Lords Sitting of 2 March 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CLUBS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I hope it will not be necessary for me to make a very heavy demand upon the time of the House. In the first place the general facts of the club question are known, and in the second place there is considerable agreement both as to the necessity for an amendment of the law and as to the main lines upon which the remedy should be applied. I ought to make clear at the outset that those who press for amending legislation in regard to clubs do so with the full recognition that the club as an institution has an essential place in our national life. The purpose of this Bill is not to hinder in any way the development of legitimate clubs; it is to provide that measure of effective control which will prevent those practices resulting in drunkenness and breaches of the law which admittedly occur under the present system in a large number of clubs.
Before I proceed very briefly to explain the provisions of the Bill there are one or two preliminary matters to which I should like to call the attention of the House. When I sat upon a previous Licensing Commission which reported forty years ago, in the year 1899, the club question had not reached its present serious dimensions. We did, however, receive a certain amount of evidence even then in regard to club developments, and we made certain recommendations as a Commission. I am interested to note that some of the recommendations which that Commission made forty years ago are included in this Bill to-day. I now come to say something about the steady continuous growth in clubs during the past thirty years. I will not weary the House with details, but let me call your Lordships' attention to one or two figures. We will begin with the year 1905. The number of registered clubs in England
1024
and Wales in 1905 was 6,589. Twenty years later, in 1925, the number was 11,780. In 1937, the last year for which we have statistics, the number was 16,563. In other words, your Lordships will see that during the last thirty years or so the number of clubs in England and Wales has practically trebled.
There are one or two points in connection with this expansion of clubs which I should like the House to note. The first is that, as a result of this steady, continuous expansion of clubs, the number of clubs to-day has reached a considerable proportion of the licensed premises of the country. Take the year 1937 again. The number of on-licences in England and Wales was 74,326 and the number of registered clubs was 16,563. Thirty years ago the number of clubs in relation to on-licences was one club for every fifteen on-licences. To-day they are more than one to five. The on-licences, as the House knows, are subject to all the conditions of the licensing laws, and the clubs are virtually free from all restriction. That is the first point. The second point is that under present conditions there is nothing to hinder an infinite extension of registered clubs with a consequent aggravation of the defects and abuses which are inherent in the present position.
As the House knows, the only condition necessary for registration is the payment of a nominal fee of a few shillings and the submission to the clerk to the justices of certain points in regard to numbers, membership and rules. During the last thirty years this very considerable extension of clubs throughout the country has led to a development which has caused considerable concern to those who are responsible for the administration of the licensing laws. I have a large amount of evidence here, drawn from the proceedings of police courts throughout the country, to show both the gravity and the frequency of offences in connection with clubs. I am not going to weary the House with details of this evidence, but I think I can make the position sufficiently clear by stating that these offences can be classed under three principal heads: (1) persistent disregard of permitted hours; (2) frequent drunkenness and disorder; and (3) gambling. In view of these developments it has for some time been clear that some change in the law relating to clubs is required. Further,

1025
it is required, I think, in two main directions: firstly, a more effective control over initial registration; and secondly, more adequate supervision.
Behind this very general demand for amendment of the law in relation to clubs there is, as I have on more than one occasion previously pointed out, a support of public opinion exceptional in weight and in character. May I just mention two or three facts showing the strength of the case for the Bill from the standpoint of responsible public opinion? I will begin with the statements made in many centres in the country by Chief Constables. I have a great many statements here, but I will read only one to your Lordships' House—namely, the statement made by the Chief Constable of Cardiff. At the annual meeting of the Cardiff Licensing Authority, held on February 3 of this year, the Chairman said that the Chief Constable's report showed that there was an alarming increase in drunkenness, and that the clubs were to blame. The Chief Constable, in his report, goes on to say:
"For many years I have reiterated to the justices my opinion that there are too many clubs in existence, and I do so again this year. The control which the law gives to the police over registered clubs is"—
I should like the House to mark these words—
"of a most meagre and unsatisfactory character."
I could add to that similar statements made by Chief Constables all over the country.
May I now call the attention of the House to other evidence to which I personally attach considerable weight? It is the view of the Magistrates' Association. That Association represents the licensing justices, and those justices are responsible for the administration of the licensing law. This Association is presided over, as the House knows, by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor. It has for many years urged with great force the necessity for a great change in the law, and the views of the Association are in substantial agreement with the provisions of this Bill. Then I would take another point—namely, the support for some change and amendment in the law relating to clubs which is given by a considerable section of those
1026
interested in the liquor trade. It is felt that the position as between licensed premises on the one hand and unlicensed clubs on the other is unfair and calls for adjustment. Lastly, I do not think I would be rightly estimating the strength of public opinion in support of change in the law with regard to clubs if I did not call the attention of the House to the fact that the Churches throughout the country take a very deep interest in this question. The Churches have, from time to time, made strong representations to the Home Secretary upon the matter, and I feel certain that the Home Secretary recognises the weight that should be attached to those representations.
And lastly, on the point of evidence in support of the Bill, I come to the recommendations on the club question of the recent Licensing Commission, and as this Bill incorporates these recommendations may I just say one or two words as to the Commission? First of all the Chairman of the Commission is a member of this House, my noble friend Lord Amulree. By common consent he fully sustained the high traditions of that position, and rendered, I am sure, a signal public service in the way in which he conducted this important inquiry. Let me also call attention to the very representative character of the Commission. There were representatives on this Commission of labour and the co-operative societies, and also representatives of the drink traffic, of the business community, of the teaching profession, and of the Churches. This Commission so constituted, having heard the evidence from all sides upon the question of clubs, made certain recommendations. These recommendations were absolutely unanimous and without a single reservation.
Here, if I may, I should like to quote the central declaration of the Commission upon the question of clubs. The Commission say:
"The club movement at its best, … is, in our opinion, a most valuable element in the structure of our society. The expansion of the movement amongst the industrial classes of recent years is, we think, particularly significant. We have wished, therefore"—
I would ask the House to mark these words—
"to make no proposals which will tend to hamper that movement. We are, however, satisfied that substantial changes in the law are

1027
indispensable; and that the law as so altered should be applicable indifferently to the best and to the worst."
Before I proceed very briefly to set before the House the principal recommendations of the Committee, I wish to make a short reference to the Parliamentary position of this Bill. Manifestly this is a Bill which ought to be introduced by the Government, and let me explain why I am to-day on my own responsibility moving its Second Reading. Ever since the publication of the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission on this question frequent representations have been made to the Government pressing them to introduce the required legislation, and there is one important statement made three years ago by the then Home Secretary in another place which I should like to quote. On March 6, 1936, upon a debate in the other House on a Clubs Bill, the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, made this statement:
"I am able to say that it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the evils of bogus clubs. We cannot do so this Session, but I am prepared to carry my assurance further and to say that we intend to promote that legislation next Session."
Perfectly explicit and definite. Accordingly, when the King's Speech appeared in November, 1936, a Clubs Bill was mentioned in the Speech; but no Clubs Bill was introduced during the Session.
A year passed and we come to the King's Speech of November, 1937. Again a Clubs Bill was mentioned in the King's Speech, but no Bill was introduced during the Session. I come to last Session. Some of your Lordships may remember that last Session I asked no fewer than four Questions of the Government upon this point. The first reply was given by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, on behalf of the Government, and it was to the effect that it was the definite purpose of the Government to introduce a Clubs Bill that Session and that preparation of the Bill was actively proceeding. In reply to a second Question the noble Earl, Lord Munster, reaffirmed the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. In reply to my third Question the statement was that the date of the introduction of the Bill was under consideration. And the reply to my fourth Question was that, owing to the
1028
claims on the time of Parliament, it would not be possible to introduce a Bill that Session. And, as the House knows, no Clubs Bill was mentioned in the King's Speech at the beginning of this Session.
I have had a considerable experience of the ways of Parliament and of the fate of Government Bills, but it is impossible for me not to express the acute and widespread disappointment which has been caused by the failure of the Government to fulfil their definite pledges on this question. I know that difficulties may arise, but if I may express my personal opinion, in view of the strength of the support behind an amendment of the law in this respect, in view of the urgency of dealing with it at an early date, and in view of the very large majority which the Government still command, I am, I must confess, at a loss to understand the delay which has taken place in the introduction of the Bill.
Now I will very briefly refer to the principal recommendations of the Royal Commission and indicate the clauses in the Bill in which they are embodied. Recommendation 1: That there should be constituted a committee of justices acting in the division for the purpose of controlling the registration of clubs. That is in Clause 1 of the Bill. Recommendation 2: The Royal Commission stated:
"We are convinced that a system of discretionary registration, to be renewed annually, is necessary."
The procedure in reference to applications for new clubs as recommended by the Commission is set out in Clauses 2, 3, and 4 of the Bill, and the essential conditions for registration are enumerated in Clauses 3 and 6. These are suitability of premises, promotion for legitimate ends, good management, the number of members to be not less than fifty, or twenty-five under certain circumstances, the absence of a tie, and the control of members over the supply of liquor. I move on to Recommendation 3. The Commission said:
"We would give the right of objection (1) to the police, (2) to the local authority, and (3) to any person owning or inhabiting a house in the immediate neighbourhood."
That is Clause 5 of the Bill. Recommendation 4: The grounds of objection to renewal of registration of clubs, should, in the opinion of the Commission, be frequent departure of persons in a state of

