Lords Sitting of 21 April 1955

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ANNIVERSARY OF THE AUSTRIAN REPUBLIC
  3.5 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, the Tenth Anniversary of the re-establishment of the Austrian Republic is shortly to be celebrated in Vienna, and on April 27 a Joint Meeting of the Austrian Upper and Lower Houses will be held. I think it would be appropriate, if your Lordships agreed, that I should send on behalf of the House of Lords a message of good will to the Austrian Federal Council on that occasion. I understand that the Speaker has been invited to send a similar message on behalf of the House of Commons. If your Lordships approve, therefore, I will arrange that a suitable message be sent.

PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of April 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Assignation of croft
8.—(1) A crofter shall not, except with the consent in writing of the Commission, assign his croft.
(2) A crofter wishing to assign his croft shall make application to the Commission for their consent to the assignation of his croft and shall at the same time inform his landlord in writing of his application.
(3) The Commission shall give notice to the landlord of any application made to them for their consent to the assignation of a croft and before giving their consent shall afford to the crofter and to the landlord an opportunity of making representations to them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved in subsection (1), after "writing" to insert, "of the landlord and." The noble Earl said: The first four Amendments go together, Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I consider that Clause 8, as it stands, is unnecessarily complicated and imposes an unnecessary burden on the people whom it principally affects. As it now stands the clause provides that a crofter shall not assign his croft without the consent in writing of the Crofters Commission; and in subsection (5) it is provided that where a crofter assigns his croft otherwise than with the consent in writing of the Commission, the Commission may declare the croft to be vacant and let it to somebody else. If a crofter wants to assign his croft, the usual procedure is that he informs the landowner, and if the landowner agrees (as he usually does) that the person to whom the crofter wishes to assign the croft is a suitable person to have it, the croft is then assigned. In these circumstances, I cannot see why the consent of the Crofters Commission should be necessary or why it should be necessary, as the clause at present requires, to make the crofter apply in writing to the Commission first and, at the same time, inform his landowner in writing. He is accustomed to inform his landowner verbally and if the landowner agrees there is no more trouble.
If the owner does not agree, then there should be machinery to allow the crofter to make representations to the Commission. My Amendments provide for that machinery, so that if the landowner withholds his consent, application can be made to the Commission and the Commission must then give opportunities for representations to be made by the crofter

493
and by the landowner. That would apply in cases where there is disagreement between them; but when there is agreement, I cannot see the necessity for this unnecessarily complicated procedure, which seems to be an unwarranted interference with the liberty of ordinary people and to impose upon them a burden which they should not have to carry. I am sure we all want this Bill to work well, and I feel that anything which makes the Bill simpler and less trouble-some to the people whom it concerns will make it a better Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("writing") insert ("of the landlord and").— (The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SALTOUN: While I should not be prepared to divide in favour of this Amendment, I should like to say a word in favour of it, for this reason. The whole of this question has been bedevilled by the annihilation of the proprietor's interest in the croft. The proprietor has a far bigger interest in the character of a tenant than the Crofters Commission itself can have, and he may know a great many things (and know them on good authority) which would be very difficult to produce in evidence before a Commission. For that reason I think there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment. But I realise that it is much more important to get the Bill than to get a perfect Bill, and I should not be prepared to divide in favour of the Amendment, though I am glad to support it with my voice.
3.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I rise to support this Amendment, and in doing so I wise to bring out a point which I do not think my noble friend has mentioned. During the Second Reading—my noble friend will interrupt me, I hope, if I misrepresent him at all—I gathered that one of the main points of this Bill was to promote the very desirable qualities of sturdy independence, good manners and courtesy, which have been so characteristic of the crofter. They are all very desirable things. I believe—though I have paraphrased his words—that that is what my noble friend said during Second Reading. He also said, I think, that crofting was a way of life, and with that I entirely agree. But I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that
494
being a laird or proprietor is equally a way of life, and the relationship between laird and tenant and employee in the past—and, I am glad to say, it is so in a great many cases in the present—has been one of the almost unique features in the life of Scotland. It is certainly a thing that should be preserved. Therefore, any action which is not really necessary, but which may aggravate feeling between the two parties is a bad step, and I consider that the added burden placed upon the crofter of writing to and getting written consent from the Commission, before the laird—thereby more or less cutting the existence of the laird out of the whole business—is an unfortunate step to take.
Further, I believe there are some 23,000 crofters. The Commission, I understand, is to be of the order of six individuals. The noble Earl said, if I remember rightly, that it is desired that the relationship between the Commission and the crofters shall be on practically a personal basis. With great deference, I beg to point out that if six people are going to have personal relationship with 23,000, they will have to be pretty busy. Surely when you already have, or should have, good personal relationships between a laird and his tenants, it is worth endeavouring to preserve them, whatever you may think of bad lairds. I do not deny the existence of bad lairds nor do I defend them. They certainly exist. But surely we should tackle this matter on the basis of good lairds, and not tar all with the same brush.
3.18 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: I had not intended to take part in this debate at all, because I should have preferred that there had been no Amendments and that whatever blemishes there are—if blemishes there be—in the Bill had been allowed to remain, in order that we might get the Bill through. But what I have to say will apply to almost all the Amendments appearing on the Marshalled List to-day; therefore one speech will cover the whole lot. My reason for intervening is that the Bill, as it now stands, tries to a large extent to implement the recommendations of the Taylor Commission, which, after all, was the origin of this Bill; and if noble Lords will look at paragraph 116

495
of the Commission's Report they will find this statement:
"As things are, there is no assurance that the landlord, in dealing with a vacant holding, will exercise his power in the true interests of the crofting communities, or with a view to the secure establishment of a small-holding population."
And in considering the general relationship of the landlord to the crofter, the Commission go on to say in paragraph 118:
"It may be asked whether, in the situation which we have depicted, the time has not come to supersede the private landlord in the crofting counties and to vest the land directly in the State."
I think we should make the position clear. The position from the point of view of many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber can, I think, be stated something like this. Nowadays the private ownership of land is as unacceptable as the private ownership of drinking water or of the air we breathe. That is not a point of view on which we are prepared to argue: it is a basic principle by which we stand and for which we are ready to fight. But so far as this Bill is concerned it is irrelevant, because we are not concerned at the moment with the nationalisation of the land. We are, however, very much concerned with the control and management of land. We think that this clause, and other clauses to which Amendments are being moved today, provide a satisfactory position which we should be prepared to maintain. For that reason I hope that the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): I cannot accept this Amendment, but not for the reasons which the noble Lord opposite asked me to give. As my noble friend will realise, this clause enables a crofter to assign his croft, and the whole purpose of the Bill is that the Crofters Commission, who are being made responsible for the welfare of the crofting communities, should be able, in case of a change of tenancy, to give their approval of the tenant succeeding to the crofter who is leaving. My noble friend Lord Dundee is under a misapprehension, I think, about the existing procedure. He said that the clause asks the crofter to do something which he has not to do now. But at the present moment the crofter has to get the con
496
sent of the Land Court, so the only change is that, instead of getting consent from the Land Court, he now has to obtain it from the Crofters Commission. What has been happening in practice, and in common sense, will continue to happen. The crofter will go to the proprietor and tell him that he wants to assign his croft to this or that other man; and, if the landowner agrees, the crofter will then notify the landowner and the Crofters Commission simultaneously.
In another place the Committee on the Bill took a sympathetic view of the point which the noble Earl has put forward, and subsection (2) was deliberately added to the Bill in order to bring the landlord more completely into the picture. When we take subsection (2) in conjunction with subsection (3), in which it is provided that if there is a disagreement the crofter or the landowner can state his case to the Crofters Commission, it seems to me that we have made fairly full provision to cover the position of the landowner. When I first saw the Amendment put down by my noble friend, I thought it was a splendid one because it is a good deal shorter than the clause as it stands. But appearances are deceptive: although it is shorter, it adds complications, because the crofter would have to take one more step—he would have to go first to the landowner and then to the Crofters Commission. I think that, although it looks somewhat cumbersome, the clause does protect the landowner and I hope my noble friend will agree that that is so.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I still feel that this is a good Amendment, and I am sorry that the Government cannot accept it; but I do not think it raises any vital question of principle in relation to the Bill. Certainly, it was not intended to provoke a discussion on the nationalisation of land. Therefore, in the firm hope that common sense will continue to prevail over the law, which is perhaps not always so sensible, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Any crofter and the landlord of any croft who is aggrieved by the refusal of the Commission to grant their consent to the assignation of a croft or by any terms or conditions subject to which any such consent has been granted may within one month from the

