Sitting of 14 February 1928

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

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Tuesday last reported by the Earl of CROMER as follows:—
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I feel that I owe some apology for asking you for a third time to give your attention to this small measure, but if it seems to you tiresome I trust you to believe that the fault is not mine. I have been unable to understand what reasons exist to prevent the Government from giving effect to this measure, which does nothing except reproduce in the form of a single Bill a clause which they themselves accepted in one of their own Bills intended to protect wild birds, with which they never proceeded. This matter, as I said, has been before you now three times, once when it was introduced in the Government measure, once last year when, without Division and practically without controversy, it passed through your Lordships' House, and again today. I might, I think, almost leave the Matter there and occupy your time no more and I would but for the reason that I most sincerely hope that on this occasion the Government will take steps to carry this Bill and make it law.
It therefore may not be unwise to repeat very briefly the reasons why it is I think this Bill should be accepted. In the first place I do not think there is any one who will dispute the extreme value of the plover to agriculture. In a censorious
80
world the plover is almost the only blameless thing. I have never heard any one suggest that in any of its activities it does anything but good. It lives upon the wireworm and upon the leather-jacket, which are plagues of farmers to such an extent that, as you all know, the Government last year extended a Bill for the purpose of spreading poison to get rid of these pests instead of doing what was the obvious thing to do, trying to encourage their natural enemies in order that nature herself might find the real remedy for the loss she has caused us. I do not think their utility would be challenged by any one. My next point is that they are diminishing, and I suggest diminishing fast, in numbers. Any one remembering the condition of the meadows in the immediate neighbourhood of London thirty years ago will know that every meadow had three or four pairs of lapwings whereas to-day they will not find one for miles. They have been reduced beyond the reduction that has affected many other birds.
I have a remarkable confirmation of that in a letter written by a man whose name is familiar to some of the noble Lords opposite who had the pleasure of sitting with him in another place. I refer to Colonel Yate who, though he sat on the opposite side of the House to myself, was a man between whom and myself, I am glad to think, there was always very kindly feeling. This is what Colonel Yate writes:—
"It is appalling to see the diminishing flocks that are now in the fields."
As Colonel Yate is a Conservative I wish that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House would pay attention to the following sentence. Possibly he knew it was coming and he is not here. Colonel Yate continues:—
"I do hope you will succeed in arousing the Government to a sense of their duty in this respect, and I am only sorry I am no longer in the House to back you up."
This is my desire, to arouse the Government to a sense of their obvious duty in this matter, and I should like to know why it is that that duty has remained so long unfulfilled. In case it may be suggested that this Bill is unnecessary, or that it will effect no good purpose, may I just ask one or two questions? That the birds have diminished as Colonel Yate says to an appalling degree is, I

81
believe, beyond dispute. What is suggested as the reason? Their only natural enemies, so far as the young are concerned, are the hawks and the crows and they are better kept down to-day than they were thirty years ago. Why is it then that these birds have been diminishing to this extent? I think the answer is to be found in what is, to me, the abominable spectacle that every poulterer's shop will exhibit in the next few weeks if this Bill is not passed. From end to end of the country, not merely in London but in every little seaside place, poulterers' shops will be smothered with plovers' eggs. It seems to me that the necessary result to the plovers must be disastrous.
There are one or two people who say: "Oh! well, you see, only the first sets of eggs are taken and these are laid at a bad moment. It is much better that the birds should not be allowed to lay their eggs at this moment." I have a shrewd suspicion that nature knows much better the time of the year at which a bird ought to lay its eggs than even the members of Government Departments. I cannot help thinking that if these birds in the course of nature lay eggs at a certain time and place it probably is the best time and the best place for them to do it. The next thing that is said is: "But the first set of eggs would be rolled over and harrowed over and destroyed." The answer to that is that in these very meadows to which I have referred that were alive with plovers thirty years ago, rolling and harrowing took place but it did not destroy the plovers. It may be that the first set of eggs were rolled over and the birds laid more. That I do not know, but this I do know: that the plovers were there. The next thing that is said is: "Well, the plovers always lay eggs twice. It will not do any harm if the first set is taken." The obvious answer to that is that the second set of eggs will be taken as well as the first. That is quite plain, because the birds will lay again within a week or a fortnight and a second set will meet the same misfortune as the first.
There really is no excuse whatever for withholding general protection from these birds. Protection is occasionally afforded by some local authorities, but that is perfectly useless. It is no use trying to protect birds within the imaginary area
82
of a county council. Birds are not confined in a parish. Unless you can get protection which is general it will be practically without avail. At the end of last Session Lord Bledisloe, whose absence I very much regret, a man who has a more intimate knowledge and more scientific knowledge of agricultural matters than almost any other man, introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House for the purpose of putting into national hands the power of dealing with insect pests on the grounds that it was no use having local control. I took the occasion of the debate on that Bill to ask why it was that the Government had not adopted and carried this Bill. He was unable to give me any answer, but he was a warm supporter of my Bill and very anxious indeed that it should get through. I then obtained from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, a promise, which I know quite well he would carry out, that he would represent to the Government the importance of putting this Bill through. I much regret he is not here, because I want to know, when he did that, what was the reply he received. I am surely entitled to know that and the House is entitled to know that, when for the third time we are putting Forward this Bill upon which we have been unanimous.
What is the answer the Government are going to make? It cannot be lack of time. I beg anybody to look at this measure. It is not possible that they can plead lack of time. What are the other reasons which make the Government say this Bill ought not to be proceeded with, and proceeded with at once before the present egg season? I have had letter after letter from a class of people who are not accustomed to writing, such as farmers, begging me to go on with this Bill because of the injury they suffer now from the diminution of these birds, but the Government have done nothing else but profess their anxiety to help agriculture. Why, when they have this small opportunity of doing some good, do they not do it? I sincerely hope that now at last they will repent and take steps to do something to carry out their promise, because, though I am anxious to give them credit for good intentions, if they fail to do it I shall say their protestations of a desire to help agriculture are nothing but vain phrases and their words are empty things. I

