THE CALENDAR.

HL Deb 04 March 1936 vol 99 cc867-85

LORD MERTHYR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to take any steps to accelerate, at the forthcoming meeting of the Transit Section of the League of Nations, the adoption by international action of a fixed calendar and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name this afternoon, I do not propose to weary the House with all the possible arguments in favour of a reform of the calendar. In the first place it would take a long time, and in the second place I doubt whether they would be, all of them, strictly relevant to the particular Question that I have put down. But I want, if I may, to put forward a sufficient number of those arguments in order to justify my plea that His Majesty's Government should take action at Geneva in the near future. One obvious reason for international action is that it is not desirable that one country should have a different calendar from its neighbours, although that was the case for great periods in the past, and the immediate cause for this demand for Government action is that there is taking place during this year at Geneva a meeting of the section of the League of Nations devoted to communications and transit.

One of their quadrennial meetings takes place next October. I wish to urge His Majesty's Government, first of all, to see that this matter of calendar reform is placed upon the agenda; and secondly, to instruct a representative to attend this meeting and to put forward the views of this country upon that question. There is some little urgency about this matter in the minds of those who want reform, because the calendar can only be reformed in the way they desire in a year when the first day of January falls upon a Sunday. The next year when that happens is 1939, and if we miss the opportunity in 1939 there will not be another until 1950.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships for one moment of the history of the matter of the calendar. It starts with the Julian Calendar, which was altered I understand by the Emperor Augustus, who was sufficiently vain to wish a day to be taken out of February and placed in August merely because his' birthday happened to fall in that month. I would ask your Lordships to think of the sum total of inconvenience which the people of the world have suffered because of that fact 2,000 years ago. Then, in the year 1582, the Gregorian Calendar was instituted. But it was not until 170 years later that England summoned enough courage to alter her own calendar in order to conform with it. In 1835 the proposal was first made for a calendar of thirteen months—a proposal which has received much attention during the past hundred years, which has caused a great many conferences to be held and a great many societies to be formed, and which is one of the subjects demanding attention to-day. There have even been Bills presented in Parliament towards this end.

What is wanted now is a lead from His Majesty's Government—a lead at Geneva, and a lead, if I may respectfully say so, a little different from that which was given in the year 1931, when the Transit Section last met. At that meeting a representative of the British Government attended, and, without in any way wishing to criticise him as an individual, I would like to say that the attitude which he was no doubt instructed to take at that meeting did not inspire confidence in those who want this reform. He, it seems to me, climbed very high upon the fence of doubt and indecision. I may perhaps quote some words of the official representative of His Majesty's Government, in 1931, from which it is not surprising, in my humble view, that this Conference reached no decision. He said in one pasage: The vote which had just been taken would not be of any help to Governments in forming an opinion. He himself had not been able to do anything else but abstain because if he had said Yes, that would have implied that he agreed that there were advantages, and if he had said No, that would have implied that he agreed that there were no advantages. As tar as ho was concerned, neither of these implications would have been true. I submit that that was not a constructive or hopeful statement, and I ask that in 1936 something more definite may go from here to Geneva, because there is evidence to show that the rest of the world desires and expects a lead from this country. Those members of the organisations concerned who travel in the world experience this sort of statement: "If only your Government would do something about this we could get on with it." And again they say: "But the British Government would be the slowest of all to accept this reform."

I hope that the reply which will be given this afternoon will not say that nothing will be done because there is no demand, that there is no weight of public opinion on the subject in Great Britain. It surely is not to be expected that the mass of the workers in this country, the unemployed men or the artisans have strong views about such a subject as calendar reform. It is as well that they have not, because they have other things to do and think about. But if it were really explained to the worker and to his wife that there would accrue to them very great advantages from this reform, their point of view and their answer to a query might be very different. If, for example, it were explained to the wife, that it would no longer be necessary, as it sometimes is now, to purchase a five weeks' supply of food with four weeks' pay, then she might have strong views about this subject. I hope also it will -rot be said by the noble Earl who will reply that nothing can be done because there are other more important things to be considered. I agree that there are, but the fact is that in those things it is very often the case that the solution of difficulties is not so easy and not so inexpensive as the solution of this one. Here is a problem which, I submit, has an answer and a solution ready to be adopted, a solution which will cost nothing.

