Sitting of 15 May 1923

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

HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) ACT, 1923. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the prevention of abuses in connection with the grant of honours, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH ELMSALL AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Application to Scotland and extent.
2.—(1) This Act in its application to Scotland shall have effect with the substitution of references to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for references to the Minister and of a reference to Scotland for the reference to England or Wales, and with the further modification that the definition of agricultural land shall be extended so as to include land used as a deer forest.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): I beg to move, in Clause 2, after "Minister" to insert "of Agriculture and Fisheries." It is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after ("Minister") insert ("of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

RENT RESTRICTIONS (NOTICES OF INCREASE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I wish to give your Lordships some information on its contents. As your Lordships well know, under the original Rent Restrictions Act, 1915, no increase of rent over the standard rent—that is, the rent on August 4, 1914—was to be recoverable. The Act of 1920—to pass over intermediate Acts—allowed an increase of the standard rent up to forty

147
per cent., mainly contingent on the landlord having done repairs, or carried out improvements, or paid increased rates: but before that increase could take effect a notice of increase was to be given in a form which was in the Schedule of the Act. Most people understood that to entitle themselves to increase the rent it was enough to give notice of increase in the scheduled form. Hundreds of thousands of such notices were given, and were accepted as sufficient; increased rents were paid in accordance With the notices, and paid for years after the notices were given.
After a time, however, some ingenious person took the point that notice to increase was not enough, and that there must also be, with or before the notice to increase, a notice to quit the premises. That view was founded upon Section 3 (1) of the Act by which it is provided that
"Nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise any increase of rent except in respect of a period during which but for this Act the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession."
Obviously, that provision is somewhat ambiguous for it might mean that in order to give a valid notice of increase the landlord must be entitled to actual possession, or it might mean that he must be entitled to obtain possession by giving the proper notice. The latter view was supported by the reflection that notice to quit must under the Act be a mere formality, because it could not be carried out and no one could be ejected under such a notice. However, it is needless to speculate as to what the Act meant because the matter has been the subject of final decision. The earlier decisions in Scotland were in favour of the view that notice of increase alone was enough. There were then the decisions the other way in England, and, ultimately, the matter came before the House of Lords which, in the case of Kerr versus Bryde decided by a majority that a notice to quit must be given before or with a notice of increase. Therefore it must be taken that that is the law and that all these notices of increase given without notice to quit are invalid.
The position so produced was formidable. The tenant had a right under Section 14 of the Act to recover all increases of rents paid without the landlord
148
having had the legal right to demand them or to deduct those extra rents from future rents, and the effect was that in many eases where the increase had been paid for a year or two years, or two and a half years, the tenant had a right to deduct the increases so invalidly paid, with the result that the landlord in many cases could get no rent at all. For several years to come, in some cases for five years, he would have lost his rent altogether. Most tenants—probably ninety per cent. of them, I think—refused to take advantage of what was an obvious slip. They had agreed to pay the extra rent which was payable because the landlord had spent the money in repairs or in extra rates and they refused to profit by what was plainly a slip. Others insisted upon their legal right and were urged to do so by associations of different kinds. And therefore the practice of refusing payment was growing, especially, as it happens, in Glasgow and in the Glasgow district where these notices to quit have not usually been given. Most of the owners in Glasgow and the district are not owners of a great deal of property, but owners generally of one house, sometimes of two; and they depend entirely for their living upon the rents of these small houses. In many cases bankruptcy and ruin stared these small owners in the face and there were urgent claims on the Government asking us to intervene.
On the merits of the case I think it is clear that the equity lay with the owners in this matter. They had spent on increased rates, or on repairs or improvements, the money in respect of which the increased rents were claimed and since the notices of increase they had paid the local authorities rates based upon the increased amounts. Therefore, so far as they were concerned they had fulfilled their part of the bargain, and when the rents were withheld they were left with their expenditure. It is true that they had mistaken the law, but it appears that they had not mistaken the intention of the framers of the law. Dr. Addison, who was the Minister responsible for the Act, has declared plainly that he never meant by this section that a notice to quit should be required. Sir Kingsley Wood, who was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health at the same time, and was responsible with Dr. Addison for the Act, has said

149
the same thing. The then Secretary for Scotland, who is now Lord Justice Clerk, said the same thing. And although, of course, one could not, for the purpose of construing an Act, refer to debates in Parliament, or to the opinion of Ministers, yet on the question of whether legislation should be brought in amending an Act, I think such references are permissible. On the other hand, the tenants had agreed to increases, they had accepted the notices of increase, and the notices would have been good if that which was a mere formality, the service of a notice to quit, had been complied with. And therefore His Majesty's Ministers thought they were bound in equity to put right this slip by legislation.
Unfortunately, the Government had just come into office. This was part of the damnosa hereditas to which they succeeded. The decision was given just a few days before they took office. There was to be a short Session in November, devoted almost entirely to Irish affairs, and there was no time to legislate on this matter during that Session. But the Prime Minister announced in a speech that this matter had been referred to a Committee, and that if this Committee reported that legislation was desirable the Government would propose legislation in the next Session—that is, the present Session—and that it would, of course, be retrospective. I repeated the Prime Minister's announcement in your Lordships' House. Accordingly, this Bill is now brought in.
The proposals of the, Bill are not difficult to understand. It provides that the notices of increase shall hold good, although not accompanied or preceded by notices to quit. But it provides that payments made and deductions made before December 1—that is, the day after the Prime Minister's announcement—shall stand good. There are two mitigating proposals. One is that, as the arrears which might be recoverable between December 1 and the passing of this Bill into law might be considerable, the tenant should only be called upon to pay them by instalments, which should not exceed an addition of fifteen per cent. to his standard rent. That gives the tenant who has fallen into arrear—although he has done so with his eyes open—time to pay. The second is that in any case where it is found that a house coming within the
150
Act is not reasonably fit for human habitation and is otherwise in bad repair the County Courts shall have power to suspend the increase of rent until the property is put into a fit and proper condition, and any increases of rent and instalments accruing during that suspension will be altogether lost to the landlord. Those are the proposals of the Bill. They have been very fully discussed in another place, where the Third Reading of the Rill was agreed to by a considerable majority.
There are, I think, two main objections-taken to the Bill and from rather opposite points of view, although they are often taken by the same persons. The first is this. It is said that the Bill is retrospective and objection is taken, not unnaturally, to retrospective legislation. That objection is not very plausible in the mouths of those who take it now on behalf of the tenants, because in the 1920 Act you will find in Section 14 a retrospective provision in the interests of the-tenants which they were not only glad to have but insisted on having.
The general view is that retrospective legislation is not desirable and that a special case must be made out for any-such proposal. This matter has been considered. There have been many Acts of Parliament passed which were, to a certain extent, retrospective, and perhaps I might be permitted to quote the judgment of a distinguished Judge, Mr. Justice Willes, in the well known case of Regina versus Eyre. The learned Judge said:
"Retrospective laws are no doubt primá facie of questionable policy and, contrary to the general principle of legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated, ought when introduced for the first time to deal with future Acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law."
The learned Judge added:—
"But to affirm that it is naturally or necessarily unjust to lake away a vested right of action by Act subsequent is inconsistent both with the common law of England and the constant practice of legislation."
And he said:—
"One instance of retrospective legislation, obviously just, to render valid the acts of persons who have fallen honestly into error may suffice."