83
sincerely trust that this opportunity will not be afforded me and that the Government will accept this Bill, the Second Reading of which I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it falls to my lot, not for the first time, to reply to the eloquent speech on behalf of the lapwing which has been made, also not for the first time, by my noble and learned friend opposite. One of his first questions was why his Bill, which was passed with the general assent of the whole House last Session, did not get through in another place. I think the reason really was that it practically formed part of a larger measure which had also passed through this House with certain Amendments, which went to another place and was under discussion there but which unfortunately did not meet with acceptance. I do not know why, but it seems to me to be very difficult to pass a Bill relating to birds through the House of Commons. I can assure my noble and learned friend, however, that the Government look upon his Bill with the greatest possible favour and, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, I can only say that we shall be delighted if it finds a place on the Statute Book. As regards anything that concerns the time of the House, I am hardly in a position to make any satisfactory reply. I can only say, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, that I will certainly not fail to bring before him the very cogent remarks which have been made by my noble and learned friend, and I assure him that efforts on my part to secure a place for this Bill, as I suppose my noble and learned friend would desire, as a Government measure, will not be wanting. I cannot assure him, however, that I shall be absolutely successful.
My noble and learned friend has made certain ornithological remarks to which, from a certain point of view, I take some exception. With regard to taking the first clutches of eggs, the matter is not, perhaps, quite so easy as he seems to think. I pointed out to him on a previous occasion that attention was given to this matter by the two very eminent Committees that sat to inquire into it, and that opinion was very much divided. I think that the early clutches of plovers have rather a poor chance of surviving
84
in this world, and attention has already been drawn to the fact that the agricultural operations of harrowing, ploughing and the rest of it do militate against the successful hatching of eggs, which are often crushed into the ground. In any case the early clutches do not have much chance in the struggle for existence. There is very little insect food about at that, time, and it is very much better that these family arrangements should be postponed until there is a greater chance of their being successful.
For my own part—people always say this about drink, and about everything else, including plovers' eggs—I do not care whether I have these eggs or not. I rather dislike them on the whole, but I think that, if I had to rear plovers in any large numbers, I should certainly take the first eggs up to a certain time and get the birds to postpone their matrimonial arrangements, as is done with very great success with regard to ducks. A great friend of mine breeds an enormous number of semi-wild ducks, and he makes a point of not allowing the first eggs, which in his experience never come to anything, to mature. If you took the eggs up to a certain point, the birds would have to postpone rearing their families at a time when there was very little chance of their reaching maturity. I do not lay any great stress on that point, and, so far as I am instructed, the Government are very much in favour of this Bill. As to whether they will have time to pass it or not, I am not one who can give any authoritative opinion, but, so far as the Home Office are concerned, they do look upon it with great favour, and I would certainly sing the praises of the plover if they had not been sung very much better already by my noble and learned friend opposite.
With regard to the scarcity or otherwise of plovers, it so happens that I am very much interested in a bird sanctuary that was started by my noble friend Viscount Grey of Fallodon, some years before the War, in the district of Hick-ling in Norfolk. There is here a very large area that I am looking after in succession to him, and I should like to give the House an extract from a letter I received the other day from a watcher there with regard to lapwings. This man keeps a log of every bird he sees every day, and I think this extract from his

