acts. The noble Lord may ask why it is that we have put in a definition of "recognised corps" in this Bill at all. The reason is that "recognised corps" is mentioned in Clause 4 of the Bill, which deals with the prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons at public meetings and in processions. Certain persons are relieved from that prohibition. They are enumerated in subsection (2) of Clause 4, and amongst them is "recognised corps." That is why "recognised corps" appears in the Definition Clause of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and on that Motion I would like to answer a question which was addressed to me by the noble
972
Lord, Lord Gainford, who put forward yesterday a manuscript Amendment dealing with the definition of the chief officer of police. The noble Lord suggested that the definition should be amended by the insertion of the words "Third Schedule of the" before the words "Police Pensions Act, 1921," in Clause 9 of the Bill. I regret to say that that Amendment cannot be accepted because the definition of chief officer of police applies to the whole of that Act and not only to the Third Schedule. If we inserted the words "Third Schedule" it would give rise to the supposition that the definition of chief officer of police in the Third Schedule differed from the definition of the chief officer of police in the rest of the Act. I might add that the definition which is contained in Clause 9 (1) has already been inserted in a large number of other Acts and has become a more or less stereotyped definition of the phrase "chief officer of police." With this explanation I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess able to give us any information about future business?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords understand there is no business on the Paper to-morrow except a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. It is proposed that the House should adjourn on Friday for the Christmas Recess until January 26.
LORD SNELL: At what time to-morrow will the House meet?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Three o'clock.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.