151
Although I agree with the general principle, I venture to think that this Bill falls within the exception to which Mr. Justice Willes referred.
There has been an honest error on the part of landlords, and equity is on their side. And although it might be said that until the Prime Minister's announcement on November 30 last the tenants, having acted on what was the law, could not be deprived of their rights, yet since that date they cannot have been under any misapprehension. They must have known—it was published broadcast—that whatever happened after that date would be open to review by Parliament. Therefore, there could be no misconception either on the part of landlords or tenants. So I suggest to your Lordships that that objection, good as it is in general terms in regard to legislation that is retrospective, does not lie in regard to this measure.
The second objection which is taken is in the contrary direction and is that the Bill is not retrospective enough. In other words, the complaint is made that whereas those tenants who paid their rent before December 1 last are not allowed to recover it, those tenants who did not pay their rent are not compelled to pay it, so in that respect the honest man is' put in a position of disadvantage as compared with one who was more inclined to insist upon his legal rights. I would venture to submit to your Lordships that while that is a criticism which is quite true so far as it goes, the answer is that you must draw the line somewhere. You cannot go back to the Act of 1920. You cannot make tenants pay up the increases of rent for the two and a half years during which they have legally declined to pay. No one in the world would suggest that. You have to draw the line, which is perhaps an arbitrary line, somewhere, and the Government have thought it right to draw their line at the date of the Prime Minister's announcement and to stop at that date. Those who before that date paid the increases in rent meant to pay them and probably very few of them would now desire to have them back. On the other hand, those who since that date have not paid them have acted on the existing law but have so acted with a true knowledge that sooner or later Parliament might alter the position. I
152
submit that the objections are fully answered. This Bill is an attempt to remedy a manifest injustice and is a remedy of a fair and moderate kind. I hope that your Lordships will think it right to give the Bill a Second Beading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, there is to be an important debate later this evening and I am most unwilling to stand between your Lordships' House and that debate for any length of time, but it is impossible to allow a Bill of this kind to pass without making at any rate a few remarks. His Majesty's Government are, I think, a little unfortunate in regard to this whole question. This is the second Bill dealing with the question of rent that has been before your Lordships' House to-day. Most of your Lordships will also remember that no less than two Housing Bills have been introduced into another place in the course of the present Session.
As to the Bill which is before your Lordships for consideration at the present moment, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will, I hope, allow me to say that much as I envy him many of his gifts, that which I envy him most is the power of casting a veil of sweet reasonableness over a series of propositions which in ordinary circumstances would, I venture to think, somewhat surprise your Lordships. Let us consider of what this Bill consists and what it proposes to do. All those who up to December 1 paid their rent, or did not pay it, are to be left alone. The just and the unjust, so to speak, are to be treated on the same footing. The unjust are to be allowed to remain in possession of the rents which they should have paid and the just who did pay their rent are not to get any compensation for having paid that which they thought it their duty to pay. But after that date everybody is to pay whether or not they paid at the moment. All are equally liable.
To begin with, I think it is a considerable hardship upon people to be called upon to pay money which the law says it is not necessary for them to pay. It would be very hard in the case of people with large incomes. How much harder is it in cases of people with small incomes.

153
And here we find that all these tenants who since December I have not paid their rent are now expected to pay all the arrears from the small incomes which they have at the present moment. That is no small hardship upon them.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack spoke of the difficulties of the case, and we all agree that they are very considerable. He said that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that it was an arbitrary line. We all agree with that. Rut surely the necessity of drawing the line somewhere does not necessarily make a reason for legislation. This is, as the Lord Chancellor explained, a Bill containing a large measure of retrospection, and he quoted an instance in which this House and the other House of Parliament agreed to retrospective legislation. We all agree that there must be cases when retrospective legislation may become necessary, but surely they ought to be as rare as possible, and, if they are agreed to, there are one or two conditions which we ought to lay down as being of paramount necessity. First of all, they should remedy a general grievance, and next, they should command general assent. It seems to me that this Bill does not meet either of those two criteria.
Let us remember that the difficulty chiefly arises in Glasgow. Glasgow is the centre of the opposition to the payment, and it is there that the opposition to this particular Bill centres. It does not arise in most of the other towns in Scotland, and it does not do so for the very simple reason that in so many cases the landlords took care to obey the letter of the law. And indeed, there was no reason why they should not, for it was well known what was the state of the law. A text book was published in the year 1920 in which these words occur:
"Strictly construed the words just quoted mean that as a condition precedent to any increase of rent the landlord must give the requisite notice to terminate the tenancy, and thereafter serve the statutory notice of the increase of rent."
Therefore it was not as if it were sprung as a complete surprise upon everybody that it was necessary to serve this notice. It was even in text books which were accessible to everybody, and was no new thing. These landlords who omitted to take the necessary precaution did so at their own risk, and on their own responsibility.
154
Here we have a case of making a discrimination, and I would ask your Lordships' House whether, after all, it is worth while to do it.
Naturally, we should not think of asking your Lordships to divide upon such a question this afternoon, but it is at any rate worth while to enter a caution in regard to legislation of this kind. The sums of money which are involved are not really very considerable. A private owner frequently makes mistakes of this kind, and when he makes such mistakes he stands the racket, and does not come to Parliament to ask that he may be specially favoured by retrospective legislation. In view of the fact that, honest error though it may have been, people suffer from honest error in much the same sort of circumstances, it seems to me far from wise in this particular case to remedy what is, after all, a comparatively small matter by so large a breach in the tradition of Parliament in regard to retrospective legislation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Advertisements by means of smoke.
2.—(1) A person shall not use or cause or permit to be used for purposes of advertisement any aerial contrivance or means involving the emission of smoke or other visible fumes.
(2) Any person acting in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble and learned Earl said: When this Bill or a similar Bill—perhaps a less moderate Bill—came before the House a year ago,

