Sitting of 8 December 1911

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Maxwell's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Pilkington's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of statement showing for the year ended March, 1911, the amount of the receipts, expenditure, and outstanding loans of the principal classes of local authorities [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th May; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report No. 699 (Trinidad and Tobago, report for 1910–11) [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
Copy presented of statements deposited with the Board of Trade under Section 7 (1) of The Assurance Companies Act, 1909, during the year 1911. Parts A and B [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lerwick Harbour."—[Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered upon Monday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether he has any further information to give regarding a reported case of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): A telegram was received from the Superintendent of Police at 5 p.m. on Wednesday evening stating that foot-and-mouth disease was suspected at Halfway Farm, Martock. One of the Board's veterinary inspectors proceeded that evening to Yeovil, and examined the animals the first thing on the following morning. He reported by telegram, received at 10.50 yesterday morning, that he considered the disease to be foot-and-mouth disease. The Board's Chief Veterinary Officer started for the spot by the earliest possible train, and his report was received by telephone at 5.45 last evening. The Chief Veterinary Officer is satisfied that foot-and-mouth disease exists at the farm, and that twelve cattle on the farm are already affected. Instructions have been given for the slaughter of the entire stock upon the farm, which is being proceeded with to-day, and an order restricting the movement of cattle within a radius of approximately fifteen miles was issued last evening.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Have any cattle been brought on to the farm recently through which possibly the disease might have been brought?
  Mr. H. LEWIS: No, I think not. The cattle which have been affected have been pastured in this field since 30th October.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Has any connection been traced between this outbreak and that which occurred twenty miles off near Bridgwater, at the end of September,

  1773
  and, if not, are investigations being pursued to discover whether there is any connection between the two?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I am not aware of any such connection. I have not the least doubt that the veterinary officers of the Board will do their utmost to discover whether any such connection exists.

BILL PRESENTED.
  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION.
  "To remove doubts as to the effect of certain enactments relating to Market Gardeners' Compensation," presented by Mr. EYRES-MONSELL; supported by Mr. Courthope, Mr. Pollock, Sir Luke White, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Sir Ivor Herbert, Sir John Rolleston, and Sir Courtenay Warner; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I hope I shall be in order in asking whether it is still the intention of the Government to move the Amendments which are indicated in the White Paper?
Mr. MALCOLM: The First Lord of the Admiralty may have a statement to make. It would be a great convenience if I could formally move to recommit the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: I daresay by permission of the House it could be done on the first Amendment. It is very inconvenient to have a general discussion which leads to no issue.
Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: It would shorten the time very greatly if at the earliest possible moment the First Lord would state exactly what his intentions are. There is great difficulty in considering these Amendments without knowing those intentions.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The new Clause standing in my name raises the whole structure of the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: It might be taken on that.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:
Hours of Shops.

(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, no shop shall be open for the serving of customers for more than seventy hours in any week.

(2) The local authority may make an order, in this Act referred to as a general order, fixing within the aforesaid total of seventy hours the total number of hours in any week during which throughout the area of the said authority, or any specified part thereof, all shops, or the shops of any specified class, may be open for the serving of customers.

(3) Any general order shall be made and revocable in like manner and subject to the like procedure and confirmation as closing orders hereinafter mentioned.

(4) The hours on which shops of any particular class may be open for the serving of customers on the several days of the week shall be fixed by the occupiers of shops of that class in each district.

Provided that the hours so fixed—

(a) shall not, save as otherwise provided by this Act, when added together exceed in the week the total of seventy hours or any limitation of that total fixed by general order as aforesaid;

(b) shall be subject to the provisions of Section nine of this Act as to the closing of shops for the serving of customers not later than two o'clock in the afternoon on one week-day in every week.

In default of agreement between the occupiers of the shops of any particular class as to the allocation of the hours of opening on the several days of the week or as to the areas in which certain specified hours shall apply the local authority shall take a vote of the occupiers of the shops of that class as to the hours during which the shops of that class shall be open on the several days of the week for the serving of customers, and as to the area or areas within which certain specified hours shall apply, and shall make a closing order in conformity with the result of such vote.
A register of the hours during which shops may be open for the serving of customers on the several days of the week shall be kept by the local authority for the district in which the shops are situated, and no shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be kept open for the serving of customers except during the hours thus recorded.
(5) In places frequented as holiday resorts during certain seasons of the year, or where special circumstances so require, the local authority on the application of a majority of the occupiers of all the shops, or the shops of a particular class, may make an order permitting the opening of shops, either throughout the area or in any part thereof, for a specified period or periods in excess of seventy hours, provided that the hours of opening throughout the year are so arranged that their total does not exceed the rate of seventy hours per week.
(6) This Section shall not apply to any shop in which a trade or business of the class mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act is carried on.
Mr. GRETTON: I beg to second the Motion. We are in a great difficulty. The proposals of the Government, as we understand them, are a complete transformation of the whole Bill, which occupied sixteen long days in Committee ending usually at four o'clock. It is now proposed to drop the greater portion of the Bill—twenty and a half pages out of twenty-nine—and to transform the remaining Clauses in important particulars. There is no great controversy on the question of the compulsory half-holiday, provided that there are some minor Amendments inserted to make that matter more clear. The question of meal times is more controversial. For my part, I am not disposed to oppose the principle. I am disposed to accept it. Speaking for myself, I regard the third Clause in the new Bill as a highly controversial matter. There was a statement made in the House in answer to a question on 30th November by the Prime Minister that the Government proposed to proceed with the Bill as regards meal hours and compulsory closing for the half-holiday for assistants. In a subsequent statement the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the question of the third Clause. I will not go into the merits of that Clause now, but I may say that it is regarded by many on this side of the House as of a highly controversial character, and that if the Government persist in proceeding with the Clause they will transform the Bill into a controversial measure. As regards the alteration of the Irish Clause, I wish to ask whether there is any change in the intention of the Government. There is a remarkable omission from the Clause, as the Government will see. I am given to understand that it
1776
will lead to considerable debate and controversy. I think it would be most convenient if the First Lord would explain to the House exactly what the Government intend to do. I think there will be no hostility to the Bill on this side if the Government drop the third Clause. If they bring in what has been called the "Gingering" Clause the Bill immediately becomes of a controversial character.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The House is, I think, aware of the reduced character of the proposals which are now embodied in this Bill, and, if they are not, they may learn from glancing at the long succession of pages over which we went, inch by inch, in the Committee, and which are now relegated to the category of waste paper. But the Shops Bill, in one form or another, has been before the public for the last three years, and during the whole of that time this great body of persons who are grossly oppressed have been looking forward to some Parliamentary relief. It is quite true that, owing to the pressure of time and the period of the year, we are not able to proceed with the sixty hours' limitation. I should like to remind the House that it really amounted to a sixty-eight hours' week when the provisions for meal time and overtime were considered, but we were not even able to get that, and I had to recognise with the very greatest regret—it is a very keen personal disappointment to me—that the Bill cannot be carried further in this great and most important particular. Whether a Bill based upon the principle of compulsory closing of shops would have had a better chance or not I cannot say. I have frequently expressed my own opinion on the subject. I am quite sure that once the House begins to close shops by compulsion from Westminster they will find that the bulk of the opposition on behalf of the little shopkeepers, who have no assistants, and who constitute the overwhelming majority of the shopkeepers of the country, and with whom we have had difficulty to face as to the method proposed by the Bill, would be incomparably larger. It is quite impossible to go back on the question of the sixty hours week. That is gone so far as the Government is concerned. The question I have had to face is whether anything can be achieved during the present Session which will to some extent console this large body of persons to whom I have referred, and who have, I admit,

1777
very little voting strength, but for that reason have all the greater claim on the attention of the House of Commons? Can anything be done to console them for the serious disappointment and failure of the main provisions of the Bill? There are two provisions about which there is really no great difference. There may be minor points here and there. These two provisions were carried unanimously, or practically unanimously in the Committee. The first secures a weekly half-holiday to shop assistants and shopkeepers—to the whole of this great body of persons. The second secures for them reasonable intervals for meals. The mealtime scheduled was agreed to between the representatives of both sides, and although I do not say that elasticity might not be introduced, I am positive that it will be an extraordinary convenience to shop assistants. It is not only a matter of convenience and comfort, which affects them every day of their lives, but it is also a question of health, because there is no doubt whatever that a great deal of sickness and ill-health is caused in the shop-assistant class by the short and insufficient time which in a great many shops is allowed to them to take particularly their midday meal. Both of these are important matters, and both of our proposals are in the nature of a real gift and boon to the large body whom they affect.
I should be deeply grieved if the House were not able to confer these advantages, and, of course, I will not let anything stand in the way, so far as I am concerned, of these two proposals. But before the House makes up its mind to treat the proposal in Clause 3 as controversial, I would like to say one word upon it. We have abandoned attempting to limit the work of shop assistants by regulation of the hours of labour. We are not attempting to limit their hours by compulsory closing of shops except in regard to the half-holiday. What is left? If there is to be any practical relief until the question can again be touched by legislation to both assistants and shopkeepers it must be by the development of voluntary early closing.
Already powers exist which, on paper, would appear to afford every conceivable facility for voluntary early closing, but in practice they have not worked. It is very melancholy and depressing to notice how very small a proportion of early closing orders has been achieved all over the country. Last year I received some
1778
seventy or eighty deputations on the subject, and was enormously struck by the great desire of the shopkeepers no less than the shop assistants to promote voluntary early closing arrangements. But there are great difficulties, which they told me about frankly, in bringing the movement to a head in any one place. What suits one shopkeeper does not suit another in the matter of hours. Then, when a movement is started by shopkeepers for early closing, each shopkeeper is regarded as perhaps pushing his own interests and making arrangements agreeable to him which act injuriously towards his rival. Then, when there has been a demand, there have been occasions when the local authority has, I am bound to say, unreasonably overruled that demand. It will be a very great stimulus to early closing arrangements if the House assents to machinery by which persons of the same sort of character, though suited to this particular sphere, as those who will be on the panel of the Board of Trade arbitrators, perhaps not persons of such high consequence, but persons of that impartial non-political character, can from time to time be sent down by the Secretary of State into districts where the early closing movement is hanging fire, and can hold a full inquiry, and after hearing everybody on the spot, perhaps draft a scheme of early closing suited, as such scheme should be suited, to the varying complexity of conditions of each particular town and each particular trade in that town.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: These will be new officials?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, they will not. What is wanted is a person of some public standing who can go down, hold an inquiry, and make a plan, and then that plan has to be voted on in the ordinary way under the regular provisions.
Mr. MALCOLM: What is this £20,000 to be spent on? As I understood, it is to be the salaries of these new officials.
Mr. CHURCHILL: No. It is not proposed to make any appointments at all of any kind. They will be simply nominated on the same terms as the Board of Trade panel of arbitrators. That is, I suppose, they will get the payment, while they are actually holding the inquiry, which is given to persons serving under such provisions. I am quite sure that if the House allows this system to be set up

1779
it will just give the extra fillip to the early closing movement, which would render it effective in all sorts of districts where at present it is brought to a standstill. The alterations in the Bill involve certain alterations in the Irish Clauses, but I will defer that subject until we actually reach the point; and I think I shall be able to convince the House that there is nothing to dispute about in the changes. Otherwise there is no substantial alteration in the Bill. No Amendment is made except one or two of the smallest consequence in the direction of facilities other than those which have been indicated.
Mr. GRETTON: Is the Irish proposal that which is stated in the Paper?
Mr. CHURCHILL: It provides, in the case of any shop, in which the trade or business or sale of beer or intoxicating liquors is carried on in conjunction with other business, for the exemption of such shop from closing on the weekly half-holiday. It does not mean that shop assistants in Ireland will not get their half-holiday, which is compulsory under the Bill. They will get that. What it does mean is that a shop where liquor is sold in Ireland will not be closed compulsorily, and, of course, shops where liquor is sold in England will not be closed compulsorily, because licensed houses are altogether outside the scope of the half-holiday provision except as regards the individual employés. There are many shops in Ireland which carry on a joint business, and it is not practicable to carry closing of shops so far there, but the half-holiday will run all over the United Kingdom.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Upon this side of the House we are entirely in favour of the two main provisions of the Bill, which the Government, I think quite rightly, have treated as non-controversal. The proposal for the weekly half-holiday, I think, came from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester in the first instance, and was accepted by the Government. For myself, I can say, as I said not very long ago, I would infinitely prefer to lose my dinner than to lose my weekly half-holiday. That is entirely beyond controversy. As regards the provision of meal times, I agree with what the First Lord has said. It is not only a provision for health, but it is also a provision for enjoyment. Nobody but very austere people would deny that meal time is a time of enjoyment. For a meal to be enjoyed it
1780
is quite manifest that some leisure should be granted for that enjoyment. To the Bill, so far as it carries out those two proposals, on behalf of all my hon. Friends I promise that we shall give cordial support and do nothing to hinder its passage. But with regard to Clause 3, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is regarded as highly controversial on this side of the House. In my view, it would set up friction between the central Government and the local authority, which is most undesirable in this question. For the life of me I cannot see what place it has in the Bill at all. I think, if you examine the Clause, it will be found that it really must have been left in the Bill by accident. Be that as it may, and speaking for myself, I am in favour of this Bill, but, most distinctly, not in regard to the proposal to send an official to the local authority to interfere with it, because, so far from facilitating early closing, I should regard such a course as likely to have the contrary effect. Nothing is more dangerous, especially in an isolated Clause of this kind, than to devise machinery which, to put it shortly, would set up the backs of many local authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman does not persist in Clause 3, we shall certainly expedite in every reasonable way the two main principles which, even taken alone, I believe to be a very substantial boon to a large class of shopkeepers and shop assistants.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: The Amendment upon which this discussion is taking place has been only formally moved, but it is to be regretted that the circumstances are such that it cannot be fully discussed and decided upon in this House. I realise that the Government have come to a decision to exclude all other considerations from this Bill save what the right hon. Gentleman calls two matters, but which, I think, are three in number—namely, the hours for meal times, half-day holiday for the assistants, and half-day closing for shops. The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he has just made, said it was his intention to have a half-day for shops and a half-day for assistants. We now find an appeal is made to the Government to seriously prejudice the third of these provisions—namely, the half-day closing of shops, because I understand the position to be this: That a sort of covert threat is held out that unless the Government give a pledge not to proceed with Clause 3, which contains the machinery for enabling shops to be closed, the other portions of the

1781
measure will not go so smoothly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I may be allowed to explain what I mean. The first two provisions of this Bill deal with the hours of meals and the half-day holiday for assistants. Those two provisions have nothing whatever to do with Clause 3. The appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, is in regard to Clause 3, and I hope no indication will be given as to what shall be done as to that Clause, and that it will be dealt with absolutely on its merits when it is reached. It does not seem to me a reasonable thing to suggest—and if that is not the suggestion I cannot understand the meaning of the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at this stage—that unless an undertaking is given with regard to Clause 3 then the other Clauses will not be so non-controversial as they otherwise would be. I hope the House will not be put into that position.
The Home Secretary stated, and very rightly, that there is an intense desire among shopkeepers of the country to get a half-day holiday for themselves as well as for their assistants, and they will be extremely disappointed if, while they are quite prepared and anxious that the assistants should have the half-holiday, at the same time we did not provide them with efficient machinery to obtain their half-holiday. When we come to Clause 3, I think we shall be able to show that it is necessary to proceed with it and set up the machinery in order that early closing may be obtained. Immense labour was spent upon the Bill over a long period in Grand Committee, yet now, within a week or two of the end of the Session, the announcement is made that it is no longer to be a consolidated Bill, and that just two or three brands are to be snatched from the burning, valuable, I admit, but I do think it is a reflection upon the Parliamentary machine that, after all the work that has been done, the House of Commons has to admit that the most it can do on this great question is for the two or three things which it is now attempted to save. Why is it? In the first speech I made, after having had the honour to become a Member of this House, I urged that the measure should be sent to a Select Committee, but I was persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary to vote against my own suggestion. I am satisfied that if it had been sent to a Select Committee, we might not have got the Bill at this moment, but I am perfectly
1782
sure we should have arrived at some common agreement and obtained very much more than we are now going to get. I am in this position: I dare not seek to amend this Clause to any extent because of the limitations of time. We have only two or three hours to deal with the Bill, and if, in consequence of anything we did, the Bill was dropped, our blood would be on our own heads, and it would be said that we had deprived the people of the half-holiday. I am not taking that position. I am quite prepared to do all I can to see that the shop assistants get their meal times and their half-holiday, and also to see that the shopkeeper also gets his half-holiday. I admit the difficulty of the question, but I must leave the responsibility for the present position with the Government.
Mr. MALCOLM: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has really not fairly interpreted the position of hon. Members on this side of the House. Our view of Clause 3 has nothing whatever to do with the compulsory closing of shops once a week. That is to be statutory. Why we object to Clause 3 is that the machinery provides that an official shall be sent by the central authority to the local bodies in order to discuss with them the voluntary closing of shops. That is quite apart from the compulsory closing of shops. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, for we do not object to the compulsory statutory half-holiday. The hon. Gentleman will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester proposed a compulsory half-holiday for shops, and he will find us equally anxious with himself to get the statutory half-holiday for shops. The First Lord of the Admiralty very "fairly stated what passed in Committee upstairs. I think it is hardly possible for us to discuss the whole Bill, but I think as to the Irish Clause, which is at the end of the measure, we must, before it is reached, discuss the bearing of that Clause and the exceptions it contains. He said something also about the hour of meal times. There may be a difference in detail, but the hour of meal times was settled by unanimous consent. I have the record here of what occurred. It was two o'clock in the original plan. An hon. Member from the Labour Benches made a suggestion of one o'clock, and after further discussion——
Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is speaking of the half-holiday.
Mr. MALCOLM: Yes, I beg pardon. In the record in an excellent paper, "The Grocer," which is the only one which had anything like a verbatim report of the proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman said that that question would be open to discussion when we came downstairs again, and it was suggested to split the difference and make it one o'clock for shops and one-thirty for shop assistants. I observe there is an indication on the other side that perhaps two o'clock might be accepted. [HON. MKMBEKS: "No, no."] I may be wrong, but I thought I saw two Amendments from the other side to that effect. The only other point I can see as to Clause 3 is the question of fines, and I still think that the fines for offences are strenuous fines, and a great deal more than shopkeepers can stand. That can remain to a later stage, and otherwise I wish a successful passage to the Bill.
Mr. POINTER: Statements have been made during the course of the discussion as to pledges having been given by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Clause 3. Personally, and speaking for my party, I know nothing about those pledges, and I hope no such pledge has been given, and consequently——
Mr. CHURCHILL: I said nothing whatever except what I said in the House.
Mr. POINTER: That is so, because I have a very distinct recollection of What the right hon. Gentleman did say in the House was that the Commissioners would be sent down; that was his proposal, in order to facilitate the early closing of shops in the evenings. That was one of the points I noted as one of the redeeming features of the proposed alterations, because, to speak frankly, this Bill as it is now presented to us is a very great disappointment indeed, and here I think I speak for my colleagues. We cannot just exactly know what has happened to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems as if since he has gone to the bellicose atmosphere of the Admiralty Office his courage has oozed out at his boot toes. I am always inclined to associate the right hon. Gentleman with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think that association finds favour in the country. They are regarded as the fighters and swashbucklers. One wonders how it is, after the display of courage and tenacity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us in regard to the Insurance Bill, that his right hon. Friend and colleague
1784
is showing so much weakness in this particular matter. What is at the bottom of it? I can understand pressure being brought to bear, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman had numbers of petitions, but so had the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Insurance Bill. He at least, and it is to his credit, did fight, instead of weakly giving way, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to have done. For my part, I should be very sorry indeed if the right hon. Gentleman were to give way upon this question of Clause 3. From my own experience I believe some such Clause is absolutely necessary. Not only is it quite true that the difficulties which he outlined to us are there, but there is another difficulty which he did not touch upon—namely, that it is notoriously the fact in this, as in other cases, that what is everybody's business ultimately becomes nobody's business, and unless there is somebody to take the responsibility in regard to this matter then nothing will be done.
If the local authority does not show that activity which it ought to show then I join issue with the hon. Gentleman opposite in saying that I believe it is absolutely necessary on some occasions to do a little bit of what an hon. Gentleman opposite called—using a very strong phrase—" gingering." [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said it."] I am not certain who said it, the thing is it has been said, and I for my part believe it is one of those things which is necessary. In addition no mention has been made of a certain alteration which is to be made by an addition to the old Clause 9, in which, if I understand aright, certain powers which are now being exercised, not very successfully I admit, under the Act of 1904, giving power to fix a closing hour earlier than seven o'clock are to be taken away, and even those agreements which have already been entered into in regard to that matter are to lapse. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to have taken that into consideration. It may be that they resent interference with the liberties and autonomy of local authorities, but at least they ought to recognise that certain things have been taken away from the shop assistants and that the bargain is not a one-sided one as some of them seem to imagine.
I wish to indicate to the House and the right hon. Gentleman what our general position is in regard to these alterations. As I have already said, we are very disappointed indeed and we are not at all