497
intimation of such refusal or from the granting of consent subject to terms and conditions as aforesaid appeal to the Land Court against such refusal or against any terms or conditions subject to which consent has been granted."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 12 hang together and perhaps I may speak to them together, though I will, of course, move them separately at the appropriate time. The first Amendment deals with appeals against refusal of consent to assignation, and Amendment No. 12 deals with appeals against refusal of consent to the letting of vacant crafts. This matter is tied up with the law, in which, I may say, I am no expert, and I move this Amendment largely in an endeavour to get things clarified in my own mind.
If I am right, when a croft is assigned, the lease is not altered, varied or broken, and waygoing valuations are paid by the assignee. In the case of a re-let croft or farm, the waygoings are paid by the laird, irrespective of whether there is an incoming tenant or not, and he then has to recover, if he can. I think that is the difference—if I am wrong, I hope noble Lords will correct me. In the first case the Crofters Commission are acting as both judge and prosecuting counsel, and there is no provision for any form of appeal. There may be good reasons for that, which doubtless I shall be told, but it seems to me that, since the Commission cannot help being an interested party, there should be some form of appeal; and I suggest that that appeal should be to the Land Court. The Land Court in Scotland, I believe, has the confidence of the Scottish people. This is only my own opinion, but I think that one reason for that is that it is an active, live and virile body, with stalwart lay members, who do a great deal of work: it is not entirely a judicial body. In Amendment No. 12 provision is made for appeal to the Secretary of State, but I suggest, with respect, that the Secretary of State is all too frequently considered in Scotland to be the final "rubber stamp" set upon the decisions of a Department situate down in England. I think that is a fair statement of the feeling in Scotland.
I regret very much that more time cannot be given to this Bill. I have no intention of endeavouring to sabotage it, because obviously that would be a completely wrong attitude to adopt. Nevertheless, I feel that there could not be a
498
better forum than your Lordships' House, which is peculiarly well adapted for clarifying these legal and semi-legal matters, in which it has done such great work in the past, to thresh out these points. It is a great pity that more time cannot be found for this Bill, which, although it may seem a small affair, to Scotsmen is very important. The Parliamentary timetable and national events have fallen foul of each other, and that has caused an unseemly rush which, in its turn, has prevented several able noble Lords from being here to-day to support these Amendments with far greater ability and knowledge than I can hope to do. I am sure that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will give weight to these points. He is renowned for his clarity of explanation and his sympathetic treatment of us Back Benchers, and I hope that he will go as far as he can to give us assurances. Of course, we do not propose to press the Amendments to a Division, and the reason for moving them is to get whatever benefit and crumbs of comfort we can by putting our problems as clearly as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
THE EARL OF HOME: The proposal of my noble friend is that in this case the Land Court should be the court of appeal if the Crofters Commission will not accept the person to whom a crofter wishes to assign his croft. I feel, however, that it is perfectly legitimate to leave this decision to the Crofters Commission, because no point of law is involved. The Crofters Commission are charged with the general interests of the crofting community. It might be that a person to whom a crofter wanted to assign his croft (and the reason for assignation might be that the crofter was offered a high price for a croft) would be entirely unsuitable as a farmer. That point concerns the quality of the assignee, so to speak. But there is another reason. It might be that in the general scheme of things the croft which the existing crofter wished to assign would contribute much better to the economic production of the area if it were amalgamated with another croft and given to a neighbouring crofter. This is not a matter of law in which the Land Court could properly adjudicate, but a matter of discretion for the Crofters Commission, which we have

499
deliberately set up in order to reorganise the crofting communities in the Highlands.
That answer, by and large, covers both this Amendment and No. 12. If we had thought for a moment that there was anything for a legal body to decide here, we should have left the decision with the Land Court. But we do not think there is. The matter will be decided by the Crofters Commission on the criteria of whether a man, by and large, is a good farmer and in what capacity the future of the croft will fit best into the economic scheme of the area. We feel that the Crofters Commission are the right body to whom to give the discretion.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Could the noble Earl make clear the points that I raised, about the difference between compensation in the case of assignment and in the case of a new lease. I think that is the only case where a legal consideration might come into the matter. If he could make that matter clear for me I should be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am not sure that I can do that now, and I should like to look at the point. I do not think it affects the case very much. I feel that this must be a matter of discretion for the Crofters Commission. We could not contemplate the Land Court having the jurisdiction here, on many grounds, some of which I have given. I hope that this will not make any difference to the withdrawal of the Amendment by my noble friend. I should like to communicate with him on this point; I am not sure that I understand it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: As I, too, am not sure that I fully understand the point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Succession to croft
11.—(1) Where, owing to the failure of a crofter to bequeath the tenancy of his croft or of such a bequest to receive effect, the right to the tenancy of the croft devolves upon the heir-at-law of the crofter, the landlord shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, accept as successor to the tenancy any heir of the deceased
500
crofter, being a person who, failing nearer heirs, would be entitled to succeed to the tenancy, who within three months from the date on which the right to the croft devolved upon the heir-at-law makes application to the landlord to be accepted as tenant; and the landlord shall notify the Commission accordingly:
Provided that the landlord shall not under this subsection accept any person as successor to the tenancy unless he is satisfied that there is no nearer heir who desires to succeed to the tenancy.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I move this Amendment in order to get some clarification. I am not absolutely sure whether the onus of finding the next heir is with the laird or with the Crofters Commission. That is all I should like clarified in this case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, after ("person") insert ("making application as aforesaid").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
LORD SALTOUN: I do not rise to support the Amendment, but in order to get clarification myself. On page 8, line 4, are the words,
"unless he is satisfied that there is no nearer heir who desires to succeed to the tenancy."
How can any proprietor be so satisfied? It seems to me to be a difficult thing. I cannot be satisfied that there is no nearer heir to the peerage that I hold than myself. If one went far enough back a long lost heir might appear, and I hold only because I am the apparent heir.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This point was extensively dealt with in another place. As the Bill was originally drafted, it might have been incumbent on the owner to search every continent on the globe to see whether there was a missing heir, which would clearly have been an unfair burden to put upon him. The Government met our representations to a large extent, but we are still not clear from the present wording of the clause that there is no doubt in the matter. It still seems possible that some search might have to be carried out which could hardly be capable of fulfilment. We wish to make it clear that the burden of establishing a claim lies upon the person who claims the croft, and not on the owner.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am quite clear this time about my noble friend's Amendment, and I am quite clear about the answer, too. It is that the onus is not on the landlord to chase the heir. The

501
onus is on the heir to reveal himself, and the governing words of the clause are at the bottom of page 7, where it says, "the heir-at-law makes application to the landlord." If the heir-at-law has not made application to the landlord within a period of three months (I think it is), then the croft is in the possession of the landlord and he has to notify the vacancy to the Crofters Commission.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Vacant crofts
(3) The landlord of a croft shall not, except with the consent in writing of the Commission, or, if the Commission withhold their consent, with the consent of the Secretary of State, let the croft or any part thereof to any person; and any letting of the croft otherwise than with such consent shall be null and void.
(7) Where a croft has, in consequence of the making of an order under subsection (1) of section seventeen of this Act or under subsection (5) of section twenty-one thereof, become vacant and has remained unlet for a period of six months beginning with the date on which the croft so became vacant, the Secretary of State shall, if the landlord, at any time within three months after the expiry of the period aforesaid, gives notice to the Secretary of State requiring him so to do, direct that the croft shall cease to be a croft and shall purchase the buildings on the croft.
(11) For the purposes of this section a croft shall be taken to be vacant at the commencement of this Act notwithstanding that it is occupied, if it is occupied otherwise than by a crofter and the consent of the Secretary of State to each occupation has not been obtained.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Land Court." The noble Viscount said: We have already discussed this Amendment. The only difference in this case is that there is provided in the Bill an appeal to the Secretary of State. The Amendment seeks to insert, instead of "Secretary of State", "Land Court," because at the present time the feeling in Scotland is that they would prefer the Land Court to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 11, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Land Court").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
THE EARL OF HOME: The only comment I have on this question is that it is better that it should be a matter of discretion, and I think the Secretary of State is the right person to whom to appeal. I would say, in defence of my right honourable friend in another place, that I did not recognise him under the description of "the final rubber stamp."
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: This is not an important point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (7), after "in consequence of" to insert:
"the refusal of the Commission to consent to the assignation thereof under section eight of this Act or of."
The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, expressed some surprise that any piece of legislation should make it obligatory on the Government to purchase buildings belonging to a private owner. It was pointed out to him that this could happen only in cases where the croft had become unlettable owing to some action taken by the Crofters Commission, and that it was therefore just that if the Commission, owing to the policy they had imposed on the croft, had made it impossible to let it to anybody, the Secretary of State should then purchase the buildings. Under Clause 17 that has to be done in two sets of circumstances: first, if the Commission have displaced a crofter on account of bad husbandry, and if the croft cannot be relet, then they have to repurchase these buildings; and, secondly, if they have displaced an absentee crofter and the croft cannot be relet, then they have to repurchase the buildings. But there is no provision making it similarly necessary for the Secretary of State to purchase the buildings if the croft has become unlettable because the Commission have refused to agree to the assignation of the croft. It seems to me that these three sets of circumstances are exactly on a line with each other. There does not seem any justification for providing that these things should be