85
letter tends to contradict my learned and noble friend's dicta on this point. Here is his note for January 20, 1927:
"The principal feature of to-day has been the immense flocks of lapwings on the marshes adjoining Heigham Sounds."
This is near Hickling, and is one part of the sanctuary. He goes on to say:
"I have never witnessed such a sight before anywhere. They were quite forty to fifty thousand strong."
This seems a large number, and the man had several witnesses. The other watcher and also an artist were present at the time. I asked him how he counted this very large number. He is quite accustomed to this work, and after counting them in sections this is the conclusion that he came to. No doubt these, were migratory birds, and I quite agree with my noble and learned friend that there is not nearly so much nesting of lapwings in this country now as there used to be ten or twenty years ago.
This is largely owing to the very great changes that have taken place in the land. Most of England now is becoming concrete roads, villas and bungalows, and the haunts of the plover are being very much diminished. I know that in my neighbourhood, the agricultural aspect of the country has changed a great deal. There is much less cultivation and many of the marshes are getting very thick with rushes. Lapwings and other birds do not like nesting in very dense places. I am trying to cut the rushes and get nesting places for the lapwings, and I have no doubt that, when this is done, there will be a good deal of nesting there, both of lapwings, and, I hope, also of ruffs and reeves, avocets, spoonbills and other birds. The change that has taken place in the aspect of the country has caused a diminution of home-bred lapwings, but I hope that steps will be taken to increase them.
With regard to the Bill itself, this is a very good Bill. It seems to me to be absolutely unobjectionable. I do not know whether I might make one suggestion to the noble and learned Lord opposite. The date which he puts in his Bill is taken from the Wild Birds Protection Bill, which was unfortunately killed in another place. I do not know whether he would consider in Committee whether it would not be a good thing to alter the dates which he mentions in his Bill for
86
the purpose of bringing it into line with the dates in the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880. That would mean altering the dates in his Bill to March 15 and August 1. That is a suggestion which I throw out. I do not know that I have anything more to say about this Bill, except to give it a hearty welcome, and I only wish that I could find it a place so as to secure its passage.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two because I inherited from my father a very large sanctuary in which there are all kinds of things. It is about 60 acres in extent and it has got an island upon it. The guns are not allowed to be let off anywhere near it and we have had some very remarkable birds there. A curious thing, however, is the very extraordinary diminution in the last four or five years of rare birds. I have my own theory upon the subject, that it is due to the infernal tar which comes down off the roads. It has not yet got to the river which flows into my lake, but I know of places where it has destroyed every single fish. Whether that is the reason that the lapwing does not come as much as it used to do I am unable to say. With regard to taking the first eggs, nature provides when the bird should lay its eggs and I believe that the early eggs produce the strongest birds. I hope sincerely that this Bill will pass. What has struck me in the last few years is the enormous number of lapwings hanging up in poulterers' shops. I am sure that if your Lordships ate one you would never eat another, for they are horrible. I hope that this Bill will be taken up by the Government, for the lapwing is a harmless and pretty bird, and does enormous good to agriculture.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I would not trouble you again for a moment, but now that we have the advantage of the presence of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, he will, I think, forgive me if I repeat to him the question which I put in his absence. He will recall that at the end of last Session, when discussing a Bill introduced by Lord Bledisloe, I raised this question of the lapwing, and I asked him to use his influence with the Government to secure that this Bill should be undertaken by them. He promised to do what he could, and the question which I asked