1785
filled with admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's position in this matter. We think he ought to have shown a stronger front. We think he ought to have fought a little bit more tenaciously for the things which he advocated so very well in the earlier days of the Bill. If I am not mistaken he committed himself rather to this position, that the only thing in the Bill, as originally introduced, which he cared a straw about was the limitation of the hours of shop assistants. That, I believe, was the attitude he took up and that he strongly followed right through the Committee stage—namely, that the sixty hours' limitation of the shop assistants' hours of work was the only thing he cared much about, and that the other was so much padding to satisfy various interests here and there. Apparently now he has dropped the body of the Bill and what the Bill really set out to do, and he is giving us the husk instead of the kernel, and expects us to grow fat upon it. I do not know whether we are or not, but I do not want to let this opportunity pass without saying that we do recognise the great boon of the half-holiday, and also of the scheduled meal times.
I understand that the shop assistants are very favourable to the scheduled meal times. They believe much good will accrue. I had figures given to me the other day which for the moment have slipped my memory, but at least I was told that a very great proportion of illness amongst shop assistants took the form of indigestion, and quite a considerable majority of that indigestion they thought could be traceable to the haphazard method and manner in which shop assistants are forced to take their meals. I was given the instance of a big emporium in this city where the young lady assistants had to travel from the room in which they worked to the dining-room, no less than 750 yards, there and back, of which distance half was up and down stairs, and it all had to be done in a twenty-five minutes' meal time. We can all see what that means. To travel half-a-mile and have a mid-day meal in twenty-five minutes—one would be very surprised if it did not result in indigestion. Therefore, we are anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman all the support we can in regard to that particular point. We are not unmindful of the benefits arising from the weekly half-holiday. Our only complaint is that it does not start early enough. But in these days
1786
we must be thankful for small mercies. The House, however, must not expect us to be too thankful, when we know that up and down the country there are many places where the shops close at twelve. In his endeavour to save a little bit of the Bill we think the right hon. Gentleman might have put the hour at twelve instead of at one. We feel very strongly about this Bill, and if there were not other considerations the Labour party would be a strenuous opponent of the scheme as now presented. We believe that the type of men who sent us here will not thank us for giving the right hon. Gentleman support at all. The feeling is very keen. In fact, there have been big demonstrations in all our centres with the object of strengthening the demands of the Bill and for substituting the word "inclusive" for the word "exclusive"—which we attempted to do in Committee, but failed. We are going to support the Bill, not because we are unmindful of the great alterations which have been made or of the extremely unsatisfactory shape the Bill now assumes, but simply because we have a request from the shop assistants that we should not jeopardise the measure by pushing our opposition or our strictures too far. The letter—I will not read the whole of it—says:
"Under these circumstances we ask the Labour party, on behalf of the organised shop assistants, to accept the provision of fixed meal-times and the half holiday. We recommend this course with the greatest regret, and express our intention to continue our agitation on the question of the limitation of hours until we secure tins most important object by Act of Parliament."
Were it not for that letter I personally should not have submitted to the alteration. It is one of those things that one cannot accept without feeling very sore about it. We regard the sixty-hours' week as the pivot of the Bill, and without it I personally should have had very little interest in the matter. But the shop assistants, after all, are the people who will be most affected, and as they have asked us to do so we shall help the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill through, in which endeavour I trust we we may be successful.
1.0 P.M.
Mr. DUKE: Notwithstanding the censures which have been so lavishly poured on the right hon. Gentleman by his own friends, there is a strong flavour of common sense in his decision to get what he can at the end of a hard Session. So far as my experience goes, there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and not least

1787
with regard to the standardisation of meal times. But in the country towns on market days very great difficulty will be found——
Mr. CHURCHILL: I will meet that.
Mr. DUKE: Then as far as I am concerned the proposal will be satisfactory.
Mr. W. PEARCE: The charge of want of courage, I think, disproves itself when we remember the period of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has indeed acted with common sense. It was proved to me, as a Member of the Committee, that to deal with every district in the country in one particular way and by one particular mode was really an impossibility. The first two Clauses are very important. One gives the half-holiday and the other ensures that a very large class of shops must close on one afternoon in the week. I am sorry that objection is taken to Clause 3, because the shops in the Schedule do not come under Clause 2 unless we pass Clause 3. If it is feared that the power might be used by irresponsible people, Members might be content to take out the words "or otherwise," and the Clause could then be put into operation only on the representation of a local authority. Having sat through the long discussions in Committee, I feel that if we pass the Bill as proposed we shall render a real service to shop assistants. Nobody is in favour of long hours nowadays, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is taking a considerable step towards securing a shortening which will be of benefit to all concerned.
Mr. HINDS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way on Clause 3. It is most important that we should have these men going down to the district, as he says, to "ginger" the authorities. The Act of 1904 was a failure simply because there was no provision of that kind in it. With regard to the Sunday Clauses, we in Wales have felt very strongly, and I should like an assurance from the Government that they mean to deal with the question in the near future. If they do so, they will have our best support, as we are anxious and ready for a clean Sunday in Wales. We must go on compulsory lines in a measure of this sort. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has the right to say what he has said about shop assistants. I am in favour of the sixty hours' week and the weekly half-holiday, and the only way to get them is by compulsion.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I have, of course, considered very carefully what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Lyttelton) in regard to Clause 3, and I would make this proposal to the House with a view to dealing with the issue fairly. Let us leave Clause 3 until we come to it, and then let the House divide upon it quite freely, without Government Whips or Government pressure of any kind, and decide whether or not it will be a useful thing. Then, when we get forward with the other Clauses, the House can decide on the merits of this after it has been thoroughly discussed.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I am sorry to say I cannot accept that offer on behalf of the hon. Friends behind me. The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether or not he is going forward with Clause 3. If so the great boon that we all here desire to have will probably be lost. He must decide one way or the other.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is quite fair to the House. I have been asked to promise not merely that I will leave the matter to the House, but that I will actually use the Government Whips to secure the deletion of a Clause that I am anxious to see included. I do not think it is a fair request. The proposal that the House should decide the matter on its merits is surely a good one.
Viscount WOLMER: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would give the House the opportunity of deciding in a free way upon the question of the sixty hours' week? In his short speech this afternoon he really did not give the House any adequate explanation as to why the proposal for sixty hours has been dropped. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that the sixty hours was the kernel of the whole Bill. After all, this Bill has been before the country for the last three years. It has been threshed out, I believe, in different forms in three Standing Committees. Two General Elections have been held since the original proposals were made. Under these circumstances it is impossible to say that the question of the sixty hours has not received the general approval of the electorate. As the right hon. Gentleman has framed his Amendments it is impossible to take a test Division on the sixty hours without compromising the weekly half-holiday. In the way the Amendments are drawn, too, it is impossible for this House to declare in favour

1789
of the sixty hours without declaring against the weekly half-holiday. There is a strong feeling amongst this section of the House, who would welcome some assurance from the Government that we should be allowed to decide this sixty hours' question. It does seem very hard that this question should be put on the scrap-heap at the last moment. It is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect. This question has been debated for the last six months in Standing Committee. It has got overwhelming support, not only in this House but elsewhere. For the First Lord of the Admiralty to come down at the last moment and draw his blue pencil through the Bill, and take out the kernel, appears to me to be nothing more nor less than sacrificing the Bill for political reasons. We should, I venture to suggest, be allowed to take a Division on the sixty hours' question in a free and unrestrained way.
Mr. SPEAKER: The House has now occupied an hour over a totally irregular discussion. It was said that to allow the discussion would save a great deal of time, but it seems to me to have raised a great number of points of controversy without having settled any, and to have led to no issue. I therefore respectfully urge the House to get to business.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: May I ask one question? Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the Opposition and his Friends will not allow the retention of Clause 3—that if Clause 3 were retained the Bill will be opposed and practically lost?
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. GLYN-JONES had given notice to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
The Secretary of State may make regulations for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed.
I am not sure that this is necessary. As the Bill stood there were provisions for enabling matters to be prescribed. I understand that there is a Clause which is not now to be inserted in the Bill which says, "That the Secretary of State may make regulations for prescribing anything that may be prescribed …" I, however, find that it is provided that the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, shall be
1790
construed with this Act of 1911, and as I understand that this and other matters are covered by this new provision, I do not move.

Part I.
  HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SHOP ASSISTANTS.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Hours of Employment and Meal Times.)
    (1) A shop assistant shall not, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be employed about the business of a shop for more than sixty hours (exclusive of meal times) in any week and on one week-day in the week he shall not be employed after one o'clock in the afternoon.
    (2) Intervals for meals shall be allowed to each shop assistant in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
    (3) The occupier of a shop shall fix, within the limits allowed by this Section, and shall specify in a notice in the prescribed form, which must be affixed in the shop,—

    (a) the times at which the employment; and

    (b) where the employment is divided into spells, the times at which the several spells,

    are to commence and end on several days of the week, and may fix different times for different shop assistants, but employment shall not be divided into spells unless an interval of at least two hours elapses between the end of one spell and the commencement of the next spell, and the notice shall also specify the total amount of time (if any) allowed for meals in the course of the employment on the several days of the week, and no shop assistant shall, save as hereinafter provided, be employed about the business of the shop except between the times so fixed with respect to him.
    (4) The provisions of this Section, requiring that a shop assistant shall on one day in the week be not employed after one o'clock in the afternoon, shall not apply to the week preceding a bank holiday if the shop assistant is not employed on the bank holiday, and if on one week-day in the following week in addition to the bank holiday, the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "On at least one week-day in each week."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "save as otherwise provided by this Act."
    Amendment proposed: To leave out the words "for more than sixty hours (exclusive of meal times) in any week, and on one week-day in the week he shall not be employed after," and to insert instead thereof the words "after half-past."—[Mr. Churchill.]
    Mr. HINDS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "half-past" ["half-past one o'clock"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    In proposing this alteration from 1.30 to 2 o'clock, I am strongly of opinion that two o'clock will best suit the convenience of every class of shopkeper in the country. I know something of the circumstances of trade in London. Pioneers of early closing have always been in favour of closing at two o'clock. There are some parts of England where they close at one o'clock, but generally it would be a mistake to close at one o'clock. It means losing a day, for trade does not often start till eleven o'clock, and because very little is done between that hour and one o'clock, the extra hour till two o'clock is especially valuable. It allows, too, for the stock being rearranged for next day. It will also meet the case of the assistants better than one o'clock.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment. In Committee upstairs one o'clock was inserted, but we had a promise from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he had an open mind if the House should desire to alter it. Two o'clock would be a great convenience, on account of the number of shops that now close at that hour, and have done so for years, and in London have worked their assistants only from fifty to fifty-five hours per week. It will make no great difference to the assistants, because it will be usually impossible for them to have their mid-day meal till after closing, whether it be one, 1.30, or two o'clock. It should be said, though, there are now large shops in London which close on Saturdays or Thursdays, and where the assistants have their mid-day meal before two o'clock. I hope the First Lord will note this fact. At the present time 40 per cent. of the shops in London are closing at two o'clock, and, therefore, if this Amendment of the right
    1792
    hon. Gentleman is made you will have different shops in London closing at different hours.
    Mr. GOULDING: I earnestly hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will stand to his guns. This Bill was subject to a great deal of discussion upstairs, and it was the universal view that this small concession should be given to those people. If we take away this half-hour now the half-holiday will be but very poor comfort indeed. If you close at two o'clock it will be three o'clock before many of the assistants get home. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand by what he has proposed.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I would make a very earnest appeal not only to the Home Secretary but to the House not to accept any Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman giving the shop assistants the benefit of early closing. If the half-holiday is not to begin until two o'clock in the afternoon as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goulding) very rightly pointed out the whole day will be practically gone. On the day in which the half-holiday is given to the assistants they have no interval for mid-day meal, and therefore after the shop closes the assistants require to go home and get a meal, and by that time the best part of the free day is practically gone. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said it would practically throw away the half-holiday as a trading day. I really cannot see that at all. The co-operative society in the Constituency I represent close their shops at twelve o'clock noon on their usual half-holiday. The total hours during which the shops are open during the week are very much below the average prescribed in the Bill, which is sixty hours. I hope, therefore, the House will not accept this Amendment, but will stand by the proposal of the Home Secretary and give the assistants at least this assurance that the half-holiday will be a real one, and a day they can spend as they wish.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: If the hon. Gentleman opposite goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. I have had a considerable number of letters from shopkeepers in the city pointing out that if half-past one is to be put in instead of two o'clock it means shops will have to be closed at one o'clock in order that the work may be cleared up and things arranged before the assistants go away. If

    1793
    half-past one is put in instead of two o'clock it practically means the whole of the morning is wasted. Never in my day, when I worked in the city did our business close before two o'clock, and I fail to see why a difference should be made now.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Baronet has expressed his very strong and well-known views on this matter, but I think the sense of the House is in favour of making this gift a real one. After all, all perishable articles are exempt and are outside the scope of the Bill already, and if there is any inconvenience, which I very much doubt, it will be the same for all—no one will get any advantage over another. I would, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: Does the half-holiday not apply to shops with perishable articles?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The assistants get the half-holiday.
    Colonel YATE: Do butchers come within it?
    Mr. CASSEL: There is a very strong feeling in favour of two o'clock in London. In other parts of the country the feeling may be different. Even so far as the assistants are concerned they will have their meal before the shop closes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] So I am informed—at any rate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better to have some kind of local option. ["No, no."] In cases where both shopkeepers and assistants desire it would be possible to fix an hour.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I should like to point out this provision does not mean the closing of shops at all. It means the shop assistants get a half-holiday, but the shop is not necessarily shut, although the assistants go.
    Mr. HINDS: After the expression of opinion we have heard in various quarters of the House, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add,

    (a) this provision shall not apply to the week preceding a bank or public
    1794
    holiday or any day of public rejoicing or mourning if the shop assistant is not employed on that day, and if on one week-day in the following week in addition to that day the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; and

    (b) where it is the practice in any shop to allow all shop assistants employed therein a holiday on full pay of not loss than two weeks in every year, and the occupier of the shop has given notice to the local authority of such practice, this provision shall not apply during such part of the year, not exceeding in the aggregate four months, as may be allowed by the local authority and specified in a notice affixed in the shop.

    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment, after the word "assistants" ["allow all shop assistants employed"], to insert the words "in any place where the local authority has suspended under the provisions of Section nine, Sub-section (5), of this Act the obligation imposed by that Section and."
    My object is to confine the exemption to those shops which come within Sub-section (5) of Section 9. In that Section it is provided that in the case of health resorts the local authority may suspend the early closing day for four months in the year. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will allow any shopkeeper to deprive his assistants of the half-day holiday during four months in the year, provided that in return the shopkeeper gives a fortnight's holiday in the year. I do not think that ought to be the basis at all, and there should not be any such bargain. The operation of this provision should be confined to districts where, under the Act, the early closing day has been suspended for four months. My Amendment, with the subsequent one, would provide that this provision should only apply in such districts. Under the proposal now put forward any shopkeeper who gives a fortnight's holiday in the year will be able to deprive his assistants of their weekly half-holiday for sixteen weeks. I think it would be sufficient to confine the provision to the special areas the right hon. Gentleman is going to allow.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment. I have an Amend

    1795
    ment down on this question. I think one month would be quite sufficient. I do not think the option should be so open, and I hope I shall in this matter have the support of hon. Members below the Gangway in order to secure for the shop assistant a real weekly half-holiday throughout the year, and not leave out sixteen weeks in the year.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I think my hon Friend has pointed out what was our intention in dealing with this Sub-section. I think the reference in the Amendment to Section 9 Sub-section (5) might be left out, because it would cause complications. We should be prepared to accept the Amendment in the following form:
    "In any place where a local authority has suspended the obligation to close shops on the weekly half-holiday, and."
    Mr. BENTHAM: If this is carried will it preclude the moving of the Amendment to leave out paragraph (b). If it does, I should like to say a word or two upon that point. I am strongly against allowing seaside places to have the privilege of depriving their assistants of seventeen half-holidays a year at those times when they need them most and when they are working the hardest.
    Mr. PRICE: These men will be working at the highest possible pressure, and no provision whatever is made for them during that period. It is practically slave driving. I should like to know if the acceptance of this Amendment will not have the effect which I have pointed out.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand from those who are supporting this Amendment that in such cases as those mentioned by the hon. Member it would be necessary for the shopkeeper to give a fortnight's holiday. When this question was before the Committee we agreed, although we were not very much in love with the proposal, that it should be incorporated in the Bill, because at that time there was a protection for shop assistants in regard to the total number of hours they should be employed. The circumstances have now changed, and there is not that protection. The only protection now in regard to hours is the half-holiday, and by this proposal you are taking away for four months in the year that holiday just at a time when it would be most appreciated. I do not think
    1796
    it is necessary to give this privilege for such a long period as four months, because that means June, July, August, and September. In many of the seaside places in the north the season does not extend to four months in the year. It might be possible to make out a case for a shorter period. I certainly cannot support such a proposal as this, which is going to take away from a shop assistant his weekly half-holiday during one-third of the year, I do not think it is necessary to lengthen the period.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: There is some misapprehension about this, because the Clause, as amended, does not provide that for four months an assistant may be deprived of his half-holiday, but only for such part of that time as the local authority may suspend the provision for an early closing day. It is only while the early closing day is suspended that the assistant may be deprived of his half-holiday. Further, it must be a condition that every shop assistant in the shop gets a fortnight's holiday during the year. This would mean that if an assistant was engaged for a season and the employer wanted to deprive him of his half-holiday he would have to give him a fortnight's holiday. I do not think shopkeepers in watering-places will seek to deprive their assistants of their half-holiday for longer than is absolutely necessary. Where the season is short, the suspension of the half-holiday will be short; and it is only during the suspension that the assistant will be deprived of his holiday.
    Question, "That the words in any place where the local authority has suspended the obligation to close shops on the weekly half-holiday, and,' be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it possible now to move an Amendment to the Sub-section, as, for instance, to alter four months to one or two months?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The whole of this proposed Amendment is still open to Amendment.
    Mf. SNOWDENrose to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "four months," and to insert instead thereof the words "six weeks."
    Mr. GRETTON: Will that Amendment cut out the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm)?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move?
    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "it is," and to insert instead thereof the words "according to."
    The Amendment is for the purpose of securing the elasticity of the Clause in the case of every assistant who is treated in conformity with the general provisions of the Clause as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. It would, as the Clause is drafted, be necessary for every assistant in the shop to have the holidays laid down even although only employed for a short time. There are a very large number of cases where the shop assistant is not employed for the full twelve months; and, whilst there is no desire in any way to escape the obligations of the Clause, there should be some exception relieving the employer of the obligation to give a holiday to any casual shop assistant who comes in for a short time only.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: This Amendment is really in the interests of the shop assistants. Under the Bill as drafted no assistant can get the benefit of the provision unless all the assistants in the shop get the holiday. The employer therefore will not be induced to give the holiday, because he has to give it to all the assistants, whether regularly employed or not. The effect of the Amendment would be that if, according to the practice of the shop, any individual assistant got the two weeks' holiday in the year, then as regarded that assistant these provisions would operate. At present unless the employer can see his way to make the concession to all the shop assistants, he will have no interest to do anything. It is therefore in the interests of the assistants themselves that some alteration of this sort should be made. It is in the nature of things, especially in holiday resorts, that there are assistants employed in shops for certain periods of the year; and, if this is not to operate, unless those assistants also get two weeks' holiday in the year, the whole impetus for the employer to give the holiday falls to the ground. I hope the House will see its way to make this Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is very evident it is not in the interests of the assistants. It would only encourage casual labour. There is not the slightest doubt—there was strong evidence of it
    1798
    before the Committee—it is necessary to make some kind of exemption. Shop assistants are called upon to work harder in watering-places in certain months of the year, and, unless a large amount of casual labour is employed, there are no means of meeting the pressure except by some sort of suspension of the weekly half-holiday. The conditions by which this class of shop owners can contract out of the universal obligation must, however, imply something substantial on their part in return to the shop assistants, and, if assistans have to give up their half-holiday in the best time of the year, the least we can ask is that a fortnight's holiday on full pay shall be given to all the assistants in the shop and not merely to particular assistants who happen to have been a long time in the same employment. If it is to the interests of the shopkeepers in places like Blackpool to take on casual labour during the summer, that casual labour should not be contracted out of the right of having the half-holiday. The least we should do is to secure it to casual labour.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has entirely mistaken the point of the Amendment. The Amendment says that if the employer gives to all shop assistants a week's or a fortnight's holiday in the year, then this provision will operate. Admittedly you have to have casual labour in busy times. If this is not altered you have to give the casuals a fortnight's holiday in the year before anybody else can get a holiday, and I venture to say that that is not in the interests of either assistants or employers.
    Question, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I should like to ask if the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon and myself is consequential. It is to insert after "assistants" the word "regularly," so as to put an obligation on the employer to give a fortnight's holiday to all assistants regularly employed. Perhaps I had better move, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "assistants" ["allow all shop assistants"], to insert the word "regularly."
    This is a somewhat different point. I want the employer to have some motive to give the fortnight's holiday. I submit he would have none if it is sufficient if he gives it to all people regularly employed.

    1799
    They will get the best time of the year. Unless you put in some word such as "regularly," you are withdrawing every element of motive from the employer's mind to give any holiday at all.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The motive to the shopkeeper to give a fortnight's holiday to everyone is a motive which has been urged upon us by those who represent watering-places and who desire to have this exemption of four months. If they do not want the four months' exemption the whole Clause falls to the ground. They can, under the ordinary arrangement, give weekly half-holidays to everyone, but if you are going to have shop assistants wandering from place to place and always deprived of their half-holiday or their fortnight's pay, because they are casuals, you will develop a state of things which will be very much worse for the shop assistants.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand that the proposals of the Government meet the views of the Shopkeepers' Associations in such places as Blackpool and other watering-places?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would not like to commit myself, but, as far as I know, this is an agreed Clause. The terms were accepted in Committee by those who specially spoke for watering-places. They ask for the right of suspension during the summer months, and said they were quite willing to give a regular fortnight's holiday.
    Question, "That the word 'regularly' be there inserted" put, and negatived.
    Mr. M. BARLOW: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "part of" ["during such part of"], and to insert instead thereof the words "number of weeks in." The only point is this. In a good many cases it is clear it will not make any difference to the employé if it is part of the bargain that he is to receive a fortnight's pay or the half-holiday in lieu on a certain number of Saturdays or whatever other day it may be. As the Bill is at present drafted, it appears the four months must be consecutive. It seems to me it will make no difference to the employé if the weeks are not consecutive, and it might facilitate matters from the
    1800
    point of view of the employer. I think the proposal as to a fortnight's holiday on full pay is admirable, but this seems to be a small point; it will make no difference to the employé, but it will enable the employer to adjust his business. I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
    Mr. NEWTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I think it meets the objection of the hon. Member for Blackpool to a large extent, because it anticipates the possible working of the assistants during the whole week at Easter and other times. Speaking on behalf of seaside towns, I must say I think the proposal is a good one.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member will substitute the word "parts" for "part," I am quite willing to accept such an Amendment.
    Mr. BARLOW: I am quite willing to do so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the word 'part' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Word "parts" there inserted.
    Mr. WALSH: I beg to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "four" ["in the aggregate four months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    At these times at such places shop assistants work at very great pressure. Their hours are exceedingly long, and I think there ought to be some limitation of less than four months. Therefore, I propose to substitute "two" for "four."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be much better to stick to the period which was agreed upon after long discussion. I am very apprehensive of making excursions outside that arrangement, and I would recommend the House to adhere to the four months.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I think two months is quite sufficient. In my opinion the better plan would be to leave this out altogether. It is quite true that these people are very busy for a month or six weeks, and the assistants have to work probably from 8.0 a.m. till 9.0 or 10 p.m. from Monday morning till Saturday night without any half-holiday.