503
done in two cases and not in the third. I think they should be brought into line, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 9, after the first ("of") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I think there is a real distinction here. In the first place, where the Secretary of State can pay compensation or is obliged to pay compensation for buildings, it is a result of a direct act by a State organisation. Indeed, noble Lords opposite—I have checked up since the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, raised this point—put a somewhat similar provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. In that case, where, as a result of an action by a State organisation, a landowner's land or buildings are made useless, the landowner can ask for his land to be bought. But this case is rather different. This is a case where the Crofters Commission will not accept the person to whom a crofter wants to assign his croft. That does not render the croft vacant. It means that the crofter can look around for another acceptable person to whom to assign his croft. The existing crofter remains in his croft and is still a tenant. What he can do, of course, is to renounce his tenancy, and in that case the croft reverts to the landlord, the landlord would notify the vacancy to the Crofters Commission, and either the landowner or the Crofters Commission would then proceed to let the croft. I think that is quite different from the case in which the Crofters Commission takes the initiative and makes buildings redundant. First of all, you may find another person acceptable to the Crofters Commission.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It could happen only if the croft had been unlet for six months as a result of the refusal of the Commission to agree to the assignment.
THE EARL OF HOME: But then the croft will revert to the landowner, and the landowner can then set about getting another tenant or the Commission can let the croft. I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the buildings on the croft would not, in that case, be useful for production on the existing croft. I think it is a separate case.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask my noble friend upon whom falls the responsibility for cropping a croft which is unlet for six months?
THE EARL OF HOME: At the moment a great many crofts are derelict because they have not been cropped, not only for six months, but some of them for six years.
LORD SALTOUN: And will so remain.
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes. I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, but I think there is a real distinction of principle here.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It seems to me that the similarity in principle consists in the fact that the crofts in each case have not been let for six months. Surely, it could be argued that if this had resulted from the displacement of the crofter by the Commission for bad husbandry, the position of the landlord would be exactly the same—that he could relet the croft if he tried. Surely, if it is found that he cannot relet the croft, the object of this provision of a period of six months is that that is considered to be a reasonable period in which to find a new tenant. This is not a point of first-rate importance. I do not wish to press it further, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved to add to subsection (11):
"Provided that notwithstanding anything in this section a croft which is occupied by the landlord or as a condition or term of his employment by a person in the employment of the landlord and mainly engaged in work on his estate shall not be taken to be vacant and the provisions of this section with respect to the letting of vacant crofts shall not apply with respect to any such croft."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to protect the position of a man who occupies a croft as part of his contract of employment, whether with a landowner, a farmer, the Forestry Commission, or whoever it may be. There are a considerable number of foresters, farm workers and other whole-time employees who have a croft in their own occupancy as part of their contract of employment.
I am informed that there is probably a technical defect in this Amendment—for this reason. Ever since the first

505
Crafting Act of 1886 a person who holds a croft as part of his terms of employment is not legally a crofter. He has not the status of a crofter, and therefore, technically, the croft which he is occupying is a vacant croft. That is bound to cause, as in fact it has caused, a considerable amount of uneasiness among people who are in that position, because by subsection (11) of Clause 16, it is laid down that any croft which is not occupied in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall become vacant as soon as this Bill is passed into law. I think the position will be that, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, all these crofts or ex-crofts (I do not know which is the right term) that are now occupied by whole-time employees will become vacant, and the Commission may immediately take steps to re-let them. I think that under subsection (4) the landlord has to make proposals for reletting a croft within a period of two months. It naturally causes a certain amount of misgiving among workers who have these holdings to be aware that, when this Bill is passed, they will have no legal status; that their crofts will become vacant, and that the Commission may immediately take steps to give them to somebody else.
As many of your Lordships are aware, in the Scottish Highlands a great many kinds of agricultural holdings are occupied without any written agreement at all. A great many farmers have their farms without any written lease. Although there is no written lease, their tenure rests on assent and custom. They have all the protection of the Agriculture Acts for their tenure. The fact that a man is in employment as a forester, or whatever it may be, ought not to make it possible for him to be turned out of his holding. Whatever the state of the law may be, and whatever may be the legal effect on those people of the passing into law of this Bill, I hope that my noble friend Lord Home will give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to allow the Crofters Commission to evict, or to interfere with the present rights enjoyed by, those who are occupying a holding, even though, possibly, since 1886 it has been without the proper sanction of the law. I hope that the Government will not allow those people to be disturbed and that my noble
506
friend will be able to give them an assurance now, so that they may have confidence in their immediate future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SALTOUN: I think that the noble Earl's remarks are very much to the point. I should like to carry them a little further. In the case of a croft becoming vacant, we know that it is commonplace in this business that an ancillary occupation is almost a necessity to the crofter, and the croft may be let to a man who has constant, part-time work as a forester with a neighbouring proprietor. There may be a fault which entirely rules a man out from forestry work and yet it is not an allegation which can be brought against any man without extreme danger. It seems to me that the situation needs clearing up, because, where there are ancillary occupations almost indispensably annexed to a particular land holding, the fitness of tenant for that occupation and the proprietor's acceptance of his fitness ought to be important considerations.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think I can do better than give an assurance here. I have a great deal of sympathy with the case that both my noble friends raise. Let us take the obvious case of a forestry worker who is essential to the working of the estate and should live in the cottage which he now occupies. The croft will be declared vacant, and it will be possible for the Commission to put in a new tenant who is unacceptable to the landowner. It is reasonable, in the first place, to assume that the Commission will be reasonable people, but that will not be enough satisfaction for my noble friends or, indeed, for myself. So the Secretary of State has taken pains to put into the Bill here, which is I think a good thing, that where a landowner feels that the house is absolutely essential for the working of the estate—in other words, it is really much more of an estate cottage than it is of a croft—he should be able, with the Secretary of State's consent, to take that house out of the Crofting Act altogether. So that provision is made. For myself, if I were a landowner in the Highlands, I would rather have it that way.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the assurance that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Absentee crofters
(4) Where an order has been made under subsection (1) of this section in respect of a croft and the Commission are satisfied—

(a) that the crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy has provided or paid for the whole or the greater part of the dwelling-house thereon and that the crofter is entitled on the termination of his tenancy to compensation therefor as for an improvement; and

(b) that the dwelling-house will not be required after the termination of the tenancy in connection with any future occupation of the croft,

the Commission shall give notice to that effect to the crofter and to the landlord; and thereupon the crofter shall be entitled, if, not later than one month before the term at which the order takes effect, he gives notice in that behalf to the Commission and to the landlord, to obtain a conveyance in feu (under reservation of minerals) of the dwelling-house together with such suitable garden ground and such rights of access as the Commission may determine to be reasonable and on such terms as to feuduty and otherwise as may be agreed by the crofter and the landlord, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Commission to be reasonable.
(5) If the landlord does not within such period as the Commission may consider reasonable execute and deliver to the Commission at his own expense a conveyance for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, or if he requests the Commission to prepare such a conveyance, the Commission shall themselves prepare the conveyance and shall submit it to the landlord for execution; and if the landlord for any reason fails within one month after the conveyance is so submitted to him to execute it and to return it to the Commission, the Commission may themselves in place of the landlord execute the conveyance. Any conveyance executed under this subsection shall be recorded by the Commission on behalf of the crofter in the appropriate Register of Sasines, and a conveyance executed as aforesaid by the Commission shall, on being so recorded, have the like force and effect in all respects as if it had been executed by the landlord.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in subsection (4), after "minerals" to insert, "and with right of pre-emption in favour of the landlord". The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission,
508
I will speak to this Amendment and No. 20, which are concerned with the same subject, together. This Amendment seeks to grant the right of pre-emption in feu charter when the feu charter is granted, either to an absentee crofter or to an aged crofter who, through age or infirmity, is unable to work the croft any longer. Both these classes of people are enabled, under the Bill, to obtain a feu charter for their house. The point here is that these houses are scattered widely throughout the crofting estates. If a house is going to be separated from the land, as in certain circumstances it may be, it remains a house for occupation by, presumably (although the Bill does not state so), an agricultural worker or forestry worker.
It is desirable that the proprietor of the estate should have the right to purchase that feu—which is the meaning of "pre-emption." If the feu is sold (there is nothing compulsory about it at all), the proprietor should have the right to offer the same amount of money to the seller and thereby obtain possession of a cottage suitable to house his own workers and for the general benefit of the community. This would protect the community against the sale of the feu to the highest bidder. It would cause no hardship of any sort to the crofter, and it would, or could, create a beneficial state of affairs to the whole community. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, after ("minerals") insert the said words.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: There is one further point on this Amendment. As my noble friend rightly said, its insertion in the Bill may discourage the sale of the feu to the highest bidder; but, of course, the owner who exercises his right of preemption has to give the same price as the highest bidder, so the seller does not suffer any disadvantage.
THE EARL OF HOME: As it stands at present, the Bill provides that the absentee tenant shall be entitled to a conveyance in feu subject to such terms as may be agreed by the crofter and the landowner, and therefore the first stage will be an agreement between the crofter and the landowner. Failing that agreement, the matter may be determined by the Crofters Commission. It will therefore

509
be open to the landowner to agree with the crofter that the feu charter should contain a pre-emptive right. In the event of disagreement the Commission would come in, and no doubt would be ready to regard the right of pre-emption in favour of the landlord as a reasonable matter to include in a feu charter. The Commission, of course, are required to carry out their functions in accordance with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Secretary of State, and if my noble friends want any further assurance, the question of including pre-emptive rights to landlords in feu charters could be made the subject of such a direction. Although we naturally hope there will be no need for directions in this case, I and my right honourable friend think that the right to pre-emption would be a reasonable matter to include in a feu charter. My noble friends will not get 100 per cent. what they want, but I think this will give them at least 90 per cent.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: That is a most comforting statement. It is a pity that it is not 100 per cent., but I have great pleasure in accepting the 90 per cent., and beg leave to vvithdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Under Clause 17, if the Commission decide that for agricultural reasons a croft should be taken away from its occupier, but at the same time decide that the house is not essential for agricultural purposes and that the former occupier, either because he has spent money on the house or for any other reason, ought to be allowed to go on occupying it, they may then require the owner to grant a feu charter to the occupier. A feu charter is sometimes an expensive legal document, and it seems reasonable that if the necessity for a feu charter is imposed by the requirements of the Commission, then the Commission should pay the legal expenses of the charter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 42, at end insert—
("Any expense reasonably incurred by a landlord in relation to the preparation execution and delivery of a conveyance for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection or otherwise in relation thereto shall be repaid to him by the Commission.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I have some sympathy with the noble Earl's objective, which I think we achieve in this way. Instead of saddling the Commission with the payment of charges incurred by individuals using their own lawyers, which those individuals can do if they wish, we say that if the landlord feels that he does not want to pay these charges himself the Commission will do it for him. I think it really comes to the same thing. He can, if he likes, prepare the conveyance at his own expense, or he can request the Commission to do it for him, in which case they will pay.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: With my noble friend's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Provisions as to compulsory purchase of land and as to management of land
(3) The Secretary of State may manage, farm, sell, let or otherwise deal with or dispose of land acquired by him under this Act in such manner as appears to him expedient for the purpose for which it was acquired.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL of DUNDEE THE EARL of DUNDEE moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that in the event of the Secretary of State determining to dispose of any such land he shall in the first instance give to the former owner of such land an opportunity of purchasing such land at a price to be agreed or failing agreement to be determined by the Lands Tribunal."
The noble Earl said: I move this last Amendment with some diffidence, because, unlike my first Amendment, it might give some grounds for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, to discuss nationalisation of the land. This is an Amendment which provides that if the Secretary of State has bought too much land for a crofting scheme and decides to sell the surplus land which he does not require, then the person from whom the land was originally purchased should have the right of pre-emption. It is a question in which no doubt the noble Lord opposite and many other people became acutely interested after the Crichel Down case. That is not a case about which I am anxious to raise a discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill. In the case of crafting

