Lords Sitting of 25 June 1936

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAND REGISTRATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PETROLEUM (TRANSFER OF LICENCES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (CON- VENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX (IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to emphasise the fact that the Bill which I am recommending to your Lordships' approval this afternoon is an absolutely non-party measure. It is promoted jointly by the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council. It is true that there is a Labour majority on the London County Council, but it is equally true that there is a Conservative majority on the Middlesex County Council. It therefore looks as if this was one of the rare and welcome occasions on which Socialists and Conservatives are able to join hands in the public interest. I hope your Lordships will consider this measure entirely on its merits as a method of improving the transport facilities in the London area.
The project of improving the western exits of London has been under consideration by the authorities concerned for over twenty years, and the need of such an improvement has become particularly urgent in recent years. This has been due partly to the fact that

225
some important new arterial roads have been built on the outskirts of London. I refer to the Chertsey By-Pass Road, to the Great West Road, and to the North Circular Road; and these roads cannot be fully utilised by traffic until they are extended eastwards. It has also become even more urgent than before on account of the appalling traffic congestion in Hammersmith Broadway, Hammersmith Road, and King Street. I need not labour this point with your Lordships. I think there is not one of your Lordships who has driven out of London in a westerly or south-westerly direction who has not experienced the inconvenience of the traffic blocks that cannot be avoided in these roads or at the junction between Hammersmith Broadway and King Street. In order to meet these requirements this Bill contemplates the construction of a new arterial road, nearly four miles long, from the end of West Cromwell Road to the eastern terminus of the Great-West Road.
In order to undertake this big task it is indispensable for the authorities concerned to acquire the necessary powers from Parliament. In the first place, they have to get authorisation to purchase the land and properties through which the road will have to run, and Part II of the Bill deals with that aspect of the problem. Again, they must have authorisation to embark on the engineering operations entailed by the construction of the road itself, and this demand is embodied in Part III of the Bill. Part IV concerns the financing of this project. The whole new road will cost a little over £2,500,000, and 60 per cent. of this sum is to be found by road users all over the country and will come out of the Road Fund. The remaining 40 per cent. will come from the rates that are raised in the areas concerned. That covers very broadly Part IV of the Bill. Those are the main provisions contained in this measure. I have done my best to outline them very briefly and to avoid describing any provisions, however important, in detail.
Let me say in conclusion that this is a measure that has been agreed upon after the fullest possible consideration by all the principal authorities and interests concerned. It is supported by the London County Council, by the Middlesex County
226
Council, and by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and your Lordships will recollect that this Committee has on it representatives of all the local authorities and of all the traffic authorities in the London area. It is also supported by the Government and by the Ministry of Transport. Besides—and perhaps this is the strongest argument of all—every alternative scheme that any person or body might wish to propose, and every material modification of the present scheme was brought before a Select Committee in another place. Learned Counsel, arguing with customary eloquence, was able to put these objections in full so that they could be considered for seven or eight days by the Committee. The shape of the present Bill is the shape which this Committee agreed unanimously that it ought to have. I therefore sincerely hope that your Lordships will see your way to give the measure a Second Reading and thereby put on foot operations that will construct a road which will redound to the credit of this great City. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD DICKINSON LORD DICKINSON had given Notice that he would move the rejection of the Bill, and also that, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, he would move. That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, to insert provisions whereby if any land at present open to the public is taken for the purpose of the Bill the promoters shall provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land so taken such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for taking up your time with regard to this Bill. I am much obliged to the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill for the clear and excellent way in which he has stated what the Bill proposes to do. Unfortunately, he has not referred to a certain feature of it to which a great many people object and in reference to which I have ventured to put down a Motion. Perhaps I had better say at this stage that, after consultation with the Chairman of Committees, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I have been

227
advised to alter the actual wording of that Motion in this way:
" That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill the promoters should give an undertaking to seek powers to provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it."
I will explain why it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with this Motion.
The Bill, as has been stated, has gone through the House of Commons, and in the House of Commons it was thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee in the ordinary way. Among the petitioners against the Bill was a collection of societies and individuals who appeared in order not only to oppose the Bill but also to draw attention to the fact that the Bill does offend against a principle which has been recognised by Parliament already on several occasions—namely, that when it is proposed to take a public open space and to make use of it for the purposes of an improvement it shall be obligatory upon the promoters to provide some other alternative piece of land in compensation for that which is taken. I may add that the process of investigation which went on in the House of Commons will not, so far as I understand, be possible in this House, because those who spoke on the side of the open spaces associations cannot afford the necessary money for the purpose of appearing before a Committee of your Lordships' House. Therefore it is possible, indeed I think it is almost certain, that unless this question were raised here it would not be raised at any other stage in your Lordships' House.
I speak as Chairman of one of those societies, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association. That is an association which was founded more than half a century ago by the late Lord Meath, and during that time it has done a very great deal of work in providing open spaces, saving plots from being built over by builders, safeguarding disused burial grounds and such like places of rest, and also parks and open spaces in and around London. In doing that it has necessarily had to arouse public opinion and also to collect considerable sums of money. It has succeeded in obtaining for the public the use of some hundreds
228
of open spaces of different kinds throughout London. The money with which these open spaces have been purchased has been raised for the express purpose of the land so acquired being permanently assured for the recreation of the public, and it is certain that enough money could not have been raised if it had been thought that in some future year that particular use of the land would be departed from and the land taken for other purposes.
In this particular case there are two important open spaces to which this society and others have contributed in the manner I have described. They are Chiswick Park and Homefield Recreation Ground. I will refer to them again later, but I mention them now because I think the very fact that the society over which I have the honour to preside and the other society with which I am well acquainted have contributed to secure these grounds, gives me a certain justification for addressing your Lordships as I do this afternoon. In the last fifty years these associations have with the assistance of Parliament established a very important principle and I want to appeal to your Lordships to maintain that principle in this case. When first the County Council came into existence attention was drawn to the fact that the commons in the neighbourhood of London were being cut up into slices by railways passing into and out of London. There was a case of which I had experience where the Midland Railway Company proposed to take the old St. Pancras Churchyard for the purpose of its business. That company was compelled by Parliament to provide money for the provision of open spaces in the neighbourhood.
The principle has been embodied in many Acts of Parliament. For instance, in the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, Section 19 (1) provides:
"Where an order…authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public."

229
It is further provided by that Act that a metropolitan common or any land dedicated to the public use is to be similarly protected. That general principle having been established, I venture to say that the promoters of this Bill ought to have borne it in mind.
I do not think for a moment that any private undertaking bringing in a Bill of this kind would venture in these days to omit a provision to this effect. Unfortunately we now find ourselves faced my far moe formidable opponents in public authorities. I could give numerous examples of cases in which public authorities have proposed to take for other purposes land dedicated for use as open spaces. The most recent case, as your Lordships will remember, was the proposal of the London County Council to utilise thirty acres of Hackney Marshes for the building of houses for working-class people. That was challenged by societies and individuals and it was decided by the Courts of Law that neither the County Council nor the Ministry of Health had power to take this action. Nevertheless, the County Council introduced a Bill in the present Parliament for the purpose of enabling them to utilise this land without making any compensation by providing land in the neighbourhood of equal area to be used as an open space. Fortunately, public opinion was so strong and the societies interested agitated so successfully that the County Council have been persuaded to provide an approximately equal area in the neighbourhood to replace the land that they are taking for houses. Highway authorities at the present time are our arch enemies. We find them everywhere taking little bits of greens or open spaces for the purpose of widening the roads or improving traffic facilities. Their justification for so doing is of course the public need, but we hold that the public need is for open spaces just as much as roads, and that therefore the authorities should find some better way of providing roads than by taking open spaces.
This particular Bill is a very striking instance of what is being done in that way. In a distance not exceeding one mile there are affected by this Bill no fewer than seven plots of land unbuilt upon, all of which are more or less of
230
value as open spaces and more or less of a public character. There are two public recreation grounds, two churchyards, two schools the playgrounds of which will be affected, and one institution. I do not want to exaggerate the effect of this Bill and I must say that some of this land is very slightly affected. Nevertheless, all this open ground is affected to an extent which I think is of public interest. There is, for instance, the case of St. Paul's School. That school, as most of your Lordships will know, has a magnificent playground edged by a double line of very fine trees. This new road is to cut off that line of trees and cut off a section of the cricket and football grounds. That proposal has been vigorously resisted by the authorities of the school, and from the general public point of view I regard it as an encroachment on an open space. In the case of Homefield Recreation Ground there will be a very serious encroachment. The new road will cut through the middle of the recreation ground. The recreation ground now is about ten acres in extent. It is proposed to take about two acres for the road and the remaining ground will be cut into two plots of about three or four acres each. That will leave it practically useless for the purpose of the recreation of the public.
This interference with open spaces would, in my opinion, justify the Bill being thrown out but I do not ask your Lordships to do that. I quite recognise that a Bill like this must be thoroughly considered by a Committee of your Lordships' House and that your Lordships will not reject on Second Reading a Bill of this character. At the same time I consider that there is no other opportunity for your Lordships to decide whether the principle I have referred to shall be applied except this occasion of which I am now taking advantage. All I ask is that if these pieces of land are taken for the purpose of roadways, compensation shall be given by providing approximately equal areas of land somewhere in the neighbourhood. There is little doubt that it is possible to do this. During the discussion before the House of Commons Committee, Counsel for the promoters actually suggested a plot of ground immediately contiguous to this Homefield Recreation Ground which it was said would be suitable as an alternative. Unfortunately, however,