1029
drunkenness, disorderly conduct, offences against the licensing laws and the non-fulfilment of the requirements set out in Clause 6 of the Bill. These recommendations are embodied in Clause 7 of the Bill. Here I may point out that an appeal is allowed in the Bill to Quarter Sessions, both in respect of the initial application and also in respect of renewal of registration. That is in Clause 10 of the Bill.
I now move to a very important question in regard to police entry. The conclusion of the Commission was as follows:
"We consider it indispensable that the power of entry into registered clubs should be exercised by suitable officers acting on the written authorisation, given expressly for each occasion, of a Chief Constable or deputy appointed by him for the purpose."
I would like, if I may, to point out the very precise limitations which the Royal Commission attach to that power of entry. This recommendation is provided for in Clause 16 of the Bill. Recommendation 6: The Commission recommended that there should be no supply of intoxicants for "off" consumption. That is in Clause 13. Recommendation 7 was that dislicensed premises should be disqualified for five years. That is in Clause 11. Recommendation 8 as to the hours of liquor supply was that the hours in clubs should be the same as those fixed for licensed premises in the Bill. That is provided for in Clause 13. Lastly, Recommendation 9: That no person under 18 years of age should be a member of a club. That is in Clause 13 (4).
There is one further recommendation which relates to Wales, to which I wish to make just a short reference. About sixty years ago the Welsh Sunday Closing Act was passed, and I may perhaps be permitted to explain my rather special interest in this measure because it was my father who, as a private Member in another place, was responsible for that Act. Whatever be the difference of view as to Sunday closing elsewhere, there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales continue firmly attached to the Act. Well, during recent years clubs have been set up in Wales, and I think the House will see that the setting up of clubs brings about a situation, in places where you have the licensed premises closed on Sundays and the clubs open, which is palpably inequitable. Evidence was placed before the Royal Commission upon that point, and
1030
as a result the recommendation of the Commission was that the supply of intoxicants in clubs in Wales on Sundays should be generally prohibited. This provision also is incorporated in the Bill.
I come to the end of my task in expounding this Bill. I have stated the main grounds upon which amending legislation is urgently required, and I have endeavoured to show the exceptional strength of the case for the Bill. I must of course await the reply of the noble Earl who is going to speak for the Government to learn what the views of the Government may be in regard to this Bill, but upon every ground it seems to me advantage would accrue if an opportunity were provided for a detailed discussion of the provisions of this Bill on the Committee stage. In any case I venture to express the hope that the House will be allowed to give a free vote when the Division comes this evening on the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that the foundations of the Bill are well and truly laid in the unanimous conclusions of the Licensing Commission, and therefore, with some confidence, I submit the measure to the favourable judgment of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD BAYFORDhad given Notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the rejection of this Bill I have no complaint whatever to make as to the way in which it has been introduced by the noble Lord opposite, for he made, I think, quite a moderate statement and stated his case very fairly. With one part of his speech I most earnestly agree—that is, I consider this subject is one that ought to be dealt with by the Government and ought not to be left in the hands of a private Member in either House. One part of his speech particularly impressed me, and that was the statement he made as to the increase in the number of working-class clubs. What does that show? Surely it shows that there is a great demand among the working classes for this particular form of institution. I do not regret it. It is a very much better thing, in my opinion, that a man should have his club to go to rather than that

1031
he should go to a public-house to find society. What the noble Lord has said as to the very great increase in the number of clubs is quite true.
I may say that, in moving the rejection of this Bill, I am speaking for those who represent the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and the National Golf Clubs Protection Association in addition to the body with which I am most particularly associated—that is, the Association of Conservative Clubs. Altogether these bodies have a membership of 1,600,000, so that when the noble Lord speaks of public opinion being behind him, he must also remember that there is very strong public opinion on the other side. I am quite as anxious as the noble Lord to do all that can be done to stop bogus clubs, but it does not seem to me that this Bill would have very much effect in that way. What it will do—and this is the reason why I am opposing it—is this. While there seems to be very little provision that will make it easier for the police to interfere with bogus clubs, it does impose a lot of harassing restrictions on perfectly innocent bona-fide working men's clubs.
I am fond of clubs myself. Many of us in this House are. The club for all classes in the country fulfils a very useful purpose in life. For those who do not live in luxurious surroundings, it provides very often a degree of comfort that they do not get at home. They meet their friends there, and meet them on the pleasantest of terms. The one advantage of a club, it always seems to me, is that you do meet your friends there, and more than in other places you are not likely to meet people you do not want to meet. The friends you meet there exchange ideas. They gossip—no harm in that. They play games, and one of the things that the Association of Conservative Clubs does is to see about giving prizes for darts and the various other games they play in these working men's clubs. I have been speaking on behalf of clubs that are engaged in political work, and they are a valuable political asset. The cry that is raised against them is almost entirely on the subject of the liquor trade. I cannot speak for the big towns; I do not know what the state of things there is; but one thing that has struck
1032
me in the last fifty years, since I first began to know anything about such things, is the tremendous decrease in the amount of drunkenness in the country. When I was first on the bench one used to go often a considerable distance to attend petty sessions, and on getting there found that the cases probably consisted of six drunks and a bastardy case. It was only the licensing business in those days that kept the benches going at all. Nowadays it is absolutely the reverse. On the bench on which I sit we have not had a single case of drunkenness in the last twelve months, and in the year before we had only one, and then the defendant was a stranger who had tramped into the neighbourhood. That, for the country districts at all events, rather ruins the argument as to drunkenness.
Now I will deal with a few of the details of this Bill. It is a Second Reading debate, and I have no wish to go into matters too closely, but I do want to point out one or two which raise profund distrust in the minds of those who belong to the large number of clubs for which I am speaking. They object strongly to the local bench of magistrates being the registration authority. In some parts of the country they feel that there is political bias on the part of the magistrates. There is this curious feature about it, that when licensing sessions are held all those who have interests of any sort in public-houses, even a landlord who happens to have a house on his property, is debarred from sitting, while, on the other hand, the most rabid teetotallers in the neighbourhood may all come and sit there if they happen to be members of the bench. That is a thing which is very much resented indeed. The next matter of detail is that club men object very much to the idea that they should have to fight for their existence every year. Under this Bill power is given to the police, to the local authority, and to any neighbours to object to the renewal of the licence of a club. For a working men's club to have to employ counsel in court to fight a battle for existence is an expensive thing. Members resent it and they would feel very much injured if such a provision should be passed.
Then there is the provision under which a return has to be made of the money which is spent on drink. How far is that to go? Is every club in London, is the

1033
Athenaeum or the Reform Club, to send in a return as to the amount that is spent there on drink? I have been making some inquiries, and I find that even in a big London club the profit on drink comes to something like a quarter of the amount received in subscriptions. That just makes the difference in keeping a club going. If you are to take away that from the Athenaeum their subscriptions would have to be raised, causing great hardship to the members. The revenue derived from this source is considerable, and without it no doubt it would be necessary to raise the subscriptions in the clubs. There is the same consideration to be borne in mind if you apply it to the national revenue. What should we do for the national revenue if we did not tax drink? It is one of the principal sources of revenue in the country, and we should have to find the money from some other source if the drink trade were suppressed.
The next thing which would be objected to very much is that the Home Secretary is to make rules for clubs. Why should the Home Secretary have to make rules for the clubs? Surely the clubs are quite capable of making their own rules, and I should very much doubt whether the Home Secretary's office was capable of making rules that would apply equitably to every club in the country. The next matter is as to hours. Hours, as we know, are restricted all over the country. The only place where there is no restriction upon the hours during which drinks can be obtained is just down the Lobby away from this House. But why should clubs, granted the total of the hours is similar, be restricted to the same hours as public-houses? The golf club is the most outstanding illustration. At a golf club they have the power now of fixing the hours at times which are most convenient to the members. Surely that is common sense, and to abolish that is going straight against common sense. Then there is a tiresome and annoying provision about prohibiting supply for consumption away from the club. If a man is going out for the day and he wants to fill a flask at any club, why on earth should he not be allowed to do so? It seems to me to be a most unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject.
Then there is this other question. I am not a Welshman and I do not want
1034
to pronounce too strong an opinion about Wales and Monmouthshire, but I can only say that what I do fear is that clubs in that part of the world would be exceedingly annoyed if any such restrictions were put on them after they have enjoyed this privilege for a great many years. It would really be a direct invitation to shebeening in that part of the world. Lastly, there is the right of police entry. There is a tremendous feeling against that, and it does raise what seems to me rather a strong constitutional question. The proposal is to give the power of allowing police entry into a club, not to the justices who are the judicial authority, but to the chief of police, a purely executive authority. On what is a judicial question, that seems to me to be absolutely contrary to all the rules by which our jurisprudence has usually been bound. For all these reasons, I feel that this is not a Bill to which your Lordships ought to give a Second Reading, and I beg to leave out the word "now" in order to insert at the end "this day six months."
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Bayford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel that no one can complain of the extremely courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has stated his case. For myself I believe in club life. I spent nine years of my life regularly visiting the clubs of the working classes of London, and I feel absolutely sure that what Lord Bayford says is quite right, that the working classes ought to have clubs, and that they want clubs more than we do. We have better homes than they have. Clubs are very exciting places, especially big clubs. In discussions there the Church is being disestablished night after night, and the House of Lords swept away like driftwood, and no one is a penny the worse. My friends in Conservative and other clubs say that there are certain bogus clubs which bring the genuine clubs into disrepute, and they want them dealt with. No one wishes to attack the genuine clubs for which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, speaks.
I think on this matter I can speak in my humble capacity as representing the whole of Christian London. I have made

