Sitting of 23 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
DALTON-IN-FURNESS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOLIHULL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MERTON AND MORDEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
HEREFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (PORTOBELLO LAND) ORDER, 1936.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with respect to this Order, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY (REGULATION OF LANDING) ORDER, 1936.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. During the discussion of the Order before the Special Orders Committee one or two points were brought up which perhaps make it necessary for me to give your Lordships a very brief account of what this Order is for. It revokes and replaces a previous Order which was made in August, 1933, under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act of that year, and Section 1 (5) of that Act provides that any Order made under Section 1 before the expiration of three years shall cease to have effect at the end of that period unless it is continued in force by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Section 5 of the Act requires that a Sea-Fish Commission shall be set up to investigate the position of the sea-fishing industry and report to Ministers. That Commission was set up and it has reported to Ministers, but His Majesty's Government have not yet had time to come to any decision on the Report. It is therefore necessary to ask your Lordships if you will continue it for the time being.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the continuance in force after the twenty-seventh day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, of the Sea-Fishing Industry (Regulation of Landing) Order, 1936, dated the eighth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Board of Trade under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, be approved.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARYPORT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WHITLEY BAY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HYDROGEN CYANIDE (FUMIGATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Bill is intended to safeguard human life by regulating the use of hydrogen cyanide for the purpose of fumigation in enclosed spaces. Most of the leading countries have already passed legislation controlling the use of this gas, and the Government wish to afford similar protection to the people of this country. Until lately the use of the gas in this country has been mostly confined to fumigations to kill rats and other vermin in ships and on farms, and also for the destruction of insects—such insects as one finds in greenhouses—but it is now commonly used in dwelling-houses for the purpose of destroying bugs, and for some reason this use appears likely to be on the increase. It is the best fumigant that is known for this purpose, but it is exceedingly lethal to human beings as well as to vermin and insects, and further it has the additional danger that even in fatal concentrations it is not readily noticeable. In April last year there was a tragedy at Aldershot which received considerable Press publicity. The fumigation of certain houses had been undertaken for the local authority by a firm that specialised in the work, and on the return of the occupants to their homes several of them were seriously affected and two children died. It appears that the premises had not been sufficiently ventilated and tested after the fumigation, proper steps had not been taken to ensure that the
188
bedding was free from the gas, and the residues of the gas had not been effectively disposed of.
Fortunately, such accidents are not numerous, but the Government feel that they should no longer rely on the administrative steps which have been previously taken by the various Departments to draw attention to the risks and to prevent the use of the gas without adequate precautions. The Government feel that statutory powers are now necessary. This Bill accordingly confers upon the Secretary of State a general power to make regulations governing the conduct of the fumigation of premises or of articles with hydrogen cyanide. The principal points which are to be the subject of these regulations are set out in Clause 1 (1). Provision is made in the Bill for special exemptions being allowed in the regulations and also for different requirements being applied to different classes of fumigation. Your Lordships will observe that the fumigation of rabbit warrens and fumigation carried out in the open air are specifically exempted. Before making any regulations the Secretary of State will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, and also the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture as regards the fumigation of ships and for agricultural and horticultural purposes.
Clause 1 (4) brings into operation the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, under which any proposed regulations under this Bill must be published in draft for forty days and any representations that are made considered. The Home Office are anxious that the views of all interested parties should receive the fullest consideration, and your Lordships may rely upon that Department consulting the chief bodies representing those interests before the regulations are finally settled. There is one other small matter to which I should call your Lordships' attention, and that is Clause 4, which enables the Bill to be applied by Order in Council to other dangerous fumigants which may come into use. This clause is adapted from similar provisions in the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, but in this case it is proposed that any Order in Council shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament for twenty-eight days in order that any

189
extension of the Act may come under the review of Parliament. I have no reason to think that this Bill is in any way controversial, and I therefore beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words only on this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. We welcome it very much, and I should like to congratulate the Government on bringing in a measure, a small but really valuable measure, for the protection of human life. I know it is not easy to find time for these small measures, but when it is of such value I congratulate the Government sincerely on bringing in the Bill. The pity is that it was not brought in earlier. I am not an expert on bugs. I understand bugs are more prevalent in the summer. In the hot weather—if we ever gel: any hot weather—they come out and have to be dealt with. I am afraid this summer will pass before the Bill can operate. I am not sure I understood the noble Earl correctly—did he say that bugs were on the increase or that the use of hydrogen cyanide was on the increase?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The use of this particular gas is on the increase for the killing of bugs in dwellings.