155
I ventured to indicate some of the objections which I felt to the general scheme and outlook of the Bill. When in a more moderate form, which conciliated a great deal of antagonism, the Bill reappeared in your Lordships' House this year, I did not on the whole feel called upon to restate the objections which nevertheless I still retained, because, to be perfectly frank with your Lordships, although a man of extremely pacific disposition, I seem to have become involved in a great number of antagonisms, and I thought that I might allow this one to be passed without any intervention on my part as others who are interested in the matter seemed to have abandoned their objections. But since then I have been taking note a little carefully of some of the issues which arise, and I feel it necessary, in order to test the opinions of your Lordships, to carry to a Division the proposals of Clause 2.
Clause 2, if I may describe it in a short and popular way, proposes to make it-impossible in the future for any air advertisements to be exhibited, in the sky. I am most anxious to do full justice to the case which is made upon this point by the noble Lord who has interested himself so much in this Bill, and therefore, lest I do him an injustice, I shall read what he said upon the Second Beading. He said:
"There is only one new feature in the present Bill to which I will allude, and that is in Clause 2. Clause 2 deals with smoke advertisements. I remember that last year when I introduced this Bill the noble and learned Lord. Lord Buckmaster, expressed the opinion that if these advertisers had their way they would paint the rainbow. That statement was received with a certain amount of derision, but Lord Buckmaster proved to be an extremely accurate prophet, because within a few days of that statement being made, the Daily Mail burst upon an astonished and disgusted world with their smoke advertisements in the sky. We suffer quite enough from the Daily Mail on earth without being plagued by it from heaven. The only good thing I know to the credit of that blatant organ is that it once had to pay me £5,000 for aspersing my character. I have sometimes wished, when in financial straits, that they would renew their attack upon me."
The noble Lord went on to say:
"The sky is already sufficiently polluted by atmospheric pollution without adding to it the fumes of the Daily Mail, and the prospect of the noble Viscount. Lord Rothermere, bawling and shouting across the sky, not in letters of fire, but in letters
156
of smoke, 'Hats off to France,' or 'Business as usual,' or 'Bonar Law must go because he will not do what I want,' is a prospect which no reasonable being could tolerate for a minute."
The noble Lord will not think I am disrespectful to the rest of his arguments if I adopt that as a summary of the considerations which, in his judgment, were most likely to prove persuasive in inducing your Lordships to give a Second Beading to the Bill.
Having assented to the principle of the Second Reading we have now to apply our minds to the details. We are now in the Committee stage, and have to consider whether we may not possibly, under the influence of the humour and the persuasiveness of the noble Lord, have committed ourselves a little too deeply. This Advertisements Regulation Bill is one which in my judgment—I am not at liberty except perhaps in an elusive sentence to deal with its general principle—seems to proceed upon an altogether exaggerated view of difficulties and objections. The world is a very big place. Advertisements are very small things, and, although England is a small country, that proportion of the countryside of England which is disfigured and defaced by advertisements is quite inconsiderable.
It is perfectly true, if you travel in a railway train and examine the posters which are exhibited on the road along which you travel, that you may see various things which, if you are of a very sensitive nature, may offend and affront you. It may be my misfortune, but I am not of a very sensitive nature. It does not annoy me when I am travelling on the road if I read recommendations to take somebody's pills. It does not really spoil the scenery. The whole artistic standard is wrong. The man is a bad artist who allows his appreciation of the scenery to be deflected by the circumstance of being recommended to take somebody's pills. He is not a philosophical but an unphilosophical man who allows himself to be so disturbed. Any mind is unbalanced that allows such considerations to come into collision with the requirements of trade and commerce, if, indeed, the considerations involved in trade and commerce are at all advantaged by these exhibitions.
I have had the good fortune all my life not to be a business man and, therefore.

157
I can only draw certain inferences as to what is likely to be conveyed to a reasonable man under normal considerations, and I cannot conceive that any men of business would spend their lives in advertising that which they sell, be it good or bad, allopathic or homoeopathic, unless they derive some advantage from the advertisements. In these days of declining trade, I have never been able to understand why we should be called upon to stop these advertisements, in order that when we travel in a railway carriage our eyes may not be affronted by five or six advertisements of large oxen or large camels, of appreciations of somebody's pills which we are under no compulsion at all to take. The noble lord is evidently of a very sensitive disposition. I have long appreciated that. He has felt these things deeply. They have entered into his soul. As long as he brooded upon the earth, like a famous person in history once did, as long as he confined his proscription of these things to the earth and the sea—I was against him a year ago, I was against him on the Second Reading of this Bill, but being unwilling to add to the considerable anxiety I had in hand already I did not intervene on the Second Heading debate—I left him the land and I left him the sea, but I will not without protest leave him the air.
Where are we now? He is like a new Icarus. In his brooding he looks at the sky and says, "Not only am I to be allowed to travel in the railway train without having my æsthetic sense wounded and affronted by these advertisements, but I will not tolerate the risk when I raise my eyes of seeing five thousand feet in the air a smoke screen from the Daily Mail." I utterly refuse the noble Lord any such jurisdiction. Even the Ex-Kaiser only claimed the earth and the sea. The noble Lord, more imperious than the All Highest, refuses to have his fastidious sense affronted by the chance that when he raises his eyes to the sky he may see a smoke screen in the air. After all, I attach a great deal of importance to what the Kaiser thought at a certain period in the Kaiser's career, and I attach a certain amount of importance to what the noble Lord thinks at the present moment of his career, but I am unaware of anything the noble Lord has ever yet produced which entitles him to stand forward and say: " I am so
158
æesthetic in my nature, so much more sensitive, in my nature than anybody else, so much more artistic than anybody else, that if I see a Daily Mail screen going up with advertisements exhibited in terms of smoke in the air, I go home miserable and crushed and come to Parliament and ask for release."
Why should the noble Lord put himself on this pedestal? I have travelled about the streets and on a few occasions have seen the exhibitions of the Daily Mail. And give me leave to say quite plainly, as a man accustomed to antagonism and criticism, and prepared to endure them indefinitely, that I do not believe that for ten years one word friendly to myself has appeared in the Daily Mail, and I do not care if for another ten years no word friendly to myself appears in that organ of the Press. I stand here as amicus curiæ, and as I examine this question I recollect the occasions on which the Daily Mail advertisements have appeared in the sky. What have I seen? Have I seen the supporters of the noble Lord flocking from the shops and warehouses in artistic and æsthetic protest against the disfigurement of the firmament? Nothing of the kind. I have seen His Majesty's liege subjects crowding to read the letters, delighted if they can read them, and waiting in constant anxiety to complete the sentence which so much exasperates the æsthetic sense of the noble Lord.
We must be reasonable. The sky is a big place; there is plenty of room; there is no obstruction. All the case the noble Lord makes is that his (esthetic sense is affronted and wounded to see a few sentences depicted in the sky. Let me give him a word of friendly advice. As he stands there in the windows of his club, or in his motor car, or from whatever point of view he contemplates these developing horrors as he spells out the letters Daily Mail, let him think all the time of that £5,000 and I assure him that the wound to his æesthetic mind will be corrected by the financial subvention which that recollection will convey. How does the noble Lord know that another libel against him may not be exhibited in the sky at any moment? There may be another £5,000 waiting for him if he will only wait.
LORD NEWTON: I wish there were.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: He has given away his whole case. The noble Lord has admitted that he is prepared to support this great peril if only he can be assured that there will be another libel against himself. Need I say another word? Although I have been humorous on this subject I have nevertheless a serious criticism to make; and that is that to interfere with the ordinary business of advertising by private enterprise will be futile. If the noble Lord's æsthetic sense is affronted by a few lines in the air when he turns his eyes upwards he might remember Sic itur ad astra. I would advise him to look at Pall Mall, and not into the air at all. There are really other obvious reasons well worth the attention of the noble Lord and of the House and which are even more worthy the attention of the Air Ministry and the Government.
There is, in fact, a company which is known as the Savage Sky-Writing Company in England which has put into commission a number of pilots, mechanics, and single-seater aircraft, and the noble Duke who replies for the Air Service will not deny that in the opinion of the armed forces of this country they would be of the greatest military value to this country as a nucleus of an air squadron. These sky training operations, which the noble Lord to gratify his æesthetic tendencies desires to prevent, must be carried out at a great height, if possible at 12,000 feet, and sometimes higher still. The smoke and the noise of the engines can in no circumstances be a nuisance to people on the ground. On the other hand, the quick manœuvring necessary at this great height must provide the most admirable training for pilots in the air. Those who have watched sky writing would, I should have thought, have agreed with me when I said a moment ago that these operations are popular with the public. Major Savage, a retired officer who served with the Royal Air Force during the war, possesses patents which in his judgment—he may be too sanguine—cover all possible methods of using smoke for sky-sign writing. At present this company is based in England and is using English pilots and British aircraft in America and in France. It is proposed to extend its activities throughout the whole of Europe and throughout the whole of the British Empire.
160
It is obvious that if a Bill is passed to forbid sky-sign writing in this country Major Savage will be compelled to close down his English company, which provides great employment in England, and to remove that English company to another country which is not handicapped in its commercial and aircraft enterprises by the æsthetic difficulties which obsess the noble Lord. Let me tell your Lordships the extent of the calamity which would result if that company left this country. The company at present employs 15 pilots and 37 mechanics, and it possesses 21 aeroplanes, some of them belonging to a type which was one of the best fighting scouts in the British Army at the conclusion of the war. Let me add this. At a moment when the problems of the air are occasioning the greatest embarrassment and difficulty to this country and are well known to be engaging the most anxious attention of the Government, this is the only civil aviation company which does not draw a penny in the shape of a Government subsidy. It is the only independent aviation industry which is self-supporting. Knowing the present financial difficulties of the country, I am not prepared to discard immediately 15 highly trained pilots, 37 mechanics and 21 aeroplanes, a force—let me make this admission in favour of the noble Lord's contention—that may be considerably increased, as I hope it will. Are we to get rid of the only unsubsidised force contributory to our potential air defences in order that the noble Lord, as he takes his walks abroad, may not be offended by a screen of smoke which may be made to spell the name of the Daily Mail?
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD NEWTON: I confess that the action of the noble and learned Earl has taken me considerably by surprise. What has surprised me, perhaps, not less than anything else is the fact that the noble and learned Earl, with all his great Parliamentary experience, should come here and deliver an elaborate Second Beading speech on the Committee stage of a Bill. But that does not exhaust my surprise. I feel considerably surprised also at the objections to this clause which the noble and learned Earl has put forward. He assumes that I must be an