We suffer very much from apathy in this matter. Most of us tolerate the inconveniences of our present calendar because we do not know anything better. I dare say that the great majority of the people of this country are quite unaware that there is an alternative to the present calendar. It does not occur to them that whilst the length of our year and the length of our day are fixed for us and cannot be altered, the length of our month is a thing which we ourselves have fixed, and fixed just about as badly as we possibly could. For instance, if it was suggested to them that it would be inconvenient if our yard measure sometimes consisted of 34 inches, sometimes 36 inches and sometimes 37 inches, they would probably agree that such a situation ought not to be continued. It is now suggested that this unequal length of months is also a system which ought to be stopped and can be easily and inexpensively altered.

There are a great many schemes for the reform of the calendar. There have been at various times anything from 180 to 300 such schemes, and the League of Nations has done most valuable work at its meetings in 1926 in reducing this large number of schemes to two. Therefore there remain to be seriously considered just two schemes of calendar reform. Both of these, in my submission, are infinitely better than the calendar now in force; either would be a great improvement. Both contain this common principle, the principle of the blank day, which is a day that is not a day of the week nor a day of the month, but a day of the year, and by that means the calendar is fixed, and every day in the year is fixed for all time. Wednesday, March 4, would always be Wednesday, March 4. That principle has been accepted in both these schemes and, I think I may say, by the great majority of the nations who attended the League Conference at Geneva. There is some opposition to the idea. There is opposition from members of the Jewish faith and from the Seventh-Day Adventists, but the weight of support which it has received renders it a scheme which ought to be put forward and thrashed out by the League of Nations.

The advantages of fixing the calendar are in some cases apparent. Others are not at once so apparent to the casual observer, but I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment how much easier our own daily plans would be if the calendar was fixed, if the clashing of dates by the wandering of the days of the months through the weeks was avoided. We should no more have difficulty such as the fixing of Easter on the day after the second Saturday in April, because the second Sunday in April would be, which it is not now, always the day following the second Saturday. There is reason to believe that, if the whole calendar was fixed, the one remaining obstacle to the fixing of Easter would be removed. I have reason for saying that the Roman Catholic Church would remove its objection to the fixing of Easter if the whole problem were settled and solved. The advantages to the mass of the people of this country would be very great. For example, if Christmas were always on a Monday it would be of immense advantage to shopkeepers and to hundreds of millions of people in business if they could have their Christmas holiday coinciding with the week-end.

Many disadvantages would disappear. Business men would appreciate it if there were no longer any chance of fifty-three nay days occurring in the year instead of fifty-two, or fifty-three Mondays upon which insurance stamps had to be affixed instead of fifty-two. There would be social advantages in the fixing of events. There would be even advantages in the fixing of the sittings of your Lordships' House. Finally the great stumbling block of the unequal month and the equal quarter would be removed. I do not know whether it is generally realised that at present the second half of our year is two days longer than the first. I do not know whether it is generally realised that our quarters are of unequal length and the inconvenience which attaches to that fact. These disadvantages would be removed by the reform of the calendar. Such things as Board of Trade returns and returns of unemployment figures would, I submit, be rendered ten times more valuable, as well as many times more easy to compile, if the months of the year were all of equal length.

I mentioned that there were two systems now proposed. One has thirteen months and the other has twelve months. Both are better than the present system, and I suggest that the solution of the difficulty as to which should be adopted depends upon whether in general opinion the month or the quarter is the unit of time most valuable for accounting and costing purposes. If the month is more valuable, then we shall have the thirteen-month calendar: if the quarter is more valuable, then we shall have the twelvemonth calendar. Personally I say without hesitation that the thirteen-month calendar is undoubtedly the better of the two but, like many other people, I would be willing to support either of these two systems in preference to our extremely inconvenient present system. This thirteen-month calendar is at present used by a very considerable number of business organisations. It is used for costing and accounting purposes by all the railway companies in this country, by one or two Government Departments, by some trades unions, and by a great many industrial enterprises. It is used even more by industries in the United States of America and to some extent on the Continent. There is this to be said about the present use of it, that it is carried on under great difficulties, because it becomes necessary every few years to insert a leap week in order to keep this thirteen months calendar in pace with the general twelve months calendar. If the calendar were reformed, that difficulty would be removed, and the use of four weekly periods would be even more valuable to industry and commerce.