87
in his absence is: What did the Government say?—because it is really not much use for Lord Desborough to try to persuade this House that it is lack of time which prevents the Government from putting forward this Bill and giving it a chance.
I should think that two hours might see the whole thing through, but the Government will not even try, and so it cannot be lack of time. Then why is it? Is it that they do not believe in the Bill? It is of no use saying that ornithologists have their own views on the subject. The chambers of agriculture are very strong about the Bill. Is there some one in the Government who prefers eating plover's eggs to protecting the bird? That is the only conclusion which is left. There is no other. If the Government will not undertake this Bill, why will they not do so? That is a question to which hitherto I have received no answer at all. I will not deal with what Lord Desborough said, except to observe that in all probability this large flock of plovers came in a protected area. No one can doubt the diminution elsewhere. My points are first, that these birds are dwindling, secondly, that they are most valuable birds, and, thirdly, I do not think that any one can doubt that the wholesale consumption of their eggs must be one of the causes of the diminution.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I must apologise for not having been in my place when the noble and learned Lord first spoke. I remember quite well his doing me the honour of conversing with me about the fate of this very subject last year. I do not remember that I promised to find out what attitude the Government would adopt towards it, but what I did promise, and what I carried out, was to mention in the proper quarter how very important this particular Bill was from the point of view of agriculture, and how in the noble and learned Lord's opinion—which I dare say is a very sound one—much more important it was that this particular measure should be put forward than other measures for promoting agriculture. When he asks me what reasons the Government would have for not putting this Bill forward I am sure that he will know what the answer is. It is perfectly true that a
88
Bill of this kind is not likely to take up a great deal of time, but it must take up a certain amount of time, and if the Government were to promise to give facilities to a private Peer's Bill—even a Peer so distinguished as the noble and learned Lord—they would have great difficulty in refusing similar claims in the case of other Bills of which they did not themselves disapprove. The result would be that, although one Bill might not take more than two hours, added together these Bills would take a considerable time.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The Government can adopt my Bill now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is an obvious reason why the Government are very reluctant to give pledges on matters of this kind. The reason why these Bills take time is not that the Government take time over them but that time is taken by other political parties. I am not putting forward any charge at all—it is not a question of obstruction—but it is in the hands of the friends of the noble and learned Lord, and of the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Labour Party in this House, that it lies whether a Bill of this kind can get easily through. I am not going to make any promise, nor am I in a position to do so, but I would suggest, if I may, very respectfully to the noble and learned Lord who is sponsoring this Bill, and to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition in this House, that they might enter into communication with their friends in another place, and that then, when they get their assent, they might come to us and say that if this Bill is put forward in another place it will be received as a non-controversial Bill, and will be allowed to get through. Then the Bill will have a chance. Without that assent it is clear that it is in the power of any member, or at any rate of any small body of members in the House of Commons, to make the Bill a ground for the consumption of very valuable time.
I do not want to go into the ordinary procedure with which we used to be very familiar when we were members of the House of Commons, but I may hint at it when I say that, if there should be upon the Order Paper of the House of Commons a Bill to which the Opposition

89
of the day have considerable reluctance to agree, the Opposition take care to discuss at such length the Bill preceding it that it has not very much chance of coming on. That is a very familiar process, and it is one of the reasons which make it so difficult to pass these admirable Bills. If, however, the noble and learned Lord will get from his friends in another place—and the Labour Party will do the same—an assurance that this Bill will be allowed to go through without discussion, then, while I cannot promise, of course, I can hold out a much better hope of the Bill passing.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS TO CHILDREN.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKhad given Notice to call attention to the statement of the education officer of the London County Council that in 1926 in the Metropolitan Police area 233 children were killed, and 9,528 were injured through traffic accidents; and to move for Papers. The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, I have no intention of initiating a general discussion on motor accidents throughout the country. That problem is too vast. I propose to confine myself as strictly as I can to one particular aspect of this question—namely, to the accidents which occur to children in the Metropolitan Police area. I was moved to do this by a statement in the annual Education Report for London.
The statement is made in a report drawn up by the education officer. He states:—
"The number of traffic accidents to children in 1926 stands out as the most deplorable feature of any statistical record of the year. The number of children under fifteen years of age killed in the Metropolitan Police area was 233; the number injured was 9,528. The combined total of killed and injured was thus 9,761, a greater number than ever before, despite the decline in child population. This yearly total is approaching the number of children in average attendance in all the elementary schools in a large county borough of the size of Wigan or Northampton, and is already greater than the entire school population of some of the administrative counties."
90
And later he says:—
"It may be said that it is three times as dangerous for the London child to be out in the streets as it is for children in the rest of the country."
These figures seem to me to show an appalling state of affairs.
Nearly ten thousand children are killed or injured in our streets in the Metropolitan area. It has been calculated—I have not verified the calculation—that every twenty minutes a child is injured or killed in the time they are outside the shelter of home or school. And these figures are all the more serious when it is remembered that there has been a steady increase in the number of these accidents. In 1920 there wore 5,569 children who were either killed or injured; the number has now reached the figure I have just mentioned. It is true that there are some people who take comfort in the fact that the percentage of children who are killed or injured has decreased compared to the total number of accidents. But I can find very small comfort in that when I remember that the total number of accidents in that period has increased from 20,901 in 1920 to 47,039 last year. And it also has to be borne in mind that the total amount of suffering is not to be measured merely by the children who are the victims of these accidents, for there is the sense of fear and perpetual anxiety which oppresses the parents when they know that day by day their children are crossing the streets, and they never know whether their children may not be among those who have been added to the roll of casualties for that day.
These facts are, indeed, serious, and they are all the more serious when it is recalled that the various Government Departments concerned are doing their utmost in the matter. I am not for one moment accusing any Department of apathy or neglect on this question. The Ministry of Transport, through its Traffic Committee, has made most careful inquiry into the matter, and, as we all know, they are trying various experiments in connection with our traffic. If you turn to the education authorities—I am thinking especially of the education authority for London—very careful safety teaching is given in the schools, teaching which is often given in extremely ingenious and interesting ways. The police are doing their best in the matter. It is impossible, I think, to praise too highly