511
land it appears to be immeasurably less likely that anybody would want to buy back, and therefore I cannot say that I set high store by the Amendment, although I feel it is a point of substance. If my noble friend feels that it is not appropriate to be included in an Act of Parliament, I hope he will nevertheless indicate that it is in accordance with the policy at least of some Governments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I thought the noble Lord opposite would probably rise to his feet, but he has restrained himself.
LORD GREENHILL: My lips are sealed, because I said I would speak only once.
THE EARL OF HOME: I cannot, of course, include in the Bill anything in the nature of the Amendment which my noble friend has moved; but if it gives him satisfaction I would say that it is in accordance with the general policy of the Government, when selling land which has been compulsorily acquired, to offer it back in the first place to the former owner.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that is all we could expect my noble friend to say about this matter, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
4.8 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AIR FORCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ARMY BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
REVISION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
4.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I ought to declare my interest, for I am, by nature of my office, one of the principal Trustees of the Museum. I ought also to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Ilchester was good enough to write to me to inform me of his support for the Bill and to express regret that he could not be with your Lordships to-day.
The purpose of the Bill is to clear up certain statutory disabilities under which the Trustees of the Museum suffer. The first point arises out of the fact that the sciences which are covered by the Natural History Museum, namely, zoology, entomology, geology (including palæontology), mineralogy and botany, have reached such a high stage of specialisation that there are sometimes only a few people, often in distant parts of the world, who can help us with specimens on which assistance is required. The powers contained in this Bill would make it lawful for the Trustees of the British Museum to refer such specimens to the appropriate expert for comparison, identification, research and report. The powers would also make it possible for the Trustees, under proper safeguards, to lend specimens, which would enable important pieces of scientific research to be brought to a successful conclusion. This is part of a reciprocal dealing in specimens which is essential to modern science. Clause 1 is designed to empower the Trustees to send objects in the Natural History Museum outside the precincts of the Museum for the purposes I have mentioned.
The object of Clause 2 is to make it lawful for the Trustees of the British Museum to order the destruction of natural history specimens which, by reason of their infestation with organisms

513
of various sorts, have not only ceased to be objects of value to the museum but have become a menace to the rest of the specimens. The Statutes are somewhat narrowly drawn on this point, and Lord Macmillan and Lord Greene, who in their time were well known to your Lordships, advised that it would be better to get the Statutes quite clear upon this point.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter in the Press dealing with a special aspect of this matter—namely, the question of "type" specimens, the identical specimens Which were before the author who gave his name to the species. The Natural History Museum possesses many such "type" specimens which are of great importance as affording the only standards by which doubtful points of identification can be solved. We, as Trustees, are fully aware that "type" specimens stand in a category by themselves and that, in the vast majority of cases, they would not be permitted to be lent. In certain rare instances, however it may be desirable to submit such specimens to an expert on the group to which they belong, in the interests not so much of the borrower but, more particularly, of the museum and, indeed, of the specimen itself. Problems that might otherwise be insoluble can thus occasionally be elucidated.
Specimens which are in any case on the verge of disintegration can be sent for examination to a foremost authority who may be able to derive valuable information from them before it is too late. May I give your Lordships an example? Certain minute organisms such as mites, when mounted on slides, sometimes become progressively more transparent, and a point may be reached when they cease to be of further value. Before that stage is reached, such specimens ought to be studied by the best available expert on that particular group. I have dealt with that somewhat exceptional case at some length in order to explain how exceptional it is; but the Trustees wish to assure your Lordships' House, through me, that they have very much in mind the necessity for safeguarding "type" specimens and that this power will be used only in most exceptional circumstances. I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill and thus remove the Trustees from the difficult position in
514
which they have been working for some years. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.16 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it appears that we must largely take this Bill on trust from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and give it our support. By virtue of the office that I then held, I was for six and a half years a Trustee of the British Museum and, therefore, of the Natural History Museum. The subject matter of Clause 2 was urgent even in those days, and I tremble to think what must have happened to the specimens in the meantime. With regard to Clause 1, I saw the letter to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, for it appeared in one of the few newspapers which we have had available to us. I confess that it gave me some anxiety, but in view of the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given us this afternoon, we can, I feel, rest assured with his statement. So far as I am concerned, I support the Second Reading of the Bill and the steps required to see it through all its stages.
4.18 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that the scientific world as a whole will welcome this Bill, because it removes an unfortunate rigidity. I am not altogether satisfied that the doubts and anxieties of many people in the scientific world on this subject of "type" specimens will be completely removed by what the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has said. I understand that there is very considerable danger in sending, through the post and overseas, and by similar means, "type" specimens of the kind to which the Lord Chancellor has referred. There is a considerable argument in favour of not allowing such specimens to be taken out of the particular museum in which they exist. After all, famous men of the kind who are expert in these things come to London sooner or later—and sooner, rather than later.
I am also informed that, from the point of view of students, it is essential that they should be able to rely upon the "type" specimens being at a certain museum at the time they come to make their studies. It would be a thousand

515
pities if students were to come from overseas to visit the Natural History Museum in London—which is one of the best, if not the best, in the world—for the purpose of studying certain "type" specimens, only to find that the specimens in which they were interested had been lent away. I am not altogether relieved of my anxieties, as my noble and learned Leader appears to be, and I may put down an Amendment in order to make it clear that these "type" specimens shall not be lent away. However, perhaps we can be reassured in the interval, so that it will not be necessary to put down an Amendment.
4.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just say one word in furtherance of what I have said already on this point relating to "type" specimens, and in the hope that it may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley? I did give the undertaking that the Trustees—and of course I speak for the Trustees and all authorities of the Museum—would take the greatest care. That was not merely the expression of a pious opinion, but will show itself in the framing of detailed regulations regarding loans. I should like to reassure Lord Chorley and his friends, whose doubts about this matter I wholly realise and appreciate, but I would ask them to consider that in the very exceptional case I mentioned it is a difficult balance. So far as I am able to judge, I think the balance of advantage to science lies in having that rare specimen which, as I say, may be deteriorating—and, indeed, disappearing—examined by the greatest experts that can be found to-day. All I ask is that the noble Lord should consider that point before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I may, with your Lordships' permission, intervene once again, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack very sincerely for what he has just said. I appreciate that if regulations are drafted in this way it may well relieve the anxiety of those who have asked me to intervene on this point. I will consult them and see whether we need prosecute our difficulties and doubts any further.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I intervene simply for the purpose
516
of saying that, having some slight knowledge of the very great scientific advantages involved, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
4.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, when this measure was before your Lordships' House for its First Reading some few weeks ago, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, intervened to ask whether samples of what are familiarly called "horror comics" could be put in your Lordships' Library, because, he added, not much to our surprise, he had not previously had the opportunity of studying one. I accordingly took six or so from the fairly notable collection we have now amassed in the Home Office, and put them in the Library, and your Lordships have now had the opportunity of examining the type of publication with which this Bill is solely concerned. Your Lordships will probably share my own view, which is, first, one of astonishment that anyone should bother to publish such rubbish as this, and, second, that anyone should bother to read such boring and uninteresting nonsense. But, apparently, our views are not shared by the large number of readers who do, in fact, study these so-called "horror comics" and who are undoubtedly, if evidence is to be believed, harmed by them. It is to prevent the harm caused by these so-called "horror comics"—which are about the most uncomic productions most of us have set eyes upon—that we are asking for a Second Reading.
The sole purpose of the Bill is, as I have just stated, to deal with "horror comics." As your Lordships will appreciate, the Bill is very narrow in its scope. For this limitation in scope, the Bill has been criticised. It has been suggested that we should have gone much