What is it that His Majesty's Government are desired to do in this matter? It is desired that they will send a representative to Geneva armed with the opinion of organisations in this country as to whether the calendar should be reformed or not and, if so, as to which system this country desires; and, in order to arrive at some solution of the problem, the representative should be further instructed that if the majority of the nations of the world favour one scheme we shall be willing to adopt that scheme, the scheme of the majority. In other words, it is desired that the Government should send to Geneva and take an active part in this Transit Section Conference and really give a lead to the nations of Europe in bringing about this great reform. Just twenty years ago your Lordships were asked to approve of the principle of daylight saving. I wonder how true it is, as is so often said, that it needed the Great War to get through that reform which we now treat as commonplace and which the great majority of the people of this country now think is a very great advantage to the whole world. If it had not been for the War I wonder Whether we should not still be putting forward objections and all sorts of arguments against Summer Time? How long will it be before we can get for the whole world the desirable reform of a fixed calendar? claim for it with all modesty nothing less than this, that if the calendar was reformed it would be of some advantage, direct or indirect, to every man, woman and child in the civilised world, and I do ask His Majesty's Government, by their interest and action in this matter, to render this reform possible in 1939, so that the manifest inconvenience which all of us now suffer shall be removed. I beg to move.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I hope that on this occasion I may be excused for saying a few words upon a matter to which I have devoted some considerable attention for many years past. Calendar reform is more and more occupying the attention of the world year by year, and many societies are ardently advocating it. I think we ought to be grateful to the League of Nations for the wonderful manner in which they have cleared the air in regard -co the opinions of Christian nations on this matter. As my noble friend has just said, no fewer than 300 different schemes of calendar reform were placed before the League of Nations, and these have been now reduced to the more manageable number of two. My noble friend has said something about the two schemes. One is that the year should be divided into thirteen months of an equal number of days, and the other, which I must say I personally look upon with greater favour, is that the present system of twelve months should be continued, but that the quarters and the half years should be made equal. The first quarter would be ninety-one days, the second quarter ninety-one days, the third quarter ninety-one days, and the fourth quarter ninety-one 'days. The year would then be divided into equal quarters and equal half-years. The year would always begin on a Sunday and the dates would always be the same all through the year.

The difficulty in dealing with calendar reform is this, that unfortunately the earth takes 365¼days to go round the sun. If it could only complete its circuit in 364 days calendar reform would be a very simple thing, and we should have a stabilised calendar. My noble friend has stated what both these systems propose to do with regard to the extra day. It would come at the end of the year and it would probably be observed as a holiday. It would not be counted into the week or month but would just be a day. Various conferences have indicated that they would deal with it in a different manner, but it is a matter which would not present any difficulties that could not be settled. The thirteen-month year is nothing new. It was advocated more than one hundred years ago by Auguste Comte, the French philosopher, but after that it rather dropped out of view. The objection to it is that it is associated with other objections that are naturally taken to the figure thirteen. Thirteen is not cleanly divisible into halves and quarters. There would be an extra month called Sol, which would not be received with any very great enthusiasm, either generally or by people who have birthdays about that time and who would find it rather inconvenient to have a birthday on a certain date in the month Sol. Moreover, I think that historical dates would also be rather upset if we suddenly introduced a new thirteenth month. Both schemes involve the elimination of the extra day and, as my noble friend said, if you adopt either scheme you would have a perpetual calendar.

There is not time on this occasion to go into a lengthy discussion on calendar reform, but there is one matter that is indissolubly bound up in it on which I have addressed your Lordships on more than one occasion. That is the question of a stabilised day for Easter, which now, it is conceded by high authorities, is wrapped up in the question of calendar reform. I do not know whether your Lordships remember that in 1928 I had the honour of proposing a Bill in this House which passed through both Houses of Parliament and is now an Act of Parliament. This Act states that Easter Day shall in the calendar year next but one after the commencement of the Act, be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April, and for the words "is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon or next after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of March, and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after"—which is the way Easter Sunday is fixed now according to the tables of Clavius under Pope Gregory—there shall be substituted the words "is always the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April." I think that is a very much simpler designation and very much more convenient.