1035
it my pleasure to unite together in London all Christian denominations. Instead of fighting one another, we are now working shoulder to shoulder. When I tell your Lordships that the Vice-Chairman is a Roman Catholic and that every denomination is represented—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will be glad to hear that some of the best supporters are of his religious persuasion—your Lordships will realise that I really speak to-day on behalf of a very large number of people. Let us have the other side. Let us have the facts which induced the Royal Commission to be unanimous on this point.
This is the sort of thing they say:
"Mr. R. A. J. Walling, Chairman of the Plymouth Licensing Justices, stated that in 1928 the Rifleman's Arms beerhouse, King Street, Plymouth, was closed as redundant on the decision of the justices. No less than £5,200 was paid as compensation to the licensee. There were ten other public-houses within two hundred yards of the Rifleman's Arms. The case was strong, therefore, for the extinction of this beer-house licence. Five days after the licence expired, the premises were reopened by the former licensee as the Rifleman's Social Club. The legal requirements were merely formal; the former licensee as promoter of the club, had only to deposit with the clerk to the justices a few written particulars and 5s. as registration fee. Thus, without the considered review or consent of any public authority, he was able to defeat completely the purpose of the justices in extinguishing the public-house licence…. On the financial side, the National Exchequer lost £23 10s. per annum as licence duty; the local compensation fund lost the annual contribution heretofore received from the beer-house, and was also seriously depleted by the futile expenditure of £5,200."
You shut up a public house at a cost of £5,200 and five days later it is opened as a drinking club!
That is merely one instance. I have several instances here, which of course convinced the Royal Commission of the need for dealing with the question. I will quote one more. This comes from Mr. J. H. Hudson, from Bradford:
"On New Year's Eve, 1929, a beer-house known as the Albert Hotel was closed as redundant. Compensation amounting to no less than £5,800 was paid to the parties interested. Two days later, on January 2, 1930, the same building was registered and opened as a club, with the son of the former publican as the club secretary."
Therefore the effect of the old Licensing Act in closing redundant houses has been
1036
defeated. The same place was opened in two days as a drinking club! Therefore the Royal Commission said:
"We are satisfied that substantial changes in the law are indispensable; and that the law as so altered should be applicable indifferently to the best and to the worst. It is our hope that our proposals will, if applied, effect the elimination or the regeneration of undesirable clubs without proving any source of embarrassment to the many whose conduct is beyond reproach."
Of course, all clubs must come under this Bill. I hope the police will look in at the Athenaeum. What are your Lordships doing in your clubs if you are afraid of policemen looking in? I would have every club under the same supervision. Another point which we should realise is that it is unfair to the licensed victualler. I have always made great friends of the publicans in my district. I called on them when I was rector and made them feel that they were part of the parish. Let me read something concerning a club in the district of Upper Heeley, Sheffield. This is what is said about that club:
"In the five weeks ending December 31, 1931, the balance sheet of the club shows that there was received in subscriptions £5 15s., in entrance fees £23 2s. and for bar takings the astounding sum of £560 17s. 3d."
Obviously that is a pure drinking club. As the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, has dealt so well with that part of club life I will leave his speech to stand without any addition. He has put the case in regard to drinking clubs and the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has put very well the criticisms on the other side. I still believe that we ought to have the policemen coming in, because only in that way can we remedy the evil.
There is however, another aspect of the case which has not been touched upon yet. I refer to those horrible night clubs in the West End of London which we have been unable to touch. Unless there is some legislation we cannot touch them at all. Every last Thursday in the month we sit to try and deal with the morality of London. I will give your Lordships a little history. In 1915 this became such a terrible question that I wrote a letter to The Times. I will not quote it, but the point was that these so-called clubs were a danger to the capital of an Empire at war. I said in that letter that Lord Kitchener had impressed upon men of the Expeditionary Force the importance

1037
of avoiding the particular temptations found in those night clubs. Following the accumulation of evidence on this subject, Sir John Simon introduced the Clubs (Temporary Provisions) Bill and this is what he said:
"These institutions are the resort of every kind of swindler and harpy and of a number of young men, some of them serving in His Majesty's Forces, who either from folly or inexperience, fail to recognise the real character of those whom they meet there."
In the House of Lords, Lord Curzon, who always weighed his words, is reported to have said:
"It was designed to put an end to a great scandal by arresting the growth of night clubs which were really haunts of temptation and dens of iniquity in our great towns. These institutions were not clubs in the proper sense of the term, places of legitimate social intercourse. They were snares which were provided by bad characters to trap unwary men. Open as these places were throughout the night and in the early hours of the morning, there were in them scenes of drinking, gambling and immorality. He had read the reports submitted by the military authorities with regard to a large number of young officers who had been tempted into these places, swindled of their money, drugged and sometimes turned out into the streets, and who had been blackmailed in order to avoid exposure."
That no doubt led Sir John Simon, who was then Home Secretary, to make another speech in 1936. He then stated that it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the evil of bogus clubs in the next Session, and the King's Speech opening that Session announced the Club's Bill.
Now, in order that your Lordships may realise what sort of clubs these are, I will read some opinions, first of magistrates and then of Chief Constables. On December 4, 1935, a magistrate described a club as a "social pest, demoralising the neighbourhood." On February 17, 1937, a Recorder said:
"We have had to listen to an unpleasant case which arises out of an affray at one of those vile and horrible places that exist in the West End under the title of club."
On December 6, 1936, at Marlborough Street, the magistrate said:
"This is one of the most revolting cases I have ever listened to."
Then there are descriptions of children eight years of age having their hair dyed and being used to entertain in night clubs. The Recorder of London, Sir Holman Gregory, is reported as saying that he considered it as one of the outstanding
1038
scandals of London at the present time that, at nearly every session at the Central Criminal Court, some crime was alleged to have been committed in premises stated to have been conducted as a club, when it was evident from the evidence before the Court that in truth the premises were being conducted as a drinking den of the worst class where all kinds of iniquities took place and were encouraged.
I will leave out the evidence of about six other magistrates who say the same thing, and get on to the Chief Constables. The Chief Constable of Bradford says:
"The fact that twenty ill-conducted clubs were closed during one year points to the conclusion that a not inconsiderable number of clubs in the City are not conducted in good faith and are little better than drinking dens set up solely for the purpose of supplying intoxicating liquor."
The Chief Constables of Liverpool and Leeds say much the same. Then I will get on to the remarks of a certain member of our House whom I think I saw come in just now—Viscount Trenchard. On December 31, 1934, he said:
"The total number of registered clubs was 2,574, an increase of 180 over the previous year…. The present easy system of registration under which there is no power to refuse registration, even when incorrect particulars are supplied to the court, is largely responsible for the continued increase of the low type of proprietary club which is nothing more than a drinking den, and generally breaks the law upon its inception…. It is usually impossible to obtain evidence of irregularities in such clubs unless a police officer associates with the prostitutes and thieves who use them. In other types of club a police officer has to obtain entry as a guest or member, and to spend money which is not his own…An adequate system of registration and inspection by the registration authority should suffice to put an end to bogus and ill-conducted clubs."
That was from Lord Trenchard, when he was head of the police.
Sir Philip Game, the present head of the police, says the same thing:
"These clubs are, as a rule, well conducted and give the police very little trouble. The same cannot be said of clubs classified as 'Social.' To a great extent the increase in this type of club is due to the registration of proprietary clubs which are nothing but unlicensed public-houses and often break the law from inception. I referred in my last Report to the difficulties which confront the police in handling these commercial ventures, which not infrequently spring up overnight and go out of existence just as quickly, either from failure to show a profit to the proprietor or by reason of police attention. Most of the police proceedings relate to these clubs, in

1039
which offences can only be detected by securing the admission of police officers under the most undesirable conditions."
I have pages more of evidence, but I have said quite enough.
What I feel is that Lord Bayford in his reply did not really consider the question of who is going to deal with these clubs. At present these clubs are, as all these people say, an open sore in London: you cannot deal with them unless the unfortunate policeman is made to go there in mufti, pretend to be a bad character himself and drink in them; then his evidence is taken. It seems to me monstrous, in a Christian country like this, that that should be necessary. When I think over why the Government are hesitating, I believe that their hesitation is first of all due to the great unpopularity of these matters. I do think, however, that we ought as a democracy to have a little more backbone. When I went to the late Home Secretary, Sir John Gilmour, I put twenty filthy publications before him and asked "How are you going to deal with this?" One of the deputation behind me said, "Are we to wait for Hitler to come and deal with this? I thought this was the business of a National Government." Sir John was struck with this remark and was very much pleased at the result of prosecuting in one case: he said he had got £500 fine in one of them. As a democracy—and I am all for democracy—we must show ourselves braver and have more backbone than we sometimes do. We ought to face an unpopular thing like this for the sake of the souls of the people who are being injured by it.
The second point is the position of the policeman. I fully agree that many clubs might not be content to have policemen looking in at any moment, but that is not proposed; no policeman can enter except by leave of the Chief Constable. We should never be afraid that our own clubs should be inspected, because it is for the good of the whole nation that they should be. I know the difficulty about finding the time. With half Europe in an uproar and the world in the state in which it is, I can perfectly sympathise with a Government who try to keep the peace of the world. I believe that this is the time to take action. I well remember during the last War, being asked by the military
1040
authorities and the Government to go down to Aldershot and try to stop the drinking shambles that existed there during the first week of the War. I went down and the drunkenness at the beginning of the War was terrible. The Prime Minister said: "We are fighting three enemies: Germany, Austria and the drink, and the most dangerous is the drink." I feel that just when we are starting a Keep Fit Campaign and are trying to get all the young men of the nation together to be ready for another war—if we have to have one—that is the time to come in. I hope the Government will take up this Bill, amend it in small details in order to satisfy Lord Bayford's criticisms, and make it their own. In any case I pray very much that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without dissent.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of trying to explain the attitude of my Party towards the general principles of this Bill. We have no Party attitude in regard to clubs as such, but in common with the rest of the community we desire that clubs should be well conducted and that they should be really conducted for the purpose for which clubs are designed: that of social intercourse and of political activity, or social helpfulness in one form or another. Therefore we are not in the least concerned to back up any lawlessness that may take place under the cover of the word "club," and we are not disposed to deny that such clubs may exist, or that regulation may be desirable to protect the public from some of their results. It is possible that under the cover of the word "club" any set of men may be able to secure certain immunities and privileges which were intended for bona-fide representative persons. There is no doubt evidence that the purpose of the Acts governing club life has been and is being abused and that the good name and traditions of the club movement are being or may be abused.
But we feel at the same time that we must be excessively careful that we do not in our zeal injure the bona-fide clubs in the country. I heard a comment made this afternoon that the number of clubs during the last generation had greatly increased. I am not convinced that that is an evil. Remember always that during the last forty years the habit of associated living has greatly increased. In all forms of life we congregate together