517
wider and tried to deal with the whole question of obscenity. It is not possible at present to deal with the wider question of the general law relating to obscenity. Much as we naturally admire the energy and enthusiasm of people like Sir Alan Herbert and his friends in the literary world who have attempted to tackle this thorny problem, we must, I am quite convinced, confine ourselves at the moment to the leading purpose of the Bill, and that for two reasons. The first is that the purpose which would-be reformers of the general law of obscenity have in mind is a highly controversial one, ranging much further than this Bill. The second, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, is that time is the essence of this particular Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will also appreciate the difficulties with which the Government have been faced in framing a Bill narrow enough to achieve its very limited purpose, and, at the same time, to do as little as possible—in fact, if possible to do nothing at all—in the way of setting up anything in the form of censorship, and to interfere as little as possible with freedom of expression. That, obviously, is a difficult thing for any draftsmen, grappling with this particular problem, to do.
The main purpose of the Bill is contained in Clause 1, which defines works to which the Bill applies by reference to their form and manner of presentation. Since the Bill is designed to deal only with the special problem of "horror comics," the form of the works to which it applies has been very closely defined. It has been defined in this way:
"The work"—
if one can call this sort of thing a work—
"must be a book, magazine or other like work."
That, of course, immediately excludes newspapers.
"It must consist wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without the addition of written matter)."
The position of the words "wholly or mainly" is very important. When the Bill was introduced it was said, I think, by some newspapers that it applied to works "consisting of stories told wholly or mainly in pictures." That is not the wording of the Bill. If I may repeat it again, the wording of the Bill is that
518
"It must consist wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
What we are trying to do is to define in Parliamentary language a strip cartoon. A work "consisting of stories told wholly or mainly in pictures" would be much wider, and might well include something like the magazine Picture Post or a generously illustrated edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Neither of these types of publication is covered by the definition in the Bill. The purpose of the words in brackets is to cover the addition of a small amount of text connected with the pictures, or the inclusion in the pictures of words spoken by the characters. But it is essential, if the work is one to which the Bill applies, that it should be the pictures which tell the stories.
The stories must portray one or more of three things—(a) the commission of crimes, or (b) acts of violence or cruelty, or (c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature. The Bill contains no reference to stories dealing with sexual matters, because that can be dealt with under the existing law relating to obscenity. This accounts for the fact that the actual stories in these "horror comics" do not carry many allusions to sexual matters. As regards the manner of presentation of the works, the Bill applies to those works in which the stories are portrayed in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall. The words "as a whole" are included to ensure that the court must direct its attention to the whole publication and not to isolated pictures or stories. Your Lordships may well argue that the test of whether the work would tend to corrupt is too vague. However, it does not seem possible to make the test any more precise, and, having regard to the very limited application of the Bill and the fact that no proceedings may be taken without the consent of the Attorney-General, I would submit to your Lordships that there is no serious danger that proceedings will be taken in circumstances in which they are not justified.
I grant that the matter which has given us most concern is the possibility of the abuse of powers contained in the Bill to prevent the publication of pictorial matter against which the Bill is not aimed. Several examples have been given in the debates in another place, in the Press and in discussions, which might

519
fall within the terms of some part of the definition contained in Clause 1, which I have just explained to your Lordships, but so far as I have been able to see none of these is governed by the whole definition. Most of them have been given as examples which might fall within the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1. Paragraphs (a) and (b) have been said to cover such things as Three Blind Mice—the words "who cut off their tails with a carving knife"—or Tom Brown's Schooldays, or the story of David and Goliath; and it has been suggested that paragraph (c) might well cover Goya's celebrated Horrors of War, or Hogarth's Rake's Progress, or the pictures on the ceiling of the Crypt Chapel here in Westminster, or the story and pictures of Belsen, or even road safety propaganda. All these have been given as examples; but though these might possibly in some portion be covered, I do not think they fall within the definition as a whole.
I think we must be realistic about this matter. It is easy to think up some ludicrous or semi-ludicrous, or even serious, example which might fall within one or other of these paragraphs, but I think that if your Lordships will examine the Bill as a whole with an open mind you will see that the Bill makes it virtually inconceivable that it could be applied to cases such as these. Frankly, it would be a pretty silly court or a silly Attorney-General who could not tell Three Blind Mice from a "horror comic."
There are two obvious guiding factors. The work must be one consisting wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures. Secondly, and more important, the stories must be portrayed in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall. Of course, the meaning of the word "corrupt" is open to question, but I think it is now pretty familiar. We must trust benches and juries to be reasonable over this matter. Of course, we should agree that these are not infallible, and for that reason the Government have included in the Bill a further safeguard: no proceedings in England and Wales can be taken without the Attorney-General's permission. Furthermore, Parliament are to review the operation of the Bill in ten years' time. That
520
is Clause 1, the main and operative part of the Bill, and obviously the one which causes the greatest difficulty. The rest of the Bill need occasion your Lordships little concern. Clause 2 deals with penalties and provides for special defence to the retailer who in some circumstances might be genuinely unaware of what he was selling. Clause 3 deals with the procedure for obtaining a search warrant and an order for the destruction of harmful publications.
This Bill raises no Party points of any sort. I think its aims clearly have your Lordships' support and a wider support outside in the country. It had a unanimous Second Reading and Third Reading in another place, and there has been strong public support for the Bill. The need for it is not so evident now, because I am assured that the publication of these "horror comics" has temporarily ceased or, at least, greatly slowed down. But, as the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House, Lord Woolton, pointed out to your Lordships on Tuesday, publication would certainly start again if the Bill were to be dropped. The Government have been under strong pressure to introduce legislation along these lines. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary received an influential deputation, led by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, which urged that it was not enough to leave the matter to public opinion and to the efforts of parents and teachers.
I hope the Bill will not lead to a large number of prosecutions; indeed, I shall be surprised if any are brought at all. I cannot honestly say that this is a Bill which the Government rejoice to bring before the House; the Government are unhappy that it should be necessary to bring in such a Bill as this. I must assure the House that this Government have done everything in their power to see that the Bill is drafted as narrowly as possible to deal with this one problem, and this problem alone, and in no way to encroach upon freedom of expression. That is our main difficulty, and that is the difficulty which I hope I have proved to your Lordships we have successfully overcome. It is necessary to pass this Bill in order to show Parliament's determination that children and young persons shall be protected from the

521
harmful effects of this type of filth. Your Lordships are asked to agree that this Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill be read a second time in order that this publication, the "horror comic," shall be read no more. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
4.37 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I confess that I have had an opportunity of looking through the volumes of "horror comics" which were placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. Originally there were six specimens, but when I went to look at them to-day I am sorry to say that only three were left. However, I have studied the three, and I must say that I have never come across in my life more disgraceful, more discreditable and more abominable publications. I am thoroughly at one with the noble Lord in saying that they have to be stopped. I should be horrified to think that any child or grandchild of mine was ever going to be in a position to read such publications. The only quarrel I have with the noble Lord is that he talked about obscenity and obscene publications as though these were concerned only with sex matters. I do not think that either by definition or in ordinary English "obscene" is so defined, and it may well be that these publications could be dealt with as obscene publications, even though they are not of a sexual character in the ordinary sense.
I think it worth while to quote the names of the people responsible for these publications, because a little publicity in matters of this sort does no harm at all. One was printed by a firm called the Arnold Book Company, 2, Lower James Street, Piccadilly. "Arnold" is an odd name to appear in connection with these publications—it goes without saying that they have no connection with Matthew or Edward Arnold. The other two come from Leicester. They are printed by a firm called the Jenson Book Company Limited, Oadby, Leicestershire; distributed by a firm called Thorpe and Porter, Limited, of Leicester; and published by Hermitage Publications Limited, of Leicester. I think it desirable, contrary to usual practice, to state these names, and I hope that all these persons are thoroughly ashamed of what they
522
have issued. I think they are so utterly discreditable that the House would be failing in its duty if it did not assist Her Majesty's Government in taking steps to stop them.
On the other hand, there is a very real difficulty of definition here. I say frankly that I would rather have the Bill as it is, though I think it is defective, than no Bill. I hope from what I have said that no one will suggest that I am trying to raise difficulties about the Bill, which must pass; but, as a revising Chamber, this difficulty of definition is exactly the sort of thing we can help to solve, and I should like your Lordships to consider whether we are not inadvertently casting our net too widely and bringing within the scope of the Bill many things we do not desire to bring within it. Although I know all the difficulties about Parliamentary time, I hope the suggestions I am going to make, which are couched from that point of view, will receive consideration.
The noble Lord has analysed the Bill. As he said, it applies to "any book, magazine or other like work." In due course I am going to ask what is intended by the words "other like work." Do they include, for instance, a photographic album of snapshops? Do they include those old cases we used to have, of loose photographs? Do they include a film? Do they include a newspaper? I cannot understand why they should not include a newspaper, so long as the other conditions are satisfied. The Attorney-General said in another place—and I gave notice to the Lord Chancellor of the fact that I would raise this point (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 538 (No. 60), col. 2314):
"A horror comic as defined by this Bill could not amount to a newspaper. As the Committee will see, this clause is very carefully drawn. It says:
'…work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures…'
It does not say, 'work which consists of stories wholly or mainly told in pictures.' That is a very important point…"
I can only say for myself that I completely fail to understand that distinction. I do not think it is a good distinction, and I do not see why a newspaper should not be included so long as it satisfied the other conditions.
I have never seen a newspaper which consisted "wholly or mainly of stories