231
it transpired that this would add to the cost of the scheme some £60,000, and accordingly, when the matter came before the Committee of the House of Commons, the Committee considered that they were not justified in compelling the Minister of Transport to pay this additional sum. I submit that this was a very unjust decision, because this land is now being got for nothing, and got for nothing because years ago people were generous enough, and sufficiently anxious to provide for the recreation of the public, to subscribe their money and to buy this land to prevent it from becoming building land. To say now that this land is to be taken without any compensation seems to me to be extremely unjust.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, because this is a very important point? Do I understand him to say—I think my ears must have deceived me—that the Middlesex County Council and the Minister of Transport together are going to take this bit of land without paying any compensation at all?
LORD DICKINSON: Yes, there is no doubt about it—the recreation ground. There is no compensation, because, in the first place, there is no one to compensate. You cannot pay the public the money, you can only compensate the public by giving the authorities money to buy another recreation ground in the vicinity. That is the principle upon which we are all so anxious to persuade your Lordships to insist on this occasion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Would the noble Lord allow me? This is a friendly interruption, and I only want to get this clear. I am told by him that, when land has been dedicated to the public, the County Council together with the Minister of Transport can come and take it away for nothing for road widening. It is well known that if the land belongs to a private individual they have to pay for their road widening. Have I correctly interpreted the position?
LORD DICKINSON: Yes, that is what they are proposing to do by this Bill. By the law they could not do it. In fact, as I have already pointed out to your Lordships, if they were to carry out this road improvement under the ordinary law and not under a special Act, they would
232
be bound to provide such an area as the Minister—I think it was the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the case I quoted; I am not sure it is not the Minister of Health at the present moment—would decide to be adequate compensation for taking away the land. But they are not doing this; they are bringing in a special Bill of their own by which they will not pay—I am quite prepared to be corrected by the noble Lord opposite, but I understand they will not under this Bill be compelled to pay a penny to anybody. That is the reason why we are asking that they should be compelled to provide another space in lieu of that which is taken.
I might just point out, too—though perhaps I am repeating myself—that these open spaces have been bought by public authorities and private individuals for an express purpose to be permanently secured for ever, and in order to give the spaces permanent security they have generally been made subject to Acts of Parliament. So far as I know, even this recreation ground is subjected to an Act of Parliament. At any rate there is no doubt that whoever holds this ground—I am not sure whether it is the Middlesex County Council or whether it is the Chiswick Borough Council—holds it on the distinct understanding that it is never alienated from that purpose but devoted to the recreation of the public. Your Lordships are asked now by this Bill, if I am not using too strong language, to endorse what I consider to be a breach of trust. They have no right to propose to convert this land, considering the conditions under which it was obtained, and the least we can do at the present moment is to insist that if the land is taken the public shall not suffer but shall have something adequate put in its place.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships. I shall not detain you very much longer, but I should like to add this. We have a practical reason for asking your Lordships to take this course. In and around London, as your Lordships must be aware, the unbuilt-on areas have been disappearing very rapidly indeed. I am informed that it was officially stated by some Committee of the County Council that within the last ten years 21,000 acres of unbuilt-on land have been covered with buildings and

233
that at the present moment within that area there only remain 7,700 acres of unbuilt-on land. I quite admit that the growing population needs new houses and new roads, but the more houses it has and the more roads you make, the more places of recreation and rest and, if I may say so, safety from traffic the public require. We ought now to be doing all we can to increase the number of public gardens in London, and that, I regret to say, is not being done. There have been grandiose schemes for making a green belt outside London while there are thousands and thousands of children in London who have no other playground than the streets. In my opinion it would be far better even to turn to increasing the number of open spaces in London than to increasing them outside. At any rate it is a very strong argument, I submit to your Lordships, for refusing to allow a single open space, a single acre of recreation ground, in London to be utilised for any other purpose than that for which it was intended. In any case we ought to insist that in a Bill like the present one this decision should be made. The Motion which I have therefore put before your Lordships I have already read. I trust that your Lordships will think it right to give such instructions to your Committee that they will see that proper compensation is given if this land is to be utilised for the new roadway. I therefore respectfully move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out (" now ") and at end of the Motion insert (" this day six months ").—(Lord Dickinson.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think the Amendment is, That this Bill be read a second time this day six months, but in the usual manner to which your Lordships are accustomed my noble friend has taken his two proposals together, and if your Lordships permit I should like to follow his example. I hope, and I think the noble Lord would not disagree, that your Lordships will send this Bill to be examined by a Committee. I think in every case that anybody who occupies the position which your Lordships have done me the honour to entrust to me, when asked for an opinion, has always urged that a Private Bill should have an opportunity of being argued before a Committee of this
234
House. Therefore I trust you will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to proceed upstairs. As regards the Motion which the noble Lord has put down in the event of the Bill being read a second time, it is quite accurate, as the noble Lord has told your Lordships, that I ventured to draw attention to the fact that his original Motion would not be possible for certain technical reasons, such as the giving of notice, and so forth. I do not think the Committee could put such a clause in the Bill, but the practice of giving an undertaking is well known to your Lordships and has a similar effect. The effect of accepting the Motion would be to give an instruction, a mandatory instruction, to the Committee that they should insist upon compensating land being given for any land taken.
That, if I may venture to say so, is rather a strong measure. This Bill has been before a Committee of another place, and it has had very long and careful consideration, and I think it would be perhaps rather a strong order for your Lordships, by instruction on the Second Reading, to tell a Committee of this House to override a Committee of another place. The promoters, or anybody, would say, and I think justifiably, that a great deal of trouble was taken in another place, that the matter was argued and carefully heard on both sides, but that the House of Lords instructed their Committee to override the decision of the Committee of another place merely after a Second Reading debate. I think that would perhaps be regarded as a somewhat strong order. I do not in the least desire that this Bill should not receive the earnest consideration of a Committee. I think it should, and that the Committee should go into the matter and come to such conclusion as they may think desirable on the evidence submitted to them.
For that reason I would venture, with your Lordships' permission, to suggest, if my noble friend agrees, that the instruction, if you wish to send an instruction to the Committee at all, should read in this way:
" that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill, the Committee shall consider the desirability of requiring an undertaking from the promoters that they will provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such

235
other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it."
That, as your Lordships will see, gives the Committee power to reject or to accept the decision of another place, and I think it would be only right that the Committee should have exactly the same powers as the Committee of the House of Commons had in considering the Bill.
Now I come to another question. Whatever decision the Committee may come to, at least if it comes to a decision to support the Committee of the House of Commons, I think it should be made clear by your Lordships in this House that such a decision to acquire land without giving compensation is one which is based upon exceptional and peculiar circumstances, and is in no way to be taken as a precedent in future for the acquisition of land. I think I am right in saying that never before has land been taken without compensating land being given in exchange, and I think that if this particular acquisition of land is made it should be registered that it cannot be used in Committees of this House or of another place as a precedent for further transactions of the same kind. I hope your Lordships will consider the suggestions which I have made, that the instruction should not be made absolutely mandatory, and also that it should be made perfectly clear that if the Committee decide to report in favour of the Bill that decision should not be made a precedent for future use.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I would like to make a few observations in support of what Lord Dickinson has said, and also with reference to one other point which I hope may be considered by the Committee. There are two particulars which I think one must consider in a proposal such as this. One was dealt with fully by the noble Lord—namely, the fact that this proposed road would diminish the available open spaces, which is a very serious proposition where we have a crowded population. Another consideration is the fact that this road infringes some of the most up-to-date principles which ought to be in the mind of anyone promoting a great arterial road, because it will not allow of the freest movement of traffic, and unnecessarily endangers human life. Nobody who has to travel out of London
236
by motor car would deny the need for having more exits out of London, particularly in the West. I was not much influenced by the fact brought forward by the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading of the Bill that Conservatives and Socialists are agreed upon the Bill. I have known them to be agreed on unwise proposals as well as to disagree. I do not think that that should influence us unduly.
I will not traverse the ground which has been already dealt with by Lord Dickinson—he has explained to your Lordships the proposal to take this land without compensation—but I would like to emphasise one point. Not only would the road, if made as now proposed, deprive the public of certain open spaces, not only would it deprive the public, as I understand it, of two disused churchyards, now used as open spaces, but it would also seriously damage a great public school—St. Paul's School. It would take away one out of three grounds now used for Rugby football and at least three cricket pitches. I merely mention the fact because it has not been referred to, and I support entirely all that the noble Lord has said already about the damage done to playing fields and open spaces.
Let me turn to another point which I hope will be considered by the Committee. This arterial road, I understand, proposes to follow the line of an existing street. Now there is an alternative whereby a new exit from London could, by bridging over a railway, be built parallel to the proposed road. If this alternative were adopted the present street would still be available for the public, and in addition there would be this new arterial exit out of London, and it would have many advantages. The present proposal has the disadvantage that it goes through many cross-roads. It has another disadvantage in that it goes past the fronts of houses; that is to say, it would once again in the course of its transit seriously endanger the lives of many children who are constantly going out of houses on to high roads. If the alternative which I have in mind were adopted there would not be that danger. If the new road were carried on a bridge over the railway it would pass behind the backs of houses instead of in front of them. There would then not be the

237
danger of children running on to the roads; nor would you have the butchers' and bakers' cars drawn up in front of houses, thereby impeding the through traffic.
I understand that there are two objections, which I think are relatively unimportant, which have been brought forward against this alternative proposal. One rests on the ground of expense and the other on the ground of delay of time. If we are really going to provide London with the most up-to-date arterial road and exit, I do not believe that we should be held up merely because a few extra months might be required in fully examining—which has not yet been done—this alternative. As regards the expense, I understand that it will not really be very serious, considering the magnitude and importance of the roadway proposed. So I suggest that when this Bill goes before a Committee the Committee will bear in mind, first, this possible better alternative exit out of London and, secondly, the points which have been brought to your Lordships' attention by the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I feel bound to say something on this occasion, because this Bill, which adumbrates a scheme which has long been before the County Councils of London and Middlesex, has received a great deal of attention from all parties concerned, and I wish to emphasise the statement that has just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that this is not a Party matter on the Councils concerned. The great point I wish to make is that this Bill as at present drawn is quite contrary to the practice required in the past and contrary also to what is laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.
I should like to quote part of one paragraph of the Third Schedule of that Act, which says:
" Where a scheme or an order made in connection with a scheme authorises the acquisition or appropriation of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the scheme or order, so far as it relates to the acquisition or appropriation of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except—

(a) where the scheme provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Department, after consultation with the
238
Department of Agriculture for Scotland, to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights and to the public; or

(b) where such land is required for the widening of an existing highway and the Department, after consultation with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, declare that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary either in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights, or of the public."