    1801
    There is no shop anywhere where the shopkeeper cannot afford to give a half-holiday every week. If we cannot get that, surely two months is long enough to give. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to insert "two" instead of "four."
    Mr. POINTER: I think the whole point is due to a misconception. Apparently hon. Members think that the holiday season at a seaside resort is much longer than it actually is. I remember that in the Grand Committee the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) and myself had a little difference of opinion upon this matter—quite friendly, by the way. He instanced Scarborough, where he said the holiday season ran for three months. I asserted that it did not run for more than two months. A few weeks afterwards I was in Scarborough, and I set inquiries on foot among people who were likely to know. I asked them how long their summer season lasted; was it two months? They said, "No, we have a good season if it lasts six weeks." If the season is six weeks, it seems to me that four months is altogether an unreasonable amount of time to give under the Bill. I hope the House will therefore accept two months.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: If hon. Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their desire to get this Bill through they will not indulge in discussion of this sort, for it is impossible, if this Bill is to go through, to enter into new matter of this kind. The hon. Member (Mr. Pointer) is absolutely wrong in saying that two months covers the holiday period in many holiday resorts. Two months may cover the height of the season.
    Mr. POINTER: That is when the pressure occurs.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am quite certain that this Bill will never get to a conclusion if small Amendments of this kind are insisted on.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am quite sure that the hon. Members who are asking for this Amendment in the interests of the assistants are wrong. We have here a provision for a fortnight in lieu of fourteen half-days. Although a man may only be employed four months he will get his full fortnight's holiday. If you are going to limit it to eight half-days, I do not think that any employer will exercise the option, and the man will not get the fortnight's holiday in lieu of these eight half-days. Another point is that these assistants,
    1802
    although they are very busy during the season, are in a much more fortunate position than the other assistants during eight months of the year. They get very much more time for themselves. I am sure hon. Members below the Gangway will be wise in accepting the compromise and not insisting upon the Amendment.
    Question, "That 'four' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add a new paragraph,
    (c) In the case of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, or in respect of any hotel whether so licensed or not, the occupier of a shop may by agreement with any shop assistant sub-situte for the half-holiday prescribed in this Section a holiday of not less than nine consecutive hours to be allowed during some periods on a week-day on which in default of such agreement the assistant would ordinarily be employed about the business of the shop.
    2.0 P.M.
    I have to apologise to the House for proposing a manuscript Amendment. The Bill was only in the hands of Members on Wednesday night, and it did not become known to the public until Thursday morning, and I only received this suggested Amendment a few hours before I came to the House. The Amendment incorporates what we have already agreed upon in Clause 6, which the Government are now dropping. It will make the Clause more adaptable to the refreshment trade, including, of course, the sale of intoxicating liquors. That trade is at its greatest pressure at a late hour in the day, and this Amendment will enable those engaged in the business of hotels, tea rooms, refreshment bars, and public-houses to give their assistants their half-holiday at an earlier hour of the day, so that they can return refreshed by fresh air and recreation to finish the business for the concluding hour or two of the day. Those engaged in this industry, not only in the sale of intoxicating liquors, are concerned with the rigid nature of this half-holiday Clause and the extreme difficulty there will be in applying the Clause to their case. The House will agree that the provision of nine hours is not an illiberal one. I think it is a reasonable one. The whole difficulty of applying this Clause is that the pressure in all refreshment trades takes place in two periods of the day: the mid-day

    1803
    meal and the evening meal, including the supper and the evening refreshments. If you take the assistants away on these occasions you make it almost impossible to carry on the business in a shop where only one or two assistants are employed. Some elasticity is necessary. I beg the House not to look at these cases with the some-what prejudiced view which prevails in some quarters. There is a real necessity of meeting the public convenience in this case. I understand that this Clause will meet the views of a vast number of people in this country. It will also give shop assistants a very reasonable period for a half-holiday. I urged before the Grand Committee that there was a great advantage in giving a shop assistant his half-holiday during the hours of daylight and sunlight, especially in the winter months. The hours of light are worth more for the purposes of holiday and recreation to any one in this country than are the hours of darkness. This Amendment gives an elasticity which is very much in the favour of the shop assistant, for you give him the holiday at a time when he can go forth into the country and get recreation there. I hope that if I have omitted any cogent argument which might have been urged in favour of the Amendment that the House will pardon that omission, and will favourably consider the very urgent case the Amendment deals with.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it would be conducive to the interests of the Bill if we were to reintroduce the provisions for separate treatment for public-house asistants which, I admit, were necessary in regard to the original sixty hours' limitation, but which are certainly not necessary now and, even when they were necessary, drew me into controversy of quite a different character. We had reached an agreement on the subject of hours and half-holidays of public-house assistants which would have secured them, not one half-holiday a week, but no fewer than thirty-four whole week-day holidays in a year, apart from certain Sunday holidays. This is very much less beneficial to them than the arrangement which has been reached by agreement, and I hope the hon. Gentleman, having agreed to the greater, will not press any opposition which may arise on the less.
    Amendment negatived.
    Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "within the limits allowed by this Section."
    After the word "shop" ["must be affixed in the shop"], insert the words "in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed the day of the week on which his shop assistants are not employed after half-past one o'clock, and may fix different days for different shop assistants."—[Mr. Churchill.]
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, to leave out,

    (a) the times at which the employment; and

    (b) where the employment is divided into spells, the times at which the several spells,

    are to commence and end on the several days of the week, and may fix different times for different shop assistants, but employment shall not be divided into spells unless an interval of at least two hours elapses between the end of one spell and the commencement of the next spell, and the notice shall also specify the total amount of time (if any) allowed for meals in the course of the employment on the several days of the week, and no shop assistant shall, save as hereinafter provided, be employed about the business of the shop except between the times so fixed with respect to him.
    (4) The provisions of this Section, requiring that a shop assistant shall on one day in the week be not employed after one o'clock in the afternoon, shall not apply to the week preceding a bank holiday if the shop assistant is not employed on the bank holiday, and if on one week-day in the following week in addition to the bank holiday, the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): This Amendment and the subsequent ones to leave out the Clauses may be taken as one question. The question is, "That the words from the beginning of line 17 down to the end of line 16 on page 8 stand part of the Bill" [part of Clause 1, the whole of Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive, and part of Clause 9.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand that my Amendment on Clause 1 cannot be taken?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet should have raised that a moment ago. I suggested that the Amendments should be put in one question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand that that would affect this. This is a very important Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet knows the rules of the House so well that he is aware that on Report stage you do not recognise Clauses as such, and that is the reason I suggested that there was no need to put the separate questions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is just my point. On Report stage the question that the Clause stand part is not put. It is the custom on Report stage to call the Amendments which are on the Paper, and mine was not called.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is why I slowly turned over the pages in order that any hon. Member might rise at that moment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Might I be allowed with the consent of the House to move it?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sorry I had given the decision of the House to omit the words down to the end of line 16, on page 8.
    Mr. GRETTON: It appeared to me that the hon. Baronet did interrupt in time before the matter was finally disposed of. In addition this raises one of the most important points of the Bill, and it is really very greatly in the interests of the Bill that it should be considered.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will allow the hon. Baronet to move.
    Mr. POINTER: Am I to understand that the hon. Baronet is going back to a point of the Bill that we have passed, because, if so, since the hon. Baronet is so keen himself about points of Order and sticking rigidly and rigorously to the Rules and Standing Orders of the House, it appears to me he is the last person in the world to ask to be excused for any lack of wakefulness he has exhibited.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet was entitled to rise and ask for the Amendment to be saved when I was proceeding to put the question. He will not be prevented from moving. I must put the question in this form, Amendment proposed: "That the words down to the end of line 12 stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. POINTER: Am I to understand that I it is strictly in order that the hon. Baronet can be allowed to move if the House objects? He is a most watchful person himself, but simply because he has been caught napping once he can set aside the rule of the House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that is the point. I was endeavouring to save the time of the Committee by suggesting that if hon. Members did not wish to move their Amendments on the long series of words proposed to be left out that they might permit me to put the proposal in one question. The hon. Baronet, it is true, did not rise as quickly as he might have done. As I took the step of putting the series of Amendments together I think we should not go back upon that now.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the point is really one of some substance, and the Government would not wish the hon. Baronet to be ruled out by any technical objection on a point of Order.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move after Sub-section (4), to add,
    (5) Provided that in the case of shops for the sale of meat and other perishable goods the hour after which on one day in the week a shop assistant shall not be employed shall be two o'clock in the afternoon.
    The object of the Amendment is to allow butchers and other traders who have perishable goods to employ their shop assistants up to two o'clock. The reason why they ask this is because it will be impossible for master butchers to dispense with their assistants at one or half-past one on the half-holiday. The period between one and two o'clock is one of the busiest in the day, owing to the fact that a large number of master butchers and their assistants are then supplying food for the mid-day meal. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in an interjection across the floor of the House, said that the butchers were safeguarded. I understood him, perhaps erroneously, to say that he considered traders in perishable goods were not affected. When I look at the second Schedule and the Bill as amended I understand that a butcher will not be compelled to close his shop at any hour on any one particular day, but that he may be compelled to employ other assistants on a particular half-holiday. At the

    1807
    present moment, according to the Amendment which has been passed, it may be that a large number of shop assistants must leave butchers' shops at half-past one. The butchers ask that they should be allowed to keep their assistants another half-hour, and they found that request on the statement which I believe to be true, that in the interest of the public themselves it is necessary that they should have this half-hour in order to supply food to people who require it, especially in the populous districts of the country. They also point out that generally shop assistants have to groom the horses and put the carts away before leaving. If it is the case that in the country districts people have to obtain food supplies at these shops during the meal hours of the day, then I think the right hon. Gentleman might meet us on this point. Although this is not a large question, it is of considerable importance because it affects the convenience of the country as a whole.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. I have been approached by a good number of butchers who have asked me to endeavour to see that this right is obtained for them. It seems to me that there is real need for the extra time being given up to two o'clock. It would be a convenience to people to be able to deal in these shops up to two o'clock. That seems to me to be a right which might be safeguarded for the purpose of meeting the comfort and convenience of the public. From the butcher's point of view they do not put this proposal forward for any purpose of their own, but rather to meet the convenience of the public. If the public would act differently the butchers might be able to close their shops at one o'clock, but in view of the practice of customers I think, for the reasons stated by the hon. Baronet, this Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would gladly do anything in my power to make the Bill as elastic as possible, but I really do not think this would be a wise step for us to take. After all, all the shops where perishable goods are sold are exempt from the half-holiday. They can remain open during the week. It is only in the case of the assistants that we are making this provision. This is all we are securing to them, and it would be a great pity to mar the symmetry and universality of the pro
    1808
    vision by making this inroad upon it. The inroad is a small one, but it would lead to others, and it would come to be that assistants in every shop where perishable meat was sold would be deprived of the half-holiday. I would appeal to the House to stand by the proposal in the Bill.
    Mr. GRETTON: The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman is not convincing either to the people who occupy shops of this description, or to the assistants, or to the public who frequent the shops. I have no personal interest in this matter. I have had a large number of letters on this subject pointing out the inconvenience which would arise from this proposal if carried. People come out from factories and work places at one o'clock and get their food supplies. If these shopkeepers are not able to employ a full staff at the hour when there is the greatest pressure of the day, the people in the neighbourhood who require to get food would be put to a great deal of inconvenience, and very great harm would be done to the shops themselves. In considering this question we have every desire to help the shop assistants and to give them the fullest advantage which this Bill is intended to confer. But it should be remembered that the exigencies of business require that people who are earning their living and who require supplies from shops are going to be unduly incommoded, and the shopkeepers themselves would be put to inconvenience in the conduct of their business if the proposal in the Bill is carried out. It will come to this, that a certain amount of business will have to be done elsewhere, and the shop assistants will lose their employment. You will do a considerable amount of damage to a large number of people whom we desire to assist. In the country towns there is a strong case on this point. We are asking very little indeed. We are simply asking that one class of shops shall have a special exception made in order to meet the pressure at a certain hour of the day. We cannot extract this concession from the Government by any process of force, but this is a case above all others where there should be some relaxation of the rigid line.
    Colonel YATE: I desire to support the Amendment in every possible way. I have had a whole sheaf of letters from butchers in Melton Mowbray and the Melton Division requesting, in the interest of the working people there, that this extra half-hour should be allowed.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. What has happened was really the result of a compromise. The butchers, for whom we all fought very hard upstairs, have really come off under this Bill much better than they had any reason to expect. Now it has come to a question of between half-past one and two o'clock, and I do think that for the purpose of getting on with this Bill we ought to give up that half-hour and get on to more important points.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Overtime Employment.)
  CLAUSE 3.—(Employment in Two or More Shops.)

    CLAUSE 4.—(Special Provisions with Respect to Small Shops.)
    CLAUSE 5.—(Special Provisions with Respect to Perishable Goods.)
    CLAUSE 6.—(Special Provisions as to Persons Engaged in Sale of Refreshments.)
    CLAUSE 7.—(Closing of Shops on Sunday.)
    CLAUSE 8.—(Exemption of Certain Areas from Provisions as to Sunday Closing.)
    Amendments made: Leave out Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.—[Mr. Masterman.]

Weekly Half-Holiday.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Closing of Shops on Weekly Half-Holiday.)
  (1) Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be closed for the serving of customers not later than one o'clock in the afternoon on one week-day in every week.

  (2) The local authority may, by order made and revocable in like manner and subject to the like procedure and confirmation as closing orders hereinafter mentioned, fix the day on which a shop is to be so closed (in this Act referred to as the weekly half-holiday), and any such order may either fix the same day for all shops, or may fix—

  (a) different days for different classes of shops; or

  (b) different days for different parts of the district; or

  (c) different days for different periods of the year:

  Provided that—

  (1) where the day fixed is a day other than Saturday, the order shall provide for enabling Saturday to be substituted for such other day; and

  1810

  (2) where the day fixed is Saturday, the order shall provide for enabling some other day specified in the order to be substituted for Saturday,

  as respects any shop in which notice to that effect is affixed by the occupier.
  (3) Unless and until such an order is made affecting a shop, the weekly half-holiday as respects the shop shall be such day as the occupier may specify in a notice affixed in the shop, but it shall not be lawful for the occupier of the shop to change the day oftener than once in any period of three months.
  (4) Where the local authority have reason to believe that a majority of the occupiers of shops of any particular class in any area are in favour of being exempted from the provisions of this Section, either wholly or by fixing as the closing hour instead of one o'clock some other hour not later than two o'clock, the local authority, unless they consider that the area in question is unreasonably small, shall take steps to ascertain the wishes of such occupiers, and if they are satisfied that a majority of the occupiers of such shops are in favour of the exemption, or in the case of a vote being taken that at least one-half of the votes recorded by the occupiers of shops within the area of the class in question are in favour of the exemption, the local authority shall make an order exempting the shops of that class within the area from the provisions of this Section either wholly or to such extent as aforesaid.
  (5) In places frequented as holiday resorts during certain seasons of the year, the local authority may by order suspend for such period or periods as may be specified in the order, not exceeding in the aggregate four months in any year, the obligation imposed by this Section.
  (6) Where a shop is closed during the whole day on the occasion of a bank or public holiday, or any day of public rejoicing or mourning, it shall be lawful for the occupier of the shop to keep the shop open for the serving of customers after the hour at which it is required under this Section to be closed either on the half-holiday immediately preceding or on the half-holiday immediately succeeding such bank or public holiday or day of public rejoicing or mourning.
  (7) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, this Section shall not apply to

  1811
  any shop in which a trade or business of any class mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act is carried on.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to propose, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "may" ["local authority may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  The effect of this, which is to be taken in conjunction with my Amendment lower down on the Paper, will be that the authority must make an order fixing a day for the early closing of shops. As the Bill stands the authority may make that order selecting a certain day, but before doing so must find out whether the majority of the shopkeepers agree upon a particular day in the week. Unless they find that a majority of the shopkeepers either in a certain class or as a whole agree upon a particular day which shall be the early closing day then it will be left to each shopkeeper to select his own day. I think that is a condition of things which ought to be impossible. In every district the half-holiday is of infinitely greater importance if it is a universal half-holiday in the district. We ought to avoid separate days for separate shops if possible. As the Clause stands the shopkeeper will always have the option of selecting Saturday for some other day or some other day for Saturday, but unless we can get a majority to fix a day then, in addition to the option about Saturday, each individual shopkeeper will be left to select his own day, to the great confusion and detriment to the value of the holiday in that district. The effect of my Amendment is that the local authorities shall fix a day. But the consequential Amendment of mine says that before they do fix it they shall ascertain the wishes of the occupiers of the shops to be affected by the order as to the date to be fixed, and if the majority do not agree the local authorities shall select a day. I think that is the best way of securing a day convenient to the great majority of shopkeepers, and if opinion is so divided that no majority can be obtained for any one day, then the local authority must exercise their judgment.
  Mr. HELME: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. This matter was very fully debated in Committee, and the Committee agreed that on the whole the best system was that which is adopted in the Bill. If this Amendment were adopted the local
  1812
  authority would have to make an order in every town for every shop in England and Wales and with all the apparatus.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: That is not what I intended.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The system of the Bill is quite a simple one. In the prescribed manner in any trade when the local authority find that the majority want a universal closing day in that trade the local authority may make the order. Where in any trade the shopkeepers are so divided in their minds as to which would be the best day to give a weekly half-holiday that a majority cannot agree on the day then they fix their own day. That is the elasticity which the Committee thought, at the request of the shopkeepers, was necessary if the weekly half-holiday was to be granted. I would ask the House to support me.
  Mr. HELME: I would impress on the Government the necessity of endeavouring to meet the traders of the country in endeavouring to secure as far as possible a universal half-holiday. Traders will be placed in a very difficult position indeed if the so-called half-holiday only applied to a number of shops in one street, and if the shops in the next street were open it would practically destroy the securing of the half-holiday in this particular trade. Traders desire to meet their assistants, and we should have regard to the interests of the shopkeepers.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment for this reason, if no other—there is very little liberty left under this Bill, and this piece is one of the remnants. I submit to the good sense of the House that it is manifestly absurd, if trades of this kind cannot agree, to think that the local authority is the least bit in the world entitled to impose its will upon them. The local authority is made up of all sorts of constituent elements, and it is not likely to be acquainted with the needs of particular trades. I submit that the Bill should not be so altered as to interfere with this remnant of liberty.
  Mr. GRETTON: This is another instance of how hon. Members opposite try to compel people to do what they themselves prescribe should be done, and they will not allow others to know what is good for them. The seconder of the Amendment used an argument which seemed to me to destroy the whole case. He begged the

  1813
  House to accept the Amendment because it was the almost universal desire of the shopkeepers of the country to have one particular day for the half-holiday. But outside this Clause there is already power to deal with the matter, and to compel them to do what the Amendment suggests would defeat the very object of the Bill. I hope hon. Members opposite will not pursue these matters which have been already threshed out in Committee, and that they will allow us to make progress with the Bill.
  Mr. T. DAVIES: I think the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would greatly facilitate the securing of the half-holiday. There is nothing so objectionable as to have so many different localities choosing different days, because it operates detrimentally to the trades and to individuals. It would be far better set out in the Bill exactly what is meant, and everybody would fall in with it, and the Act would work more smoothly than it would if the Bill passes as it at present stands.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I beg to support the hon. Member's Amendment dealing with the weekly half-holiday. Experience shows that nothing is more difficult than to get a large number of shopkeepers to agree. Different districts stand out from the rest, but if we establish a common principle, it would really facilitate the object in view. I sincerely hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "made and revocable in like manner and subject to the like procedure and conformation as closing orders hereinafter mentioned."
  At the end of the Sub-section, insert the words "and that no such order shall be made unless the local authority, after making such inquiry as may be prescribed, are satisfied that the occupiers of a majority of each of the several classes of shops affected by the order approve the order, and any such order may be revoked in like manner and subject to the like approval."
  In Sub-section (6), after the word "mourning" ["public rejoicing or mourning"], insert the words "and that day is not the day fixed for the weekly half-holiday."
  In Sub-section (7), leave out the words "Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act."
  Leave out the word "Third" ["Third Schedule"], and insert instead thereof the word "Second."—[Mr Masterman.]
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7), to add the words,
  "but the local authority may, by order made and revocable in like manner as closing orders, extend the provisions of this Section to shops of any class exempted under this provision if satisfied that the occupiers of at least two-thirds of the shops of that class approve the Order.
  "(8) The power under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, to fix a closing hour earlier than seven o'clock shall cease to have effect, and any closing order which is in force at the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it fixes an hour earlier than seven o'clock for any shop to which this Section applies."
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should like to hear why it is necessary to do away with Orders made under the Act of 1904. I believe there are very many of those Orders. It is a great pity to interfere with them through this Bill, unless there is some reason for it which I do not understand.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The object of the Orders hitherto made under this Act has been to make the weekly half-holiday, but certainly no time was proposed in the Act. We propose to make the Order universal for a fixed hour.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: May I point out that there may be Orders affecting trades which are excluded under the Schedule, and whatever existing Orders there are to be cancelled, it may well be, under the provisions of the Schedule, that there are particular trades which have been excluded.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there are any Orders of that class, but if there are they ought to be exempted.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able later to make provisions in respect of this point.
  Mr. MASTERMANindicated assent.
  Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power to Make Closing Orders.)
  CLAUSE 11.—(Procedure for Making Closing Orders.)
    CLAUSE 12.—(Confirmation of Closing Orders.)
    Amendments made: Leave out Clauses 10, 11, and 12.—[Mr. Masterman.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Local Inquiries for the Purpose of Promoting and Facilitating Early Closing.)
(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State, on the representation of the local authority or otherwise, that it is expedient to ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for early closing in any locality and to promote and facilitate the making of a closing order therein, the Secretary of State may appoint a competent person to hold a local inquiry.
(2) If after holding such an inquiry and conferring with the local authority it appears to the person holding the inquiry that it is expedient that a closing order should be made, he shall prepare a draft order and submit it to the Secretary of State together with his report thereon.
(3) If the Secretary of State, after considering the draft order and report and any representations which the local authority may have made in respect thereof, is of opinion that it is desirable that a closing order should be made, he may communicate his decision to the local authority, and thereupon there shall be deemed to be a primâ facie case for making a closing order in accordance with the terms of the draft order, subject to such modifications (if any) as the Secretary of State may think fit.
(4) The person who held the inquiry shall, if so directed by the Secretary of State on the application of the local authority, assist and co-operate with the local authority in taking the steps required by this Act as preliminary to making the order.
(5) The remuneration of persons holding local inquiries under this Section, and all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Act, to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to move to leave out Clause 13.
The subject of this Clause was dealt with very fully in the general discussion which preceded the Amendments on the Paper. I dislike Clause 13 very much indeed, and if it is to stand in its present form I shall divide the House upon the Amendment.
1816
The interference of the Secretary of State with local authorities I think would be practically intolerable, and lead to a great deal of friction. I object to the Clause as an interference with purely municipal matters, and as a very evil precedent, one of the worst, because it means the granting of public money for the purpose of propaganda work being done in the provinces. On all those grounds I have the very strongest objection to the Clause. The elimination of the words "or otherwise" would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to act except on the action of the local authority. That would perhaps be desirable, and if, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to assent to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End or the hon. Member for Croydon I should desire not to press this Motion, but to move it with the view to eliciting from him an expression of his intentions.
Mr. GRETTON: I beg to second the Amendment. The omission of the words indicated by my hon. and learned Friend would entirely alter the complexion of the Clause, and make it practically unobjectionable. There would be no unnecessary expenditure of public money on raids into local territory. I think the right hon. Gentleman went a long way to meet some of the objections that might be raised against that part of the Bill when he indicated that he would undertake on behalf of the Government, and I take it that his statement went so far as to say that no new appointment should be made, but that persons of an impartial character should perform these duties from time to time and receive their expenses, and no more. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon to leave out the words "or otherwise," then a great part of the objection to the Clause would be removed, and I, for one, would be prepared to accept that as being a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, rather than proceed with the Opposition.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I think the proposed Amendment takes the real vice out of the Clause. If we were apprehensive it was very largely due to the manner in which the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced this proposal in the House of Commons. He talked of those Gentlemen going about the country stimulating, propagating and exasperating public opinion. I think he used words like that. At any rate, they would have an irritating effect