161
ultra-sensitive, ultra-æsthetic kind of person to be provoked by these exhibitions. All I can say is—and perhaps I shall surprise him in my turn on this occasion—there are people much more sensitive than myself. I refer to the members of the advertising trade and those who constitute the advertising section of the London Chamber of Commerce, and I should not have thought there was anything very æsthetic about them. These gentlemen actually came to the promoters of this Bill and asked us to put this clause in because, as they said: " This particular form of advertisement is no good; it is objectionable; and above all, it is desperately expensive. The Daily Mail is rich enough to indulge in it. We cannot do it, and if we are obliged to compete with the Daily Mail we shall all be ruined." The noble and learned Earl attributed the insertion of this clause to my personal objection to the Daily Mail. I admit that I am not fond of the Daily Mail, and I should not think the Daily Mail is fond of mo. On the other hand, I also object very strongly to smoke, and a combination of the Daily Mail and smoke is a thing which I think all reasonable persons ought to oppose as strongly as they can.
I shall not delay the noble and learned Earl, particularly as I understand he is going to touch upon a much more important subject shortly, by following him through the whole of his speech, but I do desire to point out that this is an agreed Bill, and that up to this moment I had not heard a single person suggest that there was anything wrong with this particular clause. The noble and learned Earl made great play, as a skilful advocate would, with what he called the Savage Sky-Writing Company, who apparently maintain fifteen airmen and a certain number of mechanics. I gather from him that it is only through the advertisements of the Daily Mail that these persons are able to earn their livelihood. I should like to ask the noble Earl what these persons have been doing for the last ten months, because for the last ton or eleven months none of these smoke advertisements have appeared.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: They are practising for renewed exhibitions upon a larger scale in the next few months.
LORD NEWTON: So far as I am concerned, I hope that those larger exhibitions will never take place. All that I desire to add is that the Bill does not prevent experiments in smoke or in anything else taking place in the sky. All it does is to prohibit these ridiculous smoke exhibitions in the form of advertisements. Any military or naval authority has complete liberty. There is nothing to prevent their indulging in any experiments they choose. I am convinced that I have the sympathy, not of the aesthetes of the world, but of all common-sense persons in the country, when I protest against the sky being additionally defiled by this totally unnecessary exhibition. The noble and learned Earl intimated his intention of taking the sense of the Committee upon this question. I am quite ready to meet him, and I feel a considerable amount of confidence as to the result.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE F0R AIR (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My only intention is to say one word as to the point of view of the Air Ministry in regard to this question. The Secretary of State for Air and the Air Ministry feel that this sky-writing company is of real value to the development of aviation, and they thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, for having raised this point, and for having raised it in the way in which he did. He brought forward arguments to show what particular value these pilots and machines would have for the future of aviation. I should like to make it quite clear that the Government are not taking any particular line upon this Amendment, and that it is left entirely to the discretion of noble Lords to decide in what way they will vote, and to what decision they will come. But, from the point of view of the Air Ministry, we believe that it is really important to keep these machines and to keep the Savage Company in existence as at present.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: A very important situation has been created by the speech of the noble Duke who has just sat down. That speech vitally affects the way in which many of us regard the Bill. It is true that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and is in charge of it in this House told us that it was an agreed Bill. Whether Bills are agreed to or not outside the House is, however, a fact which never affects your

163
Lordships, who always maintain a full right to deal with agreed Bills in a way which they think is for the public interest, quite apart from the interests of those who may have agreed upon the Bills beforehand. For my own part I confess that I am so much impressed by what has fallen from the noble Duke that I venture to hope that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill insists upon going to a Division we shall support the view which has fallen from the representative of the Air Ministry.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I should like to trouble your Lordships with one or two words. On the Second Reading of the Bill I informed the House that it was an agreed Bill, and I understood that it-was so much agreed outside that any alteration would result in the Bill being sacrificed. Originally, I was with the noble Karl, Lord Birkenhead, in opposing the Bill in its extreme form, but in its new form it had all the objectionable matter taken out of it, and I considered it to be a useful Bill. Now I feel in a rather awkward position. I am not one of those opposed to advertising—on the contrary—and I now have to ask myself what is my position, having come to your Lordships and said that it was an agreed Bill and that the Chamber of Commerce approved of it. I have not heard these new points raised before this afternoon, but I think I shall satisfy my conscience if I take no part in the Division.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, we have had an entirely new point raised this afternoon. I have never heard about this point before, but I am strongly in favour of giving to local authorities the power of preventing the country from being defaced by advertisements. We are not saying what advertisements should be allowed, and what should not, but I understand that we are giving power to local authorities to protect the amenities of the country. There has been a great deal of pollution and defacing of the country which was essential to industry and could not be avoided, but I am strongly in favour of giving to the local authorities the widest power of preventing further defacement of the country, where it is not essential to industry. With regard to the particular question of these companies, I do not quite understand the position of the Government, but I think it is this.
164
They admit that the air defence of the country is exceedingly important—one of the most important things which the Government of the day have to consider. I spoke not long ago, when the main subject of debate was the question of air defence, and I endeavoured to show that so far as I was concerned I was alive to the importance of it; but precisely because it is so important, are we to be told that it is a matter of real vital difference to the probability of our air defence being safe that we should encourage or depend upon a company whose primary object is not the development of air transport, but the making of advertisements in the air?
I feel very strongly that that is not treating the subject of air defence from the point of view of real capital importance. I would give any support to the Government in any measures which they may think necessary to make the air defence of the country really strong, but I cannot believe that the Government are going to be so remiss in doing what is really important, that it is necessary for us to reject this Bill on a side issue of this kind, in order that a company may be encouraged in a form of civil aviation which is not essential to industry and is not going to increase the value of trade, but is only going to advertise one particular company or another in the air. I remain of the same opinion as I was when the Bill was first introduced, and, so far as I am concerned, I shall continue to support the Bill.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I am very glad the noble Viscount has just made this speech, because it gives me an opportunity, as I think, of clearing up the situation, which has developed in a way which I certainly did not expect. The general view which the noble Viscount has expressed, of support of the Bill, is of course, as he knows well, shared by nearly every member of this House, and certainly by every noble Lord sitting on the Treasury Bench. We are all supporters of the Bill, and of that principle of the Bill to which the noble Viscount has called attention, giving local authorities power to prevent the defacement of their areas by advertisements. This particular clause is different from the other clauses of the Bill, because it is a general prohibition. The noble