This land is subject at the present moment so far as London is concerned—and I believe also Middlesex—to a town plan. That is to say, a resolution has been approved by the Minister of Health whereby this land is to be town planned. It is true that at the moment there is no such scheme in being, although I understand there is a scheme in preparation for that section of the land under this Bill which lies within London. If this Bill goes through as it is now proposed, that town planning scheme would have to be promulgated under a great disadvantage—namely, that Parliament had consented to these open spaces being very materially spoilt, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has already passed an Act laying down that compensation should be given for land taken for an improvement. But there are other objections besides that. The London County Council at present is very rightly doing all it can to preserve land from being built upon by contributing to the expenses of neighbouring authorities who can help to keep land unbuilt upon in and around London, and it seems to me that this Bill as drawn goes quite contrary to that principle, which is a principle which anybody who is interested in the better planning of unbuilt-on land would agree is the right and proper method, in order to protect the future from the mistakes of the past.
Then again, both Councils concerned have to provide playing fields for their schools, and yet without any apology they are going right through a school football playground. There is also the case of Chiswick, but as that has been referred to I will not dwell upon that. But I do feel it is a mistake to give the Bill a Second Reading without some guidance to the Committee that the principles already approved by Parliament for the whole country should be followed in this Bill. As one who has been responsible for a good deal of town planning

239
in London and in Greater London, I feel I should not be doing my duty if I did not almost implore the House to have regard to those very important principles which have been laid down in the past, and which ought not to be made of no effect by either a Private Bill or a Public Bill. But whether it is possible for this House to do all that it would wish to do, seeing that this Bill has already been through another place, I am not sure. Obviously it would mean more expense, but I suggest that if it does, even so you would have to acquire land for open spaces in the near future anyhow, and you might just as well incur the expense for keeping open spaces rather than destroying them and finding new ones. It is a serious matter when you take land away from an old-established institution like St. Paul's School. The great cry to-day is for more land for youth. It is in everyone's mind that a great appeal has gone out to the public at the present moment to enable more land to be added to that which exists for playing fields for the young. It seems to me that this Bill goes right against that principle and against the appeal that has been made to the public. May I suggest that when an appeal like that is before the public, important public bodies ought to take notice of it and try to put something in such Bills as this which will support the appeal which is before the country to-day? With these few remarks, I feel I must support the proposal of my noble friend.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, speaks for the Government, may I ask one question of Lord Dickinson which I think is of some importance? I understand that a major part of the playing ground of St. Paul's School will be taken for the use of the road.
LORD DICKINSON: Not a major part—a slice, I understand, off the side.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Anyhow, a part of the land is to be taken for the use of the road. Normally, unless there was legislation, the County Council would have to pay St. Paul's School for the land taken away even though they could find a suitable area to give them in exchange. I am amazed at the audacity of the County Council in coming to your Lordships' House and saying: "Payment always has to be
240
made when land is taken for road widening without legislation, but we would not like to pay this large sum to St. Paul's School, therefore we are promoting this Bill."
LORD DICKINSON: I must have explained myself badly. When I spoke of no compensation I was referring to the parks. Compensation no doubt will be paid to St. Paul's School, but I doubt whether compensation will be paid for the churchyards.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If I may try to dissipate a misunderstanding, I would like to make it perfectly plain that the ordinary machinery of compensation when land is taken over compulsorily by a local authority would be used by the County Council in both cases—in the case of St. Paul's School recreation ground and in the case of the Homefield Recreation Ground. I should like to make that perfectly clear in case there may be misunderstanding.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I think it would be right if I were to state the Government's view with regard to this Bill now. The Government support the Bill warmly. It is common ground, I think, that some scheme of the kind embodied in this Bill is absolutely vital from a traffic point of view. It is essential that we should create a new traffic artery leading out in a south-westerly direction from London. This matter has been given very full and very careful consideration by all the bodies concerned. As your Lordships have already heard, it has the support of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, who are the promoters, and of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee as well. Therefore I doubt whether there will be any one in your Lordships' House who would disagree with my proposition that some scheme of this kind is inevitable. The various proposals which have been made have been considered by the various authorities, and they have definitely come to the conclusion that the proposal embodied in the present Bill is the most suitable one from every point of view. It is undoubtedly the most suitable one

241
from the traffic point of view because it deals with certain problems into which I shall not attempt to go now but which, until now, have caused a good deal of trouble. Then it is also the cheapest of the three alternatives that have been seriously considered. I believe that the scheme referred to by my noble friend on the Cross Benches—the scheme of carrying this road over the top of the District Railway—would probably add something like one million pounds to the total cost. I am not suggesting that these are over-riding considerations.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask what is the first cost of the scheme?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think I am right in saying it is just over £2,500,000. It is also the best scheme from the point of view of interference with general amenities. I am sorry that the noble Lord in moving his Amendment referred to those who were on the side of open spaces. I believe every one of your Lordships is on the side of open spaces in London or in any other thickly-populated area. Speaking for myself, I sympathise very warmly indeed with those who are jealous of every square inch in a district such as we are dealing with which is at present devoted to recreation purposes. But the fact obviously remains that if we have to undertake big schemes of this kind, as indeed we must, it is inevitable that there should be some kind of interference with amenity and, perhaps, with open spaces as well. As I see it, the object ought to be to do what you want to do—that is, to effect the improvements that you want to effect, with as little interference as possible with these particular amenities. I do not intend to go into the details of the provisions of this Bill. Personally I do not think it is necessary, nor would it be of any advantage for me to do so at this stage, but a certain amount has been said about the Home-field Recreation Ground to which I think I must refer out of courtesy to your Lordships and in order to provide some information and to correct some confusion of thought which seems to exist.
It is perfectly true that, in so far as that recreation ground is concerned, the Bill will result in one acre, not two acres, being taken out of ten, which is the total area of that open space, for the purpose of building this road, and it will also cut
242
off a portion of about three acres from the other part; but I ought to point out that it is not going to cut right across the middle of the recreation ground. As a matter of fact these three acres are already cut off from the remainder of the ground at the present moment in that they are devoted to tennis courts, and even now, I think I am right in saying, there is netting up along the line which it is intended this road should take. The noble Lord said that as far as he knew no compensation of any kind was going to be paid for this acre of land which it would be necessary to take in order to carry out this scheme. I do not think that is quite the position. The position is this, that the Homefield Recreation Ground belongs to the Chiswick Urban District Council, and the Middlesex County Council have assumed that if a claim is made for compensation for that particular area of land, they will pay to the Chiswick Urban District Council a sum of money which is to be based on the valuation of the district valuer. I do not think it is strictly correct to say that there is to be no compensation whatsoever.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: No compensation to those who use the ground.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am going on to that, but I want now to apply myself to the larger principle which was propounded by the noble Lord, and that was that whenever you take an area of open space that has been devoted to recreational purposes there should be some equivalent compensation in some other area in the vicinity or contiguous to the area actually affected.
LORD DICKINSON: I said in the shape of land. The question of money compensation was raised by my noble friend below me.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That was the point I was taking. With regard to that there are certain considerations which, I repeat, are not in my view by any means overriding ones. I do not want to prejudge the details of the Bill, but there are considerations which are of some importance in a matter of this kind. The first is that since this measure was first under consideration some additional 68 acres have been added to the open spaces of that district by the acquisition

243
of the park of Chiswick House, and towards the acquisition of that land the Middlesex County Council provided a sum of £58,000. Furthermore, as a matter of fact, the Chiswick district is by no means badly off so far as open spaces are concerned; indeed, it is far better placed so far as open spaces are concerned than most parts of London or other congested districts. There is this consideration as well, that when this Bill was being considered in another place the Middlesex County Council made it quite clear that they would be prepared, if Parliament placed the obligation upon them, with the help of a grant from the Road Fund to acquire certain property contiguous to the Homefield Recreation Ground with a view to throwing it into that recreation ground. That would have cost a sum of £52,000. This matter was completely considered in the Committee of the House of Commons, and that Committee definitely decided that they did not think that in the circumstances that was necessary.
The only point I want to make is really this, that in those circumstances I think it would be wrong for your Lordships, by accepting an instruction such as the noble Lord suggested, to tie down the Committee which will be appointed to examine this measure. I think that it should be left free, just as the Committee in the House of Commons was left free, to examine this particular question and to come to its own conclusion about it. No doubt other important suggestions that have been made to your Lordships by various members of your Lordships' House will also be considered. I want to point out that the offer, if I may use the word, which has been made by the Middlesex County Council with regard to this particular piece of land that I was referring to still holds good, and it is for Parliament to decide whether they wish to put upon the promoters of this Bill an obligation such as that. I think that a very good compromise has been suggested by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman in regard to this particular matter. He has suggested that the instruction should not be a mandatory one, but rather that it should be an instruction to the Committee that they should consider the desirability of requiring from the Middlesex County Council an undertaking of that description. That seems to me a very fair compromise. It
244
is one which the Government are prepared to support and which, I understand, the mover of the Second Reading of this Bill is also prepared to support. In those circumstances I hope that your Lordships will give the measure a Second Reading and accept the solution which has been suggested by the Lord Chairman.
LORD BALFOUR OF BUBLEIGH: My Lords, I must apologise for not having been here earlier in this debate, but I was detained by public business elsewhere. I understand that we are asked to agree to a Motion which is not on the Paper. I am not quite clear about it. I would like to ask the noble Lord who has suggested it whether it is now too late, for instance, to petition against the Bill, or whether the obtaining of this instruction in your Lordships' House is the only way of ensuring the principle which he is anxious to preserve. I do not know if the noble Lord can answer that question, but I think it materially affects what is now before your Lordships.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, if I have got correctly the sense of what my noble friend said, he asked whether the only way in which this matter can be brought before the Committee was by moving an instruction in your Lordships' House. I gather that no petition has been laid which deals with this matter; therefore if some instruction is not given to the Committee to consider it I doubt if it could be raised before the Committee. I believe that is the case, and, therefore, if your Lordships wish it to be carefully considered by the Committee, I think it would be necessary for the House to give this instruction. I think I am right in saying that, if that is what the noble Lord asked.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in view of what the Lord Chairman has said it seems to me essential that your Lordships should give an instruction to the Committee. I am bound to say I was a little disappointed to hear what the noble Earl representing the Government said. He said that every one of your Lordships was in favour of this principle of open spaces, and then proceeded to add what I think can only be described as a little nibbling. Both the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Listowel) and the noble Earl on the Government Bench (the Earl of