91
the way in which the police convoy across the road small children who are afraid of the traffic. And, besides all these, you have an influential and vigorous voluntary society, the Safety First Society, which is doing its utmost to educate the public on this question. No doubt if this interest had not been taken the casualty roll would have been still higher than it is. But notwithstanding all these efforts, year by year there is an increase in the number of these accidents, and I fear that there is every prospect of a further increase in the future. There is an ominous sentence in the report on street accidents in Greater London:—
"There is no doubt that the hazards of the streets have become more serious in recent years, and that, as the number of motor vehicles continues to increase, these hazards are likely to become even more serious, unless the public, whether pedestrians or drivers of vehicles, can accommodate themselves to the changed conditions brought about by the advent of the motorcar."
The truth of the matter is that the problem in London is peculiarly difficult. It is not only a problem of traffic. It is, of course, mainly a problem of traffic. It is bound to be so when there are 300,000 licensed mechanically-propelled vehicles in Greater London, and the number steadily increasing. But many of these vehicles are driven by men who are either ignorant or careless. On one occasion some years ago my own car was run into by a motor bicyclist turning round the corner at a great rate. The car was damaged. Fortunately the man was only slightly bruised. He apologised, and his excuse was that he only learnt to ride in the last three or four days and at the critical moment he forgot how to put on the brake. That motor bicycle might equally easily have run into some children, and there are a number of people driving cars to-day who have had no sufficient training. They are able to obtain their licences, and at once start experimenting on the streets. And there are others—not many, but there are some—who drive with selfish recklessness and I am sure public opinion would support the severest penalties against those who drive in that kind of way. It is, indeed, an irony of fate that an invention which has brought ease, convenience, and happiness to so many should, in careless hands, become a deadly instrument of destruction.
92
But it is not fair to believe that the majority of the accidents are caused by the carelessness or the recklessness of the motorists. A very interesting inquiry was held a year ago into a number of fatal cases. I think some six hundred cases were inquired into, and full reports were given by some two hundred coroners. The conclusion was that 36 per cent. of these cases were due to the fault of the motor driver, 48 per cent. were due to pedestrians and cyclists, and one per cent. were due to dogs or other animals. Any motorist who has to go much into our London streets, especially in side streets, knows that, whatever care is taken or whoever may be driving, it is impossible to avoid entirely the risk of accidents, owing to the very large number of children who are playing in the streets. For the other cause which leads to these accidents is the fact that in London there are so few playgrounds which are available to the children. Many of the children live a considerable distance from parks and other open spaces. Unfortunately, they will not use the playgrounds of their schools after the school hours, even when those playgrounds are open, as is usually the case in the summer. They look upon the streets as their natural playground.
A middle-aged man would not naturally think of playing cricket or leap-frog in a thoroughfare, but a child instinctively does this. You find in our side streets every evening after school hours large numbers of children playing various games. On one occasion on a summer evening, while walking from this House to my home, I counted between Lambeth Bridge and Kennington no fewer than twelve games of cricket, six games of rounders, several mysterious games which consisted of hopping from square to square, and a large number of boys on scooters. Those games were taking place in streets down which from time to time there came a motorcar at full speed. It is impossible to reduce to a very large extent the number of accidents merely by concentrating on the traffic. Attention must also be given to playgrounds for the children. Unless larger opportunities are found for the children to use these playgrounds these accidents will still continue.
I fear that I have no very definite practical suggestions to make to your Lordships; but I am sure this is a matter