I should like to say one word about the moon which is adopted in the Gregorian system. As Professor de Morgan points out, it is not the moon of the heavens but a fictitious imitation put wrong on purpose partly to keep Easter out of the way of the Jewish Passover, and partly for the convenience of calculations. We have at the present time—and I think this is even more important as regards the dislocation of business—an Easter which can be moved thirty-five days. I see that in 1940 it will be almost as early as it can be—namely, the 24th of March, and in 1943 it will be on the very latest day, which is the 25th of April. This is a great oscillation, and has a very serious effect not only on industry but on the civil life of the people. The law terms, the University terms and the terms of all the schools in this country, and the great holidays of the people, Easter and Whitsuntide, now oscillate backwards and forwards in accordance with calculations which were made for Pope Gregory as long ago as 1582. Under the present system the celebration of the birth of our Lord is fixed for December 25, while the celebration of the death and resurrection wanders about over a period of thirty-five days to the great and unnecessary inconvenience of the Christian world.

With the indulgence of the House I should like to explain that last year a very important delegation went to Rome on behalf of the World Calendar Association of the United States. It was instituted by the Rational Calendar Association of this country. This mission was supported by letters of delegation from the United States World Calendar Association, the Latin American Committees on Calendar Reform, the Bureau d'Etudes of Paris, and the Gesellschaft of Calendar Reform of Berlin. The important thing is that it was headed by a very celebrated Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, the Right Reverend Fernand Cabrol, Abbot of St. Michael's, Farnborough. He is one of the greatest authorities in the Roman Catholic Church, has written no fewer than twelve books on the subject and is one of the editors of the Roman Catholic Encyclopædia. The important thing is that a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic of his eminence should come forward to support these two proposals—namely, the reform of the calendar and a fixed date for Easter. He submitted in Latin a Memorandum representing the views of all these various associations, which is now placed on record in the archives of the Vatican. As it comes from such a distinguished Roman Catholic authority perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I read a few extracts from this Memorandum.

The Memorandum begins: On the reform of the calendar. Throughout all Christian nations to-day is spread a strong desire for a reform of the Gregorian Calendar. Then the Memorandum goes on to say in reference to the stabilisation of the date of Easter: Among the members of the societies advocating this reform are many serious students of religion who feel that the stabilisation of Easter would remove from the Christian Ordo an anomaly which has no basis in true doctrine and was only incorporated in the practice of the Church for reasons which are no longer valid. That is a strong expression of opinion from so high a source. Another paragraph in the Memorandum says: So great is the desire of the people of Great Britain for this reform that in 1928 the British Parliament passed an Act to introduce it. That this Act has never come into force is due solely to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has not given its assent to the reform. Then the Memorandum says: The proposal to set aside one day out of the days of the week— this is in reference to the proposed calendar reform— is similarly intended for the general benefit of mankind and the promotion of Christian unity. Its purpose is to enable the remaining 364 days of the year to be divided into fifty-two whole weeks, so that every year should begin on a Sunday and all the dates of the months fall always on the same days of the week. By this means a perpetual calendar would be established for all time. This proposal is not necessarily of prime concern to the Church; it need only affect lay interests. But it would obviously be more acceptable to public opinion if it were accorded the sanction of the Church's authority. No Christian community that has studied the question has found any objection to the proposal (with the exception of the Seventh-Day Adventists), and the Episcopal Church: of America has expressed its official approval of it in the strongest terms. Both these measures of reform can most easily be introduced in 1939 when the year will begin on a Sunday. Next year delegates to the League of Nations are to be called upon for a decision. There is therefore great need to-day for the Church's guidance. Those are the principal paragraphs in this Memorandum. I have also a résumé of the conclusions of the mission of wh'.ch I will quote only two: (1) The subject of calendar reform is under constant consideration at the Vatican, and close observation is being kept on the movement throughout the world; (2) the subject of calendar reform is viewed by the Vatican as a whole, and the question of Easter stabilisation cannot be detached from the question of general reform. There is so much agreement now among the various Churches who replied to the questionnaire issued by the League of Nations that there is every hope of the Christian Churches combining with a request for the stabilisation of Easter. Of course what we require is one Easter for Christendom. I was at one time rather disappointed that the Act to stabilise Easter was not put into force by Order in Council, but so mach progress has been made now and so much agreement has been displayed among the various Churches that one has every hope of there being established one Easter for the whole of Christendom.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is the attitude of the Greek Church. It has been said very often that the Greek Church is opposed to this reform, but really the father of this movement is Professor Eginitis, a strong Orthodox Churchman and a distinguished astronomer, who was Director of the National Observatory at Athens. He has been said to 'he the Sosigenes of the present movement. I think that, when we are supported by such a high ecclesiastical authority as Dom Cabrol, and by Professor Eginitis on behalf of the Orthodox Church, we may consider that there is every prospect of agreement.