165
Viscount says he Joes not quite understand the position of the Government. The position of the Government is a perfectly simple one. The Air Ministry would naturally be in favour of the promotion of any industry which leads to the development of aircraft. The representative of the Air Ministry in this House, when he spoke just now, said frankly that, the Government were not particularly in favour of this Amendment. Personally, I am going to vote against it, and I believe that my noble friend the Leader of the House is going to take the same course.
So far as we are concerned we share the view that, on the whole, it would be better that the Bill should remain in its present condition, and upon the grounds which the noble Viscount has just put to your lordships. Deeply though we value, of course, the promotion of the Air Service, and of anything which leads to the increase of aircraft and air experts in the country, we do not believe for a single instant that the success of the great reform in the Air Service is going to be largely promoted by the encouragement of these fifteen commercial aeroplanes which are making smoke signs in the country. It is, I think, relatively a trivial matter, and I do not think we ought to look to the promotion of the Air Service by interfering with this particular clause in the Bill, which is designed to do what we all desire—namely, to prevent offensive advertisements being exhibited in the sky. We are not going to promote the Empire by permitting Daily Mail advertisements in the sky. It is a wholly exaggerated way of looking at the matter, and I do not know why there should be any criticism of my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland for merely stating what was the view of the Air Ministry. I think, on the whole, that the very proper æesthetic interests of the country ought to prevail, and I shall vote against the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: As we have been told, not of course with the intention, but with the obvious result, of influencing the votes of your Lordships, how the Deputy Leader of the House is going to vote, and indulged with a prediction as to how the Leader of the House is going to vote, may I ask how the representative of the Air Ministry is going to vote?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not going to be a Government Division.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Then why tell us all these things?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thought it might be a matter of interest to the House to know.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Of course it is, and it is of great interest to know how the representative of the Air Ministry is going to vote.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I will immediately tell the noble Earl. I am going to vote in favour of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Air Force, if it is going to develop at all, must develop with a civilian or semi-Territorial line behind it, and that will depend upon giving all those who are engaged in using aircraft the utmost extension of business facility. It is only a thing that can come if you encourage people in every way. I cannot foresee how they may employ their aircraft, but I do see that in this Bill it is not a case of giving the power to regulate to local authorities, but there is an absolute prohibition of using aircraft for purposes of advertisement. I cannot see how that may operate in the future, and as I think it is vitally important that we should develop a civilian air force I find myself not able to assent to the clause as it stands.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The reason why the prohibition is absolute, and not within the hands of the local authorities, is that an air advertisement may be a mile up in the air, and it may not be within the area of a local authority which proposes to act. I rise merely to express to my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead my cordial gratification at the announcement made by Lord Salisbury. It is a great encouragement to me to know how he is going to vote, especially as he is going to vote in the right lobby. Air training is the defence of this country and of our Empire, and it should not and cannot depend upon the virtues of any particular pill, or any other commodity. I am convinced that this House and the country will readily support any outlay suggested by His

167
Majesty's Ministers on the assurance that the money is going to be well spent upon the development of our Air Force. The State should not give an oblique imprimatur to any private enterprise which is using the air for the purposes of advertisement, and air defence is far too serious to depend upon the caprice of any advertiser. I am glad to learn that
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3:
Local authority.
3. Every urban council in England shall be a local authority for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, and Section seven of the principal Act shall accordingly have effect as though the words " containing a population according to the last census for the time being of over ten thousand " were omitted.
the members of the Government are going to support this Bill as it stands.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Some of them.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

York, L. Abp.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Merthyr, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Hood, V.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monkswell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Long, V.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Younger, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Albemarle, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Phillimore, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Bradford, E.

Avebury, L.

Buxton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Raglan, L.

Eldon, E.

Bethell, L.

Rowallan, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Biddulph, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Lindsey, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Lovelace, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mayo, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L.

Midleton, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Onslow, E.

Dewar, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Russell, E.

Erskine, L.

Sudeley, L.

Strafford, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wavertree, L.

Wicklow, E.

Faringdon, L.

Wharton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hatherton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Allendale, V.

Hemphill, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Hothfield, L.

De Vesei, V.

Hylton, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Falmouth, V.

Kilsant, L.

Wyfold, L.

Finlay, V.

MacDonnell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D. [Teller.]

Devonport, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wellington, D.

Wimborne, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Ancaster, E.

Denman, L.

Redesdale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Donington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Harris, L.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Illingworth, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Clarendon, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Vivian, L.

Iveagh, E.

Lawrence, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Viscount said: I am very sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with an Amendment to this clause, and I apologise to my noble friend Lord Newton for having overlooked the matter on the Second Reading. If I had then observed the change which he proposes to make in the existing law I should certainly have called attention to it, and I should have given notice then of my intention to move this

169
Amendment. In the course of the debate to which we have just listened the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, informed your Lordships that the carrying out of Clause 2, which has just been passed, is not left to the discretion of the local authorities but that under that clause advertisement in the air is absolutely prohibited. But as I read the Bill, it is the local authority who will be charged with carrying out that provision, with prosecuting anyone for the offence and with endeavouring to secure its cessation.
Nobody else is mentioned in the Bill as the authority who is to set the law in motion if an offence is committed. Therefore, I suggest that, quite apart from the arguments which I shall very briefly submit to your Lordships' in a moment, to prohibit advertisement in the air and then to charge a local authority with a small population of 500 or 600 people covering a very limited area with the duty of putting the law in force is absurd. It is impossible for the people living in a village in Wales, for instance, to be able to prove whether an advertisement is exactly over their village or over some place ten or twelve miles away. Therefore, Clause 2, in respect of many of the local authorities, would be inoperative. I did not call attention to this matter on a previous occasion because I happened to be present at a meeting of the County Councils' Association, and I am moving this Amendment on their behalf.
The statement has more than once been made that this is an agreed Bill. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Newton, on a previous occasion expressed the hope, which we all shared, that if it went through as an agreed Bill it might meet with favourable treatment in another place. I am authorised to say on behalf of the County Councils' Association that if my noble friend Lord Newton is unable to accept the Amendment which I am moving on their behalf, they will be compelled to carry their opposition into the other House and will decline to regard this Bill as in any sense an agreed Bill. And surely they are justified in taking that course. There are in this country no less than 526 local urban authorities with a population of under 10,000. All sorts of measures dealing with a great variety of subjects have been passed by Parliament since 1883, when the county councils were brought into existence, and 1892, when the urban and rural district councils were set
170
up. Never, however, has Parliament abandoned the principle that two main laws should govern local administration. The first is that there should not be too great a divergence between the law in one part of the country and the law in another part of the country. The second is that the main powers of local government should be conferred upon the great central authorities.
That is the law, so far as I know, in every enactment which has been passed to give fresh powers to local authorities since the Act of 1888 brought the county councils into existence. This Bill proposes to repeal that so far as advertisements are concerned and to hand them over to all the urban district councils. Consider what some of these urban district councils are. I am not quite sure how it stands now and I have not looked it up, but the law used to be that there was no half-way house between the powers enjoyed by a borough and those enjoyed by a rural district. It has frequently happened that the Government Department concerned, which is now, I believe, the Ministry of Health—it used to be the Local Government Board—has conferred extra sanitary powers on villages, which were really villages, in order to enable them to carry out certain reforms. Those villages were thereby created urban districts. Therefore, not only does the Bill propose to take away powers which are now enjoyed by county councils, and enjoyed by them in common with all other similar powers, but it; proposes for the first time—it is the most reactionary proposal I have over heard of—to confer very far-reaching powers upon places with a population of anything from 500 up to 10,000. I do not know what view will be taken by your Lordships of this interference with the rights of county councils, but I am confident that it will be opposed in another place by all those who represent county councils and, I believe, the larger boroughs.
When this proposal was before your Lordships' House on a previous occasion the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who was then Leader of the Opposition, supported this view emphatically. I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting his language, but he expressed what I believe has always been the view held by the majority of people—namely, that in carrying out powers of this or of a similar nature, it is