1817
and cause general alarm. We do not want that sort of propagation about the country, and we think the proposal might seriously interfere with the performance of the duties of local authorities. My own view is still that if this is not very judiciously exercised it is more likely to tell against the objects of the Bill than in favour of them, because I am a believer in getting local authorities on the side of the law. If you proceed to irritate them by needless interference you set them against it, and you enable the interests that are opposed to you to gather strength, and there is a real danger of the opposite effect, to that which the drafters of the Clause thought, being brought about by such means as that. Whilst I think this removes the great vice of the Clause, I understand from the First Lord that no new officials are to be appointed to carry out the Clause. Under Sub-section (5) the remuneration is to be out of moneys provided by Parliament from the Treasury, but, if that is so, I do not see that extra expenditure is required, except, perhaps, for travelling expenses. If the officials are there, it must be a very small matter, and although it may not be necessary to eliminate Sub-section (5), we understand that it is not to be a big question, and that there are not to be those appointments of special missionaries to go about the country, who, although they may have some talent for speaking, are not likely, in my humble judgment, to lead to the simple conduct of the measure. Under those circumstances I hope, if the words be accepted and an assurance given that we are not going to have officials ad hoc appointed under this Clause, that the House will allow it to pass.
Mr. MASTERMAN: Let me reiterate the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, as representing the Home Office, that certainly the interpretation, as far as the question of officials is concerned, is a correct interpretation of the intentions of the Home Office. The intention, I think, all through was not to appoint an army of officials, or even any special officials specially concerned in this work. It was explained in the Committee upstairs that the kind of person who would be employed is the kind of person who at present is on the panel of the Board of Trade and makes similar inquiries in connection with trade matters. May I also say that it is with very great reluctance we face the suggestion made in this Amendment. There is no Clause in the whole Bill which
1818
has been more welcomed by the shopkeeping fraternity throughout every part of these islands than this Clause which was framed by my right hon. Friend. Every deputation we have had—and we have had about a hundred deputations representing every class of traders—first pressed for some such power as this and afterwards welcomed it when my right hon. Friend agreed to put it in the Bill. It was put in in the interests of traders themselves, because the traders have come again and again to us and said that although there may be an almost universal feeling in a town in favour of compulsory closing, yet that it is quite impossible to get members to leave their own business in order to make themselves, as they term it, busybodies, and act for public opinion. Therefore they did very greatly welcome the suggestion that on their representation some impartial man might be sent down from the central authority, not at very great expense, and not, as my hon. Friend correctly says, in most cases much beyond travelling expenses, to unite and bring them together and to present to the local authority the united demand of the traders. I do not know whether it is of any use making a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether, if we omit the words "or otherwise," he would be willing to allow the insertion of the words "representation of the local authority or any association of occupiers of shops that it is expedient." [HON. MEMBEES: "NO, no."] We are in his hands, and we will take his words in the matter. If even under those conditions, and realising, as I believe he does realise, that this is very greatly desired by the shopkeeping fraternity, he still thinks, speaking for his party, they are unable to accept it, then all we can say is we have done our best, and that we will be carrying out the pledge as to this bill being non-controversial.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I desire that the words "or otherwise" should go out. I do not at all understand the suggestion put forward by the Under-Secretary because he contemplated a case in which the majority, or a great number, of shopkeepers desire to fix an hour for closing. If that is the case, what possible difficulty can there be in those shopkeepers going to the local authority and saying, "A very large number of us are agreed on this point; pray move in the matter?" That is a perfectly easy thing to do. If you put in the words suggested by the

1819
Under-Secretary, "or other associations," you may have an association of three people who may represent nothing but who would be able, taking the point of view perhaps of some faddist in the district, to move the Home Office in the matter. I cannot think that that is a desirable thing. I reiterate what I said before, that if you wish to get those who contemplate early closing to act the first and most necessary thing to do is to get the local authority on your side. When you have got the local authority on your side the thing will very likely be done. There are conceivable cases—I do not think they are at all likely—where you may get a hot controversy between different tradesmen in the town. Such a case might embarrass the local authority, because if they were then to take up the question a large body of traders might say, "You are acting in a manner hostile to us." That would be a pity. Therefore I accept the compromise, proposed originally by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. W. Pearce), that the words "or otherwise" should come out. In the state of things which I contemplate as possible, but not likely, the local authority might not care themselves to act, but under this Clause, with the words "or otherwise" eliminated, it would be open to the local authority to go to the Home Office and ask for an impartial umpire to come down. That is a reasonable compromise, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I shall be glad to give it my support.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: The speech we have just heard would not have been delivered if the right hon. Gentleman had tried to get an early closing day amongst traders in various districts. If he had made that attempt he would have found that very often it is first suggested by some trader, and the very fact that a particular trader has suggested it means that the whole proposal will be upset. Over and over again when I have tried amongst pharmacists to arrange for an early closing day the great difficulty has been, "This has emanated from so-and-so." Local authorities have had power to make early closing orders since 1904. Why have they not been made? What you are doing now is simply telling local authorities that, instead of using the powers which they have had since 1904 and making their orders, they shall go to the Home Office and ask for an inquiry to be made in their own districts as to whether the orders shall be made. Unless a representation comes from the local authority
1820
nothing is to be done by way of stimulating early closing in a particular district. The whole value of this Clause is destroyed if you do not give someone other than the local authority the right to suggest that the machinery should be put in motion. It is suggested that you should leave it to individual traders. But in the past local jealousy has been the cause of preventing steps being taken. If two or three or more members of a particular trade go to a local authority and say, "We want a closing order," they can make it now. The point is, why will not the local authority make the order? The right hon. Gentleman says that they will not do it because they do not want to interfere in local jealousies. But under the present proposal they have to take action by going to the central authority, and I think they are no more likely to go to the central authority than they are to make orders. The suggestion of the Under-Secretary with reference to an association of traders would be an extremely valuable provision. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who all along have said, and I frankly accept their statement, that they are anxious for shopkeepers to have an early closing day, at any rate to allow the insertion of words enabling the central authority to be moved by a recognised association of traders in a particular locality.
3.0 P.M.
Mr. POINTER: I wish to make a suggestion with a view to getting agreement between the two sides. The objection to the Clause is that it will give an opening for busybodies to interfere, and I understand that the suggested Amendment of the Government is open to the same objection. I would, therefore, suggest that instead of the words "or otherwise" there should be inserted the words "or employers and assistants."
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What employers?
Mr. POINTER: Obviously the employers who are interested in the closing order.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: One employer and one assistant, or how many?
Mr. POINTER: I purposely left it open in order not to draw it too close for acceptance. I am not particular as to the number. The only point is that if employers and assistants are acting together they ought to be regarded as acting bonâ fide on behalf of the class.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I desire to support the suggestion just made. I agree with what has been said as to the inability at present to secure the closing of shops. We must face the fact that the present system has failed, and shops are not shut. It is the unanimous desire of the House to pass a Bill which will have a practical result. I believe that if we remain as we are, with the provisions of the old Act, we shall not secure that practical result, and shops will not be closed. I think the Government might accept some such compromise as that just made. It is difficult on the spur of the moment to suggest words to carry out the principle. But in most towns there are bodies representing the traders and the shop assistants, and I should be perfectly satisfied personally if those two bodies had power to invite such an inquiry as is suggested.
Mr. MALCOLM: If there be this great anxiety on the part either of employers or of assistants in a certain town for early closing, nothing is easier than for them to represent their desire to their own local authority, and the local authority can then take action. What seems intolerable is that associations from outside, even such as those suggested by the Under-Secretary, should be allowed to come in, and, usurping the place of the local authority, approach the Home Office. This objection is by no means confined to this side of the House. I remember that upstairs the hon. Member for Stepney was very much annoyed about this Clause. He said:—
"If this Bill was to be worked through a Government Department it would break down. It would only be successful as far as the local authority took it up and made it a success."
If the local authorities are to be stimulated by the activity of the Shop Assistants Union and the Early Closing Associations, which were two of those mentioned upstairs—and no doubt there are others on the employers' side—then I do say a great deal of power has been taken away from the local authority which ought to reside in it. I find myself also in agreement with what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney when he said he was much concerned with the attitude that the Government have taken up in regard to the local authorities. Here, he said, was a Liberal Government in power——
Mr. GLYN-JONES: Did I ever say that?
Mr. MALCOLM: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, I mean the Member for Bethnal Green. The hon. Member finally
1822
said—and here a great many of us find ourselves in agreement with him—
"To send down a paid official from Whitehall to undertake a roving inquiry independent, of the local people, is to go against the whole principle of representative government."
Those then really are the grounds on which we base our desire to take out the words "or otherwise." The First Lord of the Admiralty has made the position today clearer than it was made upstairs.
Mr. CHURCHILL: When?
Mr. MALCOLM: Then it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton. In any case it has been made clearer than upstairs in showing us the kind of gentleman who is to be sent down to undertake the local inquiry—if local inquiry there is to be. But leaving the question of a local inquiry to one side, the real charge and the grave objection we have to this is that this power is taken away perfectly obviously, from the local authority and put into the hands of any mere busybody who may be interested—or perhaps not altogether disinterested in the matter. I am sorry I cannot accept the invitation of the Under-Secretary to accept his words. I think the words, "or otherwise," must come out.
Mr. HELME: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's pointed out that there may be cases in which the local authority may hesitate to take action that would secure the shorter hours. I think the House is generally agreed that it is desirable, so far as possible, to have the holiday; consequently if the words "or otherwise" be left out——
Mr. MALCOLM: This is not the half-holiday. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has nothing to do with it."]
Mr. HELME: If other words can be introduced and some provision made for alternative machinery to secure the visit of this Government representative, both traders and assistants would be benefited, and so I think that we ought to try to find words to express that desire.
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: If it is not possible to accept the particular words in the Bill which may be too vague or wide, it should be possible to come to some agreement and a decision which would add some other meaning than to act only by the local authority. I have had in mind, during the course of the discussion, a particular

1823
instance in East London. That instance does not stand alone. It very often happens that the members of a small local authority feel a peculiar hesitation to take the first action in these matters. Perhaps as much as a fourth or a fifth of the local authority belong to one particular trade, and these gentlemen do not like to act; that is, to take the first step in acting. Even if it comes to a voluntary census, it may almost amount to the same thing. A voluntary census was undertaken in this particular district of East London to apply the Act of 1904. There was very great difficulty in getting any unanimity among the shopkeepers as to the line of action to be taken, although almost every individual shopkeeper when asked individually wished that some action should be taken. They had discussed it one with another, but one wanted one time and one another, and in consequence it was not possible for all to agree. Hence it was impossible to get common action upon which to go to the local authority. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End is possibly quite familiar with the difficulties in a case like that. We do not want to have machinery that no one can put in motion. We want to be able to act in those cases where the local authority hesitate to act.
Mr. CHURCHILL: In this matter I leave myself in the hands of the House, but I do venture to say this really is a serious matter. This proposal originated in the following way: when I received the various deputations, of which an account is to be found in this book—in the process of that long business—we found a unanimous opinion as to the failure of the Act of 1904, firstly, because of the lack of anyone outside to start the process, while, second only to that fact, was the fact that in a good many places the local authority had been quite unsympathetic. In some cases they hesitated for reasons which my hon. Friend has put forward. In other cases they were not sympathetic to early closing. A case was brought before me by the Hairdressers' Association which seemed to me to touch the high-water mark of disability. I do not propose to mention the name of the town because I have not got the actual references. But there were nineteen hairdressers in it, and sixteen agreed upon an Early Closing Order. They asked the local authority to take the necessary steps to make it effective. The local authority told them that they did not
1824
consider a case had been made out—that there was not sufficient public demand. That meant that the sixteen hairdressers were forced to continue at the hours the three insisted upon working. I am bound to say, without wishing to cast any slur upon our local authorities in the matter, that early closing should be helped in every way, and ought to be free from any trammels. It really is a matter of very great importance, but, as I say, I am in the hands of the House. But perhaps I might venture to suggest this alternative, following on the suggestion which came from below the Gangway, and that is that in Sub-section (1), the words "or otherwise" should be cut out, and that the following words might be inserted: "on a joint representation from a substantial number of occupiers and shop assistants."
Mr. MALCOLM: In the locality?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Why not make it a majority instead of a substantial number?
Mr. CHURCHILL: It is altogether a matter for inquiry.
Mr. DUKE: I hope the House will come to an agreement. It is quite obvious that there are difficulties in the way of setting up a scheme of early closing which are not overcome by the present Acts and as the local authority at the present time can act it does seem as though the existence of a local authority is not sufficient. Some of my hon. Friends on this side suggest that you might obtain security by a majority, or something of that kind, and that some confidence must be put in the discretion which is to be exercised by the Secretary of State. I cannot conceive myself that the Secretary of State will lightly interfere with the action of the local authority and with what is purely a local matter, or that he will act on any other grounds. I think the words the right hon. Gentleman has suggested meet the difficulties of the case.
Mr. T. DAVIES: I hope the House will agree to what is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I know the difficulty of trying to put the Act of 1904 into operation. Individual members of the local authority might be agreed, but it was the greatest difficulty to get them together to deal with this matter.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The expression "locality" means nothing as a Parliamentary

1825
phrase. I presume the right hon. Gentleman means the local government area or the local authority area.
Mr. MALCOLM: With this necessary alteration, I should gladly support the Amendment. There is only one thing I would like to add, and that is, I think, the right hon. Gentleman might consider how we are going to interpret the word "substantial." It must not, of course, be vexatious. I understand the interpretation will be made by the Secretary of State. That being so, if we could get a scientific definition I should be happy. If we could have that all of us would gladly accept the Amendment.
Captain JESSEL: How do you propose to deal with London? The local authority under this Bill is the London County Council, and it would be very difficult to ascertain the views of the shopkeepers in so great an area. Why not make the borough councils the local authority?
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I think my hon. Friend will find that the word "substantial" is a term that can be construed without very much difficulty. If the Secretary of State were to grant an inquiry without having substantial support, a writ of prohibition might be granted to prevent him holding such an inquiry. I think, on the whole, although perhaps we should prefer a more exact expression, such as one-third, I would not press the matter if the House takes the word substantial. I really think that does meet the difficulty that will arise, and I think that it is very rarely that a local authority would not respond to the wishes of a sufficient number of ratepayers. There may be isolated cases here and there. I should advise my hon. Friends to accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to leave out the Clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or otherwise," and insert instead thereof the words "on a joint representation from a substantial number of occupiers and shop assistants in the area of the local authority."?—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Revocation of Closing Order.)
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Supplemental Provisions.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Provisions as to Trading Elsewhere than in Shops.)
  Subject to any provisions contained in a closing order, it shall not be lawful in any locality to carry on in any place not being a shop retail trade or business of any class, on any day or at any time when it would be unlawful in that locality to keep a shop open for the purposes of retail trade or business of that class, and if any person carries on any trade or business in contravention of this Section this Act shall apply as if he were the occupier of a shop and the shop were being kept open in contravention of this Act:
  Provided that—

  (a) this prohibition shall not apply where the retail trade or business is carried on in a place, not being a shop, merely as ancillary or incidental to some other business (not being retail trade or business) and does not form a substantial part of that business; and

  (b) nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing a barber or hairdresser from attending a customer in the customer's residence, or the holding of an auction sale of private effects in a private dwelling-house; and

  (c) nothing in this Section shall apply to the sale of newspapers.

  Amendments made: Leave out the words "this Act" ["in contravention of this Section this Act shall apply"], and insert instead thereof the words "the Shops Regulations Acts, 1892 to 1911."
  Leave out the words "this Act" ["in contravention of this Act"], and insert instead thereof the words "those Acts."
  Leave out paragraph "(a)."
  Leave out paragraph "(b)," and insert instead thereof "(a)."
  Leave out paragraph "(c)," and insert instead thereof paragraph "(b)."—[Mr. Churchill.]

  CLAUSE 16.—(Provisions as Respects Shops where more than One Business is Carried on.)
  (1) Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop, and any of those trades or businesses is of such a nature that if it were the only trade or business carried on in the shop the shop, would be exempt from any provision of this Act or from a closing order, the

  1827
  exemption shall apply to the shop so far as the carrying on of that trade or business is concerned, subject, however, to such conditions as may be imposed by regulations made by the Secretary of State or by the closing order.
  (2) Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop, no such trade or business shall, for the purpose of determining the majority under this Part of this Act, be considered as carried on in the shop unless the occupier of the shop satisfies the local authority that such trade or business forms a substantial part of the business carried on in the shop.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "any provision of this Act or from a closing order," and insert instead thereof the words "the obligation to be closed on the weekly half-holiday."
  Leave out the words "imposed by regulations made by the Secretary of State or by the closing order," and insert instead thereof the word "prescribed."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Mr. POINTER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "no" ["carried on the same shop no such trade or business shall"].
  Certain small shopkeepers feel they are likely to suffer at the hands of the local authority in determining what their particular trade is. I then proposed to leave out all the rest of the Section and insert the Amendment on the Paper. As the Clause stands, if there is a dispute between the shopkeeper and the local authority the burden is put upon the owner of the shop to prove to the local authority that the particular trade he carries on in one shop, if he has more than one, is his principal business. The object of the Amendment is to put the onus on the local authorities of proving the position, and the shopkeeper is to be allowed to state which is his principal business, and if the local authority has no suspicion that the shopkeeper is deceiving them or doing anything shady he is to be allowed to do this. If they think it is not correct the local authority has the power of challenging the matter. In the Clause the shopkeeper is compelled to make a statement proving certain things, and the Amendment is to the effect that that statement, unless it is suspected, shall be allowed to go unchallenged. At the end of the Amendment there is an option to which I do not attach very much importance, because I believe it is already provided for. There was a fear on the
  1828
  part of shopkeepers that the various provisions did not state that every shop, big and little, would have a vote. I put that in to safeguard my petition. I believe it is provided for, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on the point as to whether or not every shop, big and little, has the right to vote in the case of a closing order.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment. I am not quite sure whether this Amendment is necessary at all, but I would like to have an opportunity of considering the point between this and the stages in the House of Lords.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), leave out the words "the majority under this Part of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "a majority under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911."