523
told in pictures"; the printed matter always completely outweighs the rest, so far as I know. In these recent days we have been favoured by getting that excellent paper the New York Herald-Tribune. Your Lordships have become accustomed to it now, and you will have noticed that the last page always consists of cartoons. They are perfectly proper cartoons and have nothing objectionable about them. But even if they were improper, that paper would not come within this Bill, because nine-tenths of the paper is concerned with reading matter and only one-tenth with this sort of thing. But if there was a newspaper consisting of nine-tenths of undesirable cartoons and only one-tenth reading matter, then I should have thought it was obvious that the newspaper would come within the definition. On the Committee stage I shall ask for an explanation of what is intended to be covered by the words "or other like work," because we should not pass this Bill without knowing what we are doing.
Then we come to the words:
"which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures."
I am rather doubtful about that. If anybody wants to get round this Bill, all he has to do is to publish a magazine like those we have been looking at, being careful to have (shall I say?) five pages of cartoons and seven pages of printed matter. He might just include excerpts from one of the Waverly Novels, having seven pages of that and five pages of these beastly cartoons. He could then say: "My work does not consist wholly or mainly of these things." Your Lordships might consider—and here I am seeking to strengthen the Bill—whether it would not be better to have some such words as, "a substantial part of which consists of," or "consisting largely of." As I see it at the moment, there is an obvious way of getting round this Bill by having more reading matter than story matter.
Furthermore, the stories have to be stories portraying crimes, or acts of violence or cruelty, or incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature. And the test is whether it would
"tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall."
I am in no way qualified to speak about what would tend to corrupt a child. It is
524
just this sort of point (it is not for me to criticise the Lords Spiritual, and I know how busy they are with all sorts of matters) on which the guidance of the Lords Spiritual might have been of value to us, but unfortunately we are deprived of it. I can well understand that to read repulsive stories must tend to corrupt a child or young person. I suppose you take as your test the average sort of child: the law very often adopts a standard. "Negligence" is that which a reasonable man does not do, and you apply the abstract standard of "a reasonable man." I do not see why you should not apply the standard of "an average child," and ask yourselves whether the child is, or is not, likely to be corrupted.
I wondered what the attitude would be with regard to the old books on which I was brought up—and I hope that the modern generation is brought up on them, too. For instance, there is Struwwelpeter. I wished to refresh my memory and I sent my secretary to try to get a copy of Struwwelpeter. Since the publication of this Bill there has been an immense run on it, and if your Lordships want to get a copy you had better go quickly and get it—The Times Book Club is sold out completely. My secretary managed to get a copy at a shop in Bond Street. They had them already wrapped up and she was told that they could not understand why there was a rush. The rush is on because many people imagine that the publication of Struwwelpeter will be stopped after this Bill becomes an Act. I do not think it will be stopped, because I cannot think that anybody would say that Struwwelpeter tended to corrupt. It certainly can show acts of violence and crime. I remember—and I have refreshed by memory about it—being greatly impressed, when I was very small, with the awful fate of the little boy who sucked his thumbs.
"The door flew open, in he ran,
The great, long, red-legged scissor-man."
Then, your Lordships will remember, he cut the little boy's thumbs off, and there was a picture of blood dripping to the floor, and mamma comes in.
"Ah,' said mamma, 'I knew he'd come
To naughty little Suck-a-Thumb'."
That is a tale of horror; that is a crime. I suppose it has a good moral, which is that you must not suck your thumbs; and I suppose that it does not tend to corrupt the child. I do not think there need

525
be so much of a hurried rush to buy the remaining copies of Struwwelpeter.
I do not like the idea of passing a Bill in completely general terms (if this is in completely general terms) and then putting in a provision that no prosecution shall be brought save with the consent of the Attorney-General, thereby saying to yourselves: "We have arranged for the thing be properly run, because the Attorney-General will prosecute only in suitable cases." I completely trust the present or any other Attorney-General of any Government not to allow any political considerations to influence him, and to do his duty; and he must have a discretion. But it is the function of Parliament to lay down the law, and not the function of the Attorney-General to exercise a kind of dispensing power. Therefore it is desirable that we should try to get our definitions precise and not content ourselves with wide definitions and take unction to ourselves by saying that the Attorney-General has to authorise a prosecution. I am sure that is the wrong way, and I feel sure that the Lord Chancellor will agree with me in that—and he and I have both been Attorney-General. It would be undesirable if it became a practice to pass a law in wide terms and rely on the Attorney-General to enforce that law only in what he thought were appropriate cases.
I confess that I think that the weakness of the Bill lies in the last test (I put the substance of it): Would it tend to corrupt the average child? With regard to books which are intended for children—or which cater for children, to use the unpleasant modern phrase—that seems to me a perfectly soured test. But with regard to other periodicals, which do not cater for children at all, that seems to me a completely wrong test. May I give your Lordships an illustration? I went out to Africa last summer, and a medical missionary came to me with a series of drawings or photographs showing the effect of a disease called Yaws which was prevalent amongst the Bantu and about which I had known very little. He had produced this work for a perfectly genuine scientific reason, and he wanted help in dealing with this terrible scourge. It was the most horrible and the most horrific thing I had ever seen. It was absolutely repulsive, and no one would have willingly let a child see such a thing: it might indeed have
526
corrupted a child. I can well understand that a series of pictures showing, for instance, the dangerous effect of syphilis on childbirth would be the type of thing which must be produced and shown by one doctor to another, but should never come within the view of a child at all. Yet the test in all these things, whether they are scientific, or whatever they are, is: Would they "tend to corrupt" the child into whose hands they might fall? That seems to me to be an error in drafting.
LORD MANCROFT: Would the noble and learned Earl allow me to interrupt for one moment? Surely the pictures he described would not consist wholly or mainly of stories.
EARL JOWITT: They certainly would consist of stories. They would be detailed pictures of the unfortunate woman, showing her state at one month, showing what treatment she had undergone, a photograph at the end of the second month, and so on. A description like that is a story of what has happened to this unhappy woman. How ridiculous it would be if a document of that sort were sent, for instance, by the President of the College of Physicians in Germany to the President of the College of Physicians in this country, and it had to pass the customs!
The question is: Can it or can it not be imported? The test as to whether it can be imported or not—which ultimately would have to be settled by a court of law—is whether or not it would corrupt the average child. Imagine this conversation when you get to the customs and show it to the customs officer. He would say, "You know all about the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act. I have to consider whether this would corrupt the average child." You would say: "But this is never going to be seen by a child." He would say, "I cannot help that: that is what the law says. If this work would corrupt an average child, I have to assume that there is an average child who would see it." That is obviously not intended in the case of works of art, about which the noble Lord gave illustrations—Goya's pictures of the Spanish Civil War, or the painting, which is manifestly a story told by Hogarth, of Marriage a la Mode, or "Gin Alley" (I think it is called) in the Rake's Progress.

527
To test the admissibility of the importation of those books by asking what effect they would have upon the mind of an average child seems to me to be quite wrong.
The first Amendment I am going to suggest—and I suggest it now, not in the hope of receiving answers to-day, but because I want to help this Bill, and see whether these Amendments could not be considered between now and the next stage—is that we might insert in Clause 1, after the word "work", some such wording as:
"intended or calculated to be read primarily by children or young persons."
If it is a children's book, then by all means have the test of the average child as your test. But if it is some kind of scientific work or work of art, then I suggest that the test of the hypothetical average child is pointless. I am not attempting to draft an Amendment now, and I merely offer this suggestion in order that the Lord Chancellor may consider whether something on those lines is appropriate. The point is simply this. It seems to me that the tests in the Bill as drafted, the ultimate test of the effect on the average child, is a perfectly good and sensible test in dealing with what I may call, broadly, children's publications. These things are, I suppose, the sort of things which appeal to children or young people, or possibly to those who have not acquired complete facility in the art of reading. By that means you would put on one side all these other problems of the scientific publications.
Take the story of Belsen. We all saw the photographs illustrating the atrocities at Belsen—and pretty beastly they were. It was right that we should know them. I have seen some photographs of the effects of the atom bomb on Hiroshima. I can imagine a pacifist organisation wanting to show scenes of what would happen if a hydrogen bomb fell here. None of us would want to stop those things, and the only point I am making is: Are we quite certain that our Bill has been drawn in such a way as not to hit at those things? Might the point not be met by having an Amendment at page 1, line 13, on these lines:
"Provided that nothing herein contained shall make it an offence to portray events which have happened, or events which might reasonably be expected to happen, if it is established
528
that the portrayal or such events was made in good faith and in the belief that their portrayal was for the public benefit."
Your Lordships may think that I am being very anxious about this—and I confess that I am. It seems to me that we are getting on to dangerous ground, and something like a censorship in this country, which is something none of us wants. We are all at one in what we do want, and we are all at one in not wanting to extend it to these other things. The only question is the difficulty of definition in drafting the right phraseology.
I have ventured to make those suggestions because I think they merit consideration, and I am sure that they will receive consideration from the Lord Chancellor. I say again that I think this Bill is necessary. I would rather have this Bill as it is than no Bill at all. But I think we must be very careful and, notwithstanding the political exigencies of the day, I am sure your Lordships will consider these matters carefully and will be careful to see that, in our endeavour to stop these things, we do not inadvertently cast our net so wide that we may stop other things which none of us desires to stop at all and introduce some kind of censorship which none of us desires.
The only other thing I have to consider is a possible way out of the difficulty. I do not know whether this suggestion would commend itself to the Government, and I am not sure that it would commend itself to my friends in another place; but a possible way out would be to have a shorter period for this Bill, with a power to extend it by Affirmative Resolution or something of that sort, in order that we might consider how this Bill works. I am, quite frankly, anxious about this. I think we have to consider between now and the Committee stage—and I hope the Lord Chancellor will give me a chance of meeting him and discussing these points between now and Committee stage—whether we cannot design a series of Amendments which will not have the effect of making loopholes (indeed, if I had my way I should make the measure more drastic, in some respects) but will meet the desire to see that the sort of things I have mentioned, which were not intended to be dealt with, are not in fact brought within the net.
We shall certainly do all we can to assist the Government in getting their Bill. There is no political issue between