93
on which there ought to be very much more careful and systematic investigation than there has been in the past. Very careful and very thorough investigations have been carried out as far as general traffic accidents are concerned; but very little has been done in the way of inquiry into the accidents which befall children in the streets. I suggest that an inter-departmental inquiry might be, made into this matter by a Committee having upon it representatives of those who are directly concerned in the matter, such as the Ministry of Transport, the Home Office, the Police and the Board of Education. A good deal more co-ordination is required respecting the knowledge which already is available. There are some directions in which we have no knowledge, as far as I know, in connection with these accidents. Where, for instance, do most of these accidents take place? Do they take place in the main thoroughfares or in the side streets? Do they happen in those parts of London where there is a great deal of traffic or in the more outward suburbs where there is less traffic and the traffic moves more rapidly? At what time of the year do these accidents mainly take place? Such questions as those need to be answered, and only when they are answered will it be possible to devise the right methods of dealing with the problem.
It may be necessary to close certain streets to any kind of games. On the other hand, it may be possible to adopt the method which is in use in New York and elsewhere in the United States, of blocking off certain streets in rotation for certain hours in the day from all motor traffic so that the children can play in those streets. It is not a popular proceeding, I admit, with householders who happen to live in that immediate neighbourhood, but it is worth while considering whether some such method might not be advisable here. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to me will be able to show us that attempts are being made to find some answer to these questions, and, possibly, he may hold out hopes of a Committee which will go carefully and thoroughly into the whole question. The problem is one of the utmost gravity. Year by year it becomes more serious, and no time, no trouble can be regarded as wasted if it leads to some reduction in this appalling list of casualties among children.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate has, I think, acquitted the local Education Authority of London of not doing what it ought to do. They are very anxious about this matter. The right, rev. Prelate was, perhaps, not quite happy in rather sweeping aside percentages and taking the number of children killed and injured. After all, there are more children in the streets of London than there were, and the percentage of deaths and of accidents has been steadily diminishing; except in one year, there has been a steady progress of diminution from 1920 to 1926. Moreover, it is believed that most of the accidents to children in London are not in connection with their movement either to or from school. I can assure your Lordships that the Education Authority of London is doing all that it, can do and all it can think of. It is endeavouring to educate the children about this matter. The head teachers issue warnings about the crossing of streets, about invoking the aid of a policeman, and against climbing on to vehicles. They issue cards to the children telling them how not to get run over, and they enjoin them to go straight home. All these things are done for the children. Again, there are interviews which take place between the education officers and the police, and if children are caught by the police hanging on behind vehicles, their names are taken, the matter is investigated and brought to the notice of the schoolmaster concerned and the children are reproved; so that the thing goes round in that way. Boards are issued with warning words on them, showing where schools are, and the children are encouraged to write essays on "Safety First."
Most of these accidents, of course, are really beyond the control of the Education Authority or the school teachers. Organised control of the children going to and from school is not possible. I am not sure whether this was in the mind of the right rev. Prelate when he was talking about, investigation, but I believe it would be of assistance if a detailed classification of accidents to children could be made, in regard to where the accidents take place, on what days they take place, and to what aged children they happen. Those things would show a little why they take place. If His Majesty's Government go further in this matter—and I

95
can assure your Lordships that the Education Authority of London would certainly not be averse from it—I would suggest that such detailed classification of the accidents might be of assistance in avoiding future accidents.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we have paid very great attention to the pictures which have been drawn by the right rev. Prelate regarding the unfortunate accidents which happen to children in our great Metropolis, and which we all deplore. I rather gathered from a certain portion of his speech that he thought we might turn for advice and improvement to the United States of America. It so happens that not long ago I was looking up the figures concerning the motor accidents in the United States of America, and I found that no fewer than 3,500,000 people there had been injured by motors since the War. That, I think it will be admitted, is a very large number. I also see from the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce journal that from January 1, 1919, to December 31, 1926, 137,017 persons were killed by motors. One is rather forced to the conclusion that it would be safer for an American to engage in a European War than to walk about the streets of New York or elsewhere in the United States. We must all admit that 137,000 people is rather an excessive number to be killed during the period that I have mentioned. I also see that 23,000 were killed in 1926. If these facts be correct, I do not know that we have very much to learn, from the point of view of saving life, from what takes place in the United States of America.
The number of children that are maimed or killed in this country and especially in the Metropolis is deplorable, but there is one satisfactory feature in the statistics and that is that the number of fatalities and injuries to children received from motors is decreasing in proportion to the total number of fatalities to all persons. A great many inquiries have been made into this matter both on behalf of the Ministry of Transport and on behalf of the Home Office, and I can assure the House that the subject has been occupying the most serious and sad attention of both those Departments. I am not one of the supporters of the internal combustion engine myself and I am certainly not one to stand up for it, but it has come here like
96
other modern blessings and here it will remain. My noble friend on my right (Viscount Peel) will have something to say with regard to the proposed Committee. I have in my possession a great many of the details for which the right rev. Prelate has asked. He wished to know where the accidents take place and various other questions in connection with them and whether the accidents are getting more or less numerous. I do not think it is necessary for me to weary the House by giving all these details, but I shall be most happy to give the right rev. Prelate all the information which I possess. That information will, I am sure, answer to a very great extent the questions which he has asked.
As regards the police I can only say that they do take the very greatest care of the children when they can do so. I would point out that the largest number of accidents do not occur when the children are going to or returning from school. They occur on other occasions when it is impossible for the police to be looking after the children. The police, however, are on the look-out to help children at all times, and especially when they are on their way to or coming from school. I can assure the right rev. Prelate that the Home Office are only too anxious to do everything they possibly can to diminish these accidents to children. I can only repeat in conclusion that I shall be happy to give the right rev. Prelate all the information that I possess.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said by my noble friend on behalf of the Home Office, because this is a matter which also affects very closely the Ministry of Transport. The right rev. Prelate has confined his observations, as he said he would, mainly to the question of accidents to children and to the Metropolitan area. I want to say one or two words about the efforts that have been made by the Ministry of Transport in this respect. This matter, deplorable as I agree it is, has occupied for some time the attention of several Government Departments and also of the great local authority, the London County Council, as has been testified to by my noble friend who spoke during the course of the discussion.