  CLAUSE 17.—(Provision of Seals for Female Attendants.)
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  CLAUSE 18.—(Ventilation and Sanitary Conveniences.)
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Part IV.
  GENERAL.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Powers and Duties of Local Authorities.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to enforce within the district the provisions of this Act and of the orders made thereunder, and for that purpose to institute and carry on such proceedings in respect of failures to comply with or contraventions of this Act and the orders made thereunder as may be necessary to secure the observance thereof, and to appoint inspectors, and an inspector so appointed shall, for the purposes of his powers and duties, have in relation to shops all the powers conferred in relation to factories and workshops on inspectors by Section one hundred and nineteen of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and that Section and Section one hundred and twenty-one of the same Act shall apply accordingly, and an inspector may, if so authorised by the local authority, institute and carry on any proceedings under this Act on behalf of the authority.
    (2) Every local authority shall send to the Secretary of State before the first day of March in each year a report containing the prescribed particulars with respect to the administration of this Act in their district during the year ending on the preceding thirty-first of December.
    (3) A local authority for the purposes of this Act means—
    as respects any municipal borough, the borough council;
    as respects any urban district with a population of twenty thousand or upwards, the district council;
    elsewhere the county council.
    (4) The expenses of a local authority under this Act shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be defrayed—
    in the case of the London County Council, as expenses for general county purposes;
    in the case of any other county council, as expenses for special county purposes;
    in the case of a borough council, out of the borough fund or borough rate;
    in the case of an urban district council, as part of the general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts.
    (5) Any two or more local authorities may combine for any of the purposes of this Act, and may for that purpose appoint a joint committee in accordance with Section eighty-one of the Local Government Act, 1888, and accordingly that Section shall apply to all local authorities in like manner as to county councils.
    Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "this Act" ["the provisions of this Act"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911."
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain this Amendment. As the Bill came down from the Committee, there was no reference to any other authority, and Section 19 made it quite clear what authorities were to administer this Act. This Amendment substitutes for the words "this Act" the comprehensive phrase "the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911." A further Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman goes on to provide,
    (2) A local authority for the purposes of this Act and of the Shop Hours Act, 1892, shall be the same as a local authority for
    1830
    the purposes of the Shop Hours Act, 1901, and the expenses of all local authorities under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses of local authorities under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, are defrayed.
    Really we cannot find out what are the authorities under the Act of 1904, and if these are to be the authorities under this Act why not state what they are instead of referring back in this way. The Amendments provide that the authorities under the 1892 Act and the 1904 Act and this Act shall be the same authorities. Under the 1892 Act the authorities are the council of any county or borough, and in the city of London the common council; therefore you have got as far as London is concerned the county council and the city corporation. Outside London the authority will be the borough council or the county council. I think that is fairly clear as far as the 1892 Act is concerned. Then there is the 1904 Act to which we are now referred, and this is the Section which will tell us what are to be the authorities to administer this Act and the 1892 Act. In the 1904 Act the expression local authority means in London outside the city the Metropolitan borough council, and elsewhere an urban district with a population according to the census of 1901 of 20,000, and any council or other authority having power to appoint inspectors under the Act of 1892. We are first of all in this Act referred to 1904 and then to 1892, and the effect of it is that for the purpose of the 1904 Act any authority which had power to appoint inspectors under the 1892 Act shall be the authority under the 1904 Act. Under the 1892 Act the county council had power to appoint inspectors, and so did the urban district council, and under this 1911 Act you are going to say that the same people are to have those powers. I am quite unable myself, in reading this Section, to find out who are the authorities. Why not state exactly what is meant by the authorities in this Bill. If there is no reason why we should go all round in this way let us stick to the words in the Bill as it came down from the Grand Committee.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I think if this Bill passed into law in the form in which it is now it would be one of the worst on the Statute Book. The Bill is going to another place, and clarifying Amendments can be introduced there. I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Stepney has said, but may I point out

    1831
    that in practice the difficulties are not so formidable. The county council, under the old Act, did appoint officers for the purpose of inspection. Under the Act of 1904 borough councils only have to make inquiries with a view to closing orders being approved, and they made inquiries through the officers of the present council. Westminster did that, and this was the case with the borough of Stepney, and no additional appointments were required, and there was no increase of staff for the purpose. But now we are having the double authority. The County Council of London and the borough councils are brought in for the first time. When this Bill goes to another place the thing ought to be dove-tailed instead of making this legislation by reference, because there cannot be anything worse than that. This is to be a popular Bill to be "understanded of the people," and the more explicit the Statute is the better. Now that the opportunity has occurred and this Bill is going elsewhere there will be time to clear up the doubts and make this provision as clear as it can be, and this will be not only to the advantage of the traders but to the advantage of the local authorities as well.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This difficulty arises owing to the fact that the Bill is not any longer a Consolidation Bill. We have left out all the consolidation part of the Bill, and, therefore, we are bound to refer to the authorities who are charged with these powers under various other Acts. I do think there are great advantages from the point of view of drafting to have the authorities who are charged with the administration of the Act carefully and plainly stated upon the face of the Bill. I could not do it now, but I will have it most carefully considered with a view of seeing whether the wish of the House cannot be met by introducing a clear definition in another place.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether what he is going to get embodied in his Act will be the authorities specified in Clause 19. That is what we want here.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: And the purposes for which they act.
    Question, "That the words 'this Act' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words "The Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911" there inserted.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "this Act" ["contraventions of this Act,"] and insert instead thereof the words "those Acts."
    Leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (5), and insert instead thereof the following new Sub-section,
    (2) A local authority for the purposes of this Act and of the Shop Hours Act, 1892, shall be the same as a local authority for the purposes of the Shop Hours Act, 1904, and the expenses of all local authorities under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses of local authorities under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, are defrayed. Provided that for the purposes of all the said Acts the local authority in London outside the City shall be the London County Council.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
    A county council may delegate to the council of any urban or rural district, not being a local authority within the meaning of the Shop Hours Act, 1904, its powers as a local authority under this Act within the area of such urban or rural district council.
    Where powers are delegated hereunder the expenses of any local authority to which such powers are delegated shall be defrayed in like manner as the general expenses of such local authority.
    I think it is pretty clear what a local authority is as defined by the Act of 1904. In London, outside the City, it means the Metropolitan borough council, and elsewhere the council of an urban district council, which, by the Census of 1901, has a population of 20,000. It will be observed the smallest unit of local management is an urban district of 20,000 souls. Everything less than that will be thrown upon the county council, and the inspectors will have to be appointed by the county council. The work will have to be done by the county councils, and the expenses will have to be borne by the county rates. There are an enormous number of places where the work could not only be better done locally, but where it ought to be done locally, and the expense of it borne

    1833
    locally, and not put upon the county rates. It must be manifest it will be more convenient that the inspector should be appointed by the authority which has charge of the locality. The powers of delegation which I propose by the Amendment are similar to those which have been created under the 1904 Act. The local authority is defined by the Clause, and I ask for powers of delegation by the county council to smaller local authorities, and that where there is such delegation the smaller local authority shall bear the expense as if it were the local authority.
    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to second the Amendment. It is one of a very important character, and has been very strongly urged by the representatives of the local authorities. The inconvenience of confining delegation to those districts only which have 20,000 inhabitants by the Census of 1901 will be found, in practice, to be very great, and may cause a very great deal of dissatisfaction and some friction. Only this morning I came across the legal adviser of one of these local bodies, and he told me that in Kent there are several of these districts where there ought to be the power of delegation for the administration of the Shop Hours Act. It would greatly facilitate getting closing orders which has been so very much urged. At a later stage the right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out Clause 32, which excepts certain parishes in rural districts. He has provided no machinery for the administration of this Act in rural districts except the county council, no matter how numerous the population, how wide the county may be from one end to the other. It is clearly necessary there should be these powers of delegation to the local authority. I quite agree there has been no time for the expert advisers to give an exact legal construction of some of the Amendments, but I think, at any rate, we might agree on the principle of the power of delegation in addition to the powers which already exist in the Acts of 1902 and 1904, and insert that in the Bill. If it is a mere matter of drafting, that at any rate could be put right in another place.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I agree with the substance of the proposal. I think there should be power of delegation and that that power of delegation should operate not only outside, but also inside London in the case of the Metropolitan boroughs, if desirable. To achieve that object the Amendment, I think, should be made in
    1834
    the next Clause, which I had proposed to leave out, but to meet the point raised by the hon. Member I will not move to omit Clause 20; I will instead move an Amendment which will give effect to the purpose he has in view.
    Mr. DUKE: I take it there will be no delegation without the consent of those to whom the authority is delegated. Some authorities may not care to have it.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I hope power will be retained for the central authority to frame general regulations.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: There are similar powers of delegation given under Clause 20, which contains what seems to me to be a very valuable provision. I think that should be retained.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Delegation, of Powers of County Councils.)
    (1) A county council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements with the council of an urban district in the county, with a population of less than twenty thousand, for the exercise by the council of that district, as agents for the county council, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed on, of any powers of the county council under this Act within the district, and the council of the district may as part of the agreement undertake to pay the whole or any part of the expenses incurred in connection with the exercise of the powers delegated to them.
    (2) The London County Council may, with the like approval, make similar arrangements with the Common Council of the City of London, or with the council of any Metropolitan borough, and, if any such arrangement is made, any expenses which the authority to whom the powers are delegated undertake to pay shall be defrayed, in the case of the Common Council, out of the general rate, and in the case of Metropolitan borough councils, as part of the expenses of the council.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "this Act" ["council under this Act"] and insert instead thereof the words "The Shop Hours Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "City of London."
    Leave out the words "which the authority to whom the powers are delegated

    1835
    undertake to pay shall be defrayed, in the case of the Common Council, out of the general rate, and in the case of Metropolitan borough councils as part of the expenses of the council," and insert instead thereof the words "which the Metropolitan borough councils undertake to pay as part of the expenses."

    CLAUSE 21.—(Enforcement of Duties of Local Authorities.)
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Offences.)
    (1) If a shop assistant is employed contrary to the provisions of this Act, or is not allowed times for meals as required by this Act, or if any room in which seats are required to be provided for shop assistants the shop assistants are not allowed the reasonable use of such seats, the occupier of a shop shall be guilty of an offence against this Act unless—

    (a) in the case of a shop assistant employed after the time fixed as the time at "which his employment or spell of employment is to end, he proves that the shop assistant was employed merely for the purpose of serving a customer whom he was serving at that time, or that the time so fixed coincided with the time of the closing of the shop and that the shop assistant was employed merely for the purpose of serving customers who were in the shop at that time; and

    (b) in the case of an offence which is an offence only by reason of the shop assistant being also employed in some other shop, he proves that he did not know that he was employed in such other shop.

    (2) If a shop is kept open in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder, the occupier of the shop shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
    Provided that the occupier of a shop shall not be guilty of an offence against this Act when a customer is served at any time at which the shop is required to be closed if he proves either that the customer was in the shop before the time when the shop was required to be closed or that there was reasonable ground for believing that the article supplied to the customer was required in the case of illness.
    (3) If the occupier of a shop contravenes or fails to comply with any of the other provisions of this Act or the orders made thereunder, he shall, except when the contravention, of or failure to comply with those provisions is deemed to be a nuisance, be guilty of an offence against this Act.
    (4) Where an offence for which the occupier of a shop is liable under this Act has, in fact, been committed by some manager, agent, servant, or other person, the manager, agent, servant, or other person, shall be liable to the like penalty as if he were the occupier.
    (5) A person guilty of an offence against this Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding—

    (a) in the case of a first offence, one pound;

    (b) in the case of a second offence, five pounds; and

    (c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, twenty pounds.

    (6) If the occupier of a shop is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled, on information duly laid by him, to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for the hearing of the charge, and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the occupier proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act, and of the orders made thereunder, and that that other person has committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, that other person shall be summarily convicted of the offence, and the charge against the occupier shall be dismissed, and the person so convicted shall, in the discretion of the Court, be also liable to pay any costs incidental to the proceedings.
    (7) Where it is made to appear to the satisfaction of a local authority at the time of discovering an offence—

    (a) that the occupier of the shop has used all due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act; and

    (b) by what person the offence has been committed; and

    (c) that it has been committed without the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the occupier, and in contravention of his orders;

    the local authority shall proceed against the person whom they believe to be the

    1837
    actual offender without first proceeding against the occupier of the shop.
    (8) All offences under this Act shall be prosecuted, and all fines under this Act shall be recovered, in like manner as offences and fines are prosecuted and recovered under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and Sections one hundred and forty-three to one hundred and forty-six of that Act, and so much of Section one hundred and forty-seven thereof as relates to evidence respecting the age of any person, shall have effect as if re-enacted in this Act, and in terms made applicable thereto:
    Provided that—

    (a) all fines imposed in any proceedings instituted by or on behalf of a local authority in pursuance of their powers and duties under this Act shall be paid to the local authority and carried to the credit of the fund out of which the expenses incurred by the authority under this Act are defrayed:

    (b) proceedings in respect of serving customers, other than persons of the Jewish religion, in a shop allowed by this Act to be kept open on Sunday as being a shop in the occupation of a person of that religion shall not be instituted except by the local authority or an inspector on their behalf, and the local authority shall not institute any such proceedings unless satisfied that customers (other than persons of the Jewish religion) have been habitually so served on Sunday:

    (c) an inspector when reporting any contravention or non-compliance on the part of the occupier of a shop shall give notice in writing to the occupier of the acts or omissions constituting the contravention or non-compliance, and such notice shall be given not later than one month after the date on which the offence comes to the knowledge of the inspector.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), leave out the words "time so fixed" ["or that the time so fixed"], and insert instead thereof the words "that time." Leave out paragraph (b).
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder," and insert instead thereof the words "on the weekly half-holiday."
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "except where the contravention of or failure to comply with those provisions is deemed to be a nuisance."
    In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "The Shops Regulation Acts 1892 to 1911."
    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), paragraph (c), to leave out the word "twenty,' and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
    This matter was argued very strongly in Committee. I think the retention of the higher figure will only arouse hostility to the Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will accept that Amendment.
    Question, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Word "ten" there inserted.
    Leave out Subsections (6) and (7), and insert instead thereof the following Subsection,
    (6) The provisions of the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, relating to offences and proceedings shall apply as if re-enacted in this Act and in terms made applicable thereto, and as if references to the occupier of a shop were substituted for references to the employer of a young person.
    In Sub-section (8), leave out the words "Provided that."
    In Sub-section (8), paragraph (a), leave out the words "this Act" ["duties under this Act"] and insert instead thereof the words "The Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911." Leave out the words "this Act" ["authority under this Act"] and insert instead thereof the words "those Acts." Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

    CLAUSE 23.—(Local Inquiries.)
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Proof of Closing Orders, etc.)
    (1) A closing order, or order made in like manner as a closing order, may be proved by the production of a copy thereof certified to be a true copy by a person purporting to be the clerk of the local authority by whom the order was made.
    (2) Any scheme approved in respect of an exhibition under this Act may be proved by the production of a copy thereof, certified to be a true copy by an Under-Secretary of State or an Assistant Under-Secretary of State.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "A closing order, or order made in like manner as a closing order," and insert "Any order made by a local authority under the Shops Regulation Acts 1892 to 1911."—[Mr. Gretton.]
    Leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Churchill.]

    CLAUSE 25.—(Regulations.)
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Application to Post Office Business.)
    (1) Where Post Office business is carried on in any shop in addition to any other business, this Act shall apply to that shop subject to the following modifications:—

    (a) So far as relates to the transaction of Post Office business—

    (i.) the provisions of this Act relating to the closing of shops on Sunday shall not apply to that shop; and

    (ii.) no closing order made by a local authority shall apply to that shop:

    (b) If the shop is a telegraph office Part II. of this Act shall not apply to the shop so far as relates to the transaction of Post Office business thereat:

    (c) Where the Postmaster - General certifies that the exigencies of the postal service require that Post Office business should be transacted in any such shop at times when under the provisions of this Act relating to the weekly half-holiday the shop would be required to be closed, or under conditions not authorised by this Act, the shop shall for the purpose of the transaction of Post Office business be exempted from the provisions of this Act to such extent as the Postmaster-General may certify to be necessary for the purpose:

    Provided that in such cases the Postmaster-General shall make the best arrangements that the exigencies of the postal service allow with
    1840
    a view to the conditions of employment of the persons employed being on the whole not less favourable than those secured by this Act.
    (2) Save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act shall apply to Post Office business, or to any premises in which Post Office business is transacted.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out paragraph (a).
    In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "Part II. of this Act," and insert the words "the obligation to close on the weekly half-holiday."—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Application to Sale of Medicines etc.)
  CLAUSE 28.—(Special Provisions with Respect to Undertakers.)
  Question, "That Clauses 27 and 28 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 29.—(Supply of Necessaries to Ships.)
Nothing in this Act shall prevent customers from being served at a time when the shop in which they are sold is required to be closed under Part II. of this Act, or on Sunday, with victuals, stores, or, other necessaries for a ship, on her arrival at or before her departure from a port, or shall prevent a shop assistant from serving customers as aforesaid at a time when the shop is closed, notwithstanding that he may be employed for the purpose contrary to the provisions of Part I. of this Act, if within a fortnight from being so employed he is allowed an equivalent reduction in his hours of employment.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 29.
4.0 P.M.
My argument is that this Clause provides an entirely unnecessary loophole of exemption from the early closing provisions. It is quite a mistake to suppose that we are making early closing compulsory for all shops. When the House looks at the exemptions in the Second Schedule dealing with the provisions as to early closing, they will see it is unnecessary to have this third exemption in Clause 29. Clause 29 provides that in the event of a ship entering port on an early closing day anyone may get exemption so long as they are asked to supply necessaries for the ship "on her arrival at or before her departure from" the port. I suppose that means, in plain English, that anyone in a seaport town who goes into a shop and

1841
says, "I want something which is necessary for a ship," is entitled to get it and that that shop is entitled to keep open on the early closing day for the purpose of providing those necessaries. What possible check can you have in practice in a district of that sort? A man goes into a shop, and says, "I want something for a ship." The Clause says it must be for a ship before her departure from a port. Who is likely to go for the necessaries after she has gone? I do not see the value of the words "before her departure." If it said, "immediately before her departure" it would be better. I suppose that what was in the minds of the draftsmen was that you might have a ship getting into Cardiff early on the closing day and going out before the early closing day was over, but one answers that by saying that if the ship is there, it will be before her departure. Apart from that, what is the good of enacting exemptions such as these? Let the House see what anybody may get. There is intoxicating liquors. I do not suggest they would be wanted for the ship. Exemption is given for the sale of refreshments, including the business carried on at the railway refreshment room, for the sale of motor, cycle, and aircraft supplies and accessories, newspapers and periodicals, meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers and other articles of a perishable nature. All these things are outside the present compulsory early closing day provisions and anybody may obtain these whether they want them for a ship or not. Why you want to throw an obligation on the shopowner in a seaport to say, "I cannot supply you unless you assure me that what you ask for is necessary for the ship," I do not know. The provision is quite unnecessary; it is another loophole to enable people who want to take advantage of their law-abiding competitors to escape the obligation of the early closing day. Seeing that the Second Schedule is unfortunately so wide, I ask the House to say there is no need for this extra exemption.
Mr. HINDS: I beg to Second the Amendment.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Now that the Bill has shrunken from its original dimensions to such a very small size, I am bound to say that the dangers against which this provision was designed to guard are very remote, and only very peculiar circumstances would call them into existence. I
1842
do not think the provision can now be said to be practically necessary, and after the speech of my hon. Friend, which I think was very convincing and quite well-founded, if it is the will of the House I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment.
Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that he is now First Lord of the Admiralty. There are other things required for the sea than those mentioned in the Schedule. Ships want stores. What the Clause is wanted for now is the case of a ship which comes into a port on an early closing Saturday, let us say a coasting vessel, she wants oil for her lights and cordage to replace that which has been carried away, and ship's stores of that kind. They may find every shop closed, and the vessel may have to lie in port till Monday morning and thus lose part of her voyage, because the lack of stores prevents her from proceeding. This is a serious matter for the sea-coast, but a small matter from the general point of view of the Bill. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the ways of the sea are not the ways of the land. Tide and time wait for no man. Considerations of that kind should be taken into account in order to make it a practical measure, so that it will not prevent the shops supplying the smaller necessaries required for ships. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to stand by the decision of the Committee and not give way to what seems to be very weak and unnecessary sentiment in the matter.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Without improving on the romantic eloquence of the hon. Gentleman I want to make a practical suggestion that the First Lord should keep the Clause in and see in another place whether it can be amended so as to provide for an exceptional case. There is a grave danger in taking it out altogether, though I agree generally with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: To give a practical instance, if a fleet of smacks comes in on a weekly half-holiday and wants to purchase gear the whole fleet is held up for a day, and if it is a Saturday they are held up till some time on Monday morning, which may be a very serious matter.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made: Leave out the words "under Part II. of this Act, or on Sunday."
Leave out the words "or shall prevent a shop assistant from serving customers as aforesaid at a time when the shop is closed, notwithstanding that he may be employed for the purpose contrary to the provisions of Part I. of this Act, if within a, fortnight of being so employed he is allowed an equivalent reduction in his hours of employment.—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Saving for Travelling Auctioneers.)
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 31.—(Saving for Exhibitions, Fairs, and Bazaars.)
(1) Where retail trade is or is intended to be carried on in an exhibition, if it is established to the satisfaction of the local authority that such retail trade is subsidiary or ancillary only to the main purpose of the exhibition, the local authority shall, on application, grant a certificate of exemption to such exhibition, and on the grant of such certificate nothing in this Act shall apply to the exhibition if the exhibition is open for one month or less, or if the number of persons employed in the exhibition is twenty or less, provided that the retail trade carried on remains subsidiary or ancillary only to the main purpose of the exhibition.
(2) Where any such exhibition is intended to be open for more than one month or the number of persons employed in the exhibition will exceed twenty, the person organising the exhibition may submit to the Secretary of State a scheme requiring the provision for the persons employed as shop assistants in the exhibition of such intervals and accommodation for rest and refreshment, and of such sanitary conveniences, as may be specified in the scheme, and where the Secretary of State, after consulting the local authority for the area in which the exhibition is being or is intended to be held, approves the scheme, either with or without modifications, the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the exhibition; and if the employer of any persons employed as shop assistants in the exhibition contravenes any of the provisions of such a scheme he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and, in addition to any penalty imposed by the Court, the Secretary of State may order that the scheme shall cease to have effect, and upon any such order being made the provisions of this Act shall, so far as applicable, apply to the exhibition.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any fair lawfully held or any bazaar for charitable or other purposes from which no private profit is derived.
(4) An exhibition which proceeds from place to place and is open in all for a period exceeding one month shall be deemed to be open for more than one month for the purposes of this Section.
Amendment made: Leave out Subsections (1) and (2).—[Mr. Churchill.]
Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "bazaar" ["lawfully held or any bazaar"], to insert the words "or other sale of effects."
There are sales for charitable purposes which are not necessarily bazaars, and it seems to me that any sale of effects for a charitable purpose ought to be left out of the Bill.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have an opportunity of considering the Amendment. I will give instructions to have it considered in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (4).—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 32.—(Exclusion of Small Rural Parishes.)
(1) This Act, except such of the provisions thereof as require the closing of shops on Sunday, shall not extend to any rural parish with a population of less than one thousand:
Provided that where, by reason of the vicinity of such a parish to a borough or urban district, it is made to appear to the Secretary of State, on the application of the council of the county in which the parish is situate, or of the council of the borough or urban district in the vicinity of which it is situate, that it is expedient that this Act should extend to the parish, the Secretary of State may by order extend the provisions of this Act to that parish.
(2) Where it appears to the Secretary of State, on the application of the council of a county in which a rural parish with a population of one thousand or upwards is situate, that, owing to the dispersal of the population over the area of the parish and the character of the shops in the parish, it is expedient that the parish should be exempted from the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State may order that this Act, except such of the provisions there of