529
us here. I am perfectly satisfied that those of us who have seen those pictures in the Library will all agree in taking whatever steps we can to see that the children and young persons of this country are not exposed to the danger of periodicals of that sort.
5.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I welcome this Bill. I think that all parents and everybody in this country want the youth of this generation to be brought up with a true —and I say "true" in its proper meaning—sense adventure, a sense of adventure which has stood this country so well and has done so well for us all in the past. The publications which we are discussing in no way whatsoever do that, but there are nowadays many stories of modern adventure, stories about test pilots. space rockets, mountaineering, the photographing of fish under the sea—one can go on for a long time mentioning them; they are all really good adventure stories—which will foster the spirit we want.
The other point I should like to make —and I have only one other point—is that this Bill will stop "horror comics" from getting into the hands of young people. In the past the young people have sometimes themselves bought them, but I am thinking particularly of what I consider to be an important point: that is, that parents have unwittingly bought these publications when visiting their sick children in hospital, because the outsides of these "horror comics" may look exciting. Parents buy them without reading them, and then deliver them to their children in hospital. In my opinion, that has done the children no good mentally, and I certainly know it has done them no good from the point of view of their physical condition whilst in hospital.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate, though not because I have any particular knowledge about these matters—indeed, I, like other speakers who have gone before me, had to come to the House of Lords to find "horror comics." I had never come into contact with what are described as "horror comics" before. I am not making any personal references; I am talking about this pernicious literature. I think it is deplorable and a terrible commentary
530
on our civilisation at the present day that such things are published, with the object obviously or—do not let me overstate it—with the risk of corrupting children for the sake of the profit that is made out of these publications.
I would say to the Party opposite: "Here is where your profit motive may land you. Here is 'the freedom of the individual.' 'Set the people free!' and mike a profit out of their activities!"
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): Nonsense!
LORD MATHERS: Here, in a desperate and detestable way, is the logical sequence to that. I am glad that my noble and learned Leader has taken the step of reading out the names of those responsible for the publications that we have had before us, because I believe it right to expose these things, to bring those people to the bar of public opinion and to present them, I would say, with the opportunity of changing over to more wholesome publications. That would be a more desirable way than giving effect to the Conservative slogan of "Set the people free" by giving them the opportunity to carry on this industry and activity for their personal profit.
It seems to me also deplorable that Parents have not protected their children from the influence of these publications. They must accept most of the blame for the harm that has been done. This is all part of the present "Couldn't care less" attitude that is so widespread. Irresponsibility is one of the greatest evils of the present day. There is no doubt that much of what is read in this realm and other realms is a form of escapism: people trying to fill up their time by taking their minds away from their immediate surroundings. I was in a suburban part of London after the newspaper strike had commenced, and I had to spend some time at a station. I called at a bookstall and said: "You cannot be selling very much these days, now that there are no newspapers." I was informed that up to that time—the strike had then been running quite a number of days—at that bookstall more money had been taken than was taken normally because, in place of newspapers, people were buying the more expensive small magazines and

531
small pieces of so-called literature to while away the time as they travelled in the trains. In fact, the bookstall was more flourishing, from the point of view of taking more money, than it had been when there were hundreds of newspapers available for sale.
I have said that this is largely a matter of escapism and carelessness which is so prevalent. Many young people bring children into the world, but they still wish to have the good times they enjoyed when they first met. Children interfere with the design of life that they wish to practise, so the children are neglected. The responsibility for their upbringing is shirked and the children are left largely to their own devices. They get bored and drift readily into mischief, into delinquency and even into crime. "Horror comics" become their literature, for these children, although neglected in the ordinary way of home life, are in many cases furnished with a good deal of money to spend, and they corrupt themselves with this kind of reading matter. There are other things they do, of course. For instance, they go far too often to the pictures—the pictures becomes their club. A census was taken in a number of Glasgow schools some time ago, and it was found that many children were going to a dozen picture performances in a week, and in between the two performances per night they had money to enable them to go and get something to eat.
In relation to work, at the present day young people become quite enthusiastic about the job they are doing, but before very long that work is interrupted by the call-up notice for National Service, and they go to that Service. I have seen statements to the effect—though I cannot confirm the fact—that the pernicious publications against which this Bill is directed form the favourite reading matter of the conscript. If that is so, it is a most regrettable situation, as I think every noble Lord will agree. In any case I believe that the period of National Service often sees a young man's enthusiasm for his job evaporate, and he comes back into civilian life with the urge, energy and initiative to a considerable extent lost. In the Services, he has been told that he must wait for orders instead of relying upon himself as, properly brought up, he might have done in civilian life. Well,
532
war has been our portion for two generations, and I believe that one result of war has been that our moral standards have broken down, and in such an atmosphere an appetite for these detestable publications can be stimulated.
If I continued in this strain I should be considered irrelevant—I see that I get ready agreement to that statement—even allowing for the freedom allowed when a Bill is being discussed in your Lordships' House on Second Reading. I therefore conclude by saying that I look upon the subject matter of this Bill as a spotlight upon one aspect of the moral state of this reputedly Christian country. I venture to say that, in my opinion, to eradicate such evils as this we need to become more vitally Christian and not to be merely assenting Christians without doing anything about it in our own lives and in the life of the community in which we live. There is complete justification for the campaigns which are being carried on by such people as Dr. Billy Graham, I am glad to say most successfully in Glasgow at the present time, and for the Moral Rearmament effort to raise the standard of conduct in this country. Some people will remark, "Oh, here is a killjoy talking." That is the last thing the real Christian can possibly be, because there is no getting away from the fact that the surest road to real happiness is to practise the Christian life and live to the highest standards attainable in our civilisation.
5.15 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have seen one of these "comics" for the first time this morning and I find myself in entire agreement with the spirit of this Bill. I am most disturbed at what the noble Lord who has just sat down suggested: that because noble Lords on this side of the House were in favour of freedom, and that people should do what they wanted, it was somehow their responsibility that some people were making a profit from this sort of thing. I hope it was not the noble Lord's intention to suggest that, because I consider such a suggestion entirely unworthy of him. The noble Lord does not reply to my suggestion. I had hoped that he would rise to say that I had misunderstood him.
LORD MATHERS: I cannot say that the noble Lord has misunderstood me.

533
What I said was that here was freedom—licence if you like—taken by certain individuals for their own selfish ends to corrupt the children of this country. I said that that was where, in the long run, freedom could go if it were not guided by moral principles—at least, that is what I meant.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord said much more than that.
LORD TEVIOT: I am glad that the noble Lord has explained a little of what he said, but I had hoped that he would withdraw the undoubted impression, which was gained I think by many noble Lords on this side, that the policy of the Government or the Parties composing the Government, by their wish to see greater freedom for the individuals of this country, was in any way responsible for this sort of disgusting thing going on. I take it that he withdraws that.
LORD MATHERS: I make no personal reflections—I say quite definitely that I make no personal reflections. I say that it is possible for people on the other side of the House to be as good Christians as I try to be.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank the noble Lord very much for his explanation.
My Lords, I am going to be quite short I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said. The only thing I feel a little difficulty about is the use in Clause 1 of the words "wholly or mainly" in regard to stories told in pictures. I should like to apply that to any part of it. The noble and learned Earl said there might be seven pages of reading matter and then six pages of this disgusting sort of thing. I should like there to be no question that even if there were ten pages of reading matter and one of the other, the same criterion should apply. I hope that the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill will take that into consideration. Do not let us be too careful about the powers contained in this Bill. I feel that, with certain Amendments and reconstruction of some of the ideas, it will be quite safe for us to go ahead without in any way restricting the proper activities of the literary business of the country. We all know the difficulty that exists with regard to improper publications. As soon as a
534
publication is barred there is a terrific sale for it. We want to do everything we can to deal with that sort of thing as well. That is all I have to say. I heartily support the spirit of this Bill and hope that, when it is amended, it will become 100 per cent. efficient.
5.19 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, there is one thing about which we all agree: that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill spoke for every Member of your Lordships' House. His opening sentence was that he could not understand how anyone with any intelligence at all could ever read one of these publications that have been in your Lordships' Library. But, as he also said, again quite rightly, the fact remains that they are read. As my noble and learned Leader has said, we support wholeheartedly the Government's action in introducing this Bill—they could do nothing less. Equally, as my noble and learned Leader said, we shall help all we can to see that it gets on to the Statute Book. If we can improve it I think it is our duty to do so, because Parliamentary discussion, free and frank, especially in your Lordships' House, is the mainstay of democracy in this country.
EARL JOWITT: And we have had no national Press.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is always one corollary in this country: that not only should there be free and frank discussion in Parliament but that free discussion, and the views expressed, should be printed in a free, published Press. Unfortunately, we have not had that in this country while this Bill has been debated. If my noble and learned Leader will permit me to say so, I think he put, with moderation and in an excellent manner, the criticisms which would, I believe, have appeared in the national Press, had that Press been free to publish. The one national newspaper that has been published during the discussion upon this Bill, the Manchester Guardian, has raised in a most constructive manner the same doubts as have been expressed by my noble Leader this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said something which should set the keynote of any suggestions we have to make; that