1041
in tiny communities with those who are kin with us in ideas or other things. The habit of associated living has grown, and the club movement has grown in conjunction with it. I have been associated with the club movement nearly all my adult life, though I do not think I ever had a drink in any club to which I have belonged, and I want to pay my humble testimony to the general good conduct of the properly representative working men's clubs. The Working Men's Club and Institute Union has within its compass some 2,820 clubs, each one of which has been very carefully examined before it has been admitted to membership. It does not follow, of course, that individual clubs have not done wrong here and there; but as a rule these clubs have served a socially useful purpose, and I would remind the critics of them that for a long period, especially in our London life, they were the only vehicles of political organisation and expression for a certain section of the community.
The old Metropolitan Radical Clubs represented the voice of advanced Liberalism forty years ago, and I think that not only were those clubs of benefit to the individuals who belonged to them, but they were of great benefit to the community. I do not know that any club is the better for any lecture that I ever gave in it, but I have given many scores of lectures in many clubs in London and elsewhere. These clubs provide the opportunity for people who want to meet together to do so without being forced to drink, and they provide opportunities for self-education and for getting information about the affairs of the world.
As to the increase in club life, I would like to make this observation, that to the best of my belief there is far less drunkenness in London, to-day, than there was forty years ago. I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be inclined to agree with me that forty years ago, when he was at Oxford House—when I first knew him—there was immensely more degraded drunkenness in London than there is to-day. I think it must be weeks since I saw a drunken man reeling in the streets of London. That improvement has gone on parallel with club life, and I would just like to say this for my Party, that we shall never consent to any method of inspection of clubs which is discriminatory—which is limited to working men's
1042
clubs. If inspection is provided, it must be for the Carlton Club as well as for any other club—
A NOBLE LORD: And the Athenaeum.
LORD SNELL:—and personally I should like to be the inspector of the Carlton Club. I should very much like to know what goes on there.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Will not the noble Lord become a member?
LORD SNELL: Having said what I have, I would add that I think the measure which the noble Lord has introduced is one of considerable importance, and that it should be examined. The Government, over and over again, promised to deal with this question, but this promise, like so many of their promises, has not been fulfilled. This Bill is really a Government Default Bill, and ought to be so named. I ask your Lordships to believe that my Party has nothing to gain from a nation which is not sober—indeed, we have every interest in promoting sobriety—but while we say that, we do not want any injury to be done to institutions which are bona-fide institutions and perform a certain purpose. If your Lordships give to this Bill a Second Reading, its provisions should be very carefully examined in the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I will intervene for a very few moments in order to state my reasons for supporting the Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill. When I observed that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Bayford, was going to move its rejection, knowing how long and important his experience has been, both in holding high office, and still more in his knowledge of the conduct of local affairs, I felt sure that any expression of opinion which he gave would receive, and ought to receive, earnest attention from your Lordships' House. I think, however, it is fair to say that the intention of my noble friend's Bill is simply and entirely to deal with the evil of clubs some of which are called bogus clubs, and others which are not absolutely bogus but still badly conducted. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who leads the Opposition that there is nothing to regret in the large multiplication of clubs, especially working men's clubs. There is nothing whatever to

1043
regret in the fact itself, but my noble friend is of opinion, and his opinion is backed up by a great deal of evidence, that too large a proportion of the vast increase in clubs is composed of clubs which had better be done away with, and which, it may be added, compete very unfairly with well-conducted licensed houses.
Lord Bayford does not think that the provisions of the Bill as it has been brought in will seriously deal with the evil of bogus and ill-conducted clubs, while on the other hand some of those provisions, in his opinion, may interfere seriously with the comfort of well-conducted clubs. Take, for instance, the question of examining the proportions of various articles consumed in different clubs. Lord Bayford was seriously concerned lest, when the annual report of the Athenaeum Club was issued, it should be found that the proportion of alcoholic drink, compared with that of solid nourishment, almost compared with the famous figures so well known as stated by Sir John Falstaff. There are various other matters including police entry and what the actual composition of the Committee should be—all these in the noble Lord's opinion are likely to work out unfairly to legitimate clubs. Whether that is so or not, this appears to me to be a complete reason for giving this Bill a Second Reading, because every one of those points might be, and certainly would be, carefully examined in Committee, and if the case as put by Lord Bayford was shown to be proved by the vote of the majority of your Lordships' House those particular provisions would be rejected. So far as I am able to judge this measure has been drawn with very great care to avoid grievances of that kind.
What is the actual view of His Majesty's Government regarding the Second Reading of this Bill? I have no idea, but I think it would be fair to ask whether, if this oft-predicted measure should be introduced by His Majesty's Government, it would contain provisions very different from this one. This Bill is founded upon the recommendations of the Licensing Commission and those recommendations, as I understand the matter, have been scrupulously adhered to. It would be interesting to know whether in the view of
1044
His Majesty's Government the purpose of the Bill is not really so important as some of us think, and as the right reverend Prelate has stated that he believes it to be, and that therefore it is really not worth while to cumber up the present Session, or indeed one might say the present Parliament, with any attempt to legislate upon the subject. If that is so, all I can say is that I greatly regret it and therefore, when my noble friend behind me goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill seemed to think that it was aimed at working men's clubs. The Bill is not directed against working men's clubs. It is really for the encouragement of working men's clubs. What the Bill is directed against is undesirable and bogus clubs. As far as I have been able to gather, the number of undesirable and bogus clubs on the register is something like 4,000. Against those 4,000 clubs this Bill is directed. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill stated that he spoke as representing the Association of Conservative Clubs and also the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. We had a considerable amount of evidence before the Licensing Commission from both those bodies and from other similar bodies, and the conclusion we reached was that all those clubs were reasonably well conducted and required no special provision. And when we came to consider our Report we endeavoured as far as we could to draw a line between well-conducted clubs and undesirable clubs so as to provide a working plan for legislation which might apply to the one and not to the other, but it was found impracticable to do so. Accordingly we had to adopt the scheme suggested in this Bill of applying the same law to all clubs.
The problem of dealing with undesirable clubs is no new thing. It was because of undesirable clubs that legislation was first introduced in the Act of 1902. Within two years of the passing of that Act it was found that there were so many loopholes in it that the law was evaded, and the great increase in these bogus clubs from that time to this is attributable to the fact that cunning and unscrupulous persons were able to get

1045
round the law. Between 1905 to the time of the outbreak of the War in 1914, something like five Bills were introduced in another place to amend the law in this respect—not Bills sponsored by any one political Party, but by various sections of the House of Commons—in order to strengthen the law with regard to clubs. After the War the question was raised again, not only in regard to undesirable clubs but also in regard to the general administration of the licensing laws. There was criticism that some licensing benches were taking a too restricted view of their duties in not permitting improvements in public-houses; others complained that licensing benches were not exercising their power to remove redundant houses; others again complained that the whole notion of the public-house was misconceived, that it should not be a drinking shop but a place where one could go and get a meal or get non-alcoholic refreshment, and there were other matters of complaint.
During those years from 1919 to 1929, when the Commission was appointed, numerous Bills were introduced which sought to amend the law in various ways. So much so that it was given out, if I remember correctly, by the respective Leaders of the three political Parties that in the event of their Party being returned to office at the General Election of 1929 a thorough inquiry would be made into the whole subject. After the General Election the Labour Government took office. They at once fulfilled their promise, and the Licensing Commission was appointed. We had before that Commission voluminous evidence on the subject of clubs. The conclusion was that the vast majority of clubs were well-conducted and required no special legislation, but there was a large proportion which really made the law a laughing stock. The idea that this Bill, which is founded on the recommendations of the Licensing Commission, is directed against working men's clubs is a great mistake. It has nothing to do with them. It is directed against persons who have plenty of money and who squander it in these disgusting clubs.
The record of the Government in regard to this matter is not very happy. My noble friend Lord Clwyd pointed out that the Government had intimated some two or three years ago that if a Private Member's Bill was withdrawn they would
1046
introduce a Bill the following Session. Those who shared the noble Lord's views have been repeatedly disillusioned, and I think the noble Lord did the right thing in introducing this Bill. The Government having failed in this respect, the noble Lord was entitled as a private member to take the matter into his own hands. As I read this Bill, it contains three main propositions. First of all, it sets up a new registration authority. Secondly, it provides that the application for the registration of a new club should be made by persons of good character, that the club premises should be suitable for the purposes of a club, and that the objects of the club should be legitimate. Thirdly, it provides for a restricted right of entry on the part of the police. With regard to the registration authority, as your Lordships know, the registration of a club to-day, whether the club is desirable or undesirable, honest or bogus, is purely formal. Some persons may send in a list of names stating they want to form a club, they fill in further particulars that are purely formal, pay a sum of 5s., and the club is registered. The view which the Licensing Commission took, and in my opinion it is a wise view, was that there must be some discretion exercised with regard to registration. It considered that some neutral body should be set up as the registration authority.
We considered that it was undesirable to put such a duty on the local authority because it might raise awkward questions. We thought of the County Court Judge, and it occurred to us that most of these registration duties would have to be dealt with in the large towns, and we had information to the effect that already the County Court Judges in large towns were overburdened with work. We considered every possible means of setting up an independent registration authority, and we came to the conclusion that the only way was to enable justices—not necessarily licensing justices, but justices in general—to appoint a small committee of their own number, not less than three or more than five, to act as registration authority. In county boroughs the registration authority would be appointed by the justices of the borough, and in other than county boroughs it would be appointed by Quarter Sessions. It seems to me that that would give us a wholly impartial body. If your Lordships can