245
Plymouth) are inclined, in spite of their devotion to open spaces, to nibble. It is only an acre or an acre and a bit, but it is this process of nibbling which I think your Lordships ought to resist. It may be that Chiswick is fairly well supplied with open spaces; but I doubt if the defender of the Bill would say that even in Chiswick the open spaces are adequate. It is quite certain that in the whole of London they are very far from being adequate.
I regret this practice of the Transport Authority coming along with a scheme without sufficient regard to open spaces and to the other interests affected. It does point to the need for the much more coherent plan of which we have heard from time to time in your Lordships' House. On this occasion I think the best course is for your Lordships to give such an instruction to the Committee as will ensure that this principle of the preservation of open spaces is adhered to. We had a good example of the force of opinion behind that principle in the Hackney Marshes controversy the other day, and I think your Lordships will make a very great mistake if you part with this Bill and send it upstairs without some instruction which will safeguard the open spaces principle.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in replying to those who have spoken on this question I will only detain you for as short a time as possible. I am assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, has accepted the terms of the Motion suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and that is the issue on which your Lordships will be asked to vote. My task is much simplified by the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who I think answered exceedingly effectively the objections raised by Lord Dickinson when he said that this Bill would cut into the open spaces of London. Let me say that the promoters of this measure, in common with every member of your Lordships' House, are infinitely anxious to preserve as far as possible these playgrounds that are to so large an extent a safeguard for the health of the young inhabitants of the London area. It could only be under an imperative necessity that they would trespass, to however small an extent, on any open space.
246
The tiny fraction affected by this Bill has had the fullest consideration before a Select Committee in another place. For eight days every argument against the acquisition of these small parts of two open spaces—the playground of St. Paul's School and the Homefield Recreation Ground—were put forward by eloquent and learned Counsel. I therefore hope very much, as your Lordships have only been discussing this Bill for an hour and twenty minutes, that a step not taken after eight days full consideration by a Committee in another place will not be taken by your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships will consider that the matter is one which requires further time before a final decision can be taken. I hope, therefore, very ardently, that your Lordships will be guided by the advice of the noble Earl who so often points the way in matters of procedure, and will support a proposal that will enable this whole question of open spaces to be discussed and considered in detail when this Bill passes to another stage. In view of that I hope that the two Motions on the Order Paper will not be pressed.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, is going to move some instruction to the Committee, but as I sense the feeling of the House we do not want to give a mandatory instruction to the Committee to do something, but we do want to bring to the notice of the Committee the necessity of considering the matter. Would not that be accomplished if we amended the instruction standing in the name of Lord Dickinson by leaving out "insert provisions whereby" in line 3 and substituting "consider whether if"? It would then read "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to consider and"—
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but a Motion is in the hands of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in the form suggested by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. I think that really meets the case.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May the Motion be read?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in form we are

247
discussing the rejection of the Bill. When that has been disposed of, if the Bill is read a second time, the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, presumably will move an instruction in such form as he sees fit and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will then move an Amendment to it. It is not inconvenient to discuss the whole thing at once, but it is inconvenient to discuss the exact wording of an Amendment which has not been moved.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I will withdraw my opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. At any rate that will simplify matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I will now move an instruction to the Committee in the form suggested by the noble Earl:
"That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill, the Committee shall consider the desirability of requiring an undertaking from the promoters that they will provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it."
I am quite willing to accept the noble Earl's suggestion and move it in that form.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before that is put, may I ask whether that will enable the Select Committee to consider the alternative route referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor?
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill, the Committee shall consider the desirability of requiring an undertaking from the promoters that they will provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it.—(Lord Dickenson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
YORK GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
AXBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF EASTRY).
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section one of that Act to the rural district of Eastry and laid before this House on the 19th of May last be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove certain inequalities and indeed injustices which exist in the method of assessing the pensions of Governors, and particularly Governors with previous civil service. It is a slightly complicated one and requires just a little explanation, but I assure your Lordships that I do not intend to take up much time. The present position is this. A Governor does not get a pension at the Governor's rate unless he has served as a Governor for ten years. If he has served for any time less than ten years he is granted a pension as though he had remained in the Civil Service appointment which he last held and as though he had not been promoted at all to the post of a Governor. I ought perhaps to explain that, for the purpose of assessing the pension rate, Governorships are divided into four different classes and the rate of pension is fixed according to the period of time which any particular Governor has served in any particular class or classes.
I think it is quite obvious that a system under which a Governor is not paid a pension at Governor's rates unless he has served as a Governor for ten years is contrary in spirit and in effect to the ordinary rule which regulates the granting of pensions in the public service: that is, that an officer's pension should be fixed according to the position which he held at the time of his retirement. But, apart from what I think I may call the intrinsic injustice of that system, there are certain other definite objections to it. In the first place, it tends to restrict the Secretary of State's freedom of choice in selecting Governors. By that I mean that
250
there is a tendency—I will not go further than that—for him to select those who have ten years in front of them before they reach the age of retirement. There is also a tendency to allow Governors to go on to complete ten years service for some years after they reach the retiring age when really, in the interests of the public, they probably should have retired.
To pass to the various clauses of the Bill: Clause 1 (1) alters this position, and if it becomes effective the result will be that in respect of a person who is a Governor on or after January 1 this year, if he has completed not less than three years service as a Governor and if the total period of his service as a Governor and in the permanent Civil Service amounts to not less than ten years, a pension may be paid to him at the Governor's rate. In other words, in future a civil servant, instead of having to do ten years as a Governor, has only to do three years as a Governor and ten years altogether before he can be pensioned off at the Governor's rate. The remaining subsections of this clause and the remaining clauses of the Bill deal with matters of greater detail, and I will only refer to them briefly. Clause 1 (2) provides that service as Governor-General of the Sudan shall rank for the qualifying period with ordinary civil service. Clause 1 (3) is designed to enable the present Governor-General of the Sudan, who before receiving that appointment was a Colonial Governor with previous civil service, to get the benefit of this clause in spite of the fact that he ceased to be a Governor before January 1, 1936. Without this Bill it will not be possible to give him a pension at all for his Colonial Governorship. As a matter of fact that defect in the present system is remedied by Clause 3 (1) and not by this particular subsection.
Then, Clause 1 (5) provides that the benefit of Clause 1 (1) may be extended to any Governor who retired between January 1 of this year and the date when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That provision perhaps requires a little explanation. The point is that the Financial Resolution in connection with this Bill was introduced in another place as long ago as July of last year, and it was therefore reasonable at that time to suppose that the Bill would become law before the end of last year. As your Lordships know, certain events arose which inter-

251
fered with a smooth procedure of that kind, and as a result certain expectations had been aroused which could not nave been fulfilled unless this provision had been inserted in the Bill. The object of Clause 2 is to enable a Governor with previous Sudan civil service to be regarded as a Civil Service Governor for the purposes in view unless, of course, he happens to take his pension from the Sudan and draw it during his time of Governorship. Clause 3 (1) appears rather complicated when first read, but I think I can best explain this subsection by saying that it means that if a man who is a Colonial Governor goes on to the Governor-Generalship of the Sudan and retires from that office in circumstances in which he is eligible for pension from the Sudan, you can also assume that he is eligible for and will be granted a pension for his previous Colonial service.
I hope the House will think that I have now given sufficient explanation of this measure, and that it will be sympathetically disposed towards it. We are dealing with a class of men who have given many, and indeed the best, years of their lives in the service of the Empire, men who have often served under conditions and in climates which are bound to take full toll of health and energy. In consequence I feel certain that your Lordships will not only be prepared but will also be anxious to remove any inequalities and injustices which exist at the present time in the assessment of their pensions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the opening words of my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and also his concluding remarks: that it was right to remove any inequalities or injustices in the assessment of the pensions of Governors, who have served the Empire so faithfully and so well. I have risen to-day to interpolate a few words and to ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether or not they would be prepared to remove another inequality and another injustice under which certain Governors suffer to-day in comparison with those who have already received or are receiving the benefits of the original Act and of the Acts of which this is an amendment. The original Act, the Pensions
252
(Governors of Dominions, etc.) Act, 1911, Section 12 (1), defines the term "Governor." It describes the particular class of official who will be entitled to receive the pension provided under the Act of 1911, as amended by the further Act of 1929, and now to be amended again to-day. That clause, Clause 12 (1), reads like this:
" The expression ' Governor ' means the Governor or administrator of any part of His Majesty's Dominions (exclusive of the British Islands and of British India) "—
I ask your Lordships to mark those words especially," British India "—
" or of a British Protectorate, and includes the High Commissioner of Cyprus, and the expression ' Governorship ' shall be construed accordingly."
These pension benefits are to-day granted to any Governor who has served for ten years in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, with the exception of British India.
I am going to leave out the British Islands, because I do not think they apply, and I am going to ask the Government whether they will not consider including under the provisions of this amending Bill Indian Governors as well as the Governors of these other Dominions. After all, the Governors in India have duties to perform just as important as, perhaps even more difficult, more delicate and more meticulous than, those of Governors of the self-governing States or Dominions. I think it is hardly fair to them, who have today to meet heavy expenditure and are faced with taxation, just like any other Governors, that they should serve the Crown faithfully and well, as most of them do, in that great country of India, and when they return should be treated differentially from Governors who come back from other places. I know there may be some little difficulty in arranging this matter with the Government of India, but I would like to say this, that it is within the recollection of your Lordships that there are cases, quite recent cases, and cases which may come to pass quite shortly, of Governors who have served the Crown most faithfully and with great distinction, and yet find themselves without any pension after a service of ten years and even more under the Crown. Therefore, on the Committee stage of this Bill I propose to put down an Amendment for consideration, which will