1845
as require the closing of shops on Sunday, shall not extend to that parish.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be left out."—[Mr. Churchill.]
Mr. GRETTON: There is a very important matter raised by this Clause, and it is one to which the House ought to give some consideration. The Clause proposes to exclude parishes with a population of less than a thousand from the operation of this Bill. The conditions in rural districts as to shops and the employment of shop assistants are different from those in the towns. A great number of shopkeepers do not employ any assistants at all. It was considered desirable in the Committee that this provision should be retained in the Bill, and now the right hon. Gentleman moves to leave it out. That is the course which he took with respect to the Irish Clause, and I raised no objection to what was done in that case. He has actually strengthened the Irish provisions. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state his reasons for proposing to leave out this Clause. It appears to me that if the reasons in support of the Clause were right when the Bill was before the Committee, they would operate quite as much when the Bill is before the House on Report, and I would like to know what has induced him to ask us to reject the Clause now. On what principle does he propose to include the whole of the rural districts? On account of the short notice that has been given of this Amendment, there has not been time to hear anything whatever from the country districts on the matter. We come down to the House to-day and find a number of Amendments on the Paper, and many of us know very little of their general effect. If we are in that position with respect to the Amendments, how can we expect people outside to know what the Government propose to do? I can assure the right hon Gentleman that he would have heard a great deal from the rural districts in regard to this matter if it had been known that they were to be included, because the Bill is entirely inapplicable to them.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gretton). I am sure it was not realised in villages that this Bill was intended to apply to every village. We all know that it cannot be applied there in the same way as in the towns. It seems to me that it would be most unfair to include rural parishes in
1846
this Bill without giving the people interested some opportunity of knowing how they are to be affected in the matter. It is a matter of general knowledge that not merely are the conditions healthier in the country districts, but that there is nothing like the same amount of strain by reason of continuous work in shops as you find in urban places. There was a proviso in the Clause as it originally stood providing for cases where there was anything in the way of competition between shopkeepers in a village and in a neighbouring town. Subject to that proviso, it seems to me that you have all you require in order to prevent the defeating of the purposes of the Bill. I feel sure that strong feeling will be expressed hereafter by the people of the villages if they are included in the Bill.
Mr. SNOWDEN(who was indistinctly heard): I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. The Home Secretary ought to bear in mind that there are many towns or villages in the country where the population does not exceed 1,000, but which, nevertheless, are shopping centres for large rural areas. In these small places there are large numbers of assistants who would be affected if these areas were excluded. I think that the assistants of shopkeepers in the country are just as entitled to a weekly half-holiday as the people who have the good fortune or the misfortune to live in a large centre of population. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who spoke against the Amendment had that before his mind, and I trust that the House will accept the proposal.
Mr. CHURCHILL: In the last Bill, in which we had the sixty hours' limit, of course it was necessary that this should not apply to rural districts, but now that there is only the question of the half-holiday, and that the half-holiday is expressed in a Clause which gives a power of contracting out, I cannot see that it is really worth while to have exemption for these rural districts, and I hope that the House will adhere to the proposal. The existing Shop Hours Acts are in force in all the small villages, and this is only an addition to that.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: This is a case where power ought to be retained of making exemptions in special cases, and I do not see that that is done under the Bill. Here, again, I agree that it would not be wise to exempt from the limited provisions of the Bill the rural and

1847
smaller parishes under this Clause, but why should not the Secretary of State have power to exclude when special circumstances exist? I should like to see this Clause inserted. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could object to that. The power could be exercised in that way, and I think it ought to be retained.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I hope that the Home Secretary will not reinstate this. If for no other reason than that if he puts this in the Bill you take outside its provisions all the shop assistants in the village. It may be said that there are not many shops, but there certainly will be a number of public-houses. The assistants are knocked out, and I am just as anxious for the assistant of the village public-house to have his half-day as anyone else.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It does not affect the assistants.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I hope that I am wrong, but as I read this Bill it would mean that none of the provisions of the Act would apply to a rural parish. I think we must delete this. If the shopkeepers in the village do not want the early closing day to apply, then, unfortunately, they have got enough exemption in the Act to enable them to contract out.
Mr. POINTER: It does appear to me that the House is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Under Schedule 2, how many shops will remain in these small places that will not be exempt already from the weekly half-holiday? Unless hon. Members opposite wish to take away the benefits of the Act entirely from these persons there is no point to be served at all by this Amendment. The sale of intoxicating liquors, refreshments, newspapers, periodicals, tobacco, confectionery, etc., are to be dealt with, and there will not be many shops left in the villages to be affected. But even if a little hardship is inflicted on a very few people, I think the right hon. Gentleman will be very well advised to leave things as they are.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will retain power in the Home Office?
Mr. CHURCHILL: As to whether there should be some dispensing power vested in the Secretary of State in regard to remote places, I will consider whether words cannot be brought up in another place
1848
making some exemption in the case of very small out-of-the-way rural places, but not so far as the assistants are concerned.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(Interpretation.)
(1) In this Act—
The expression "shop" includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on, except where such retail trade or business is carried on merely as ancillary or incidental to some other business (not being retail trade or business) and does not form a substantial part of that business;
The expression "retail trade or business" includes the business of a barber or hairdresser, the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises, and retail sales by auction;
The expression "shop assistant" means any person wholly or mainly employed in a shop in connection with the serving of customers or the receipt of orders or the dispatch of goods, but shall not include a person so employed—

(a) if he is the only person regularly employed in the shop and is a member of the family of the occupier of the shop, maintained by him, and dwelling in his house; or

(b) if he is the manager of the shop and the business carried on thereat is not personally conducted by the employer; or

(c) if he is casually or intermittently employed for not more than thirty hours in a week.

(2) For the purposes of this Act "population" shall be calculated according to the returns of the last published Census for the time being.
Sir J. GIBSON: I beg to move, in the first paragraph, to leave out the words "except where such retail trade or business is carried on merely as ancillary or incidental to some other business (not being retail trade or business), and does not form a substantial part of that business," and to insert instead thereof the words "but shall not include any part or parts of the premises coming under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901."
Mr. CHURCHILL: The provision cannot affect a shop so far as the shop is a factory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: Leave out the words "except where such retail trade or business is carried on merely as ancillary or incidental to some other business (not being retail trade or business), and does not form a substantial part of that business."
In the second paragraph, leave out the words "for consumption on or off the premises."
After the word "auction," at the end of the paragraph, insert the words "but does not include the sale of programmes and catalogues and other similar sales at theatres and places of amusement."—[Mr. Churchill.]
Sir JAMES GIBSON: I beg to more, in the third paragraph, to leave out the words "or the dispatch of goods."
I have received numerous letters on this subject, particularly from the representatives of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, and in reference to it the right hon. Gentleman was waited upon by a deputation at Dundee. To a deputation in Dundee the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"He considered there should be no difficulty, subject to the provisions of the Bill as to maximum hours, etc., in making separate arrangements as regards the hours of shop assistants who required to remain for the dispatch of goods."
The closing of the dispatch department at an early hour would be a very great inconvenience to those who receive orders for that day, and which the customers want on that day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to exclude from this portion of the Bill the dispatch of goods.
Mr. CHURCHILL: When I saw the deputation to which my hon. Friend referred the Bill was a very different Bill from the Bill we are dealing with to-day. It then included very elaborate provisions for the restriction and regulation of hours. Now everything has gone except the half-holiday. I am bound to say I do not see why a person should be deprived of his holiday merely because he happens to be employed mainly in the dispatch of goods instead of being mainly employed in serving in the shop and only partially employed in the dispatch of goods. This has
1850
nothing to do with the delivery of goods out of doors. The definition on page 25 was most carefully considered, and we really felt that this was the best way of expressing what we mean by shop assistant. I am afraid I cannot go the length of leaving out those engaged in the dispatch of goods. The separate packing department or persons engaged in the dispatch of goods can arrange one afternoon in the week, and whether that be so or not we ought not to narrow the definition of those persons who should be given the half-holiday.
Sir J. GIBSON: I am satisfied with the explanation that it can be so arranged that those men shall get the opportunity of taking holidays on another day, and I desire to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), "to leave out paragraph (a)."
In this case you have an exemption if the assistant is the only assistant employed, and if he is a member of the family. I am aware that in the Act of 1892 an exemption was made of members of the family in the case of young persons, and the only persons who are sweated under that Act are the members of the employer's family and the servants. That is no reason why that provision should be repeated now. Why should the occupier of a shop be exempted from giving his own son a weekly half-holiday and proper meal times? I cannot conceive why such an exemption is desired. If he is the only person regularly employed, he is in no different position from somebody else's son who is the only person regularly employed. Why the House should go out of its way to reserve to a father the right to deny the half-holiday and meal times to his son, I cannot conceive.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment, and in doing so to register a protest against the insinuation that Members on this side have not wished to secure shop assistants and shopkeepers a measure of recreation which we, just as much as hon. Members below the Gangway opposite hold that they require. If we took a different view in Grand Committee as to the means of securing that object, we were just as anxious as hon. Members opposite to effect it. I cordially agree with this Amendment. It seems to me that to except members of a family will

1851
lead to the greatest absurdities in practice. The area of the family will be increased to suit the purpose of the trade. Many people will become related to shopkeepers for the purpose of this exemption who could not prove their relationship before a Court of Law, and certainly not according to the canons of the Church. For these reasons I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will take a step which is practically rendered necessary by the smaller proportions of the Bill, and that he will consent to do away with an exception which in the former state of the Bill was perhaps necessary, but which now would certainly be nothing but mischievous and obstructive.
Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as the half-holiday is concerned, I think there is a great deal of force in what has been said, but as regards the Schedule of meal times, I think there would be very great difficulty in saying that an old woman who keeps a small shop in a village must put up a Schedule of the hours at which her daughter who assists her in the shop is to have her meals.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: There will be the same difficulty if it is somebody else's daughter.
Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not quite the same thing. One must not take too small and precise points of this subject. My Latin does not carry me far, but it does carry me as far as de minimis non curat lex. As far as meal times are concerned it is not necessary to put up a Schedule in such a case as this, but I agree about the half-holiday, and I will consider in what way that point can be met, while at the same time not forcing shops of this small character to put up a formal Schedule. I do not want to worry a large number of people where as a matter of fact it is not reasonable.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: On that understanding I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. GRETTON: Before this Amendment is withdrawn, the right hon. Gentleman should remember that if he interferes with the arrangements between father and son or mother and daughter, he is making a very serious interference in the family life. He ought to be very careful indeed how he breaks in among the members of a family and takes the son
1852
out of the authority of the father and puts him under the authority of the police and magistrates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a).
Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).—[Mr. Churchill.]
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words,
"If he is a person by whom the business of a pharmaceutical chemist or chemist or druggist is bonâ fide conducted in accordance with Section three of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908."
The Amendment standing in my name is necessary because the effect of the last Amendment has left the exemption from the definition of assistant of "the manager of the shop where the business carried on thereat is not personally conducted by the employer." I have no objection to these words coming out, but the Clause now would apply to particular circumstances which I think the House will see need this Amendment. The Section referred to in this Amendment, Section (3) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, provides that in no shop can the business of chemist and druggist be carried on unless there is a specified manager, whose certificate shall be exhibited in the shop. The business, too, must be bonâ fide conducted by that manager. The moment the manager leaves the shop or business, if it is carried on, it is carried on illegally. So that the effect of this Bill, unless this Amendment is inserted, will mean that in every shop, in every branch shop particularly, where there is a qualified chemist as manager, on one day in the week at least he must leave at one o'clock and the chemist's shop will have to close. I do not think that it is contemplated that a qualified chemist in the position of manager should be covered. He is not quite in the same position as an assistant. A chemist having a certain professional character cannot at the same time escape the obligations cast upon him. You might as well say that a doctor's assistant must leave his work on a specified day of the week at 1.30. I think one ought to make a distinction between a business in which a person with a statutory qualification is required, and any other. It is with great regret that I move this Amendment.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not like to make any exception in the Bill. I think it is very desirable that everyone should have their half-holiday, and I do not quite see why the chemist, merely because he is a branch manager, shall be kept from it. It is quite true that a chemist who does not run his shop himself must appoint a manager, but there is no reason why the manager should not have his half-holiday the same as anybody else.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 34.—(Application to Scotland.)
This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

(1) The Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State:

(2) The local authority for the purposes of this Act shall be the county council in a county (exclusive of the police burghs therein) and the town council in a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh; and the expenses of a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council, out of the general purposes rate, and in the case of a town council, out of the burgh general improvement assessment, or any other assessment leviable by the town council in equal proportions on owners and occupiers: Provided that the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses:

(3) Section seventy-six of the Local Government {Scotland) Act, 1889, shall be substituted for Section eighty-one of the Local Government Act, 1888:

(4) The power to make an order authorising an inspector appointed under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to take steps for enforcing the provisions of this Act and of the orders made thereunder, may be exercised with the consent of the Secretary of State:

(5) In the Section of this Act relating to the exclusion of small rural parishes, references to a rural parish shall be construed as references to a parish no part of which is comprised within the police boundaries of a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh, or where a parish is partly within and partly without such boundaries, as
1854
references to that part of the parish which is without such boundaries and references to a borough or urban district shall be construed as references to a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh:

(6) Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act except so far as it relates to the sale of fresh milk and cream, shall not apply:

(7) The expression "retail trade or business" includes, in addition to any business specified in the definition thereof contained in any other Section of this Act, the business of a photographer, and the expression "bank holiday" means a public or statutory holiday:

(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any previous Section of this Act, all offences under this Act shall be prosecuted and all penalties under this Act shall be recovered under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts at the instance of the procurator-fiscal; and all penalties imposed and recovered under this Act shall be paid into the Exchequer:

(9) Section one hundred and forty-five of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, shall not apply.

Amendments made: Leave out the word "modifications," and insert instead thereof the word "modification."
Leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9).

CLAUSE 35.—(Application to Ireland.)
This Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the following modifications:—

(1) The Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for the Secretary of State:

(2) References to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, shall be substituted for references to the Public Health Acts:

(3) A reference to article thirty-eight of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall be substituted for the reference to Section eighty-one of the Local Government Act, 1888:

(4) The power to make an order authorising an inspector appointed under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to take steps for enforcing the

1855
provisions of this Act and of the orders made thereunder may be exercised with the consent of the Secretary of State:

(5) A reference to an Act of the Parliament of Ireland of the seventh year of William III., chapter seventeen, intituled "An Act for the better observation of the Lord's Day commonly called Sunday," shall be substituted for the reference to the Sunday Observance Act, 1677:

(6) A local authority for the purposes of this Act means:—

(a) as respects any municipal borough, the borough council; and

(b) as respects any urban district, the district council:

(7) This Act shall not extend to any rural district, and the provisions with respect to rural parishes shall not apply:

(8) In the case of a shop assistant employed in a shop in which the business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises, or for consumption off the premises only, is carried on. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section one of this Act shall not apply, but, instead thereof, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) The assistant shall not, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be employed about the business of such shop for more than seventy-two hours (inclusive of meal hours) in any week;

(b) Intervals for meals shall be allowed to each assistant, amounting to not less than two hours on each day;

(c) The assistant shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be allowed on one week-day in each week a holiday of not less than seven hours (in this Sub-section referred to as a weekly half-holiday).

Unless the employer and the shop assistant otherwise agree, the weekly half-holiday shall commence either at the time at which the shop opens on that day (in this Sub-section referred to as "a morning half-holiday"), or at a time not less than seven hours
1856
before the time at which the shop closes on that day (in this Sub section referred to as "an afternoon half-holiday"), and the aforesaid half-holidays shall be so arranged that the assistant shall be allowed a morning half-holiday and an afternoon half-holiday alternately;
(d) An assistant who has been employed by the same employer for a period of not less than twenty - six consecutive weeks about the business of one or more shops of the employer shall, so long as he continues in the employment of that employer, be allowed an annual holiday of at least seven consecutive days, or, if he has been employed as aforesaid for a period of not less than fifty-two consecutive weeks, an annual holiday of at least fourteen consecutive days;
(e) In any week in which an assistant is absent from his employment in or about the business of the shop, either on his annual holiday or on account of ill-health or otherwise, the weekly half-holiday may be disallowed in the case of every other assistant employed in or about the business of the shop and the number of hours of weekly employment of every such other assistant may be increased by seven hours accordingly: Provided that where the assistant is absent for more than four consecutive weeks on account of ill-health the weekly half-holiday of the other assistants shall not be disallowed and their hours of employment shall not be increased by reason of such absence except in the first four weeks in which he is absent;
(f) No deduction from wages or salary payable to the assistant shall be made on account of any such holidays or half-holidays as aforesaid.
(9) The business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises only shall be deemed to be included amongst the trades and businesses specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule and amongst the trades and businesses exempted from the provisions of this Act

1857
(other than the provisions of this Section) with respect to a weekly half-holiday:
(10) A local authority may, in addition to its other powers under this Act, make an order fixing the hours on the several week-days before which, either throughout the area of the local authority or in any specified part thereof, no shop in which the business of the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off or for consumption off the premises only is carried on shall be open for serving customers:
Such order shall be deemed to be a closing order, and all the provisions of this Act with respect to closing orders, save those relating to the earliest hours to be fixed by a closing order, shall apply accordingly with the necessary modifications:
(11) Shops in which there is carried on the business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises, whether such business is carried on alone or in conjunction with any other business or trade, shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act with respect to closing orders, be deemed to be shops of a separate class, and a local authority shall not make a closing order applying to shops of that class unless they are satisfied that the occupiers of at least two-thirds in number of the shops of that class approve the order, or, in the case of a vote being taken, that at least two-thirds of the votes recorded by the occupiers of shops of that class are in favour of the order:
(12) Shops in which there is carried on the business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises only, whether such business is carried on alone or in conjunction with any other business or trade, shall in like manner and for the purposes aforesaid be deemed to be shops of a separate class, and the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section with respect to the making of closing orders shall apply to that class of shops as a separate class accordingly.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
Mr. CLANCY: I have to express great regret that the Government have decided to omit these Sub-sections, which are a vital part of the Clause. The Irish Members were in favour of the general provisions of this Bill, and the only difficulty that arose was in connection with assistants in public-houses. That matter was discussed on Second Beading. It was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, on the one hand that those assistants needed protection more almost than any other class, and in speaking of that class I think he spoke generally of the whole United Kingdom. It was said, on the other hand there were many provisions in the Bill which, if carried out, would really be hurtful to the position in Ireland. For many years past many Acts have been passed which affected the Irish publicans very injuriously. In Ireland an agitation was conducted in regard to this Bill, and it was found very difficult to reconcile conflicting interests. I and some of my colleagues took part in trying to bridge over the difficulties and to reconcile the different parties and get them to come to an agreement. After some difficulty we did succeed in getting an agreement between the representatives of the licensing trade in Ireland, and the representatives of the different associations of assistants. The subject of that agreement was expressed in Sub-section (8) of this Clause. The attitude we took up in the Committee upstairs in regard to this matter was this We said we were not speaking on behalf of either the publicans or their assistants, but on behalf of both. We are advocating not exactly what each one of us might probably have proposed, but what the two parties together have agreed to, and we asked the Government and the Grand Committee to accept this agreement and they did. For my part I think it was a very equitable settlement, and I can conceive that it would have produced peace and brought about concord between two classes better than any agreement or settlement that could be proposed against the wishes of those affected. The Government agreed to this, and the Committee agreed with us except on one point, and that is a point which is absolutely vital. The limitation as to hours of work was altered; sixty hours was proposed for England, and in consequence of a concession which was made to the assistants the publicans agreed to an extension of seventy-two hours as the maximum time of employment. In the Committee the hours for meals were taken into account

1859
in fixing the seventy-two, and I do not think I mis-state the case when I say that the Government regretted that decision. I think the right hon. Gentleman has promised to move an Amendment in the Sub-section dealing with meal hours to change "inclusive" into "exclusive," thereby settling a question which was left unsettled by the Committee. As regards this point I myself would regard the agreement as being absolutely torn up if this Amendment is not made. Therefore I do not anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman will offer any objection to this Amendment.
It may be said that the Bill has been altered greatly since it left the Grand Committee, and it now deals only with three points. It deals with meal hours, the weekly half-holiday, and with the closing of certain houses on the weekly half-holiday. As regards the last kind of public-houses they are exempt in England and in Ireland, and the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is in the case of Ireland necessary, because of the large number of public-houses in Ireland which carry on a grocery trade and sell other articles beside intoxicating liquors. I think the right hon. Gentleman has acted properly in proposing that Amendment and making certain, what was to some extent, doubtful. It may be said these three points being left, we ought not to insist upon the full Amendment which we have proposed, and which the Committee upstairs sanctioned. The way we stand will, I think, be appreciated from what I have said. We are bound by this agreement, and could not depart from it in any vital matter without breaking faith with the other parties to it. I should feel myself in the wrong if I assented to any course like that. There are, no doubt, some drafting Amendments, but they might be made either here without any discussion or in the House of Lords, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position he has taken up as indicated by his Amendments to this Clause, and that he will leave the provision in the same form as it was left by the Grand Committee.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (7), leave out the words "and the provisions with respect to rural parishes shall not
1860
apply," and insert instead thereof the words "or part of a rural district."
Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-sections (8), (9), (10), (11), and (12), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-seotion:—
(3) Any shop in which the trade or business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors is carried on in conjunction with any other trade or business, shall, as respects all such trades or businesses, be exempt from the obligation to be closed on the weekly half-holiday.
Mr. GRETTON: I do not oppose this, but I want to point out how important it is. In Ireland, in the majority of cases, both intoxicating liquor and some other article are sold. The tailor, the butcher, the shoemaker, the grocer, and the ironmonger all do business in intoxicating liquor, so the exception is going a very long way. We should not venture to ask for such an exception in the case of England. On this side of the Channel they consider mixed trading in liquor shops is not desirable, but in Ireland the practice is extensive, and every one of them is going to be exempted from the weekly half-holiday. The hon. Member who spoke just now wanted the whole Clause reserved with a view to amendment. But I think he is asking the House far too much. The most important Amendment was carried against the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends, and surely the whole matter is not to be raised again at this late hour. I desire to enter a protest with respect to this very important exception regarding mixed trading shops in Ireland.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has protested against the words which I have proposed to substitute for the original proposal inserted in the Bill by the Grand Committee. Without at this moment attempting to deal with the objections which he has urged, I should like, in view of his protests and criticisms, to ask the House whether it feels inclined to consider the alternative to that course, namely, to allow the Irish representatives to have the Clause which has actually been agreed upon between employers and employed in Ireland. It is an absolutely agreed arrangement—very complex and very difficult.
Mr. GRETTON: Is it not the fact that the part of the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to discuss has already been passed?
Mr. CHURCHILL: We are now dealing with that part beginning with Sub-section (8) to the end of the Clause.
Mr. GRETTON: This is an important matter. I understand that the first six Sub-sections have gone, and we have dealt with Sub-section (7), in which a small Amendment dealing with rural districts has been inserted. We are now discussing a proposal dealing with Sub-section (8).
5.0 P.M.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, from Subsection (8) to the end of the Clause. I want to put one point to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Here is a Clause which has been agreed upon between the publicans and their assistants throughout Ireland. There has not been a word of protest or objection to it in the form in which it was moved by the Irish representatives. It is a treaty of peace between employers and employed, and the Irish Members ask that it shall be embodied in the Bill and given statutory force. I cannot see what objection any British or Scottish Member can possibly have to this beneficial arrangement, which gives so many advantages to the Irish public-house assistants, and which, of course, applies to all who are concerned in the liquor trade in Ireland. It is a far better thing than I was able to propose in regard to England. It was absolutely agreed upon by both sections of Irish opinion. I am perfectly willing to drop my Amendment, against which the hon. Member has entered his protest, and to allow the Clause to go forward from here to the end in the form in which it left the Grand Committee. If this House is going to take the position that it is a proper matter for Irish legislation, and if there are any Members in this House who attach importance to that point, whatever their views on other controversies may be, I ask them not to prevent a settlement on which all Irish representatives were agreed, whether they be Parliamentary representatives or whether they are the employers or the employed in this trade. In these circumstances I shall be quite willing to adhere to the general sense of the House with regard to the legislative enactment of the agreement.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a very proper course. I can hardly see why any English Member should, for the mere sake of symmetry, object to the arrangement that has been made. The Government were
1862
in a position of considerable difficulty. They had to legislate for different parts of the country which were in a very distinct position. What did the Government do? Here was the proposal unanimously agreed to by both sections in Ireland, both the trade themselves and their employés. Opposition to that coming from England, the Government accepted a rearrangement of the matter, which now finds its place in this Clause. If the Government took any other course than the course they have taken, I think they would be acting unwisely and unjustly, nor can I see why any English Member should interfere in a matter which is purely domestic, unless he wishes to see the three Kingdoms made into a sort of chequer-board of black and white squares. I did not rise for the purpose of merely saying that, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is quite clear that the Clause will apply to the rural districts only. It seems to me that if the intention be, as I take it to be, to confine the Clause to the rural districts only, it is perhaps open to the objection that it is a little too wide. I will read it:—
This Act shall not extend to any rural district or part of a rural district,
and then, without any break, it goes on as if it was an absolutely distinct piece of legislation—the word "and" is struck out:
Any shop in which the trade or business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors is carried on in conjunction with any other trade or business shall as respects any such trades or businesses be exempt from the obligation to be closed on the weekly half-holiday.
If that is intended to apply only to rural districts the word "and" ought to remain in or some such words as those ought to be inserted.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there can be any mistake. I will look into it to see that nothing has been overlooked.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "inclusive" ["seventy-two hours (inclusive of meal hours)"], and to insert instead thereof the word "exclusive." This will bring the Clause back into the original form in which it was agreed to.
Mr. GRETTON: This is a most important Amendment, and it was carried