97
The right rev. Prelate referred, I think, to a Report of the Advisory Committee on Street Accidents. That Committee reported about a year ago. The Committee was set on foot through the anxiety of the Minister of Transport to do what could be done to cope with the dangers of the streets. Even before the Report of that Committee was published he summoned a conference of local authorities and of the different Government Departments and other persons interested in the matter, such as representatives of the motoring organisations. They discussed these problems, particularly with regard to the difficulties of and dangers to children. Not only that, but a circular letter was sent to the different local authorities from the Ministry of Transport urging them to do what they could. I believe they already did that, but the circular urged them to take steps to have explained to children the risks and dangers of crossing the streets at wrong times, of playing in the streets, and matters of that sort. It also called attention to the necessity of providing more playgrounds for the children so that they might be removed as much as possible from the streets. In the district of Bermondsey, which I understand is one of the worst districts, there is, unfortunately, a deficiency of playgrounds. That is a matter for the local authority, and I know the local authority is doing everything it can to cope with it. As the right rev. Prelate knows, it is a matter of considerable difficulty to provide sufficient playgrounds in these very crowded districts.
The right rev. Prelate asked one specific question and I should like to answer that. He suggested that a Committee should be set up to inquire further into this question. I understand that this Advisory Committee is now considering these particular problems and is going to report very soon to the Ministry of Transport. In view of that perhaps it is hardly necessary at the present moment to set up a Committee to inquire into this matter, but the Minister of Transport authorises me to say that he is quite ready to give special directions to the Committee which is now sitting to consider particularly the problem of accidents to children, and to consult with the representatives of the police and
98
different local authorities, in order that they may decide upon certain definite courses of action to reduce the number of accidents to children. The London Education Authority is represented on this Committee and, therefore, they can bring all their great knowledge of local conditions to bear upon the problem. As that is being done the right rev. Prelate will, I think, agree that it would not be necessary to set up another Committee at this stage to go into these problems, and perhaps he may be willing to await the proposals and suggestions which will no doubt be made by the Committee to which I have referred. There are no Papers to lay. All the Reports, I think, have already been issued.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