253
provide that the words "and of British India" shall be excluded from Section 12 (1) of the principal Act. I do not ask my noble friend to give me any definite answer on this matter to-day, but I do most sincerely hope that he will pass on these representations to the Government, and that they will give very careful and sympathetic consideration to the case which I have tried to make, with a view to removing the injustices and inequalities of pensions so far as the Indian Governors are concerned.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, my noble friend was so good as to give me notice that he was going to raise this particular question, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into the matter sufficiently carefully to be in a position to give him any kind of definite answer this afternoon. But I understand that Indian Governors' pensions are assessed on an entirely different system, as a matter of fact, from the pensions of Colonial Governors, and I imagine that a good deal of examination and negotiation would be inevitable even if it were possible to fall in, with the suggestion of the noble Viscount. As I am at present advised I understand that it would be difficult to deal with that rather complicated matter in this particular Bill, but I can assure him that I will go into the matter very thoroughly, and when he puts his Amendment down I shall examine it, and all those concerned will give it full consideration. I hope to be in a position to deal with the matter more thoroughly when we reach the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill that stands in my name. The purpose of this Bill is a perfectly plain and perfectly simple one. It is set out in the first clause, and indeed made clear by the title; it is to enforce the closing of certain retail shops on Sunday. I hope to show that
254
this Bill is a necessary Bill, and that the first reason why it is necessary is an historical one. The fact is that the Act passed in 1677, which still governs all Sunday legislation, has become a dead letter. It is no longer applicable, and never can be made applicable to modern life. It has many provisions and many prohibitions. Among the prohibitions is one against travel by water, and it recommends that those who do not pay the fine provided for in the Act be put in the stocks. In particular it provides a 5s, fine for those who trade on Sunday. Of course 5s. in those days was a very much larger sum than it is to-day, when, as we all know, it is not a deterrent. The only place where the provisions of that Act are still strictly enforced is the City of Hull, whose pious pedantry manages to extract £4,000 a year from those of its traders who are summoned in their courts every Monday morning. I may say that in my opinion those £4,000 are the only things going to be lost if this Bill passes. If a thing is illegal in Hull it must be illegal all over the country, and we have the recent dictum of the Lord Chief Justice that if the law is wrong and cannot be applied properly, the real remedy is not to turn a blind eye but to alter the law. The purpose of this Bill is to alter the law and to bring it into line with modern thought.
The Bill is also necessary in my view because this practice of Sunday trading which has grown up under the 1677 Act is steadily increasing. I would like to give a few figures to show how great this evil is. In Islington alone 1,500 shops are open on Sundays. The same applies in varying degree to the other London boroughs. All over the country you find the same sort of figure—in Birkenhead there are 500 odd, in Cardiff 1,000, in Middlesbrough 1,000 also. If this practice is not stopped now, it is going to grow very much more rapidy, because we all know that if one man in a district where all the shops are normally shut on Sunday decides to open his shop in the hope of capturing his neighbour's trade, then all his neighbours have to follow suit. That is happening all the time, with the result that we have reached the position where hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers and shop assistants are working, very often against their own religious convictions,

255
nearly always against their own inclination, simply in necessary defence of their livelihood.
It may be said, and has been said, that this evil—I do not think that any one would deny that for a man to work seven days a week is an evil—is a necessary evil, because to try to do away with it would involve an impossible alteration in the habits of our people, which they have acquired during the last few years owing to cheaper forms of transport, a higher standard of living, and perhaps to a changed conception of what Sunday means. I can assure your Lordships that if that contention were true, if, in the terms of the Amendment, the Bill were likely to involve an "unreasonable and vexatious interference" with the lives of our people, this Bill would never have been proposed, and I certainly would not be sponsoring it. But in fact, nothing of the kind will happen if this Bill passes. What I claim is that this Bill will give a much-needed relief to hundreds of thousands of people who are now working seven days a week, without interfering in the least with the normal Sunday habits of our people to-day.
I say that for this reason. There are two classes of goods which retail shops sell. The first are those the desire for which can be satisfied just as easily one day as the next. It does not matter in the least whether you buy your book on Monday or Tuesday or a cap on Thursday or Friday, The desire is there, and no loss is incurred if on one particular day you are unable to satisfy it. The number of shops which are open on Sunday which sell that sort of commodity is simply enormous—shops like booksellers, boot and shoe shops, corn chandlers, motor cycle shops, radio and gramophone shops, and many more. It is totally unnecessary from the consumer's point of view that those shops should be open on Sunday, and totally unnecessary from the shop-keeper's point of view, because, after all, one does not increase the volume of trade by opening on Sunday, one merely spreads it over a longer period. No one suddenly walks out and says: "It's a fine Sunday morning and therefore I will buy a pair of trousers." That is not the way the consumer's mind works. The volume of trade is exactly the same. You either buy your pair of trousers on Sunday or
256
you do not buy, but certainly if you do not want a pair of trousers on Saturday you are not going to buy because you see the shop open on Sunday. Those are the shops which are going to be affected by this Bill, and I suggest that they can perfectly well close on Sunday with an immense amount of benefit to their employees and owners, and without any harm whatever to the consumer.
Now we come to the second class of goods. Those are goods the desire for which has to be satisfied at once or not at all. Either you want an ice now or you do not want it. If you cannot get petrol immediately you are definitely inconvenienced. If you cannot get cigarettes on the day you want them it is no consolation to be told that you can get them on Monday. If the shops selling those classes of goods were to be affected by this Bill then both the consumer and the shopkeeper, whose livelihood would be destroyed, would have a real sense of grievance. But if you look at the Bill you will see that Clause 2 expressly exempts from the provisions of this Bill the whole of the shops which sell the articles mentioned in the First Schedule. If your Lordships will look at that First Schedule you will see there as complete a list as any man could desire of the things that any reasonable person might require at short notice on Sunday. You have alcohol, meals and refreshments, mineral waters, table waters, sweets, ice-cream, petrol, coffee, newspapers, medicine, fresh milk and cream, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. I would like at this stage to point out that this provision for fresh fruit and vegetables is specially designed for those wayside traders, men and women, who try to sell on Sundays fresh fruit and flowers to motorists. Then there are also tobacco, post-office business, postcards and so on.
I suggest that that is a very complete list. It is deliberately designed so that no member of the public should be inconvenienced on Sundays. The list has gone through a very prolonged examination in the Committee stage in another place, and I would further add that I understand that to it is to be added in Committee here, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, a further Amendment based on information gained from all the seaside resorts in the country with the aim that we should do their

257
business no harm. As we are on the Schedules at the moment, I would like to point out that in the Second Schedule there is a further short list of exemptions, such as bread, fish and groceries, which can be sold on Sunday morning until ten o'clock if two-thirds of the traders of the district present a petition to the local authority desiring to be given power to take advantage of that provision. I am perfectly prepared to admit that there may be left out of the Schedule some article that ought to be in it, and I would like to take the opportunity of saying that if this Bill is given a Second Beading and your Lordships have any other additions to make to it I shall be only too glad to give them my deepest consideration. Therefore I do feel that in view of that Schedule it is quite wrong to suggest, as the Amendment does, that the general public will be seriously affected by this Bill.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May be.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May be seriously affected. Still less may the small shopkeeper be seriously affected by this Bill because, after all, what does the small shopkeeper sell? Tobacco, newspapers, mineral waters, sweets—all of which are in the First Schedule. Therefore I feel the case is made out that this Bill confers a great deal of good on a very deserving class and at the same time that the public at large will hardly be affected by it at all. In conclusion, I would only like to draw your Lordships' attention to three other clauses. The first is Clause 9, which deals with the obligation upon an employer to give those employees in the exempted trades who have to work on Sundays holiday on another day of the week instead. This clause establishes for the first time that no employee, no shop assistant, shall have to work seven days a week. I think that is a good clause because it does away with that curious anomaly that whereas you cannot work a man on his half-day, you can work him on Sundays as often as you like.
Now I come to the last two clauses to which I wish to draw attention—Clauses 5 and 6. People of certain faiths, not ably Jews and Seventh Day Adventists, hold their Sabbath on Saturday, and it would obviously be a great hardship to them if this Bill were passed into law
258
preventing them from opening on Sunday. Accordingly, following and, I believe, bettering the provisions of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, 1930, Clause 5 provides that those orthodox Jews who care to make a statement that they do not intend to open their shops on Saturday are entitled to keep their shops open on Sunday until two o'clock. There are two points of view about that. It has been argued very forcibly that those who come to live in a Christian country must, while reaping its advantages, conform at the same time to its peculiarities and that therefore the Jews do not deserve particular consideration in this matter. I think that is a totally wrong attitude to take up. It seems entirely out of the tradition of tolerance in religious matters of which we have been so proud in the past to make a Jewish trader, because he is honest enough to believe in his religion, lose two days of the week from his trade. On the other hand, as probably most of your Lordships are aware, the Jews themselves are not quite satisfied with the clause because they consider they should be allowed to open on Sunday not merely until two o'clock but until six o'clock. That is a doubtful point, but it is obviously a Committee point, and I do not think I can do better than leave it to your Lordships to bring in an Amendment on the Committee stage if you so desire.
Finally, Clause 6 is designed for those places or markers, particularly in London, where Jewish and Gentile traders have been accustomed for a long time to trade in more or less equal numbers. Its object is to avoid the undesirable consequences that some people fear might arise if suddenly the Gentiles found that a monopoly of Sunday trading had been given in those markets to the Jews. Therefore similar provision is made that any Gentile who so desires can trade on Sunday provided he does not trade on Saturday.
These are the main provisions of the Bill, and I do not think there is any other point with which I need weary your Lordships. It is a Bill which has an enormous backing. The most reverend Primate gave me authority to say that he much regretted he was not able to come and support its general principles. It is backed by the Shop Assistants' Union, by the National Union of Distribute