1047
suggest any alternative neutral authority, I am sure the promoter of the Bill would be pleased to accept the suggestion.
Next with regard to the original application of the club for registration. At the present time anyone—it does not matter how bad his character—may apply for registration, and his application cannot be refused. The justices' clerk, who is the registration authority, may know perfectly well that the applicant is a person of indifferent character, and yet he can do nothing. He may also know that the premises to be used as a club are quite unsuitable, but again he can do nothing. The club must be registered. It seems to me that that is very undesirable. What we proposed, therefore, and what the Bill proposes, is that persons applying must be of good character, that the premises in question must be suitable for the purposes of a club, and that the object of the club should be a legitimate object, that, for example, it will not be used merely as a drinking den or anything of that kind. I need not go into the suitability of premises. Under the present law a club may be located in a cellar or in a garret. I remember a case in which the premises were immediately under the roof. It was a smallish room, and the only furniture was a table, a few chairs, and a barrel of beer in the corner. There was lavatory accommodation, but there was no door to it. The membership of the club consisted of men and women, and when the police entered there were men and women there. Accommodation like that is surely most undesirable. Is there any reason why that should not be put a stop to?
I come to the third and perhaps the most difficult point, and it may well be that some means might be suggested other than giving a right of entry to the police. But first let me point out that the entry is a most restricted one. First of all, the Chief Constable must have his suspicions about the club; there must be something wrong. It does not mean that this power of entry is to be used generally. It is only to be used in regard to undesirable clubs. Where the Chief Constable has these suspicions or information, he appoints an officer not under the rank of inspector to go and visit the club. This authorisation under the Bill, and as the Royal Commission recommended, will name the club and the
1048
day and the hours between which entry may take place. If the entry does not take place within those hours that particular authorisation becomes null and void. Compare that with the right of entry during the War. Then any officer not under the rank of inspector could enter any club premises at any time—by force if need be—during the day or during the night. That provision was in force for four years during the War, and there was no complaint about it.
These, briefly, are the three main propositions in the Bill. There is only one other point I may mention. When the Act of 1902 was passed it was the apparent intention of Parliament that there should be an interval of twelve months between the closing of the public-house and its being opened as a registered club. But the Act of 1902 did not carry out that intention. What it did say was, in effect, twelve months from the refusal of the renewal of the licence. A public-house is not closed when the renewal is refused on the ground of redundancy. If a renewal is refused in these circumstances, the publican is entitled to get a provisional licence to run until such time as compensation has been paid, and it sometimes takes a long time to settle these compensation questions. The result is that in no case is there an interval of twelve months and the house may remain open for a year or more, and the day after it is closed as a public-house it can be opened as a club. Cases have occurred where compensation has been paid and the house opened next day as a registered club. That is a grave injustice to other licence holders who contribute to the funds of the pool out of which this compensation is paid. They expect, when the compensation is paid and the public-house is closed, that they will get some part of the trade that went to that particular house. There is injustice there. A period of five years, as proposed by the Bill, would be better. With regard to the other portions of the Bill these are matters that might be dealt with in Committee. It seems to me that the Bill is well founded, it is reasonable, and should commend itself to the House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there is little to be said after this very interesting

1049
discussion. On two points, I imagine, there is complete agreement in your Lordships' House. The one is the reality, the extent, and the gravity of the evil with which this Bill proposes to deal, and the other is the necessity for some effective legislation. I do not think anyone really can dispute these two propositions. I am not going to weary your Lordships by giving any more instances than those which were so fully put before you by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill and the Bishop of London, though I have, like them, a great mass of evidence at my disposal. I would rather call attention to two general proofs of the extent of the evil and of the necessity for legislation.
The one, of course, is the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was so ably presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who has just spoken, and I think his words must carry very great weight with your Lordships' House. You will notice that the Commission received evidence from every part of the country, and from all those admirable unions of working men, including the Conservative Clubs, on behalf of which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, was speaking, and, therefore, everything they have had to say was said fully and completely before the Commission. It is worth noting that the total number of the members belonging to the clubs affiliated with these various admirable unions was only about half of the total number of members of registered clubs. But it was after hearing everything that could be said, and rightly said, on behalf of the whole club movement, that the Royal Commissioners were impelled by the evidence they received to come to the conclusion that the evil was so great that only special legislation of this kind could deal with it. Those of your Lordships who remember the history of most Licensing Commissions and Committees must be astonished that unanimity was possible upon this subject. There was nothing but unanimity on the part of the Committee, and I submit that that ought to be regarded as almost conclusive proof that the evil is great, and that drastic legislation is necessary to deal with it.
The other evidence I will take from His Majesty's Government themselves. As your Lordships have been reminded—and I do not want to rehearse the various
1050
episodes in the—shall I say?—not too glorious record of the Government in this matter—no fewer than three times since 1936 a Bill to deal with this evil has been in the King's Speech, and over and over again it has been postponed. I have only two observations to make about that. The first is that it is conclusive proof that His Majesty's Government recognise that there is this evil and that legislation must be and ought to be introduced. The other observation is that I fully understand the difficulty of the Government finding time in another place for a Bill which certainly would have some opposition and would require very great scrutiny. We all know and sympathise with the immense burden which is laid upon the Government at the present time, but I venture to say that there is considerable danger lest our very natural preoccupation with the necessities of defence should result in neglect of many matters that vitally affect the social welfare of the whole people. We must be continually on our guard lest this necessary care for defence should result in withholding the legislation which is proved to be necessary. I agree with what was said by the Bishop of London. Anxious as we are to defend what we call our democratic liberties, it is of almost equal importance to see that nothing grows up in our midst which would sap the moral and physical strength of our people, and I think it is manifest that over a very wide area these bogus clubs are having precisely that effect.
Now I do not propose to say much that I might otherwise have said, especially after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who is much more entitled to your Lordships' attention on this matter than I am. Perhaps, however, before I pass from my remarks about the Government I ought to say this. Granted that the Government find it very difficult to find time for this purpose, that seems to be no reason why we in your Lordships' House, who have a greater command of time than His Majesty's Government in another place, should not make an attempt to construct out of the material which is available a workable Bill. That would only assist the Government if they see fit to take up the legislation themselves, and at any rate it would be a proof that Parliament was not disposed to allow this matter to drift further.

1051
I have been asking myself where the opposition comes from to a case which, as it seems to me, is very manifest. I know it does not come from the licensed victuallers, as many might suppose, because they keenly resent the unfair competition to which they are exposed on the part of persons who are not subject to restrictions as regards premises, character, hours and the like to which they have to submit. The Royal Commission make it plain that the evidence was quite clear that the licensed victuallers felt that they had not a ground for opposing this measure, but every ground for supporting it. Nor can I bring myself to think that there is any opposition on the side of the great brewing industry. I know that the Royal Commission did venture to say—I think I had better use their words:
"We have received conclusive evidence that some sections of the brewing industry have…. by means more or less direct, lent financial or other assistance towards the formation…. of clubs in which their wares may find an outlet"—
but I cannot believe that the brewing industry as a whole would wish to be associated with such methods of promoting their sales.
The real opposition, as we have heard this afternoon, comes from those who are keenly interested in working men's clubs. Like the Bishop of London I have been associated with working men's clubs of one kind or another for the greater part of my life, and I entirely agree with every word that was said by Lord Amulree on that matter. I hope that, whatever happens to the Second Reading this afternoon, it will be made known that those who support the Second Reading of this Bill are in no sense antagonistic to or suspicious of the movement of working men's clubs. With Lord Snell I think that movement is a very good thing. The number of clubs has increased, and I think he is right in saying that there is more sense of community in our midst than there used to be. Like Lord Amulree I belong to a club which has been mentioned more than once with a certain degree of—shall I say?—caustic humour, the Athenaeum, but I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord has been very fortunate in his own clubs if he only finds there the persons he always wishes to meet.
But when the noble Lord says that the working man in his club is entitled to
1052
enjoy society of a different kind from that which he would have in the public-house, I have to remind him that in the clubs with which this Bill would seek to deal the working men often find precisely the sort of society which would not be permitted inside any public-house, society of the very lowest. It is such clubs as those about which we are concerned. The noble Lord objected to the clause about the extension of hours. No doubt in the clubs about which he is thinking there is no great reason why members should not be able to refresh themselves when they think it necessary and convenient. But we have to deal with cases like these. I take one at random. In 1934 certain clubs in Maidenhead were raided by the police, and it was established in evidence that drink was supplied there evening after evening long after midnight, that drink was sold more cheaply than in the neighbouring public-houses and during longer hours. These are the difficulties we have to meet.
The noble Lord quite naturally finds some difficulty about allowing the police to have entry for purposes of inspection. May I say that I very much hope I may be at the Athenaeum when the noble Lord, Lord Snell, comes to inspect us in due course? But on this point I would call attention to what was said by two heads of the London police force. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said of the kind of club with which this Bill deals:
"It is usually impossible to obtain evidence of irregularities in such clubs unless a police officer associates with the prostitutes and thieves who use them…. An adequate system of registration and inspection by the registration authority"—
precisely what is provided for in this Bill—
"should suffice to put an end to bogus and ill-conducted clubs."
Sir Phillip Game said in 1936:
"I referred in my last Report to the difficulties which confront the police in handling these commercial ventures…. Most of the police proceedings relate to these clubs, in which offences can only be detected by securing the admission of police officers under the most undesirable conditions."
Indeed, we are all familiar with the ignominy placed upon the members of the police force in being compelled to find means of entry to many of these most undesirable clubs. The Royal Commission made it plain that we cannot find any