This year is important because the Committee of the League of Nations to which this matter was committed only meets once in four years and there will be a meeting next October. We hope that the delegates from the British Government will be commissioned not only to support the motion for a fixed date for Easter but also to explain the views of the British Government on the subject of calendar reform. As the Committee will not meet again for another four years it is obvious that there will be a great deal of delay unless something is done next October. If the delegates at Geneva then came to some agreement they would have to refer the matter to their respective Governments, and the Holy See would he approached. As Dorn Fernand Cabrol points out the system of calendar reform could he introduced in 1939 without any dislocation, because Sunday happens to fall on the first of January that year. We can only hope that some agreement may be reached before then so that this long-needed reform of the calendar and the stabilisation of Easter may be introduced to the great advantage of the world in the year 1939.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I think we must agree that a very strong case has been made out for calendar reform by the two noble Lords who have spoken, and I am sure we all regard with great admiration the chivalrous devotion which my noble friend Lord Desborough has for many years devoted to this matter. We must not allow its intricacies to affect our sense of its importance. I approach it myself with no sort of enthusiasm. When a subject enters the region of arithmetic my mind ceases to be able to follow it. Nor have I any great belief in the value of uniformity as such. On the contrary, I think much is to be said in many matters for a, great deal of variety.

Constitutionally, I have a great dislike of any proposal to change long and well-established customs unless there is very strong reason; but I am bound to say that I have found it impossible to resist the plea for reform in this matter, which comes, I think it may be said, with practical unanimity from the representatives of all the great organisations of trade, industry and commerce throughout the civilised world. The matter has been complicated, as noble Lords have pointed out, by its immense complexities, including the vagaries of the moon, and it is something, at any rate, in the way of bringing order into this confusion, that the League of Nations Committee—oddly enough described as "Transit and Communications"—have sufficiently cleared the issue to put two alternatives before—it may be said—the world: the alternatives of the equal months or the equal quarters. I express no opinion as to the merits of these two alternatives, but I associate myself with everything which has been said by the noble Lord on the importance of an undertaking by this section of the League of Nations, the Transit Section, to give a definite recommendation, after consulting with all the experts who are available, as to which of the two plans it recommends. I think it would be a real misfortune if this matter were allowed to drift on beyond October this year, when it could not be fruitfully considered again until 1940.

But, my Lords, I rise merely to say a word or two about that aspect of the problem with which I am concerned: the stabilisation of Easter. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has reminded your Lordships that in this matter we have a rather special responsibility, because there stands on the Statute Book of this country an Act, the Act of 1928, definitely fixing Easter as to be observed on the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. It is true that part of the Act provides that it shall not come into operation except by an Order in Council, which shall not be issued unless the various religious authorities have been consulted. I think that was a very wise provision. I do not think we can contemplate with equanimity a great variety among the Christian communities of the world in the observance of Easter. Heaven knows there are already sufficient divisions, and we do not want to increase them. It therefore seems to me that it might be expedient if once again I were to remind your Lordships of the position in which the matter still stands as regards the consent of the religious authorities. I am afraid that some of your Lordships would prefer to put it "stands still," and I doubt very much whether even the important communication made by the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, carried it very much farther.

The position is this. As regards the Anglican communion there is no difficulty. After the passing of the Act of 1928, as was only fitting and proper, there was concurrent action on the part of the Church, and the Convocation of Canterbury in 1929, followed by the Upper House of the Convocation of York, resolved that in the event of general concurrence among religious communions being obtained for the objects of the Act, Easter Day should be the one specified in the Act; the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. Again, in 1930, I had the advantage of consulting the Metropolitans and Presiding Bishops, including the Bishops from the United States of America, assembled in the Lambeth Conference, and they were unanimous in saying that they saw no difficulty in principle, but they attached the greatest importance to the previous consent of the leading religious communions in the world having been obtained. There, so far as the Anglican Church is concerned, the matter rests. There was a conference of the League of Nations in 1931 to which I was invited to send a representative; I did so, and they are in possession of the facts which I have just mentioned.