259
Workers, and by many other people who know what the workers desire. In another place only eight out of just under 200 voted against it, and it passed through a stormy but very valuable Committee stage during which it was much improved. The Home Office has been very useful and kind in helping to improve it also. In general it is a Bill that has great support and has been very carefully thought out. It establishes two main principles—that every man is entitled to one day's rest in seven and for that reason Sunday trading should be discouraged; and also that the public habits of our people should be changed as little as possible in attaining that very desirable end. With these considerations I commend the Bill with confidence to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Beading he would move, That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which may involve unreasonable and vexatious interference with the freedom and comfort of the public, and which may inflict grave injustice and hardship upon numerous small shopkeepers until better opportunity has been provided for full consultation with all the interests concerned, and until a careful examination of all the issues has been carried out by a Committee specially set up for that purpose.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the reasoned Amendment that stands in my name, I hope the noble Marquess will allow me—and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships—to congratulate him on his speech and on the moderate way he presented his case. We are very glad to see one who is comparatively so young so very much grown up in intellect and eloquence. I entirely agree with the last two remarks made by the noble Marquess when he said that every man in this country—and every woman, too, of course—should if possible have one day's rest in seven. We all want to try to get that. We also want—I am sure the noble Marquess will agree—to ensure that the British public should be as little inconvenienced as possible in trying to bring that about. Therefore, there is not really so much between the noble Marquess and myself
260
except that which stares one in the face in my Amendment. Though I hope we are trying to reach the same goal, I am not quite sure that the researches of the noble Marquess and of his friends have been sufficiently extensive to assure us that he is including and excluding exactly the right articles.
When I put down this Amendment I was not hostile to the general principle of the Bill. I simply wished to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House the fact that, in my opinion, there has not been sufficient consultation with local authorities and other interests up to now, and that the effect of the Bill and the injustices which it must create have not been sufficiently weighed. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, and I do not think you can have this sort of legislation without creating hardship for some people or some classes. What we ought to do, therefore, is to confine the injustices to as small a compass as possible. Personally, I think a Bill such as this ought not to be a Private Member's Bill at all. It ought to be a Government Bill for the reason that the Government can speak with so much more authority in these matters. The Government have means whereby they can get the views of people and societies much more effectively than private individuals. A Minister sends for the president of any society you like to mention; the president is flattered and comes at once to see the Minister, and puts the Minister wise about everything connected with that particular form of commercial activity. On the other hand, if Lord So-and-So wants to get hold of the chairman or president of this or that society or organisation, he will receive the same courtesy, but he will not receive a quarter of the information that a Minister gets. Moreover, a Minister has trained assistants whose business it is, whose lifelong interest it is, to deal with matters such as this. Therefore I regret that this is a Private Member's Bill and not a Government Bill.
The noble Marquess said that the Home Office had been most helpful. I do not think the Home Secretary has taken much trouble over the Bill. I understand the Home Secretary never entered the House of Commons when the Bill was being debated, much less did he speak on it, and it might have been

261
a Bill put forward in Northern Ireland or in Dublin for all he troubled himself about it. On the other hand the Undersecretary, Mr. Lloyd, was very courteous, and to a degree helpful; but he always has, I understand, taken the attitude that this is not a Government Bill. He said in effect: "This is not our Bill; you must do this on your own responsibility." I think it makes it all the more difficult for us to accept the provisions of this Bill when we know that the Home Office have been so very lukewarm in the matter.
Will your Lordships bear with me for a moment while I read a few remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I think on the Third Reading, at the very end of the discussions in another place. Mr. Lloyd said:
" After the Second Reading, the Bill went straight to a Standing Committee, and I think it is probably true to say that the interests affected had not become fully alive to all the issues that were raised."
That is the diplomatic or Parliamentary way of saying that nobody knew about it at all. He went on:
" It is also true that the Report stage followed very soon after the conclusion of the Committee stage."
That means, I understand, that the Committee stage followed three days after Second Reading—rather quick work seeing that the Bill was not printed until three days before the Second Reading was moved in the House of Commons. It cannot be said that any enthusiasm was shown for the Bill when less than half the members of the House of Commons Committee upstairs attended that Committee. Mr. Lloyd added:
" Then we found that while the House was considering the Bill on Report the interests concerned were actually altering their views on the subject we were discussing."
I am not blaming the noble Marquess or his friends for that, but it does show that matters at that stage were certainly in a very fluid state, and that it was difficult for the promoters of the Bill to know whether they were voicing the views of any particular trade or not. Mr. Lloyd ended by saying:
" That sort of thing "—
the things I have just described—
" makes it extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill."
When a Minister says that it is extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill it usually means that no proper consideration was given at all. Mr. Lloyd was very diplomatic in the way in which he put it. But let us leave for a moment, for after all it does not very much matter, what happened in the House of Commons. What we have to decide is what we will do here. I am surprised that a late colleague of mine in another place should say "hear, hear" to those remarks.
LORD SNELL: Ironical.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: In all seriousness, I am not quite clear from the noble Marquess's speech, or from what I road in the Press, whether this Bill is founded on what I call the moral law—that is, that it is wicked to do anything except go to Church and sit still on a Sunday—or on expediency—that is to say, on the ground that we should try to get as much Sunday closing as we can without exasperating the British public too much. I do not think it can be founded on the moral law, for if so the promoters would not definitely exclude all wholesale traders, the use of employees on a Sunday afternoon to get ready for Monday morning, all public-houses, all post offices, all road and railway transport, and all seaside diversions. Therefore, if they have deliberately excluded all those forms of activity on a Sunday, I take it that they are not worrying about the Lord's Day Observance Act or any Biblical recommendations, but are acting from the point of view of getting as much leisure as they can for the workers of this country.
I want to put before your Lordships three further matters. The first is that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be a gold-mine to the lawyers. The definitions are so loose and so vaguely drawn that even no lawyer can understand what they really mean, and I think very many costly law suits will result if this Bill be passed. How can you say what are "necessary supplies"? What is the meaning of "for immediate use"? What is "fresh fruit"? No doubt many noble Lords will say that they can easily define fresh fruit, but is an orange fresh fruit? It remains fresh for a long time but it does not follow that it therefore comes under the head "fresh fruit."

263
What are "fresh vegetables" and what are "medicines"?
May I point out one or two results of this Bill if it is passed in its present state? I see my noble friend Lord Swaythling present and I hope he will take part in this debate. I do not see how you can possibly justify the treatment of the Jewish community in this Bill. At present the Jewish community, I understand—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—close their business places at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon and open them again at nine o'clock on Sunday morning, and they remain open until five or six o'clock in the evening. The proposal now is that they shall close at five o'clock on Friday as heretofore, open on Sunday at nine o'clock as they have done for many years, and close again at two and not at six o'clock. What has happened that the Jewish community should be treated differently from the way in which they have been treated for the last hundred years in London? This seems to me an attempt on the part of certain interests to get at the business of the Jewish community in London. I cannot see any other reason for treating them in that way. Is it suggested that they have committed some crime that they should be treated differently from the way they have been treated for the last fifty or hundred years? I shall be interested to hear from the noble Marquess when that particular clause comes up in Committee what reason he can give for treating the Jews in the way that they are going to be treated.
Then look at the absurdities that will result from this Bill unless further investigation is made and more accurate ideas are put forward as to what should be included and what excluded from the Bill. If a street trader has strawberries on his barrow and a tinned pineapple taken out of its tin side by side with the strawberries, he will be allowed under this Bill to sell the strawberries but if he sold the pineapple he would be liable to a fine of £5. I can see some point in any one wanting to diminish Sunday labour if there were not other things to be sold, but when these things in the Bill can be legally sold from a barrow why in the name of fortune should not the street trader be allowed to sell some other things if the British public want them? If the barrow is there and certain goods can be sold from it legally, why in the
264
name of Christianity not allow the man to sell other things if he is asked for them? Take another instance. I understand that if you belong to a sports club you can buy on a Sunday golf clubs, tennis rackets, tennis balls and all the equipment of sport without any let or hindrance from this Bill; but if a working man with a child wants to buy a ball for the child he cannot do so and anybody who sold him a ball would be liable to a fine of £5. Take chemists. Chemists under the Bill can only sell medicines and medical and surgical appliances. Therefore if I go to my chemist to ask him to make me up a prescription and suddenly remember that I have lost my toothbrush, and see a toothbrush upon his shelf, I shall not be able to buy it because it is not a medical or surgical appliance and is not medicine.
LORD MARLEY: You cannot do that now.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Lord will agree that it is very hard that I should not be allowed to buy a toothbrush on a Sunday if I want one. Take the newspapers. The big newspapers have looked after themselves exceedingly well, as usual, As I read this Bill, bookstalls and newsagents can sell newspapers, periodicals and magazines on Sundays, but they cannot sell a book or a pamphlet or a pencil. That is to say, at Waterloo on Sunday morning, I can buy a Sunday newspaper full of pictures of film stars and reports of divorce cases, whereas if I ask the bookstall keeper to sell me a Bible he would be liable to a fine for £5 for doing so. Noble Lords may laugh, but I think I have shown that there are certain Amendments which could be made in Committee.
Then again, take the provision relating to museums. A public museum or picture gallery can, on Sunday, sell guide books, postcards, photographs and souvenirs, whereas the Zoological Gardens can only sell these things by permission of the local authority. The Office of Works have restored extremely well many abbeys and ancient castles, and in some of them they have established little museums. If I go on Sunday to one of the little museums I can buy a picture postcard, but if the First Commissioner of Works sold me a picture postcard just outside without asking the local