171
desirable to avoid so far as possible any differences in administration and to confer drastic powers of this description upon the great central authorities and not upon the minor local authorities. This, as I have said, has been the invariable practice of Parliament, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did not think it necessary to call your Lordships' attention to Clause 3 and to give some reason for taking away these powers from the great county councils and transferring them to the smallest of our local authorities, to those who have the least civic pride. To do this is, I believe, to defeat the Bill.
In some parts of the country these smaller urban districts are very numerous, and follow closely one upon another. In parts of the country with which the noble Lord himself is specially familiar—in Lancashire, parts of Cheshire, the two Ridings of Yorkshire, and some of the Midland counties—these urban districts follow closely upon one another. You cannot tell, a" you drive or walk along, when you are out of one and in another; yet the noble Lord proposes to give separate powers to each of these urban districts. I do not know what view my noble friend is going to take of this Amendment, but if he rejects it I prophesy that he will make his Bill one which is foredoomed to failure. It will be impossible for the small urban districts to carry out this Bill. One will give effect to it, and another will not. How on earth are you to secure prosecutions?
I agree with the provisions in the earlier part of the Bill. I regard the Bill as one which is intended to prevent the degradation of the country-side, and for that reason I welcome it; but that a serious power like this should be exercised by tiny local authorities from which Parliament has been consistently taking away powers and not conferring new ones upon them is to my mind an absolute mistake. I challenge my noble friend to give a single instance in which these places with populations below 10,000 have had fresh powers conferred upon them in the last, fifty years. I do not care whether it is in the matter of education, or of the police or of the roads, or any other subject, new powers have been given not to these places with a population
172
of below 10,000 but to the county councils, and it is in pursuance of that well-accepted principle that I move my Amendment. The least I think the noble Lord can do before he asks us to make such a drastic change in the law is to show that the county councils have failed, and that there is some reason to believe that where they have failed these authorities of small towns will succeed.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)
LORD NEWTON: The speech of my noble friend is an illustration of the difficulties which attend upon what is known as an agreed Bill. I was under the impression that we had satisfied and squared everybody, including the county councils, and now the noble Viscount comes here and accuses me of embarking upon something little short of revolutionary legislation. I cannot help thinking that he is attaching too much importance to this particular provision, and I confess to feeling some surprise that he did not call attention to it when the Second Reading was moved.
My noble friend talks about conferring these extraordinary powers upon small local bodies. I am not such an authority upon local government as is my noble friend, but I am under the impression that these small local authorities have power to enforce any number of by-laws on all kinds of other subjects, and really it is not a very revolutionary proposal that an urban council should have the right to stop objectionable advertisements in its district. The authorities which have power to make by-laws are county councils and town councils. There are many towns in this country which have very small populations—infinitely smaller than many of these urban districts. There are certainly plenty of urban districts near London which contain more than 10,000 inhabitants, and it seems to me rather an exaggeration to contend that if you propose to give them powers to deal with advertisements you are embarking upon revolutionary legislation.
I recognise in my noble friend a well-wisher of the Bill, although his approval of it does not seem to be so strong as it was a few days ago, but I must point out

173
to him that if his Amendment is carried it will seriously weaken the Bill. There are, if I am not mistaken, ninety-nine county authorities in this Bill, and of those I think only about forty have made by-laws at all. If his Amendment is carried the position will be that the small authority which desires to do something under this Bill will be precluded from doing it because the county council refuses to move in the matter. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I think this is an occasion upon which one might be favoured with the guidance of the Government. If the representative of the Government expresses himself strongly in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend I will give way, but otherwise I must divide the House upon the matter.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): As my noble friend asks for the opinion of the Government I will in a few words give the views of the Department of my right hon. friend, but in doing so I do not wish it to be understood that the Government desire to influence the votes of your Lordships. The Home Office do not see the advantage of making every urban district council a by-law-making authority. Our view is that the existing provision, contained in the Act of 1907, which empowers only the larger urban districts to make by-laws and loaves the county councils responsible for the smaller authorities, is preferable to the suggestion which is contained in the Bill. That is the view of the Government, but we leave it entirely to your Lordships to vote in any way you please.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: What ever else we lose let us retain our sense of humour. We are discussing here to-day this Bill as if there was the slightest chance of it becoming law. We spend several hours upon it. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has spent, I should suppose, many weeks upon it. Does anybody really think that there is the slightest prospect of the Bill becoming law, even though the last Amendment has been defeated, an Amendment which, I venture to say, will undoubtedly be adopted in another place, and be adopted, as we know, with the support of the Air Ministry? This is a private Bill. What is the prospect of it being adopted and carried through in another place? I listened with great
174
interest to the speech made by the noble Viscount, and he appeared to me to develop a powerful case. But do not let us exhaust ourselves on questions which are not going to assume any practical importance. We have had an illustration to-day. The Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House have voted against an Amendment which concerned the Air Service, and on behalf of which the vole which was representative of the vote of the Air Minister has been recorded What are the prospects of such a Bill receiving the slightest support from the House of Commons? What is the prospect of the Government starring this Bill? I see none, and I decline to waste a single moment further over the Bill.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Will the noble Lord answer my question in regard to Clause 2? Clause 2 proposes to make it absolutely prohibitive to advertise in the air. So far as I read the Bill it leaves it to the country village of 500 people to put the law in force. Is that correct?
LORD NEWTON: We are not discussing Clause 2.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: On the contrary. Clause 2 is part of the Bill. Clause 3 is the clause which makes the Bill operative, and the promoters of the Bill ought to be able to tell your Lordships whether I am right in saying that if Clause 2 is contravened by an advertisement in the air the obligation to prosecute rests upon a small local authority with a population of 500 or 600, and an area of six or seven miles.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It may be well to leave that point until the next stage of the Bill, and during the interval the noble Lord could go into the matter and find out if the difficulty outlined is as serious as it sounds. The noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, says that no allegation is made against county councils. No; I am sure no allegation is made against them at all, but it is the fact that more than half the county councils have not exercised the powers in respect of advertisements already vested in them. That is natural. Why should a county council go out of its way to protect an area which is within an urban district council? It is only natural