1053
method of dealing with the bogus club except by general registration. The genuine working men's club has nothing to fear from restrictions, if they are restrictions imposed by this Bill.
The noble Lord spoke of the possibility of working men's club having perhaps to employ counsel in an application for renewal. He must be very nervous about some of these clubs if he thinks that is a reasonable prospect. It would be a purely automatic business in the case of clubs which, your Lordships will agree, are a very useful feature of our social life. What I suggest is that while these clubs have nothing to fear from registration, they have more to fear lest they should be regarded as supporting clubs of the undesirable kind. All good working men's clubs should be willing to accept some restrictions that may be irksome but which cannot possibly be deleterious, in order to rid the country of an evil which over and over again has been shown to be almost intolerable. I hope that by voting for the Second Reading of this Bill your Lordships will at least record your conviction that it is an evil, long continued, which can be remedied, and which ought to be remedied without delay.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I shall say only a very few words about this Bill. In the first place I must thank Lord Clwyd for having brought it to the notice of your Lordships' House. I well know how persistent he has been in this matter, and I think that the debate to-day must hearten him a great deal in his efforts. I see the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in his place and I am sorry that he has not taken part in the debate, because it is exactly three years ago, in March, 1936, that he initiated a similar discussion in your Lordships' House. On that occasion a Resolution was come to that
"this House is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should take measures for controlling the promotion and spread of undesirable drinking clubs."
In order to make my own position clear I should explain to your Lordships that I have been a magistrate for more years than I like to remember in London, and that for five or six years I was chairman in one of the most important divisions of London—Hanover Square—in which position I have been happily succeeded by my noble friend Viscount Mersey. One of the great troubles about
1054
these clubs is that the only possible occasions you can get hold of them is when, as they sometimes do, they venture to apply for an extension for supper. It is very hard in London itself, after spending nearly £5,000,000 in getting rid of redundant houses, to find that very often the same premises are opened as clubs. My noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill has been accused of thinking that the Conservative clubs and other clubs for working men fear this Bill. They have a fear in one sense, that they do not like the idea of the police entering the club. I think if this Bill does go forward there will be a great deal of opposition from many people to that proposal. It must be remembered that the Royal Commission sat ten years ago.
I venture to suggest to those interested in the matter that they should read the report of the debate which took place on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, to which I have referred. The noble Lord, Lord Askwith, brought to the notice of the House the procedure in Scotland where this evil does not exist. It is of a very simple character. Two magistrates have to vouch for the club and there are other rules about the formation of the club. If there is any objection, it has to come for final decision to the Sheriff. It is suggested that in this country instead of the Sheriff either the County Court Judge, or in London possibly the Metropolitan Police Magistrate, should be substituted as the court of appeal. There is a great deal of objection to registration by the justices. In this Bill it is not clear whether the whole of the enormous bench of Quarter Sessions is going to decide the question.
I do not want to say more than to express the hope that the Government will bring in a Bill of their own, because I am perfectly certain that even if this Bill passes your Lordships' House it will not get through the House of Commons in its present form. I am confident that we are all desirous of getting rid of this evil, and I appeal to the Government to make some pronouncement this afternoon, either that they will modify this Bill—although I doubt whether in some respects it is capable of modification—or will bring in a Bill of their own. If they ask their supporters to reject this Bill I hope that they will make it perfectly clear that they will introduce a Bill this Session without further delay

1055
and really get it through. It is an awful evil, and affects not only London, though London has been held up; but if you read the evidence you find that these unlicensed clubs also abound in Liverpool, Cardiff, and all our big towns. I quite agree that no well-conducted club need fear, but I feel that there are a lot of reasons, with all due deference to the noble Lord who explained the recommendations of the Royal Commission to-night, why it would be far safer not to attempt to get those recommendations through if we are really determined to stamp out the evil which we all desire to eradicate.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, when I listened to the noble Lord who moved the rejection, I was wondering why he was asking us to support him in trying to kill this Bill. When the noble Lord, Lord Snell, spoke there was a great measure of support on the Government side, judging by the applause which he got, and it seemed to me that he stated the case very fairly and very truly. He indicated what most of the speakers seem to have agreed—namely, that the overwhelming number of clubs are perfectly sound and satisfactory, whether they be athletic, social or political. Nobody wants to touch them. As far as I can see, if this Bill were to go through it would not seriously inconvenience them. I confess that, after listening to the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and to the most reverend Primate who has just spoken, I am amazed that this morning the Government should have sent round a Whip urging their supporters to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford. As the noble Marquess said, if the Government carry out their oft-promised pledge to deal with clubs, any Bill they bring in cannot possibly differ in any great substance from that which is now before your Lordships' House. The obvious course is to let this Bill have a Second Reading. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, very carefully, and it struck me that most of his objections were of a kind which could be dealt with in Committee and that he was not objecting to the fundamental principles of the Bill.
I am perfectly certain that no members of the ordinary working men's clubs need have any fear, any more than the members of the Athenaeum, the Carlton, or any of the other clubs, that they will be
1056
seriously inconvenienced if this Bill is passed, even in its present shape. But although the overwhelming number of clubs are perfectly sound and respectable in every way, we are bound to admit that there are a certain number of undesirables, and it is in the interests of the sound and the good clubs to have legislation passed which will induce the authorities to deal with these bogus, undesirable institutions. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that the Royal Commission sat some years ago. That is quite true. He suggested that the evidence submitted to them might be out-of-date. If there had been no evidence since 1929, or whenever it was that the Commission sat, he would be justified in making that objection; but it would be possible, were it not so late in the day, to quote overwhelming up-to-date evidence—opinions this year, last year, from magistrates, from Chief Constables, indicating that the problem still exists. This is not a temperance question; it is a social problem.
LORD JESSEL: If the noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting: I do not in the least disagree with what he has said about the evil; nor did I say that I did not agree that the evil existed. What I said was about the machinery of 1929 that is advocated. It is the machinery; that is the reason.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg pardon; I apologise to the noble Lord if I have misunderstood what he was saying. If the machinery in this Bill is not up-to-date, surely we can deal with that matter in Committee. If the Government were to bring in a Bill next week, it could not be—if it were at all a reasonable Bill—drafted on substantially different lines from the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. Most of the objections have been dealt with by noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion before me. I wish the Government would stand up a little more vigorously to these ultimatums. It is so easy to get an organised interest to pass a resolution—particularly at a delegate conference, when the ordinary members do not know the true nature of the problem on which their representatives are asked to pass an opinion.
We have been told that there are 400,000 members of the working men's

1057
clubs, 480,000 members of the Conservative clubs, and 250,000 members of golf clubs, and that the whole of these 1,130,000, or whatever the exact total may be, have considered this problem and are to a hundred per cent. agreed that this measure ought to be opposed. I am perfectly certain that if the ordinary members of all these clubs—and it is my privilege to be a member, not only of some of the London clubs, but also of working-class clubs and others in the country, both in cities and in country districts—had an opportunity of hearing the right reverend Prelate's speech just now, of hearing the case stated impartially, a large number would support some proposal on these lines. I refuse to believe that they are not just as ready to put up with slight inconvenience, if inconvenience be necessary, in order to deal with a social problem.
Once again, I hope that the Government will not be deflected by these ultimatums. We had an illustration only a few weeks ago. Your Lordships know, and anybody who has studied the question knows, that every year there are some 2,000 deaths from bovine tuberculosis and 5,000 or 6,000 new cases. An ultimatum is presented when the Government propose to bring in a measure which would give us safer milk, and the Bill is withdrawn. It would be a great relief if, on this occasion and at this opportunity here to-day, the Government would show that they are not to be deflected from what they consider to be the right course. Your Lordships have heard, and we know, that on several occasions in recent years they have given undertakings, they have admitted that there is a problem which ought to be dealt with; and I think that they ought to carry out at least this undertaking.
We are all, whether we are travellers, Income Tax payers or anything else, obliged to put up with inconvenience for the public good. I am perfectly certain that the attitude of the general members of clubs, whatever their nature may be, will depend upon the way in which the case is presented to them. If they are asked to vote on a resolution which assumes that a Bill is to be brought in containing an unwarrantable interference with their rights or their liberties, or which gives no indication of the existence
1058
of a problem, of course the representatives of those clubs, at a delegate conference, would vote in favour of a particular proposal against the measure. But, I am equally convinced that if the real social need were put before them, and if they were asked to make some slight contribution, and to put up with some slight inconvenience, the clubs, even if they consisted of 100 per cent. Colonel Blimps, would be prepared to support sound legislation. I know enough of the working classes to know that they would give support to a reasonable measure to deal with what is admitted to be a real social evil.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I feel that I ought to say a few words on this Bill, because, as I have told your Lordships before, I am an acting and active chairman of the largest bench in London which suffers from this evil, the central part of Westminster. Your Lordships' House, on the opening of a new Parliament, takes as its first business, in the enforcement of your undoubted privileges, a Bill for the regulation of select vestries, and I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that in future instead of passing a Bill for the first time for the regulation of select vestries, we should instead pass a Bill for the regulation of bogus clubs. I do not know whether the noble Earl who is going to answer on behalf of the Government is going to stand up in a white sheet, and if he is I think it must be a really old one, but I hope he is going to tell us that the Government intend to do something.
This afternoon, we have had on one side the Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party, we have had the Primate, we have had the Bishop of London and the Chairman of the Licensing Commission, and also a large public benefactor like the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Surely that list must suggest to your Lordships that the best sense of the House is in favour of some kind of legislation being initiated very soon. One recognises, of course, that at this moment the Government are heavily overloaded with much more important work, and I think my noble friend, by introducing this Bill, has spiked their guns—perhaps they do not very much mind—in regard to introducing another Bill. But I understand there is a Bill in another place, and perhaps they will be willing to amend that Bill or this