1863
in the Committee against the feeling of Gentlemen below the Gangway. I voted with them. The House should be aware that this is a matter which was not carried by agreement. There was considerable discussion, and a sharp Debate, and, in the result, the reaction of hon. Members sitting behind the Government. It appeared to me and to some of my Friends who were acting with me on that occasion, that the word "inclusive" should be substituted for "exclusive." This Amendment should not be carried without the House being fully aware of what it is doing. If the Amendment is carried a very considerable difference will be made from what was passed in the Committee.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have not the same feeling of confidence in the soundness of the action which the Government have taken in this matter as I had in the former case. You are making undoubtedly a large addition to the hours by this Amendment.
Mr. CHURCHILL: It was originally agreed between the parties that the word "exclusive" should be used, and then against the advice of the Government the Committee put in the word "inclusive." Therefore what is proposed is to put the Clause into exactly the form asked by the parties in Ireland.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say quite the contrary. If this is an agreed matter, I agree.
Mr. CLANCY: The hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) supported what was originally in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BRADY, I beg to move, to insert at the end of the paragraph following paragraph (c) the words,
"Provided that nothing in this Act, or any order made thereunder, shall affect the powers or provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act 37 and 38 Vic, chapter 69, in respect of the granting or withdrawing of exemption orders made in respect of premises in the vicinity of markets or fairs."
If this proviso is passed it will enable local authorities to issue orders in respect of houses which have been granted what are known as exemption orders. These exemption orders are absolutely necessary
1864
for the convenience of persons attending markets and fairs. I take it that there will be no objection to the Amendment.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Amendment is in manuscript now, and I should like to have an opportunity of considering it. If it is thought desirable, it will be put in in the House of Lords.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not think the Government should have any hesitation in accepting the Amendment. It makes no change in the present law. There is a large cattle market held every Thursday morning in Dublin, where it is absolutely necessary that the publicans should have an exemption order to enable them to open their houses at a convenient hour for those attending the market. All that my hon. Friend seeks to do is to leave the law intact.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I will put my suggestion the other way about. I will accept the Amendment now subject to the possible rejection of it afterwards.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(Applications to Wales and Monmouthshire.)
Amendment made: Leave out Clause 36.—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 37.—(Short Title, Commencement, and Repeal.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Shops Act, 1911.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twelve.
(3) The enactments mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule:
Provided that nothing in this repeal shall affect any closing order made under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, but every such order shall have effect as if made under this Act and by the authority who would under this Act have had power to make the order, and the provisions of this Act (including those relating to proof of closing orders) shall apply accordingly.
Amendments made: At end of Subsection (1) add the words "and the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, shall be construed as one with this Act, and may be cited with this Act as the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911."
In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "January" and insert instead thereof the word "May."
Leave out Sub-section (3).—[Mr. Churchill.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  INTERVAL FOR MEALS.
  Intervals for meals shall be arranged so as to secure that no period of more than six hours shall elapse during a period of employment without an interval of at least twenty minutes being allowed during the course thereof.
  Without prejudice to the foregoing provision—

  (1) where a period of employment includes the hours from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. an interval of not less than three-quarters of an hour shall be allowed between those hours for dinner; and

  (2) where a period of employment includes the hours from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. an interval of not less than twenty minutes shall be allowed between those hours for tea;

  and the intervals for dinner and tea shall be increased to one hour and half an hour respectively in cases where the meals are not taken in the shop or in a building of which the shop forms part, or to which the shop is attached.
  For the purposes of this Schedule the expression "a period of employment" means the period between the times fixed by a notice under this Act for the commencement and ending of the employment of a shop assistant on any day (including overtime employment, if any), or, where the employment is divided into spells, between the times fixed for the commencement and ending of a spell (including overtime employment, if any).
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "period of more than six hours shall elapse during a period of employment," and insert instead thereof the words "person shall be employed for more than six hours."
  In paragraph (1), leave out the words "a period of employment includes" and insert instead thereof the words "the hours of employment include."
  Mr. T. DAVIES: I beg to propose, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "three-quarters of an hour" and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-five minutes."
  1866
  I do not propose to alter the amount of time given, but simply to relocate it a little differently, so that no period of less than half an hour shall be given for a meal. Lower down I have another Amendment increasing the time for tea from twenty minutes to half an hour. The reason I suggest these changes is that, as we have heard, there are some places where the assistant has to walk a quarter of a mile or more to the place where the meal is taken, and when this has to be done no period of less than half an hour should be given by the shops. This will suit much better than the arrangement in the Schedule. It will give thirty-five minutes for one meal and thirty minutes for the other. In the Bill as drafted in the first instance only sixty minutes were allowed for the two meals. If my right hon. Friend will not agree to this, I shall move an Amendment to give half an hour for each meal.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot agree to that at all. There must be a period sufficient for a substantial mid-day meal. Our experience in Grand Committee, where the hon. Member was such an assiduous attendant, was that we tried a half-hour interval in a long sitting, and we found that three-quarters of an hour was more acceptable, yet our hours do not on all occasions bear very close correspondence to those of shop assistants under this Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (2), leave out the words "a period of employment includes" and insert instead thereof the words "the hours of employment include."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Mr. T. DAVIES: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "twenty minutes," and insert instead thereof the words "half-an-hour."
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This means that they would get an extra ten minutes for tea, and, as far as I am concerned, I will put no obstacle in the way.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am afraid that you are doing a very bad turn to the assistants, as the time will be calculated, and, there being no limitation of hours, they will in the end have to work quite as long, and at less convenient times for themselves.
  Mr. GRETTON: I think my hon. Friend is quite right, and that there would be great difficulty as to the minimum period the shop is to be open. Those Amendments apparently are moved on the assumption that the employers will be harsh and oppressive, and act like slave-drivers. They want to do nothing of the kind, and there is no reason for this proposal.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: It is very important that a sufficient interval should be allowed to make the benefit really effective.
  Mr. HINDS: An hour for dinner is necessary, because that is the meal of the day, but for tea an interval of twenty minutes is quite enough.
  Mr. MALCOLM: What would happen if tea is taken outside? Would the time be extended to three-quarters of an hour?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We make a flat half-hour for tea all round.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move to leave out the words,
  For the purposes of this Schedule the expression "a period of employment" means the period between the times fixed by a notice under this Act for the commencement and ending of the employment of a shop assistant on any day (including overtime employment, if any), or, where the employment is divided into spells, between the times fixed for the commencement and ending of a spell (including overtime employment, if any), and to insert thereof the words "Provided that an assistant employed in the sale of refreshments need not be allowed the interval for dinner between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., if he is allowed the same interval so arranged as either to end not earlier than 11.30 a.m. or to commence not later than 2.30 p.m., and the same exemption shall apply to assistants employed in any shop on the market day in any town in which a market is held not oftener than once a week, or on a day on which an annual fair is held."
  Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "refreshments" ["sale of refreshments"], to insert the words "or in the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors."
  1868
  The object of this Amendment is to make it absolutely clear that intoxicating liquors are not included, and to bring the provision into conformity with the rest of the Bill.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Mr. HINDS: I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule to insert the words,
  "Provided that an assistant employed in market towns, on market days and fair days, need not be allowed the interval for dinner between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., if he is allowed the same interval so arranged as either to end not earlier than 11.30 a.m. or to commence not later than 2.30 p.m."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This provision is already in the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
  TRADES AND BUSINESSES EXEMPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AS TO SUNDAY CLOSING.
  Amendment made: Leave out Second Schedule.
THIRD SCHEDULE.

  TRADES AND BUSINESSES EXEMPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AS TO WEEKLY HALE-HOLIDAY.
  The sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises.
  The sale of refreshments, including the business carried on at a railway refreshment room.
  The sale of motor, cycle, and air craft accessories to travellers.
  The sale of newspapers and periodicals.
  The sale of meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers, and other articles of a perishable nature.
  The sale of tobacco and smokers' requisites.
  The business carried on at a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform.
  Amendments made: Leave out the word "Third" ["Third Schedule"], and insert instead thereof the word "Second."
  Leave out the words "for consumption on or off the premises."
  After the word "craft" ["air craft"], insert the words "supplies and."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, at the end of Schedule, to insert the words,
  "The sale of medicines and medical and surgical appliances.
  "Retail trade carried on at an exhibition, if the local authority certify that such retail trade is subsidiary or ancillary only to the main purpose of the exhibition."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Mr. C. BATHURST: With regard to the first part, may I ask whether it is clear that this will include all druggists' preparations for the use of animals as well as men, such as drenches for horses and the like? The right hon. Gentleman will realise that in certain cases there is as much necessity for obtaining those on short notice as in the case of sickness and disease amongst human beings.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would cover medicine for the relief of animals and appliances.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: As to the second part, I should like to ask why it is placed in the Schedule, because it clearly ought to come under Clause 15, "Provisions as to trading elsewhere than in shops." This is clearly a case of trade "otherwise than than in shops." Anyone might read that Clause and remain totally ignorant of the fact that a most important exception is to be found buried away in a Schedule at the end of the Act. When we come to consider the actual terms of this provision, it appears to be not sufficiently exclusive in one direction and not sufficiently inclusive in another. It refers only to an exhibition. I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman means by an exhibition; it may include an agricultural or horse show. There is a very large trade conducted at the Royal Society's Show, the Bath and West of England Show, and other shows of a similar character. There is a trade going on at the present time at the Fat Stock Show at Islington. In this country we do not call such gatherings exhibitions. In France they would be called expositions, which would include the two expressions. In my opinion, the expression in English parlance generally refers to something of rather a different character, such as the exhibition at Earl's Court.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It will include all exhibitions and shows of that character
  1870
  where there is a principal object of interest, and where a lot of little subsidiary shops or booths are put up all round. We intend that the assistants employed at these shops shall get their half-holiday, but the shops will not have to be closed during the time they are in the exhibition.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: That meets one point; but as it may not be quite clear what this means, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to add words making it clear.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider that.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The proposal refers incidentally to another matter. It seems to me that in the case of certain exhibitions—something like the Crystal Palace, which is of a more permanent character—you may defeat the object of this Bill. If persons happen to sell within a building where a permanent exhibition is carried on, you may deprive them of the half-holiday which will be enjoyed by other persons who happen to be employed in separate shops. The Crystal Palace is about as good an instance as I can give. A continuous trade is carried on there, very often until late at night, by persons who, in the ordinary course, might be regarded as shop assistants, and who are on exactly the same footing as shop assistants. Surely they ought not to be deprived of their half-holiday.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They will be fully protected, whether they serve in the Crystal Palace or elsewhere, as assistants. The subsidiary shops in the Crystal Palace will not have to close on the half-holiday, but the assistants will get the half-holiday.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that provide for the case of persons who might be conducting a shop outside a permanent exhibition, say, during the morning, and conducting a shop inside the exhibition during the afternoon and evening, possibly every day of the week, until late at night? I am prepared to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that case would be met.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: You could not have the Crystal Palace open and all the subsidiary shops closed on one afternoon in the week. If the place is allowed to be open for the purpose of entertainment the subsidiary entertainments ought to be allowed to go on. That is a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If the right hon. Gentleman considers that the case is covered I am perfectly satisfied. The words in the Amendment are "subsidiary or ancillary only to the main purpose of the exhibition." Would that be sufficient in the case of persons who may carry on a trade exhibition for self-advertising purposes? I mean to say if it is only "merely subsidiary or ancillary to" it does not, it seems to me, cover the case where the actual goods for the exhibition of which the show is held, are actually being sold upon the premises. The object of the Act may possibly be defeated by the shop assistants being present in connection with such exhibition for purely trade purposes on every day of the week, without being able to get the holiday which is enjoyed by other persons.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, no, no. The assistants will have the half-holiday, but not the shops.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Mr. M. BARLOW: I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add the words,
  The business of retail auctioneers when the premises are open for purposes of exhibition only and not for sales.
  It is very necessary in the case of auctioneers of high standing who deal in works of art, and who keep open five days of the week, that on occasions the premises should be open on the Saturday for the exhibition of works of art to be subsequently sold.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member looks at Clause 9 he will see that provision is made for this point. It says,
  "Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be closed for the serving of customers not later than one o'clock in the afternoon on one weekday in every week."
  The point is fully covered by that. There is no objection to a person leaving the door of his shop open. That is not violating a provision of this Act. The only question is that the door shall not be open for the purpose of serving a customer; if not there will be no offence.
  Mr. M. BARLOW: That slightly meets my case, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from another point of view. Suppose the shop is open for an exhibition of works of art on the Saturday and people come in and see them and subsequently buy at the sale on the Monday? I think it is extremely difficult to say that the premises have not
  1872
  been open to serve customers. I should have thought it would have been quite simple for this purpose to have accepted these words which would have qualified the matter; but I do not want to carry it further.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. Member allow me to have an opportunity to consider the words before we get to another place. The Bill will come back again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: Leave out Schedules 4 and 5.
  At beginning of Bill leave out the word "consolidate" ["consolidate, amend, and extend"].—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I think that some words ought to be said from this side of the House to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, and to congratulate the House, on the fact that by its curtailment and abbreviation this is now a very much better Bill than we ever hoped it could be. It has lost a great deal of that which was hopelessly impracticable, and it has gained something which will make it of real use to the community and of real benefit to tradesmen and their assistants. I think that the Home Secretary will agree now that though we may have differed as to means and method, that we were substantially agreed in our aims and purposes. A great number of us did not think it was possible to carry Part I. because it involved a vexatious and harassing interference with every shopkeeper in his work; the keeping of a log and a chart which would have been open to inspection from day to day. That has all gone. I hope the relations between shopkeepers and their assistants will be as good personally as they have hitherto been. In the second place, we have got rid of the Sunday Closing Clauses, which were opposed equally by Sabbatarians and by anti-Sabbatarians. The Jewish community objected on the one hand and the Christian denominations on the other. There never were Clauses so universally condemned in all parts of the community as those relating to Sunday closing or Sunday opening. People say they did not know which object would have been most aided if they had passed into law. Those have gone, and what we do is that instead of tags of time at the fag end of days, we get for the shop assistant a real

  1873
  holiday in the week which they will be able to enjoy by indulgence in sport and recreation such as they choose in the afternoon, even if it be at a distance from their employment or homes. That is a substantial gain. You get a statutory half-holiday for every shop assistant and for every shopkeeper and his family. I believe that is in itself a very great gain, and is much more real than anything which could have been given if we had proceeded under the Bill as it was originally drafted.
  I hope, too, we have got rid of the irritation and friction that might have occurred if the Bill had been enacted as it was proposed. I will say this, wishing well to the Bill, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to make the regulations under it as simple and workable as possible. He was a little hard on the local authorities. I have had to carry out the law under the Act of 1904. Its failure was due, to my mind, not so much to any ill-will on the part of the local authorities as to the cumbersomeness of its procedure. He can do great service to the shopkeepers and their assistants if he will make the process under this Bill as simple and workmanlike as possible. It does not, perhaps, rest with the right hon. Gentleman now, but it does with the Under-Secretary and his new chief. It will mean a great deal if everything that has to be done is made clear upon the face of the measure, and it will make the working of the Bill in its manifold details more simple than under the old Act. That is really what was the matter with the old Act and the local authorities were not to blame. It seems to me local authorities are blamed in this House for every sin of omission without any consideration for the complexity of the tasks we impose upon them. We draft our Bills in a faulty manner, cast them to the local authorities, and then say to them, "You do not do your business well." That is not the case. I have served on many local authorities, and can say what mainly deters them is the difficulty of carrying out Acts of Parliament. In this case there is an opportunity with a new Bill before it reaches its final stage of making it easy for the local authorities to work it in accordance with the wishes of the community. I hope the Bill will be accepted by all parties, will be worked by shopkeepers in a spirit of co-operation with those who serve them, and if so a great social gain will accrue far beyond the mere provisions of the measure.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I express my obligation to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally for the help they have given in passing such portions of the Bill as we have got through to-day. The measure underwent a vigorous process of examination and criticism in the country and in Parliament, with the result that I do admit it would have been difficult to try and carry the Bill substantially in the form that it left the Grand Committee. I cannot pretend that I would not have liked to get a great deal more, but, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, I am grateful to the House for having carried so much of it, and I am confident that those who benefit under it will not be ungrateful to Parliament for what it has done for them.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I join in the congratulations on behalf of my colleague and myself to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has conducted this Bill, especially as regards Ireland, in which the circumstances are very intricate.
  Question put, and agreed to.

FINANCE (SINKING FUND).
Resolution reported,
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance it is expedient that the old Sinking Fund for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, may be applied—

(a) to the extent of one million five hundred thousand pounds for the purpose of the development fund under The Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and

(b) to the extent of one million five hundred thousand pounds for the purpose of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis or such other diseases as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint; and

(c) to the extent of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds for the purpose of an advance to the Government of the East Africa Protectorate;

and that such an advance may be made by the Treasury."
Resolution agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am told the Government have organised a count in order to prevent the matter I wish to raise being brought forward. I rise to call attention to the way in which the Government have lent themselves, by using the forms of the House, for the purpose of insult and injury. The House may have noticed recently the manner in which when hon. Gentlemen on this side attempt to address the House insults are offered for the purpose of reaching the newspapers, and they are offered under the protection of the Chair. A further extension has been given to that system by a series of questions which in this case were addressed to the Board of Trade. When one thinks that a great Department like the Board of Trade should have lent itself to a transaction of this kind, one is appalled at the idea that the Government will condescend, on account of the differences which exist between Irish Members to lend itself to calumny, injury, annoyance, and insult. Those who carry on newspaper work, if it is a comparatively new newspaper, instead of getting annoyance from the Board of Trade, are entitled to its protection and assistance. Instead of that being given in the case of the "Cork Free Press," which to some extent is the property of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the Board of Trade, because it does not get any support for its Government from this organ, has seen fit to give an answer in this House which, I think, must be regretted by everybody who knows the hon. Member, who has been, so long a Member of this House. Because of these differences which exist between Ireland, and because we are unable to give support to the Government on matters like the Insurance Bill, that a Government Department should give an answer like this, and then shrink when questioned about it, is certainly to lay down a novel principle for a Department like that of the Board of Trade. A question was asked by an hon. Member about the "Cork Free Press." He asked whether the "Cork Free Press"
1876
had failed to comply with a certain statutory requirement, and on the 4th December this answer was given——
MASTER of ELIBANK: I think an apology is due to the hon. and learned Member because the President of the Board of Trade is not here. The reason is that I told my right hon. Friend that this question would be raised on Monday, and it is my mistake entirely.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Of course, once I have the assurance from the Government that this matter is due to a mistake, I will not further continue my remarks.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly, at Ten minutes before Six o'clock, until Monday next, 11th December.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

WEDNESDAY.
Finance Bill—Petition of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, for alteration.
National Insurance Bill—Petition from Liverpool, for alteration.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from Atherton, in favour.