175
that it should take greater interest in matters in which it is more closely concerned than in an area in which its jurisdiction is incomplete. In no less than sixty county councils no such by-laws exist. That really strengthens the case of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and I suggest that urban authorities should be given an opportunity. They are the sufferers and it is to them that one ought to look for some action.
I should like to see the Bill maintained as it stands. The noble and learned Earl says that we must not lose our sense of humour. I am not going to lose my sense of optimism. It is no good telling me that this Bill has no chance. I believe it has a good chance and that the country is desperately interested in this subject. Many urban councils have been pressing for such legislation in order that they may exercise powers hitherto vested in another authority. No objection was taken by county councils on the last occasion, and, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Viscount, I think some county councils would be glad to hand over to other authorities responsibilities which they have not seen fit to exercise.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the suggestion of the noble Viscount will be adopted. I am dead against handing these powers over to small district councils. These bodies are most effete and useless, and in my opinion subject to all kinds of corruption. The proper authority is the county council, and you should make it responsible for a large area. I do not know what would happen if the Bill was passed giving the proposed power to small urban district councils.
LORD NEWTON: I am most anxious to be reasonable, and in view of the opinions expressed by noble Lords and by the representative of the Government, I am willing to accept the Amendment. At the same time I consider that my noble friend has done the Bill a very bad turn because it seriously weakens its provisions. I hope now, at long last, that I may be able to speak of it as an agreed measure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.

ALDERNEY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Bill is necessitated by the fact that after March last year the Admiralty felt unable to provide for the maintenance and repair of the breakwater in Alderney, because its maintenance was no longer necessary for national defence. But it is essential to the Island, and it is necessary to make arrangements for its upkeep. The Bill has another object. The position of certain Government Departments in Alderney is not satisfactory, and a proposal was made to get rid of the present complexity of control by transferring a large measure of the control to the States of the Island. The proposal was accepted on all sides, and the Bill embodies the arrangement.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GROWTH OF SOCIALISM.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD had given Notice to call attention to the growing strength of Socialism, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to modify by legislation the power of trades unions to make compulsory levies for political purposes. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject which is on the paper to-night is one which, I regret, has been twice postponed already; once because I was asked to do so by an important section of opinion in your Lordships' House, and on the second occasion because there was a wedding of some interest taking place. I now find myself in the unfortunate position of being called upon at ten minutes past six o'clock to initiate a debate in which some fourteen or fifteen Peers desire to take part, and those among the most important in your Lordships' House.
If the Government acquiesce and if your Lordships generally acquiesce, I do not think it desirable that the first formal debate, so far as I know, which has taken place in the House of Lords on the two important topics raised in my Motion—first, the position of Socialism in this country,

177
and, secondly, the political contributions of trades unions.—should be discussed after dinner, and it is certain that the debate which I was proposing to initiate could not he completed before the dinner hour That is evident from the number of Peers who desire to take part. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, and I am prepared to proceed with the discussion, but I would suggest in these circumstances that on the whole it would be more convenient, and more consonant with the importance of such a debate, that I should again, though most reluctantly, postpone it, and this time until after Whitsuntide. If that meets with the approval of your Lordships, I am prepared to take that course.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Earl has on the two occasions to which he has referred been compelled to postpone his most important Motion. I am bound to point out however that the delay this afternoon in reaching a moment at which he might have moved it has been largely due to the abnormal activities of the noble and learned Earl himself. If he has not added thereby to the chances of his Motion he certainly has added much to the gaiety of our proceedings. I am disposed to think that the noble and learned Earl has made out quite a good case. In the first place, his Motion is one of great importance; in the second place, it is only reasonable that he should have an opportunity of expressing his views at an hour when the House is fully attended; and, thirdly, it is equally reasonable that an opportunity should be afforded at a suitable hour not merely for the Lord Chancellor to reply, as he is going to do, but for the fifteen other Peers referred to by the noble and learned Earl to acquaint the House with their views. Therefore, while expressing regret that the noble and learned Earl is called upon once again to postpone his Motion I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to advise your Lordships to accept the suggestion and take the debate after Whitsuntide at a date which is most convenient to all parties.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. I will only add this, that I have not yet
178
realised during my public life that if a Motion stood in one's own name some obligation was imposed upon one relative to important criticisms on business which held the field in the Parliamentary programme.

CROSS-CHANNEL SERVICES.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they will consider the advisability of instructing the Board of Trade to re-consider the accommodation for which the cross-Channel passenger vessels are licensed, seeing that when these vessels (licensed to carry 1,400 passengers) are carrying less than half that number the protected portion of the deck is so crowded as not to afford sufficient seating accommodation, although relieved by the ladies cabin having its full complement.

2. Whether there is any limit as to the price which the company is entitled to charge for private cabins on board these steamers.

3. Whether there is any rule as to the number of gangways to be provided so as to facilitate the rapid and convenient embarkation and disembarkation of passengers at the landing stages.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question in the interest of cross-Channel passengers by the Dover-Calais and Folkestone-Boulogne routes, and I do so because I have noticed that during the last three or four years passengers by those routes have experienced great discomfort. Having crossed the Channel many scores of times during the last ten years I am in a position to state that prior to the war overcrowding and discomfort did not exist. When I crossed some few weeks ago I felt it my duty in the interests of the public to point out the state of affairs. The overcrowding was such that passengers on the first-class passenger deck were unable to find seating accommodation and a large number of ladies who were supposed to be in a protected portion of the passenger deck—the ladies cabin being unduly crowded—were drenched by the waves and standing in water.
Following my letter to The Times other letters appeared in that journal, but the majority of them did not deal with the question at all. One passenger pointed out that he had crossed by these services many times without any inconvenience. I have myself crossed perhaps hundreds of times, and have had no inconvenience, but my fellow passengers have suffered. Those who are in a position to secure their seats in the trains beforehand and a private cabin on board the steamers can travel between London and Paris not only in comfort but in luxury. But a large number of passengers are not in a position to do this. Another writer thought that the best way of avoiding discomfort was to travel by night, and yet another advocated travelling by air.
There was one letter, however, which really dealt with the question. It came from the general manager of the South Eastern and Chatham section of the Southern Railway. His letter was mainly an apology for what had occurred, but he pointed out that the Board of Trade had licensed the vessel in which I travelled to carry 1,400 passengers. A little further on in the same letter he stated that on the occasion to which I have referred it carried 681 passengers, and it was only when they had what he called "peak-loads" that any discomfort such as I described was likely to occur. Although I frankly admit that 1,400 disciplined troops might be carried across the Channel in most states of the weather in perfect safety by such a vessel, I doubt very much whether in the event of any mishap, such as is quite possible in the best of weather, there is sufficient lifeboat accommodation for 1,400 passengers, or whether there are 1,400 lifebelts in visible and easily attainable positions. Later in the same letter the general manager goes on to show that the weather on this occasion was only what is known as choppy or squally.
As a further proof that the accommodation is not sufficient I should like to point out that there were no fewer than 27 passengers on that occasion who had failed to obtain private cabins, whereas prior to the war there was rarely any difficulty in obtaining these cabins. At the present time the company charges for these cabins at the rate of from 30s. to £4. I remember that in 1899 the charge was only 10s. Passengers who have already paid a largely increased sum for
180
their tickets—the fare between London and Paris being in those days £2 10 s., and now £3 10 s.—are obliged in addition to pay, for a transit of something like an hour, a sum of between 30 s. and £4 in order to obtain sufficient accommodation on board ship. I know it is an easy matter to offer criticism, and I am also aware that the railway companies probably endeavour to do their best, but they are handicapped by the fact that they have not sufficient services: When they had no monopoly, in the days to which I refer, they ran very frequent boats, and this state of affairs did not arise.
I may say that it would greatly facilitate the comfort of passengers if more gangways were provided for embarkation and disembarkation, and if the Customs House authorities were given a little more accommodation and a slightly increased staff. I know it will be said that it is a difficult matter to put on extra staff for special occasions, but this is done with great success in our own Post Office, to give but one example. The postal authorities take on nearly 10,000 extra hands to deal with the Christmas pressure, and yet upon these channel steamers, when the pressure to which I have referred takes place, there is the greatest difficulty both as regards embarkation and disembarkation and also as regards the Customs examination. I venture to think that with a little better organisation many of these difficulties might be avoided.
I recollect that in one of the letters it was mentioned that I had not said anything about the behaviour of the employees of the company on the trains and on the boats. I made no such statement because in my long experience I have never noticed anything but the greatest courtesy, and I will add consideration—for I have often travelled with invalids—upon the part not only of all the railway and boat officials but also of the Customs House officials who, under the most difficult circumstances, do their duty with great skill and, I believe, most effectively. But seeing that we are charged a very much higher rate than formerly, I venture to suggest that some arrangement should be made whereby those who apply for first class tickets one day or two or three days before the date of their departure should at the same time be furnished with a