265
authority's permission he would be committing an offence and be liable to a fine of £5. I could go on at considerable length quoting such absurdities. Therefore, I think I am perfectly justified in moving my reasoned Amendment to draw attention—I do not want to be rude to the noble Marquess—to the rather hasty way in which the Bill has been brought forward. I trust—indeed I am sure—that when we come to the Committee stage he will approach each Amendment on its merits. Everybody here wants to do his best to make it a good Bill, and will wish the noble Marquess all success.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after (" That ") and insert (" this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which may involve unreasonable and vexatious interference with the freedom and comfort of the public, and which may inflict grave injustice and hardships upon numerous small shopkeepers until better opportunity has been provided for full consultation with all the interests concerned, and until a careful examination of all the issues has been carried out by a Committee specially set up for that purpose.")—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I should like to explain briefly the point of view of the Opposition. Broadly speaking they give the Bill general support. The noble Marquess has explained it excellently. He put his case briefly and clearly and simply. Possibly he rather over-simplified the Bill in the explanations he gave. The noble Lord who moved the wrecking Amendment brought forward a number of Committee points, some of which no doubt have substance. Naturally his toothbrush is of vital importance to him on Sunday morning. Perhaps some means can be found by which he will be able to get his tooth-brush. The Government helped considerably with this Bill in another place, and I do not think it can be said that it has been hastily dealt with. It received consideration for nine days in Committee, and nine Committee days is a very considerable period for a Bill of this type.
We on this side of the House are very much against restrictions on the liberty of the individual. That is why we are Socialists; because Socialism provides an environment within which complete liberty may be available for all people. But sometimes we have to restrict the
266
liberty of some people in order that there may be liberty for others. That is a difficulty illustrated of course by the strawberry merchant who also wanted to sell pineapples. If this Bill passes there will, of course, be certain restrictions on selling, and if we want to buy things on Sunday we shall have to train our memories. Yet on the whole the benefits of the Bill seem to us to be greater than its disadvantages. The main disadvantage from our point of view is that it tends to hit the small consumers, the people who have nowhere to store food. These people have no refrigerators; probably there are about five or six people living in one room, and they are therefore in the habit of buying each day what they need. If they cannot buy on Sundays that will be a definite disadvantage to them. On the other hand, there will be an advantage to all those who work in shops, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, that it is not a question of moral law or expediency, but of justice to a section of the community who, without some such measure, would have no day of rest in the week. So far as workers in shops are concerned we believe it is right that a Bill of this type should be brought forward. I agree that some vested interests have benefited somewhat by exemption.
One point I would like to put to the noble Marquess, and that is that it is of vital importance that provision should be made for inspection to see that when the Bill is passed the law is not habitually broken. The law of 1677 is, of course, habitually broken. In connection with this point I would like to ask the noble Marquess to have regard to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. In spite of the fact that there are a considerable number of inspectors, there are thousands of cases of overwork contrary to the law because the inspectors are not sufficiently numerous and, not being able to be in two places at once, cannot see that the law is enforced everywhere. In that Report one case quoted is that of a boy of seventeen working from eight o'clock in the morning of one day until one o'clock the following morning. That is sixteen and a half hours. Another case is one of young boys who are working after eleven at night, until four in

267
the morning, and are back again at seven for a sixteen-hour day following that. And these people were only discovered by the inspectors looking through the letter-box and seeing a boy working. When they got in, the boys had been hidden in a cellar by the employer. We do not want this sort of thing to happen, and therefore I think it is very important that adequate inspectorate should be provided for so that we shall not have breaking of the law.
The exemptions on the whole seem to me to be very reasonable. I do not suppose that everybody wants to buy trousers on Sunday, and we can quite well buy them on other days. Personally I am bound to say that I should like these exemptions to be made conditional on fair hours being worked. I do not know whether it is possible, but if we could say that we would only give exemptions provided that the total hours were fair and reasonable, I believe it would be a good thing. That is why personally, although I am probably disagreeing with those in my Party, I should prefer two shifts, so that we could definitely have legislation to clear up the hours of work. It would give more employment, and we could easily reduce the hours to forty a week. I think it is a great misfortune that the Government were not able to support the forty-hour week at Geneva a few days ago when it was discussed at the International Labour Organisation.
Finally, I want to say a word about Clauses 5 and 6. Again I realise that this is a Committee point, but I would say that, broadly speaking, as I understand it, the Jewish traders in this country are perfectly prepared to accept this measure and work it honestly and honourably, but they feel that it would be only fair if they kept open till, shall we say, five o'clock on Sunday instead of having to close at two o'clock. I think that the noble Marquess might expect to have the support of the Government in such a modification of Clause 5, because I notice that the Under-Secretary of State said in another place that he was not prepared, with regard to the position of persons of Jewish faith, to take a definite line as to the desirability or adequacy of these provisions. I think that statement might be used as a wedge if the noble Marquess desired to make the alteration, which I think would be a just alteration, to get that modification
268
through. I understand that agreement has been reached upon a completely new Clause 5. I do not know whether I am right, but I understand that a new Clause 5 has been discussed between the promoters of the Bill and the Departments concerned, giving a better wording; and it might be easy in that new Clause 5 to make the alteration, shall we say, from two o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon for those who are closed on Saturday and want to remain open as compensation on Sunday.
There is a reason for that. We were told by the noble Marquess that it was desired to interfere as little as possible with the normal Sunday habits of the people. It is not my habit, but I am told that people have a normal habit of what is called "lying in" on Sunday morning; that is to say, they apparently do not get out of bed and work, as your Lordships do, of course—
A NOBLE LORD: We go to church.
LORD MARLEY: —they remains in bed, in many cases. Therefore, if they wanted to make a purchase on Sunday they would either have the discomfort of getting up early and buying at the shop before two o'clock, or they would have to go without, and the particular Sunday traders would have a loss. Moreover, it is a fact that to-day the shops which are illegally open are open long after two o'clock on Sunday, and it is also a fact that all the exempted shops in the Bill will be open until seven or eight o'clock at night. That seems to be a reason why we should not make a special exception which would amount to an injustice to the people of Jewish faith who desire to close on Saturday and to keep open on Sunday. We hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, that the House will sweep aside the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and that on the Committee stage we shall make the Amendments which we desire.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as a supporter of the Bill I am anxious to direct the attention of the noble Marquess to certain provisions in the First Schedule particularly affecting the sale of fish. I should like to ask the noble Marquess why it has suddenly become so remarkably unsabbatarian to eat fish and chips on Sunday. I understand

269
that one may eat fish and chips in a restaurant, but not in what is alternatively described as a "fried fish and chip shop" and as a mere "fried fish shop." That is in lines 10 and 13 of the First Schedule. I should like to know what has happened to the chips in line 13! Apparently, also, one can eat almost any other kind of fish on a Sunday. One can eat oysters in an oyster bar, and apparently one can buy oysters under the Second Schedule; if I understand it rightly, one buys them before ten o'clock during the summer months on a Sunday. Is my interpretation of those provisions correct, and may I further ask the noble Marquess what is happening to that splendid institution of the shrimp tea on Sunday?
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, at this late hour I desire to say only a word or two about this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, will not think it presumption on my part if I support his Amendment. I do so for three reasons. First of all because I think that this Bill, if passed as it stands, offends against the principle of toleration for religious minorities which this House has carefully safeguarded, and I think there is no doubt whatever that if the Bill were to be passed as it stands at present it would inflict very great hardship on the orthodox Jewish trader. I am neither a Jew nor a shopkeeper, but I understand that the Jewish Sabbath starts at about five o'clock on Friday afternoon and goes on until late on Saturday night. If they cannot be open all day Sunday they are going to lose the cream of the week-end trade, which is rather more than fifty per cent. of their turnover. So much for the first objection.
Another thing I have against the Bill is that to me it savours of class legislation, of which we have such unfortunate examples in the licensing laws, the betting laws and the law relating to landlord and tenant. It is very difficult to argue that this type of Bill is not class legislation. It is not aimed, after all, at Harrods' or Selfridge's. It is aimed at the unfortunate down in the East End, whose profits I do not suppose are particularly large; and it seems to me that it is, I do not say hypocritical, but a little unfortunate that the noble Marquess representing the Home Office
270
should ask us to do away with these men's livelihood, or at any rate curtail it, while certain places which I will not mention in the West End are doing a roaring trade serving intoxicating liquors all night at fabulous prices to people who might be better occupied, and shopkeepers, publicans, innkeepers and so forth are not able to earn a living because of the restrictions imposed by the Government.
My third and final objection to this Bill—I have very nearly finished, my Lords—is that it seems to me to be part and parcel of the mania which has afflicted Governments since the War of issuing orders which prohibit this, that or the other thing. I now find that I cannot buy chocolates after eight o'clock, or it may be half-past eight; I cannot buy cigarettes after nine o'clock or half-past nine, and I cannot buy a drink after ten unless I go to those places to which I have already referred. I know this, however—though this is a well-worn topic and I do not claim any originality for touching on it to-day—that even the longest worm has a turning, and a time will come when the British public will get absolutely sick, as I am already, of this type of legislation, of which the Licensing Act, 1921, Section 9, is a classic illustration of the gross stupidity of the people who concoct these measures.
With the Coronation coming on next year our endeavours should be to make a success of ourselves as a nation of shopkeepers, now that we are no longer the workroom of the world. I think we should make every effort to attract people to this country, rather than to turn them away. The Belgian coast is rapidly becoming the poor man's Le Touquet, and this measure which proposes that the British public shall not be allowed to go and buy what they want on a Sunday must tend to keep visitors away from this country. We know that we cannot have dances and such things on Sunday, but if we go on closing everything we shall end by closing the churches, too. Therefore the Amendment has my warm personal support, and I think myself that the Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord who spoke last seriously supposes that this House is going to reject this Bill. In the first