1059
Bill, so that something effective can be done. I know it is a difficult problem, but there are real evils which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. It is quite a mistake to pretend that this Bill is directed against clubs. It is not directed against clubs in any sense. This Bill is only directed against bogus clubs. There are not a great many of such clubs, but in a bad area such as Westminster there are a considerable number of bad clubs, which are in competition, and very unfair competition, with licensed houses.
I will just give statistics as to the areas which I know best. In my own division of Hanover Square (St. George's) there are 152 licensed premises, restaurants and public houses, and 123 clubs. In the adjacent division of St. James's, which includes the whole of Soho, there are 187 licensed premises and 223 clubs. Your Lordships can therefore see what a poor chance the licensed victualler has in carrying on his business. Clubs pay no compensation, and are subject to no supervision, and they only appear before the licensing justices if they come to apply for a supper licence. I think my own views were adequately expressed by Lord Snell. I am not particularly in love with this Bill, and I have not seen the Bill in another place, but I shall be amply satisfied if the spokesman for the Government can tell us, to-day, that the Government really do mean to implement a promise which is now so old.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the discussion on this Bill, but I feel that I should like to remind your Lordships how far the extraordinary degree of unanimity with regard to supporting either this Bill or something like it has gone. I do not say that I can speak for the Bench of Bishops. Perhaps some of you think that the Bench of Bishops are rather prejudiced on this particular question, but I am quite sure that however differing the views of the Bishops are on a great number of other questions, they are unanimous on this particular subject of debate. The Archbishop of York and a great many other Bishops have written to me on the subject. The Archbishop of York says he is so sorry that he cannot be in the House of Lords but that I am fully at liberty to say, if I like, how
1060
eager he would have been to urge that Lord Clwyd's Bill should go forward. I would also ask your Lordships to remember how unanimous was the report of the Royal Commission. Sixteen to three were the numbers of those who supported the Report and its recommendation as a whole, while all nineteen voted for this particular portion dealing with clubs.
It was my privilege a few weeks ago to head a deputation to the Home Secretary with regard to this question. I suppose there must have been fifty men there, from all parts of England and Wales, representing the Anglican, Roman, Presbyterian Congregational, Baptist and Methodist Churches, the Salvation Army and the Friends. They were unanimous, as very few gatherings of various Churches have ever been in the past, in their desire that something should be done, as men who know what damage has been caused by bogus clubs. There you have at any rate three sets of people, all of them distinctly opposed to the present state of affairs with regard to bogus clubs. But these are not all. It is not merely the Bishops and the Churches and the Royal Commission, but the Brewers' Journal says:
"We are determined that the public scandal of the clubs shall not go unremedied."
And again, "Legislation is bound to come." The Morning Advertiser, the trade daily, also in its leaders, has admitted, over and over again, the need for legislation. Why? Because it knows perfectly well that these bogus clubs are detrimental to their business and a discredit to the trade.
As if that were not enough we have the licensed victuallers on our side, for they regard the clubs as grossly unfair competitors. This is what they say in the organ of the National Consultative Council of the Retail Liquor Trade on the clubs question:
"The existing position with regard to permitted hours in clubs is profoundly unsatisfactory to the retail liquor trade. The permitted hours in licensed premises are fixed by the licensing justices for the district. Clubs can within the statutory limits fix their own hours."
We have that on one side. And the licensing magistrates are, so far as I know, unanimously in favour of some such Bill as this.

1061
All these various strains of people in different kinds of business, whether they are, some of them, so to speak professional social reformers or not, are unanimous with regard to the particular evil with which this Bill deals. I appeal to the Government, on the weight of that great support, to allow this Bill to go on, and let them find out from the experience of the Bill in this House what it can do, and whether it covers the ground or not. I make a real appeal to them on those grounds, and I would like to add in a closing word that nobody, I am sure, who is likely to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is an enemy to the club system as a system. Years ago in my first parish I myself applied for a licence for drink for a club that I started. The club that is well run is really a help to the social life and amenities of the place, and there is no reason at all why any of the clubs that are properly conducted should suffer under this Bill.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think that the nature of this debate will convince every one of us that it has been a most worth-while discussion on a most important subject—not merely an important one but, I think we are all agreed, a most difficult one. I could not help admiring the caution of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who, in a most delightful and valuable speech, yet managed not to take any very definite line in committing his Party to any view on the subject. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, was a little bit optimistic when, in the first few words of his speech, he spoke of the measure of agreement on this subject. The trouble is that there is so very little agreement when you get down to dealing with details, and I think if there is one thing that is quite clear from this debate it is that this subject is going to be settled on the question of the details. The real trouble is the complete sincerity on both sides. On the one hand you have that tremendous mass of people for whom Lord Clwyd spoke and for whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester also spoke to-day and the other day in a deputation to the Home Secretary; and on the other hand the sincerity with which this great body of working men genuinely fear an invasion of what they feel to be their liberties and their rights. We have
1062
upwards of 2,000,000 members of completely bona-fide clubs, but unfortunately the rights which are properly accorded to them are being abused by a comparatively extremely small number of people. The question before us is how far we are going to find it possible to deal with this minority without interfering with the legitimate rights of the majority.
Now I think comes a rather general reflection into one's mind—namely, that to-day I think we all have perhaps rather less belief in being able to promote sobriety by legislation. I see here the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who is Chairman of the National Fitness Council, and I cannot help feeling that the encouragement of movements such as that is going to do as much for the promotion of real sobriety as any legislation. Most noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the pledge which has been given by His Majesty's Government in the past in regard to this matter. I think first of all it would be useful to make quite clear what that pledge was. There was no pledge to deal with the general licensing question, but simply a pledge to deal with bogus clubs, and there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to retreat from that pledge. But I think it has been evident to-day from the speeches on all sides of the House—the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, himself made it perfectly clear in speaking on behalf of the clubs—that we are agreed that it is in the interests of the clubs themselves that bogus clubs should in some way be dealt with. I think it has been particularly gratifying to hear from everyone who has spoken in support of this Bill the evidence of really genuine and universal friendliness towards the club movement. It is really nothing but the intense preoccupation with other matters that has made it extremely difficult for the Government to find time—and it would be some considerable time, because this is not going to be an easy or non-controversial subject—for dealing with this problem.
In looking at this particular Bill we have had to consider not merely whether His Majesty's Government like or approve of every clause of the Bill but whether we feel it is likely to command sufficient general consent to get through to the Statute Book, because, if it is not, it is merely a waste of time for it to continue.

1063
And I must say that the more we have looked at the Bill the more we have been driven to the conclusion that it is not likely to command that degree of universal consent that is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, in his speech, referred to the evidence in existence, and quite unquestioned evidence in many cases, of the gravity of the situation. He spoke of the persistent disregard of the law in some respects, of certain drunkenness and disorder, and the use of certain clubs for gambling. All that is true; but I do think we want to get the perspective right. When we look at the actual facts, there are something like 16,000 of these clubs—that is the figure which has been mentioned in this debate—250 of them have been concerned in offences against the law, and 139, or less than I per cent., have actually been struck off the register in the last year for which we have records, 1937. It is clear from these figures that the law is not wholly ineffective. On the other hand, I do not think anyone for a moment will say that it does not need some strengthening.
What are the noble Lord's suggestions? He suggests that there should be more control over initial registration and more adequate supervision, but the noble Lord will admit that he does in fact in his Bill go a good deal further than that. He really does, as he told us, include the major recommendations of the Commission presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. That Commission was unanimous. It has already been commented on what a very remarkable feat of Chairmanship that must have been, to have attained a unanimous Report on such a difficult subject. It is a tribute both to the ability of the Chairman and the manner in which he handled his subject. But the recommendations that Report put forward with regard to clubs were really only one part of their recommendations dealing with the whole licensing law. The opinion of His Majesty's Government is that if we are going to deal with the subject on a comprehensive basis it would be very much better to
1064
deal with it in a Bill relating to the whole question of licensing legislation.
I do not want to weary the House with a whole series of alternative proposals. I do not think this is really the moment for doing so. But I do think there are methods—they may have been hinted at in this debate—by which the subject might be dealt with on a rather easier basis than that proposed in the Bill, a basis which might command very much more general consent. If that were possible the Government would welcome it very much. If the Government felt that this Bill could be amended in that manner, the Government would welcome it very much. We do not think it can be. We do not think that this Bill could be put in the form necessary to command consent. After a debate of this character it is not possible to leave the matter there. It is quite clear from the practical unanimity with which your Lordships have spoken that the Government will have to take this debate most seriously. I cannot make any further announcement to your Lordships than that we stand by the pledge already given, and that we have not the slightest intention of retreating from it. In addition to that, I should like to assure your Lordships that I will personally convey the seriousness of this debate, and the manner in which your Lordships have spoken, to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and impress on him the views that have been expressed in this debate.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, at this late hour I will not detain the House for more than a moment. Of course I feel disappointed at the reply of the noble Earl who has just spoken. I very much regret that the Government have come to the decision that has been reached in regard to this Bill. Having regard to the speeches which have been made in this debate, and the very considerable weight of support which the Bill has received, I feel bound to take the sense of the House.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

London, L. Bp.