JUDICIAL VACANCIES.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies (not exceeding two) should be filled in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division notwithstanding that the number of those Judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, you may remember that we passed a Resolution of this kind last Session but owing to want of time it could not be taken in another place. The Address is to be moved in another place to-day and I think it desirable to ask your Lordships to pass the Address again this Session. There is nothing in the Act which expressly says that an Address of this character must be adopted in the two Houses in one Session of Parliament; but the Act requires an Address from both Houses, and I think it would be in accordance with our parliamentary practice that the Address should be moved in both Houses in the same Session. I hope your Lordships will not object to passing the Motion a second time. The need of the additional Judges is even greater than before, for the arrears of business have grown.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies (not exceeding two) should be filled in the number of Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division notwithstanding that the number of those Judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1025.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I only wish to say that from those whom I represent here no opposition will be offered to the Motion. The matter is one for the executive Government to judge, and the only people who can judge are those who represent the executive Government. On looking into the figures I do not think that the expenditure involved is large, but at all events it is highly desirable that justice should be done and done in the shortest time. If in the view of the Government that requires the filling of these vacancies, so far as we are concerned we do not wish to interfere with the responsibilities of the Government.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, no doubt your Lordships will remember that last year when this matter was discussed there were various suggestions put forward with regard to reforms of the judicial system. I was rather hoping that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would have been able to tell us that some progress had been made with regard to those matters. The noble and learned Viscount will remember that there were two directions in which some reforms were urged by members of your Lordships' House. First it was urged that there should be a considerable revision of the Assize system, and secondly that there should be a shortening of the long vacation. Nothing, I think, has been done with regard to shortening the long vacation, which those of us here who try to do our duty envy the fortunate members of the Judicial Bench, though I hope that there will be some rules issued shortly which will show that something is to be done in regard to the
100
revision of the Assize system. Whether that be so or not, I venture to invite the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to tell us whether any steps have been taken with regard to either of these matters of reform, which have been mentioned more than once in your Lordships' House and in which I think people in the country take a considerable amount of interest.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the Assize system, I think your Lordships will know that something has been done in recent times. There was in the last Administration of Justice Act a section which provided that where an Assize was deemed to be unnecessary in a particular place it might be dispensed with and the prisoner, or the prisoners if there was more than one, transferred to a neighbouring Assize. I said on the last occasion that that provision had not been used. It has been used since and I think it will have a very beneficial effect, but I would rather wait to see how that enactment works before proposing any further change with regard to Assizes. As for the long vacation, that is an old question. No doubt the noble Earl knows that our long vacation in England is shorter than the long vacation in any other English-speaking country, very much shorter. Any change is in the hands of the Council of Judges. Whether they will make any further change I do not know, but I have no doubt that the speeches made in your Lordships' House will have sunk into their minds. I would like to add that I think the present system of bringing forward periodically a fresh Motion for two new Judges is inconvenient. It means that there is a gap between the time when a Judge disappears and the time when an Address can be moved. I wish to inform the House that when there is an opportunity I shall propose to ask Parliament to deal with this particular practice.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.

Preamble
The Marquess of Lansdowne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Newquay Water,

Wey Valley Water,

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water,

Great Western Railway (Road Transport),

London and North-Eastern Railway (Road Transport),

London Midland and Scottish Railway (Road Transport),

Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport),

Southern Railway (Road Transport),

Windermere Gas and Water,

London County Council (Tramway Subway and Improvements),

Weaver Navigation,

Colne Valley Water,

Bethlem Hospital,

Lancashire Quarter Sessions,

Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power,

South Metropolitan Gas,

South Suburban Gas (Consolidation),

Mersey Tunnel,

Sheffield Corporation,

Port of London,

Bromborough Dock,

York Town and Blackwater Gas and Electricity,

Lewes Water,

Wessex Electricity,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,

Barnet District Gas and Water,

Falmouth Water,

Dover Gas,

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

102

Warwick Corporation,

South-West Suburban Water,

Dartmouth Corporation,

Great Western Rail way (Swansea North Dock Abandonment),

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry,

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles, amp;c.).

Oxford Corporation (Water, &c.),

Oxford Extension,

Hastings Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

Zoological Society of London,

Dover Harbour,

Government Stock and other Securities Investment Company,

Whitby Water,

Accrington Corporation,

Bridgwater Corporation,

Bury and District Joint Water Board,

Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power,

Mid-Kent Water,

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board,

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation,

Blackpool Extension,

Blackpool Improvement,

Coventry Corporation,

Dudley Corporation,

Exeter Corporation,

Gloucester Corporation,

Middlesex and Surrey (Thames Bridges, &c.),

Poole Corporation,

Ramsgate Corporation,

Rotherham Corporation,

Edinburgh Corporation—(Substituted Bill),

Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund)—(Substituted Bill),

Bradford Corporation,

Harwich Harbour,

Caerphilly Urban District Council,

Ystradfellte Water,

South Essex Waterworks,

Leeds and Liverpool Canal,

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply (Consolidation),

Bognor Urban District Council,

Cleethorpes Urban District Council,

103

Lincolnshire Electricity,

Llandudno Urban District Council,

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Water,

Stretford and District Electricity Board,

Tottenham and District Gas,

Bermondsey Borough Council (St. Olave's Garden),

Bournemouth Gas and Water,

Maidenhead Water,

Manchester Ship Canal Company,

Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase),

Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Warwick Canals Purchase),

Sandown Urban District Council,

Southampton Corporation,

Sunderland Corporation,

Weald Electricity Supply,

Wolverhampton Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.