535
the object of the Government is to confine themselves to the narrow purpose of the Bill. We agree with that statement. Our fear is that the Bill may go further than is intended by Her Majesty's Government. We all have a horror of censorship, and the illustrations and suggestions of my noble Leader this afternoon will, I hope, commend themselves to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. For it would be a tragedy if your Lordships—the revising Chamber of the British Parliament—were to allow censorship to go through if, by diligence, we could settle the only issue between us: that is, the issue of scope and definition.
The Bill refers to children and young persons. The definition of a "young person" is a person from fourteen to seventeen years of age, and that conjures up in my mind some elasticity. As my noble friend said, there is the question of the interpretation by a customs official of whether the publication concerned would have a deleterious effect on morals or would corrupt a young person of seventeen years. To-day, young persons of seventeen read literature which might shock the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and very likely myself, at our present age, let alone at the age of seventeen.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have little knowledge on this subject.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should not have thought the noble Viscount was any different from anybody else. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. Let us be frank: when we were youngsters we all took somewhat of a delight in reading, now and again, what were called in those days "penny dreadfuls." I will admit that they were nothing like the filth that is in those publications which were put in your Lordships' Library; but in an effort to stop this kind of thing let us not set up a censorship which later on we shall bitterly regret.
On the Committee stage, let us, if we can, find a better definition which will be acceptable. Perhaps experience should teach us. In the last analysis we may fail, but Her Majesty's Government would do well to consider the suggestion of my noble and learned Leader, that we should pare down the ten years' life of this Bill. In our experience in this House since the
536
war, we have seen many instances of regulations which were put on the Statute Book in war time being used for purposes quite foreign to the intention of Parliament when it passed those regulations. In ten years' time we might find even this Bill, as it is drafted to-day, used for purposes which the Government to-day, in all honesty and sincerity, strenuously deny is their intention. Noble Lords will be grateful for having had this opportunity of debating this subject this afternoon, for at least the national Press will now have an opportunity of commenting upon the views expressed, and of giving Parliament, or your Lordships' House, the benefit of their advice which we have lacked during this past month.
5.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful for the tone and content of the speeches of this debate. I confess that when I was Home Secretary I had exactly the same hesitation about this problem as has been expressed today by noble Lords in all parts of the House. Here was a very difficult problem; but on the other hand there were 300 years of history during which there had been a tradition, common to all our political thought, against any imposition of something which might be the beginning of a censorship by the Government of the day. I will say quite frankly that after the further information that I received from my own Department, from teachers, from the Archbishop and from many people in all the Churches, I felt that the step we are now discussing was one that had to be taken. I am glad that that view is apparently shared by all who have spoken to-day. I should like to assure the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition, and who has given so much care to this subject, that we have tried to study his points. I should like him to understand that when I mention some aspects of them it is not in any "stonewalling" attitude of mind, but only so that he may know the kind of difficulty that has been in our mind. Perhaps that will assist us to get to the root of the matter.
On the first point, the words "wholly or mainly," we thought that we had guarded against that difficulty by the words "as a whole" which were inserted in the Bill. In a happy moment I was trying to follow out the example of the

537
noble and learned Earl in his speech and envisage a "horror comic" of which the letterpress was one of the better-known commencements of the Waverley Novels. No one is a greater admirer of the Waverley Novels or has read them more than I; but I admit (though with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers) that the first five pages have given even me a great deal of trouble at times. I should have thought if the courts had to deal with, possibly, five pages of "horror comics" and at the same time the description of Sherwood Forest that makes the beginning of Ivanhoe, or the story of the journey to Queensferry that makes the beginning of The Antiquary, they would not have had much difficulty in applying themselves mainly to the general narrative and ignoring the padding. Still, I agree with the noble and learned Earl that that is a matter which requires looking into.
The second point which he made—and he was good enough to let me know in advance what was in his mind—was what was meant by the words "intended or calculated." I draw the noble and learned Earl's attention to the difficulty which arises once intention is introduced as an element in the offence. Even at the moment some of the publishers of these "horror comics" have already taken the precaution of marking their publications—I quote from one:
"Definitely not for the squeamish, and should he kept away from the kiddies."
I agree with Sir Frank Soskice who, in another place, described this as a piece of gross hypocrisy and dishonesty; but it does show the sort of difficulty which arises when intention becomes an element. So I would ask the noble and learned Earl to consider, just as I shall, with regard to his other word "calculated," whether that really takes us further than the question "into whose hands it might fall." I will certainly consider that point; and I should like the noble and learned Earl to consider my difficulty about "intention" in that regard.
Again, I see the weight of his point with regard to the recording of facts that have already occurred. But if he looks back in his practice at the Bar—I certainly look back to the murder cases which I have dealt with, either as counsel or as Home Secretary—he may think with me that it would be very difficult (I am
538
simply putting my difficulties to the noble and learned Earl) if someone were to give a pictorial presentation of two cases with which I had to deal, and which I shall not mention to your Lordships to-day, to know whether that was done bona fide, because it would certainly have the effect of corrupting the young. Here again, I am sure the noble and learned Earl will consider the difficulties I have found, and I ask him to co-operate—as I am sure he will—on that point.
My noble friend Lord Goschen (and Lord Lucas of Chilworth picked it up) mentioned an important point—namely, that the cheerful and healthy "penny dreadful" is something which we have all enjoyed. As some of your Lordships may remember, in one of his most brilliant essays the late Mr. G. K. Chesterton said that these encourage not only courage but also the great feeling that right triumphs in the end. I do think—and I hope it is so—that we have avoided interfering with matter of that kind. I took the Oxford Dictionary definition of "corrupt." It is:"to render morally unsound; to pervert;… to debase, defile." I considered this very carefully when we were drafting the Bill, in order to ensure that it would not strike at the healthy publications to which my noble friend referred, and with a great many of which I have much sympathy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, raised a very important point on which I want to say only one word, because it is a point of great width—or, I should rather say, of great depth. When I first had this problem brought to me I said that in my view it was a matter primarily for parents. It was only when I began to see the extent and the wide effect of the problem that I thought it was a matter for action by the State. But I am sure it was implicit in Lord Mathers' words—and I hope it will go out as being so— that the fact that we are legislating does not in any way remove the responsibility of the parents for their children's reading, and also for their children's general moral standards—one of our greatest problems to-day.
On the other point which Lord Mathers mentioned. I would put this question to him, because I think it is one of the most serious questions in political science or political philosophy—call it what you

539
will: When comes the point at which you are prepared to apply compulsion? I believe—I do not ask those who take another political standpoint to agree with me—that my own Party have always tried and have always been ready to apply compulsion when there is a definite menace to the safety and the health of the people. I take, for example, the early Factory Acts, with which the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, is just as familiar as I, in which compulsion had to be applied in order to get safety, just as, in other matters, it is necessary to apply compulsion in order to ensure health. I believe that, when facing as clear and obvious a moral evil as this, one is entitled to apply compulsion, however much one may believe in freedom as a general principle. That is the way in which I have tried to approach it. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who spoke last, would, I think, generally accept that as an approach. I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Teviot made his contribution to the debate, and I shall certainly give full consideration to the points which he has raised, and also to the points which Lord Lucas of Chilworth made, speaking after him. I shall be very pleased to consider all these points.
There is only one, which I think comes logically last, and which I have not yet mentioned; and that was the point raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, about shortening the period for which the Bill is to continue in operation. On that matter we are in some difficulty. As he is aware, the proposal that the duration of the operation of the Bill should be limited to ten years was put forward in an Opposition Amendment which was moved in another place by Mr. Chuter Ede. As your Lordships know, Mr. Chuter Ede not only is a very distinguished member of the Opposition in another place, but was my predecessor as Home Secretary. The reason he advanced for selecting the period of ten years was that it would be as well to give publishers of "horror comics" clear notice that the House of Commons was determined to stamp out these publications. He thought that a period of less than ten years might not achieve that purpose. My right honourable friend, the present Home Secretary, accepted the Amendment and
540
said that he agreed with Mr. Chuter Ede that it was desirable to make it plain that—I quote his words—
"We really mean to do away with these publications."
I know that the noble and learned Earl has that point in mind. Naturally, on a matter like this one treats with great respect the view which Mr. Chuter Ede has expressed, and I add that as another point which I am asking the noble and learned Earl to look into before the next stage, as I shall look into it.
EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for putting this point. What I had in mind, in suggesting a shorter period, was that, owing to the Parliamentary exigencies at the present time, it might not be possible to give the Bill that spacious and careful consideration that is necessary; but of course, if we can do that, and if we can agree on these Amendments, then my point about the time during which the Bill runs goes altogether. I made the suggestion because we might have only a short time and it might be necessary for the Government to come back when the new Parliament assembled and consider this matter again. But if we can agree on Amendments on the lines I have suggested, there is no necessity for a shorter period of operation. In any case, I am not anxious to dispute any kind of bargain or quasi-bargain made between the Home Secretary and Mr. Chuter Ede.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl. It never crossed my mind that he was disputing any bargain which might have been made. What was worrying me was the importance Mr. Chuter Ede attached to the ten years term. I think we might consider (and on this matter I am sure the noble and learned Earl will find an opportunity to get the opinion of Mr. Chuter Ede) whether an agreement among all Parties in both Houses on a shorter term could be made, but made simply for the purpose of finding an early opportunity of dealing with the matter again. I do not think that that would give comfort to those publishers against whom we all want action to be taken, and I am perfectly ready to consider it. I do not see any incompatibility between the dual advances of the noble and learned Earl. If it turns out that we can reasonably

541
contemplate having sufficient time, then let us consider the Amendments. If it turns out that there is no time, let us consider the other point and see how far we can get with it. If we find (I am only quoting the noble and learned Earl) that circumstances are too strong for us, I would rather have the Bill and see some blow struck in this way than leave the matter untouched. I should be glad to discuss the matter with the noble and learned Earl and other noble Lords before Committee stage. I now ask your Lordships
542
to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.