Clwyd, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Craigmyle, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Holden, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Mersey, V.

Arnold, L.

Rea, L.

Samuel, V.

Blythswood, L.

Rochester, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Munster, E.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Plymouth, E.

Erskine, L.

Zetland, M.

Stanhope, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wicklow, E.

Hastings, L.

Albemarle, E.

Jessel, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lyell, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Bridport, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham, V.

Rockley, L.

Feversham, E.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Fortescue, E.

Aberdare, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harewood, E.

Bayford, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cautley, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Chatfield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the Miners' Welfare Fund is a purely domestic concern of the coal industry and no public money is involved. The Fund was constituted under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, and the money is derived from an annual levy on every ton of coal produced. This levy is collected by the Mines Department, and the duty of allocating the money is vested by the Act in the Miners' Welfare Committee. In 1934, following upon an inquiry into the position of the Fund by a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Chelmsford, the output levy was reduced from one penny to one halfpenny, but its life was extended by sixteen years to 1951. In the meantime, under Part III of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, a new levy had been imposed—upon coal royalty owners—of one shilling in the pound on the value of mineral rentals. The money produced is specifically earmarked for the provision of pit-head baths. This formed the nucleus of what has by custom come to be known as the Baths Fund.
1066
When the output levy was reduced by the Act of 1934, it was calculated that the annual sum would be sufficient to provide for the completion of the baths programme in eighteen years, the remaining period of the output levy as extended by the Act of 1934, that is, at a total cost of £6,750,000. The contemplated provision of baths was limited to collieries which employ a substantial number of men, and have a reasonably long expectation of life—limitations which would result in an appreciable fringe of mines and miners being left unprovided for. In view of the great and insistent demand from the industry for more rapid provision of baths, the Miners' Welfare Committee decided in 1936 that they would be justified in accelerating the building programme to the extent of providing for expenditure at the rate of £625,000 a year. They estimated that expenditure at this rate for a period of eight years would break the back of the programme within that much shorter period. The Committee were enabled to embark on this higher rate of expenditure by taking advantage of an accumulated balance and of the time lags between the placing of contracts and the actual payments. It is estimated that if the fund continues in its present position the accumulated balance will be exhausted by about the end of March. The Baths Fund will then begin to require additional finance, over and above its statutory annual income of £375,000, and in respect of the period 1939–46 inclusive, a total

1067
additional sum of about £2,000,000 will be needed if the accelerated programme is to be maintained and carried through.
The Government therefore decided to increase the levy to one penny for five years and to devote the whole amount produced by the additional halfpenny during that period to pit-head baths. This will provide the £2,000,000 required for the completion of the main programme and about £375,000 towards the subsidiary programme. At the end of five years, unless Parliament otherwise decides, the levy will drop again to a halfpenny and the income of the Pit-head Bath Fund will drop to £375,000 per annum unless some other distribution of the total moneys available from the two levies is authorised. Clause 1 provides that the period of five years during which the additional halfpenny will be payable will begin with the 1939 output, but in order to secure, during this and succeeding years, the funds necessary to continue the accelerated baths programme, it was also agreed that the additional halfpenny and the original halfpenny will both be paid quarterly during that period. Clause 2 provides for the incorporation of a Miners' Welfare Commission to take over the powers and duties of the existing Miners' Welfare Committee, which is not a body corporate. The only new point, I think, is that the representation of the Mining Association and Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain on the Miners' Welfare Commission will be equal—namely, three persons each. The reasons for incorporation of the Committee are purely technical. The Bill is a measure which is agreed by both sides of the industry, and I hope your Lordships will give it a unanimous Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this is an agreed Bill. It has the full approval of the Party for which I speak.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships long, but as Chairman of the Royal Commission which sat for three years and incidentally took some evidence on this subject, I should like to say that I cordially welcome the Bill. I think it is very desirable that it should be passed. It will accelerate the work on pit-head baths, which is very
1068
desirable and which is not going on so fast as could be wished. The general public attitude towards the provision of pit-head baths has considerably changed. When the matter was first raised there was, I think I may say, considerable prejudice against them. A good many women were not keen, and the men did not want to use them. I have heard from a Liberal colleague in another place, who is no longer alive but who was very keen about these pit-head baths, that at first they were used for other purposes—for potato growing, for instance, and breeding rabbits for coursing. They did not at once gain much popularity.
The evidence before us, however, showed that opinion has very much changed and the Commission were anxious that means should be devised by which the provision of finance could be accelerated. That is what this Bill will do. We had ample evidence of the utility and value of these baths. As one inspector put it:
"The dust was left in the mines instead of being taken to the miners' homes"
as a result of the provision of pit-head baths. After his bath a man can respectably travel by tram, or 'bus, with his clothes clean and tidy, and not be shunned by his neighbours. It was also shown by the evidence that the comfort made the men more contented, and that they remained longer in mining employment. That is quite useful and helpful all round. Again, there are attached to nearly all the baths ambulance rooms, and a very large percentage of minor accidents—cuts and small injuries—were prevented from becoming septic by prompt treatment. There are now pit-head baths completed or under construction for about 400,000 workers—about half the total number of miners employed. One matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, which I think is worth watching, is the order of selecting the mines for building pit baths. That should be determined, I think, by two factors—namely, the number of miners employed, and the probable life of the colliery. Those are both matters which require attention. Looking at the Bill as a whole the practical work of the Mining Industry Welfare Fund will, I hope, encourage co-operation, good will and understanding. Those things are most important in the mining industry,

1069
and encouragement of them is one of the aims and objects of the Royal Commission.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, perhaps as the noble Lord has expressed the views of the Chairman of one Royal Commission I, as Chairman of another Royal Commission some years ago, may be allowed to say with what gratification I heard what he said and how cordially I welcome this Bill. When the Royal Commission over which I presided sat in 1925 and 1926 this proposal for the provision of pit-head baths was, as the noble Lord just said, regarded rather as a fad. There was no great enthusiasm for it even among the rank and file of the miners in many cases. It was generally considered that to suggest the universal establishment of pit baths was to propose rather absurd luxury expenditure. However, the Royal Commission of that date, having heard a great deal of evidence, formed the very definite opinion that pit baths were an absolute necessity and that their universal provision would do more than any other one thing to promote the domestic welfare of the mining community. We consequently made an emphatic recommendation in that sense and suggested financial provisions. After this interval of time it is a great satisfaction to those concerned with the matter then to see the results which have followed the judgment they then formed and to know that His Majesty's Government are taking active steps to speed up the provision of baths. I have no doubt your Lordships will speedily and gladly pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACTS.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, the Question which stands on the Paper in my name.
[The Question was as follows: To ask whether it is the case that His Majesty's Government contemplate early legislation with the object of amending the Government of India and Government of Burma Acts, 1935, and, if so, whether they can give any indication
1070
of the scope and purpose of the contemplated Bill.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, the reply to the noble Lord's Question is as follows: It is the case that His Majesty's Government contemplate the introducetion at an early date of a Bill to amend the Government of India Act, and they hope to secure its passage before Parliament rises for the summer recess. The object of the Bill is to remedy certain defects which practical experience has disclosed in the working of the Act, the remedying of which is a matter of some urgency. It is not surprising that an enactment of the length and complication of the Government of India Act should, when put to the practical test of administration, be found capable of improvement in a number of respects. But the contents of the proposed Bill have been intentionally confined to cases in which the Act, if unchanged, will lead to serious practical inconvenience. The amendments proposed in no case raise any new question of principle, or will alter in any material respect what are believed to have been the intentions of Parliament when the Act was passed, but I should perhaps add that the proposed amendments include one which is designed to remove, in the event of war, serious deficiencies which the preparation of drafts of the emergency legislation which might then be required has disclosed in the powers intended to be made available by Section 102 of the Act to the Central Government.
In two instances the amendments proposed affect provisions which appear in the same terms in the Government of Burma Act, and in those instances proposals for amendment of that Act will also be made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess two questions. I gather from what he has said that the Bill will not touch in any important particular the question of the establishment of a Federal Constitution in India, but perhaps in order to prevent misapprehension in India the noble Marquess will say a word on that. The second question I should like to ask is whether we are to understand that the Bill will be introduced in your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Viscount that it will not in any way affect the Federal provisions of the Act. With regard to the House in which the Bill will be introduced, I am not at the moment in a position to give the noble Viscount the information for which he asks.

CONWAY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  DROITWICH CANALS (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]

    BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

    L. Braye,

    L. Manners,

    L. Ebury,

    L. Stanmore (Chairman),

    L. Greenway:

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 14th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:
1072

V. Bridport,

L. Erskine,

L. Dorchester (Chairman),

L. Banbury of Southam,

L. Kenilworth:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 14th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON GAS UNDERTAKINGS (REGULATIONS) BILL. [H.L.]

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

    V. Bridgeman,

    L. Annaly,

    L. Shute (V. Barrington),

    L. Holden,

    L. Merthyr (Chairman):

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 21st of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
    House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.