As regards the Orthodox Church, I wish I could be as sanguine as the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is true that as long ago as 1924 the then (Ecumenical Patriarch professed himself ready to pronounce in favour of calendar reform and of a fixed Easter, but since then nothing further has been done. One of the difficulties, and one which is continually recurring in -other connections, is that, mainly for political reasons, the autonomous churches of which the Orthodox Church is composed find it almost impossible to assemble and come to any binding decision. As regards the Protestant communions, we have known some years ago that the League obtained assurances from no less than 82 various Churches and federations throughout the world in favour of calendar reform and a fixed Easter.

There remains the great Roman Catholic communion—in this matter one of vital importance, as it is the largest and most widespread of all. I doubt very much, valuable as is the communication which the noble Lord has made, whether it carries us very much farther. I think it only shows that the Holy See is perhaps returning to the position which was taken in 1921. In that year my predecessor read a letter to your Lordships from Cardinal Bourne, some of which perhaps it is pertinent to read again. The Cardinal was not writing officially: I have reason to think that the attitude of the Holy See is one of willingness to, sanction the proposed change"— that is, the stabilised Easter— provided there he a practically unanimous request to that effect from the principal Governments of the world. I do not think there is any likelihood of the Holy See taking any initiative in the matter. Since then I think it would be true to say that the Holy See was rather less than more inclined to advance in this respect.

It attaches increasing importance—and I am bound to say in this matter that I have considerable sympathy with it—to the undesirability of interfering with immemorial custom and usage. Certainly it was intimated to the League of Nations Committee that the Holy See would not he prepared to take any further steps unless it was so advised by anŒcumenical Council. I acknowledge the importance of the communication, which has just been read, by a very distinguished and eminent scholar and divine, but your Lordships noticed that there was no intimation of the real effect which it had upon the policy of the Vatican. I can only hope that the Vatican may be reverting to the attitude which was described in 1921 by Cardinal Bourne. If, therefore, the request which has been made to the Government is carried out, if this country gives a strong lead to the League of Nations Transit Section to come to some decision between these two alternative schemes of calendar reform, and if in October of this year the Quadrennial Conference can register a general agreement on this matter among most of the principal communions of the world, then I hope it may be possible for the Vatican to reconsider its hitherto generally expressed attitude. If so, then I hope that my noble friend. Lord Desborough may be still alive to sec the fruition of his long labours!

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have listened with interest, if not with sympathy, to the argument so precisely put forward by the noble Lord who moved this Motion, Lord Merthyr, and, if I may say so, so loyally supported by Lord Desborough. In view of those arguments perhaps it would be of service to your Lordships' House if I were briefly to enumerate the initiative and activities of this country in the consideration of the question of the reform of the Gregorian Calendar. Reference has been made to the Advisory Committee for Communications and Transit of the League, which in 1923 appointed a special Committee to consider the reform of the calendar. This Committee reported in 1926, and dealt separately with the reform of the calendar and the stabilisation of Easter. They considered, as Lord Merthyr has informed us, no fewer than 185 various schemes for the reform of the calendar, and in their Report they referred to three schemes, two of which have been given attention both by Lord Merthyr and by Lord Desborough.

I think it would be unnecessary for me to go into the merits or otherwise of these specific schemes, except merely to refer to the circumstance that in both schemes in ordinary years, as has been pointed out, there would be a blank day, but in this year of 1936 there would be two blank days, owing to the fact that it is leap year. I do not wish to state an opinion to this House as to whether that would lead to confusion or not in the minds of many British citizens, but the fact remains that confusion would no doubt arise, especially when leap year arrives. A point, however, that I think is of extreme importance, is that although the Committee considered these schemes they did not decide in favour of any particular scheme. They reported that although powerful propaganda movements were on foot, public opinion was not yet prepared, even if it welcomed reform, to press for immediate action in any particular direction. When the Report was considered by the Assembly of the League the Assembly suggested that the examination of the question of calendar reform should be co-ordinated and organised in each country by national committees of inquiry on official or semi-official lines. Therefore in September, 1930, an official British Committee of Inquiry was constituted, to ascertain "whether and in what form public opinion holds calendar reform to be desirable or possible." This Committee was presided over by the late Lord Burnham, and reported in May, 1931.