THURSDAY.
Shops Bill—Petition for alteration, from Edinburgh, and Mortlake.
FRIDAY.
Shops Bill—Petition for alteration, from West Linton.
  Customs Port Clerks.
  Customs Port Clerks.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  SCHOOLKEEPERS (WEEKLY CONTRIBUTIONS).
  SCHOOLKEEPERS (WEEKLY CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  Police Station (Rathlea).
  Police Station (Rathlea).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Pottery Manufacture.
  Pottery Manufacture.
  Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).
  Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).
Preamble
The EARL BEAUCHAMP—Sat Speaker.
NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (STEVEDORES AND TRIMMERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Petition for amendment of; of the Liverpool Clerks' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): Your Lordships are familiar with the purposes which this Bill is designed to further, because two years ago the Bill largely in its present form was before your Lordships for a considerable time. That Bill was the result of an inquiry by a Departmental Committee which took much evidence in Scotland on this subject, and the Committee itself was due to a very prolonged movement in favour of legislation on this subject. But I need not dwell upon those details as they are familiar to your Lordships. The Bill of 1909 was brought up in the month of September of that year. Your Lordships gave it your consideration, and continuous efforts were made between the two Houses to find a solution of the crucial difficulties in the proposals which were then made.
718
It, may be convenient, however, if I briefly state again the purposes which these proposals are designed to serve, and also the differences between the proposals of 1909 and those in the present Bill. Before I state the grievances, I may remind the House that these grievances are felt very acutely by a part of the population in Scotland. Frequently, as your Lordships know, Scottish legislation under existing conditions has to follow English legislation on the same subject, and even in that respect Scottish interests deserve the special consideration of Parliament. All the more so then do they deserve special consideration and indulgence when they affect, not the whole of Scotland, but a small though important part of the population of that country, as is the case under the, present circumstances. The cause of the grievances which this Bill is designed to meet is to be found in the necessity which modern industrial conditions impose upon labour that it should easily move from place to place. Working men have to follow employment. When a depression of trade occurs in an industry in one part of the country it is frequently necessary for men to seek employment elsewhere, where the conditions are more favourable and industry is more prosperous. Many of the social arrangements in which working men take a part, and which affect them closely, are adapted to meet the requirements demanded by the necessity that labour should be mobile and move from place to place. Trade Unions, building societies, and other organisations of that kind adapt themselves to these conditions.
But when we come to the tenure of houses we find a remarkable difference between the systems obtaining in England and Scotland. In England the tenure of working men's houses—the conditions under which they were let and the conditions, therefore, under which working men could obtain dwelling houses, especially in the industrial districts—was adapted many years ago to meet the new requirements, and what are called "short lets" are the rule. In Scotland, however, for reasons which I need not enter into or attempt to fathom, we still have long lets, yearly lets, and the consequence is that men who under the conditions I have described are obliged when industry is slack in shipbuilding, in iron works, or in the engineering trades, to leave, say, the Clyde and go to

719
the Tyne or to the North of Ireland to obtain occupation, frequently find themselves bound to pay the rent of the house they had taken for a large part of the unexpired year, while at the same time they are paying for the house in their new location. There is another grievance which has grown up, for let me remind your Lordships that the letting of houses is not regulated by Statute but by custom. I refer to the grievance which goes by the name in Scotland of the "missive system," which requires a yearly tenant of a dwelling-house to bind himself about the beginning of February to take the house for a year from the following May. Your Lordships will see that under that practice a man is practically bound for sixteen months. This Bill is designed to remedy that grievance by shortening the notice to a maximum of two months. Secondly, it provides for a system of short lets; and, thirdly, your Lordships will readily recognise that as the occupier of a house is liable to pay rates the sequel of introducing a system of short lets must be to modify the system under which assessments are now paid. I hope I have placed sufficiently in detail before the House the purposes which this Bill is designed to serve.
I would now point out a few of the main differences between this Bill and the proposals of two years ago. In the first place, to what districts is it to apply? The Bill of 1909 applied only to houses in burghs. This Bill applies not only to houses in burghs, but also to houses in what are known as special local government districts, formed under the Public Health Act, 1897, and under a series of Local Government Acts, 1889 to 1908, for the purposes of lighting, drainage, scavenging, water supply, and the like. These are populous districts, resembling in many respects small burghs, and it was at the instance of a county which contains, I think, the largest number of such districts—namely, Lanarkshire—that this change was made in the Bill in the House of Commons. The second difference between this Bill and the former Bill is this. A small dwelling-house in the former Bill was defined to mean in burghs of under 10,000 inhabitants a dwelling-house rented at £15 a year; in burghs with between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, £21 a year; and
720
in burghs over 50,000 population, £26 a year. This House considered that these limits were too high, and reduced them to from £10 to £20. These limits have practically been adopted in the new Bill. They run in this Bill from £10 to £21. The provisions for shortening the missive period are the same in both Bills, as are also the provisions conferring on the landlord or the tenant a right of due notice to terminate the tenancy at any date when the instalment of rent is payable, and also the provisions simplifying and cheapening the process of removing. In these three respects, which are points of some importance, the two Bills are identical.
I now come to what has been the main point of controversy on this subject—namely, the provisions providing for payment and collection of assessments, with their accompaniment, the question of disqualification for the franchise. The Bill of 1909 was a compounding Bill. The owner was liable for the occupier's assessments with a right of recovery against the occupier in respect of the period of his occupation, but the franchise disqualification completely disappeared, as, let me remind your Lordships, it does in the system in vogue in England. Owners were made liable for occupiers' assessments, whether they collected them or not, but were entitled to repayment by the municipal authority or by the assessment authority if the house was unlet for part of the year. The owner's commission to cover the cost of collection and the risk of loss on assessments was left to the sheriff to fix. Those provisions were very keenly criticised, and they have led to alterations in the present Bill. It was contended then, and it is still the contention of the Government, that it is impossible to touch this question of short lets without affecting in some degree the franchise, but the proposals contained in this Bill do, in the opinion of the Government, reduce any such interference with the franchise to the very lowest minimum.
This Bill of 1911 is designed to preserve as far as possible—short, of course, of amending the Franchise Acts and the Poor Law Acts, which we do not attempt to do—the franchise disqualification for non-payment of rates. It leaves the liability of rates, but only for the period of his occupancy, upon the occupier. The liability is with the occupier for the

721
period of his occupancy; but owners are made responsible, in the first instance, for the full occupiers' rates on all their houses, but they are entitled to the repayment by the assessing authorities of any rates which they have not been able to collect from the occupiers. There is, therefore, no ultimate loss to provide for—that is to say, the owners have to bear no ultimate loss. For that reason the commission allowed is reduced in Glagsow to 2½ per cent., varying downwards in other areas. The Bill provides that owners must make a return to the assessing authorities, on a date to be fixed between the 1st and the 20th of May, of all occupiers in arrear of rent, which necessarily includes rates, and it will be the duty of the collector of poor rates to give every occupier so reported an intimation that unless he pays the rates said to be due in respect of the house for which he appears liable on the assessment roll before the date specified, he will not be entitled to be placed on the roll of voters. That provision preserves the franchise disqualification for nonpayment of rates concerning houses in respect of which the occupier's name appears on the assessment roll. Your Lordships will remember that the provisions of the Bill of 1909 were designed to keep the occupier uninformed of the assessment; it was thought that private owners would issue to the occupiers a receipt or certificate stating the amount payable under the heads of rent and assessment respectively. This Bill does not distinguish between rent and rates, so far as the occupier is concerned. This, I think, is all that need be said at this stage in respect of the difference in the treatment of the main controversial point in this Bill. The remaining provisions of the two Bills are really identical. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me at this stage to make any prolonged remarks with regard to this Bill. But I wish to say, with regard to the grievance which the noble Lord said was felt in certain burghs in Scotland owing to the system of long lets, that there has never been any controversy on that point between the two sides of the House. [Lord PENTLAND: Hear, hear.] There has never
722
been any proposal from this side of the House to do anything which would interfere with the proposed system of short lets. On the contrary, we have done everything in our power to promote short lets, and I myself introduced a Bill which went into a further point—namely, payment of rates by instalments. Therefore so far as this grievance of the lets being too long under the present system, which, as the noble Lord says, is a system not of law but of practice—so far as that is concerned there has never been any conflict of opinion between the two sides of the House. The difference which has existed has been with regard to the effect which the Bill of 1909 had upon the law as affecting the franchise, and in regard to that I shall say a word in a moment.
To take first the point of the special districts, which the noble Lord alluded to as having been for the first time introduced into this Bill, I do not desire to offer any objection at all to that. The population limits which he has adopted in this Bill are identical or very nearly identical to those which were approved by your Lordships' House, and there, of course, I agree with the noble Lord. But this Bill greatly extends the system of compounding, Now, I personally entertain all the objections which I entertained in 1909 to this extension of the system of compounding. In view of the present condition of affairs under which rates are being constantly increased and heaped up it seems to me most desirable, in the occupiers' interests and from the public point of view, that the occupiers should know the burden which they are called upon to bear, and it should not be disguised in the form of an addition to the rent. It stands to reason that although the demand may be imposed upon the owner, he is not going to bear the burden. He will endeavour to free himself from it by, as far as he can, making additions to the rent, and therefore the burden which the occupier has to bear is really very much the same although it is disguised from him by bearing another name. But although I entertain as much objection to this extension of the system of compounding as I did in 1909; I do not propose to move the rejection of the Bill on that score.
In reality, the only point of controversy between the Government and those who entertain the same opinions as I do is as

723
to the effect which the payment of the rate being imposed upon the owner instead of the occupier will have upon the qualification for the franchise. The Secretary for Scotland has already said that the Government desire to interfere with the laws relating to the qualification for the franchise as little as possible, and he also said that they did it in this Bill to a minimum degree. If any one will look at the Bill, however, he will see that the Government recognise that the liability of the occupier, so far as the franchise is concerned, ought to remain, because the proviso to Clause 7, subsection (3) reads—
"Provided that, for the purpose of any qualification or franchise which depends on payment of occupiers' assessments, an occupier shall be held to be in arrear and his assessments to remain unpaid to the extent of any claim therefor (if relating to any period during the occupancy of the said occupier) under this subsection in respect of which the owner has received repayment, or which is pending at the date when notice of occupiers' assessments in arrear requires to be given under the statutes relating to such qualification or franchise."
And that is repeated, or, at least, it is alluded to in terms of the same sort in Clause 8, which says—
"Provided that where an owner who is responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment, or where, having paid the same, he has claimed repayment thereof in respect of any period during the occupancy of the said occupier, the occupier may pay the same to the assessing authority and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due."
That enables the occupier to save his vote by himself making a direct payment of the rates. I quite admit that this arrangement is far better than the arrangement in the former Bill. But if I read this Bill correctly, the grievance is not fully met by the words as they stand, though I think that words might very easily be devised to meet the objection which I entertain. That objection is this, that under a system of short lets, a man may occupy, we will say, five houses—A, B, C, D, and E—within twelve months. Then the assessor calls upon him when he is occupying house E. All he has to prove is that the rates in respect of house E have been paid, whereas it is quite possible that in houses A, B, C, and D he may not have paid his rent, and has not, therefore, fulfilled the conditions of the franchise. I am, of course, putting an extreme case for the sake of making my argument clear, but I think words might be easily devised to
724
meet that case, because the intention of the Government is exactly the same as mine—namely, that during the whole of the twelve months the rates due shall have been paid by somebody, either by the owner on behalf of the occupier, or, under the working of Clause 8, by the occupier himself directly. I think that is all I need say on the Bill at the present stage, and I have no intention of opposing the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I should like to make quite clear our attitude on this side of the House in regard to this Bill. When the Bill came up to your Lordships in 1909 its principle was accepted on both sides of the House, and my attitude to-day in regard to the Bill is the same as it was in 1909. I accept its principle, and I go further and admit there is a grievance, and I am glad to support anything to remedy that grievance. But I do regret to see that this Bill again contains this obnoxious system of compounding. I call it obnoxious because, having had some experience of municipal government, I take a somewhat strong view on this question. Your Lordships have only to look at the great increase in municipal expenditure all over the country to recognise the absolute necessity of bringing home to the ratepayer his personal responsibility in regard to the rates levied. Moreover, I do not believe that the evils attendant on compounding are a necessary part of this Bill. The Corporation of Glasgow put forward an alternative scheme last year, and, as another alternative scheme, I see no reason why an owner should not be forced by law to state separately on his demand note how much of the amount demanded is for rent and how much is being collected as rates for the local authority. In any case, accepting the view that this principle of compounding is an integral part of this Bill, which I do not believe, it would remove some of the evil.
The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will correct me if I am wrong, but this Bill, as I read it, is going to take away the power which is at present possessed by assessing authorities of granting exemptions to those poorer occupiers who may find themselves unable to pay municipal rates. [Viscount ST. ALDWYN: Hear, hear.] I have read the Bill very carefully

725
and it seems to me that there is no doubt on this point. What happens is this. The owner is responsible for the occupier's assessment; therefore, when he collects the rent every week he fixes the sum which represents the occupier's proportion of rent and rates. If the occupier had an exemption, how would the owner recoup himself for the loss which he had sustained by paying the occupier's assessment to the local authority. As I read this Bill, he can only obtain repayment of rates in respect of rent which he has not received. I think that is quite clear, and it is equally clear that these occupiers will, in future, however poor they may be, be unable to obtain any exemptions in regard to rates.
I wish to support my noble friend Lord Camperdown as regards what he said about the enfranchisement of people who did not pay their rates. I am quite sure that His Majesty's Government did not intend to bring in any form of franchise measure, but under this Bill it is possible for a man to get on to the register simply because he has paid his rent and his rates for one month in respect of the house in which he happens to be residing when the voters' roll is made up. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland shakes his head, but I read the Bill in that way. During the previous eleven months of the year the man may have been in successive occupation of several houses in the same constituency, or in different constituencies if it is in a large burgh such as Edinburgh, or Glasgow, or Aberdeen, and in respect of those houses he need not have paid a single penny of either rent or rates. I do not think it can be the intention of the Government—certainly I do not think it desirable—that under those circumstances a man should find his name on the register. I am not going to detain your Lordships further. I support the principle of the Bill, but I do not believe that in its present form it will be altogether acceptable to the class in whose interests it is drawn up. I think they may very likely find themselves having to pay increased rent for the houses which come within the scope of the Bill. The owner adds his rates and rent together, but he adds something more to safeguard himself against any possible loss which may accrue from non-collection of rates. The result will be that the hard-working, thrifty artisan, the man who is willing to pay his way, will have to pay an increased rent in order to recoup his landlord for any possible
726
loss due to defaulting tenants. I would like to say to the noble Lord once more that we do support the principle of this Bill; but the provisions of Clause 7 as regards rating require some alteration, and I trust that the Government will see their way to meet us in regard to some of the points which we may think it necessary to raise when we consider this Bill in Committee.
LORD PENTLAND: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in reply to the points which have been put to me, and to endeavour to give the noble Lords who have spoken the information which they desire. The noble Earl who has just sat down pointed out that the provisions of this Bill, if carried into law, may produce this result, that the inhabitants of these houses may have to pay, on the whole, increased rents for the privilege. That may very possibly be a result, but that has been considered and faced by those who are interested in this matter. These men have not the means to make long, heavy payments, and, as your Lordships know, many social contrivances are devised to meet the needs of working men in these respects. The instalment system, however burdensome it may seem to us, does meet hardships and conditions or it would certainly not be in existence. It is very widely in existence, and it is in full knowledge of what may be the effects of this Bill that the pressure for some remedy such as that which this Bill is designed to give has been applied. It has been in existence in Scotland for twenty or twenty-five years. Ten, fifteen, or twenty Bills have been introduced into Parliament in the effort to obtain relief, and I think your Lordships may be assured that those who have been inspiring and supporting this movement for all these years are well aware of the probable consequences, and have measured the pros and cons of the change which they seek to bring about.
The noble Earl took another point on which I should like to say a word. Under the Poor Law Acts in Scotland payment of rates at present must be payment for the whole year. Now, if you are going to give to working men the option of taking a house for periods shorter than a whole year—they are now, as I have explained, obliged to take houses for a whole year, so that the payment of rates and the payment of rent are concurrent obligations—but if your Lordships are going, as you have expressed your willingness to-day, to

727
give working men the option of taking houses for one month, or two months, or three months, it stands to reason that you cannot possibly avoid interfering with the present obligation to pay rates for the whole year. I hope I have made that clear to your Lordships, because this is cardinal to this whole discussion. It is from this unavoidable necessity with which we have to deal that springs the whole difficulty, and if we do not at the beginning recognise that it is an unavoidable duty forced upon us by the necessity of an alteration we cannot ultimately arrive at that agreement at which, I willingly recognise, your Lordships are desirous to arrive. From that follows the necessity of in some degree touching the franchise, because, while it is not the main qualification for the franchise, the payment of rates is a subsidiary qualification. The main qualification for a person to be placed on the voters' roll is a residential qualification—having been in residence in Scotland for twelve months previous to the 31st of July.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: And having paid rent.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In a constituency, you mean. You said in Scotland.
LORD PENTLAND: I am thinking of the law in Scotland. The noble Earl is quite right, but I am putting aside the special condition of the constituency for a moment. The residential qualification is the main qualification for the franchise. Having paid rates is a subsidiary qualification, quite as essential, I admit, but subsidiary. Now if you are going to interfere with the present law which obliges payment of rates in one sum for the whole year, you must consequentially touch in some degree this subsidiary qualification for the franchise. I do not state that in any controversial sense because it is the basis of our whole discussion.
Now let me say one word in regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, said about the payment of one month's rates, in exceptional circumstances, qualifying a man for a whole year. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, said something of the same kind. I will discuss that fully in Committee. But let me put it to your Lordships that you are really considering
728
exceptions. The main body of the people for whom this remedy is established and proposed in this Bill are men who faithfully discharge their obligations. They pay their rent and their rates regularly, but by the force of circumstances in having to seek their employment elsewhere they leave a district and go to work for their living in another district. In nine eases out of ten, I might almost say in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, these men go off the roll because their residential qualification is interrupted. Numbers of them may move within the same constituency, but a great many will go out of a district altogether, and their franchise would be lost to them under the present law, not because they had not paid rates, but because their residential qualification was interrupted. I therefore put it to your Lordships that the controversy, such as it is, between us is really within very narrow limits as to what would happen in the case of a very small number of men.
Let me state, even in regard to this very small minority, what happens. The assessment roll in Scotland is made up from the valuation roll, and from the valuation roll is made up the register of voters. Take the case of a man who is in occupation of a house in September or October, when the register of voters is made up. The assessor who makes up the register of voters looks at the valuation roll and sees a particular man's name entered on the roll opposite the house which he occupies, and he puts him upon the register of voters in respect of that house. The time comes when the rating notes, or what we call the assessment notes, are sent out, in December. The Poor-law authorities and the other local authorities send out their assessment notes for the rate from the following Whitsuntide for the year. In January they begin to press for the payment of that rate. In May the notices are sent out to defaulters, and they have to pay by the 15th of June or they are struck off the register of voters, which begins to be made up in June, July and August. The noble Earl says that a man may be put on the roll when he has only paid rates for a month. That is perfectly true. He may have been on the roll for a month, because when he pays lie pays for his occupancy. Under this Bill we cannot any longer ask him to pay for the year. Before you established short lets you asked that man in January to pay his rates for the whole year; but when you

729
once begin telling that man that he can leave his house in a month—that is what this Bill does, and that is what your Lordships say you are in favour of, the giving of short lets—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will not the owner be called upon to pay the rates for the whole year? The occupier will not be called upon, as I understand, under the Bill to pay the rates at all.
LORD PENTLAND: If the noble Earl will allow me to go on, for the sake of simplicity I think it will be better. The noble Earl is quite right; but the owner has a right of recovery, so it comes to the same thing. We are dealing with the occupier who is only in residence for a short time, and that is the point I wish to make. When you have a system as at present, that rates should be paid for the whole year, that matter is simple enough. If the man does not pay the rates legally payable for the whole year he is struck off the register; he becomes a defaulter and does not get a vote. But if you introduce a system of short lets and say to a man, "You may break the tenure of your house, you may go to Belfast, or Sunderland, or Gateshead, or North Shields, or wherever your employment takes you, you may break your tenure after, it may be, one month, or two months, or three months." you must free him also from the obligation to pay rates for the whole year.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Why?
LORD PENTLAND: That is where your difficulty comes in. The noble Earl at once says that he suspects something. He says, "Oh, I have caught you extending the franchise." That is I he real difficulty; but I would urge upon you that we have done our best to reduce this objection to the very narrowest limits.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh!
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl says "Oh"; but I would ask him to balance against it the great injustice which people in Scotland in this position are now suffering, and to remember that thirty years ago in England Parliament was obliged, after abandoning compounding, under much wider limits than are contained in this Bill—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: After granting compounding.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Establishing it, you mean, in 1869.
LORD PENTLAND: But after establishing it in England they abandoned it, and then they came back to it—that is my point—and it is now the law. I can only say that in working out any improvement of this Bill the Government will welcome the co-operation of noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I, by permission of the House, say one word for the purpose of clearing my own mind and possibly the minds of some others on this side of the House? The noble Lord says he does not interfere with the residential qualification, but he does propose to interfere with the condition that rates must have been paid during the preceding twelve months. I do not quite understand on what principle he proposes to alter the one and not to alter the other. Nor do I think it, really will be found possible to do so. As Lord Dunmore and I said, it will be quite possible for a man to be put upon the roll when he has only occupied a house and paid rates in respect of it for one month, or possibly for one week. During the preceding twelve mouths he may have lived in five or six other houses. The law as it stands says that the rates must be paid during the whole of the preceding twelve months. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland says the alteration proposed is a very slight alteration; but surely it is a very considerable alteration when you say that a man may be placed on the voters' roll in respect of having paid rates for only one week.
LORD PENTLAND: May I, by leave of the House, say a word on that point? It is a hypothetical case. As a matter of fact, landlords will not take a man who has been in six or seven houses in a year and has not discharged his obligations. The odds are that in practice they will not take such a man. When a man goes to them for a house, especially a man who desires it for a short time, they will inquire as to his antecedents and where he has been living, and such cases as Lord Camperdown mentions are not likely to happen, though they are quite possible.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord says it is a hypothetical case, but that is only an assertion of his own; it is not an argument. It is in the very western towns, where this system appears to be most desired, where the greatest number of changes will take place. With regard to the residential qualification, the noble Lord says you cannot require a man to pay the rates for the year. Well, in the same way you may say you cannot require a man to reside for twelve months. I do not wish to pursue the subject further, but I think it is a matter that can be easily arranged. I believe I can put down words which will satisfy the Government, and I
732
will endeavour to put down such words before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 239.)
House adjourned at One o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.