271
place I would like to reiterate what has been already said of the pleasure given to us by the manner in which the noble Marquess introduced the Bill. It was a speech which thoroughly explained the Bill and the motives behind it which induced the promoters to bring it in. I have all my life been an advocate of one day's rest in seven, and I had the great pleasure of getting through another place a Bill on behalf of the police. I am therefore glad that there is a chance of that being extended to these deserving people, who do not get as much rest as we should desire. Of course there are Committee points, and no doubt it is possible to make fun of smaller points in the Bill, but I do not think it is quite right to say that this Bill has not been fully considered. As Lord Marley said, it has gone through considerable stages in another place, and now it is getting the advantage of being considered by a Second Chamber whose duty it is to revise. I am sure that a great many of the points which have been raised to-day are Committee points, and if this House does its duty, as it does on all occasions, the Bill will emerge in a form which is satisfactory to everybody.
There is one point on which I would challenge what Lord Marley said. Ho talked about six people in one room. A good deal of water has passed under the bridges since he was sitting on this side of the House, and during the interval there has been a rather comprehensive Housing Act passed into law. A great many slums have been abolished, and I hope that in the course of time they will all be abolished. There is just one other point, relating to the Jewish community. I have received, as no doubt a good many other noble Lords have received, a strongly-worded circular from the President of the Jewish Board of Deputies, which is a sort of parliament of the Jewish community. The only thing I would like to say is that what they ask for is that the time should be extended to six o'clock and not five o'clock.
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps I ought to say that, like the noble Lord, I received a circular from the Jewish Board of Deputies, and I had a personal discussion with the President, and he agreed that in all the circumstances he would be prepared to accept five o'clock.
LORD JESSEL: I am glad to receive that correction. I only raised the matter
272
because I thought the noble Lord had not received the same document as I had, but I now understand that he has later information. I am quite content with the explanation. I hope that the Bill will get through, backed as it is by some powerful sections of the community. I do not think that when it has been passed into law the public will suffer the inconveniences which are feared in some quarters.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I desire very briefly to indicate the views of the Government in regard to this Bill. We are, I may say, in general sympathy with the objects of the measure, and we shall do our best on the later stages of the Bill to see if we can co-operate in making it a good, workable Act. I think the House should be reminded that in the event of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to the Bill this evening, it will be necessary to ask the House to agree to a number of Amendments at a later stage, and perhaps I might, before I deal with the Motion which Lord Mount Temple has put down, remind you of one or two remarks which were made in another place during the passage of the Bill. Lord Mount Temple read quotations from the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, but I think he left out the principal part of his speech on the Third Reading, when he said:
"The Government are disposed to the view that the Bill, as it now stands, will give effect, in a reasonable and workable manner, to the principles approved by the House on Second Reading, and that the House would be justified in voting for the Motion for the Third Reading."
He coupled with that a warning that when the Bill reached this House the Government would have to ask your Lordships to consider various Amendments, both of substance and of drafting.
There is one other point which I would like to deal with, and that is the question of Jewish traders. Mention has been made by one or two noble Lords of a complaint that Jewish traders under this Bill could keep open on the Sabbath only till two o'clock. I would remind your Lordships that when the Bill was originally introduced the time was one o'clock. Since then it has been extended to two o'clock, but there was a very long and protracted discussion upon an Amendment to leave Jewish shops open on

273
Sunday till six o'clock. I think the general feeling in another place was against that proposal, and the Amendment was negatived without a Division. I will not say anything further on the matter at this stage; no doubt it will come up again in Committee.
With regard to the Amendment of my noble friend, suggesting that your Lordships should refer this Bill to a Committee of an unnamed sort, may I point out to him that this Bill comes to us after most careful investigation has been made by both the Home Office and the promoters into the requirements of the public and general traders alike, and I cannot help feeling that your Lordships will be well advised to take the discussion of the Committee stage down here, and not send the Bill upstairs to a Committee for prolonged discussion. I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment and to allow the Bill to proceed in the normal course. I must make one other remark. I understood Lord Marley to say, in the course of his remarks, that Socialists believed in complete liberty for the people. That is a remark which I cannot let pass without saying how surprised I am that after many years we should hear at last that they believe in the complete liberty of the subject and of the person.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to make one observation. I am speaking as President of the Zoological Society, and I gather from my noble friend Lord Dufferin that he is willing to introduce Amendments if necessary to enable the public who wish to do so to obtain goods at short notice on Sunday (they would not be any use to them on the Monday). I understood also from my noble friend Lord Munster that he proposes as the result of further consideration to move Amendments with a similar purpose. I want to ask him if the following matter might be taken into consideration. If your Lordships will look at page 14, where the list of goods exempted is given in the First Schedule, you will see that it includes "The sale of guide books, postcards, photographs and souvenirs at any gallery or museum…. or at any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or at any aquarium." That gives protection to any zoological garden, for example, in the case of the sale of photographs. But a great many people like to come and bring their
274
films and take their own photographs. Very often they are so much attracted by the things they see for picture taking that they have not enough films and want to buy others to fit their cameras. I wonder therefore whether it would be possible to consider the addition to this Schedule of photographic films for cameras. There may be objections to that; I do not know; but I would ask my noble friend if he—and also the Home Office—would give the matter consideration.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has considerably altered my view. I did not realise, nor indeed had it been said, that we were going to have a real spate of Amendments to this Bill, as apparently we arc. Probably those Amendments will clear up my doubts, and, that being so, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MAEQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I do not think, after the general consensus of opinion, that I need say very much in reply. I thank the noble Lord for withdrawing his Amendment, and it is quite obvious that I could not deal with half his jokes to-day. I will reply as well as I can later on. I think that almost every point that was raised in the course of the debate was a Committee point, and it would be far better if I left everything that has been said to be dealt with on the Committee stage. If the Bill is read a second time, I think it is intended by those in authority to have the Committee stage on July 2, if that meets with the approval of your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, perhaps it would be more convenient if the very few observations I have to make should be made on the Motion to go into Committee. As your Lordships may remember, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, drew particular attention to

275
the form of this Bill, and it is true that some special procedure has to be adopted in relation to it. Your Lordships are aware that this Bill is similar to the Act of 1933; that is, it is a further measure to consolidate and clarify the Statutes which relate to public health. As was the case in the 1933 Act, this Bill was submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses under the Chairmanship of the Chairman of Committees. As the result of close examination of the Bill by this Committee some 300 Amendments have been made. Many of them are of a drafting character; the rest partly represent Amendments suggested by the Minister of Health and partly points suggested by various associations, different classes of statutory undertakers, the Federation of British Industries, and so forth.
The question now arises of the most convenient way to deal with these Amendments, which your Lordships will see it is proposed to insert in this Bill of over 300 clauses. The proposal I have to make is that, although this Bill is not wholly consolidation, the most convenient procedure would be that which was adopted in the case of the 1933 Bill, that is, to have a formal Committee stage and to insert all these Amendments en bloc. This would do away with the somewhat laborious task of moving each individually at this late hour. On the Report stage your Lordships would then have all the Amendments printed and inserted in the Bill, and you would have a much easier task, I think, in moving any Amendments which you might see fit to move. The Government propose to give ample time for consideration of the amended Bill, and they suggest, if your Lordships see fit, that the Report stage should be taken on July 2. I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as I happened to be Chairman of the Joint Select Committee which examined this Bill, perhaps I may say one or two words on what passed at the six meetings which the Committee held. In the first place your Lordships will remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, drew attention to the undesirability as a general rule of combining amendment
276
and consolidation, and it was pointed out on the Second Reading that the amendment which was proposed by the Bill was merely to enable the public health law of the country to be consolidated in a form which was reasonable and suitable for working purposes. It did not propose to amend what it may be necessary to amend in the future, but it did propose to consolidate in a useful form the whole public health law of the country, together with certain stock clauses which have been accepted in local Acts; and for that purpose it was necessary to amend the law and not stick to pure consolidation.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury is not in his place to-day, and I am sure your Lordships will deplore the reason for his absence, but I think I can assure your Lordships and those who were concerned at the noble Marquess's observations, that the Committee were very careful to limit the Amendments which they proposed, and which are on the Paper, to those which are absolutely necessary for the purposes which I have indicated. I do not mean to say for one moment that we do not all of us find a great deal in the public health law of the country—which your Lordships will now be able to see in the most convenient form—which requires considerable alteration. I think every member of the Committee felt that there was a good deal to be done both in the way of addition and of alteration to the public health law as it stands, but we did not seek to do more than make the actual public health law of the present time easily understandable by everybody.
There are two points to which I think it is only right that I should draw the attention of your Lordships, in case they may be missed by those who wish to discuss the matter on the Report stage. The Committee of its own volition—it was not proposed by any outside society or by a Government Department—made two more or less important alterations in the Bill which perhaps go a little wider, though not very much wider, than is necessary to amend the law to make it easily comprehensible. They added measles to the list of notifiable diseases. I do not think that is going very much further, although I am told there are difficulties in connection with the notification of measles. No doubt we shall be told by the Department about that on

277
the Report stage. We made one other alteration which has a certain amount of importance—namely, with regard to Clause 267, which deals with the power of local authorities to control the use of movable dwellings. All local authorities have this power except rural district councils, and it did not seem to us that the rural district councils should be under a disability in this respect. By including them we considered we were making the law more simple. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is here and will correct me if I have omitted to mention any other, but I think these are the only two points that the Committee dealt with and put in without any suggestion from outside bodies.
On the Committee we were assisted by the two Departments concerned—the Ministry of Health and the Home Office—and we also had with us the draftsman of the Bill. Sir Harry Pritchard, Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations, was also there to help us, and we had representatives of the Federation of British Industries, the National Property Owners' Association, and the Catchment Boards. There may have been others, but I am not quite sure. A good many Amendments were put forward by these bodies, and we did our best to give effect to their wishes. About sixty Amendments were put into the Bill at the instance of the Federation of British Industries, the National Property Owners' Association, and the Catchment Boards, and they were accepted by the Government. We amended the Bill in such a, manner that it is practically an agreed Bill on all major points. I do not think I have anything to add regarding the doings of the Committee, but as we are taking this report so very shortly to-day, I thought I had better give, some kind of explanation which might be useful on the Report stage.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not intend to keep your Lordships more than three minutes. On the question of the Amendment to Clause 267 I wish to say—I am speaking on behalf of the Boy Scouts Association—that we have been met by the Ministry very considerately and they have helped us out of our difficulties. We were formerly very much opposed to the whole of the clause as it would have applied to us and also
278
to the Girl Guides Association and to the Salvation Army. But we realised that something should be done to restrict bad camping, and we thought that the sheep and the goats should not be mixed up together. We classed ourselves rather as sheep. I now want to say that since we have been met so considerately by the Ministry, and since all our difficulties have been removed, we are now wholeheartedly in support of the measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to.—(Viscount Gage)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (COM- MENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India I beg to move the Motions standing in his name. Your Lordships will remember that yesterday these Draft Orders were approved by the House and that there was a debate on the subject. I now move the first Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DISTRI- BUTION OF REVENUES) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COM- MENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PRO- VINCIAL ELECTIONS) (CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ELECTION PETI- TIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with an Amendment, by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COR- RUPT PRACTICES AND ELECTION PETITIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with Amendments, by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.