Of the activities of that Committee it is worth mentioning to your Lordships that it circularised 499 industrial and commercial bodies, but received replies from only sixty-four. Of these, twenty-nine expressed "no opinion" in various terms, and only twenty-three out of the 499 expressed themselves as favourable to reform. It had further circularised sixty-two professional organisations, of which only twenty-five replied. Sixteen stated that they had no interest, five were opposed to change, two were in favour of change, and two were in favour of a fixed Easter. I think it was particularly significant that the chartered accountants had no opinion to offer at, all, and that the Committee of the British Bankers Association concluded that no sufficient reason had been advanced for a change. Further, the Committee consulted the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the executive council of which declared themselves as not in favour of calendar reform. The National Council of Women of Great Britain was also opposed to change. Therefore your Lordships will observe that from the Committee's Report it was clear that, in their words, the prospect of the acceptance of a thirteen-month calendar by British public opinion is, for at least a good many years to come, very slight, and that there is no widespread discontent with the existing system. This matter was further considered by an unofficial Parliamentary Committee, whose principal conclusion was that a thirteen-month calendar was, in their words, definitely repugnant to British feeling.

The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has referred at some length to the general question of calendar reform as it was considered by the Fourth General Conference on Communications and Transit, held in 1931. The Conference then adopted a Resolution concerning the economic and social aspects of the simplification of the Gregorian Calendar, in which it was stated that: The Conference was almost unanimous-in corning to the conclusion that the present is not a favourable time…for proceeding with a modification of the Gregorian Calendar. The Conference…did not think fit to express any opinion on the principle of calendar reform. I was rather surprised, having known of that Resolution passed by that Conference, that the noble Lord should have devoted so much time during the course of his remarks to the proceedings which took place within, that Conference.

So far as His Majesty's Government are aware there is no very substantial demand in this country for a radical reform of the calendar. In fact the Government have been aware of considerable opposition to the proposal. Although the Trades Union Congress passed, in 1928, a resolution to the effect that the time is now ripe for calendar reform, the Federation of British Industries has informed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary of its opposition to the general reform of the calendar. I think it would be useless for me to say much concerning the position of the Churches, especially as regards the Anglican Church, as the House has had the advantage of hearing the views of the most reverend Primate. But the Report of the Unofficial Committee said that the Anglican Church would only agree to a change if it did not cause a difference of practice among Christians; while the Roman Catholic Church would not sanction any change unless there was overwhelming evidence from all nations of an almost universal desire for change. That was contained in the Report of the Unofficial Committee, who were in a position to have evidence to that effect. The Jewish community, I understand, are opposed to calendar reform in so far as it interferes with the religious week.

Your Lordships will perceive that in those circumstances, with the facts that have been brought to the notice of those who have had to inquire into the matter, it would be difficult for His Majesty's Government to agree to the proposal made by the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government should take a lead in bringing the question before the Committee for Communications and Transit. But I can assure your Lordships that, if the matter were to be placed upon the agenda of that Committee, the whole question of the reform of the Gregorian Calendar and the stabilisation of Easter would have the most sympathetic and serious consideration of the representatives of His Majesty's Government who attended that Committee. I am afraid that I have not by any means satisfied the noble Lord who moved this Motion, but I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that, from the evidence that has been submitted, there is no definite demand for a change at present. In those circumstances the Government feel that they cannot go to the lengths which some of those who have taken part in the debate to-day would wish them to go.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, although the noble Earl has rightly perceived that he has not satisfied me in the reply which he has given us, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the trouble he has taken in the matter. He spoke of the confusion which it is alleged would be caused by the second blank day in leap years, but it comes as a surprise to me to learn that the British public would in any way object to the extra holiday which that would involve, because those blank days would of course be national holidays. He also said that he was surprised that I dealt at such length with the last meeting of the Communications and Transit Section. The point I wanted to make was that it was hardly surprising that such a negative result should have been arrived at after the very indecisive, and indeed nebulous, contribution made by the British Government. I feel, as many others do, that if the British Government were to give a lead and set an example the result would be very different. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.