181
reserved and numbered seat upon both sides of the Channel, as is done now on application and after payment of a further fee. Furthermore, if the number of private cabins for which, as I have said, there is such a demand—there were twenty-seven passengers who had failed to obtain that accommodation on the occasion I have mentioned—is insufficient, further accommodation should be provided.
Finally, let me say that the real cure for the difficulty is the running of more vessels. I am given to understand that a very great authority on the Transatlantic trade has stated that if he had followed the custom of the cross-Channel traffic his company would be in a state of bankruptcy. The true solution is the running of sufficient boats at a low figure. This would be very much more profitable to the company than running a limited number of services at high pressure and without sufficient accommodation for the passengers. I hope that the noble Earl who will reply for the Government will understand that it is not my desire to inconvenience the Government in any way. I think it ought to be clear, however, that to license a vessel to carry 1,400 first and second class passengers and then to find that with less than half that number by far the larger proportion of those passengers are subjected to great inconvenience, great discomfort and possibly, in the event of accident, to great danger, is a process which ought to be impossible.
I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with this Question because questions of this kind are often put only in another place. I think it is extremely desirable that in your Lordships' House, where we are able to discuss Questions with greater freedom than is possible in another place, your Lordships should give such support to the public outside as to enable them to bring pressure upon these companies to secure that this service should be run in a manner more worthy of its importance.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in reply to the Question which has been raised by the noble Lord I think, perhaps, it would be best if I answered first of all the second and third parts of his Question, for this reason: that I can deal with them quite shortly, inasmuch as the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction
182
whatsoever in regard to these matters. In regard to the charges that are made for cabins, that is a matter entirely settled by the railway company, to whom I understand these ships belong. In regard to part 3, the provision of more gangways or better disembarkation provisions, that is a matter entirely regulated and settled by the dock and harbour authorities on this side, and I understand that, in so far as the ports of Calais and Boulogne are concerned, there are certain French Police Regulations with which we cannot interfere.
As to the first part of the Question, I may say at the outset that the Board of Trade has received, already, certain complaints somewhat on the same lines as the noble Lord's complaint, made to-day in. this House, and perhaps it would be useful if, first of all, I stated exactly how it is these vessels obtain their passenger certificates. In so far as the complaints which have been received by the Board of Trade are concerned the vessel which has been criticised is called the " Maid of Orleans," but I understand that most of the cross-Channel steamers are very similar in character to that particular vessel. So far as this particular vessel is concerned she fully complies with the Board's Regulations, not only in regard to passenger accommodation but also in regard to life-saving appliances. I understand that any vessel whose passage takes not longer than ten hours is not bound by any Statute to provide any seating accommodation whatsoever, but the Board's certificate is primarily governed by deck area or the number of beds or sofas and apparatus provided. This has been the practice, I understand, for a good many years.
In regard to this particular vessel, she has obtained a passenger certificate for 1,400, although, from the amount of space which the vessel contains, that is to say, deck accommodation, apparatus, and so forth, she would under the Regulations be entitled to carry 1,700 passengers. However, the practical position seems to be that while a vessel has ample accommodation, either on deck or in the saloons, for the numbers for which she is licensed, it is quite true that not only in wet weather but also in fine weather there is at any rate an apparent, if not actual, overcrowding, and naturally, when the vessel is carrying more than a

183
few hundred passengers and the weather is not favourable, it is generally admitted, and it is admitted by the shipping company itself, that there are occasions when at least a certain proportion of the passengers cannot get sufficiently comfortable accommodation in order to keep dry. I might say, in conclusion, that the Board is quite willing and intends to make inquiries into this question of accommodation on board these vessels, with a view to seeing whether the existing Regulations cannot be usefully amended.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I should just like to say one word in regard to this Question. It so happens that I have crossed the Channel half a dozen times within the last few weeks, and it is a very unusual matter for me to go so often as that. I happen to be a bad sailor—probably Lord Rathereedan is a very good one—and therefore the discomfort and inability to find anywhere to lie down quietly is a very serious matter for me. I must say, however, that although on one occasion there were over 900 passengers, I had on that occasion the good fortune to secure a private cabin. I marvel, seeing the immense traffic there is on the Calais-Dover route, that the thing is done so well as it is.
The other points raised by the noble Lord are apparently not within the purview of the Government, but I think it is rather an irony that instead of a debate on Socialism we should be discussing the question whether there are to be more private cabins, which are essentially a luxury for the rich. I doubt if a much larger number of private cabins could be provided without enormous expense, which would have to be charged for. In regard to the question of more gangways, I am inclined to agree with my noble
184
friend on the point, but I believe there are certain foreign Police Regulations with which, of course, we cannot interfere. If, however, there are not, I wish it were possible to land more quickly from these steamers than one can do nowadays upon the Paris route. I would only add, in conclusion, that I think we are apt to be too critical in regard to these matters of railway and steamship companies who, in circumstances of great difficulty, are dealing with the enormous traffic which there is at certain times on these routes, and are doing their best. I do not think we are justified in complaining too much about small matters when we choose to travel to the Continent.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I did not suppose that the Government would be in a position to do very much in this matter, but I had hoped that the Press, by ventilating this matter, might be the means of causing the steamboat authorities to readjust their position, and to realise the fact that they would benefit themselves as well as the general public by running more frequent boats. As I have stated, thirty or forty years ago these difficulties did not occur, because at that time there was no monopoly and steamers were more frequent. I hope that the result of this debate will be to encourage the Press to ventilate the matter and enable the public to put pressure upon the steamboat companies, so that those who travel between this country and the Continent may be furnished with better accommodation and more comfort, particularly as they pay a much higher rate than formerly.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Biddulph—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Berners—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
THORNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
MITCHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Pills have been complied with:

Bank of England.

Greenock Corporation.

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Extension) Confirmation [H.L.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridlington Extension) Confirmation [H.L.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Brighton Extension) Confirmation [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Reported without amendment.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the
Seaham Harbour Dock Bill ought to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.

LYTHAM ST. ANNES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
RENT RESTRICTIONS (NOTICES OF INCREASE) BILL.
House to be in Committee on the first sitting day after the Recess at Whitsuntide.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
House to be in Committee on the second sitting day after the Recess at Whitsuntide.