LORD MARLEY: I am delighted to hear that it is only the use of hydrogen cyanide, and not bugs, which is on the increase; but perhaps they go together. As soon as this gas comes into general use the bugs will begin to show a diminution as the result of the Government's efforts. There are two questions I wish to ask. In Clause 1 (2) it says:
"Regulations made under this section shall not apply to the fumigation of rabbit warrens or to fumigation carried out in the open air."
Does that mean that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the same clause, dealing with the regulation of the manner in which the hydrogen cyanide is to be generated, and paragraph (b) of the same subsection, dealing with the prohibition of the carrying out of any such fumigation except by or under the supervision of persons properly trained, shall not apply in the case of the fumigation of rabbit warrens or fumigation carried out in the open air? I am not an expert
190
in drafting, and perhaps the noble Earl can give us the assurance that no matter for what use hydrogen cyanide is being manufactured the same regulations shall apply to its manufacture and transport, and that there will be no modification of the regulations when it is being used in the open air or in rabbit warrens.
The other point—it is only my ignorance that prompts me to put this question—is this: Will the regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 1 (4) and under Clause 4 come before the Special Orders Committee of this House when they are laid, or can the noble Earl tell us how the regulations made under these clauses will be brought to the notice of members of the House when they are laid on the Table? In conclusion, I would only say once more that we welcome this measure.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first point, so far as I am aware the regulations that govern the production and transport of hydrogen cyanide gas apply to agricultural communities in the same way as they apply to those places where it is being used in confined spaces; but the regulations made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not be so stringent in regard to the gas used for agricultural purposes as they are in respect of gas used in confined spaces. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied that for the purposes of the Bill my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations universally to be adopted for the transport of this gas. With regard to the second point, under Clause 1, subsection (4), the Bill brings into operation the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893. Under that Act, as your Lordships are aware, persons interested in the business of fumigation will have the opportunity to lay before the Home Office their proposals for amending the regulations, whereas if the matter was to be dealt with in the form that the noble Lord has suggested, then, in order that these regulations may be amended, it would be necessary for Parliamentary action to be taken. It is felt that in this instance Parliament can well place their trust in the administration of the Department concerned to meet the bodies that are most interested in the question of fumigation in order to arrive at the most suitable regulations to be made.
LORD MARLEY: May I put a further question to the noble Earl? Would that mean that in the regulations there would be included something or other which would bring the matter to the notice of those who are going to use hydrogen cyanide for manufacture? Would the regulations be published so that the persons who are making use of this material would not be left in complete ignorance as to whether or not they were carrying out the law.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes; the regulations that are made will lie on the Table of the House, and it is under this procedure that it is necessary that during the course of publication they should be brought to the notice of the interested person within forty days.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that the Commons Amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, after ("aircraft") insert ("or aerodrome")
line 41, after ("aircraft") insert ("or at an aerodrome")
line 42, after ("aircraft") insert ("or aerodrome")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, with your permission I beg to move that we agree with the first three Amendments on Clause 1, which go together.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 2, after ("therefor") insert ("being part of the equipment of an aircraft,")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that we agree with the
192
Commons in this Amendment, which is drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("firearm") to the second ("the") in line 34, and insert ("during and for the purpose of")
line 35, leave out from ("production") to ("or") in line 38.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that the next two Amendments of the Commons on Clause 1 be taken together and agreed to. The effect of these Amendments is to modify the restriction at present imposed upon actors who possess firearms while taking part in a theatrical performance or the production of a cinema film. The clause as proposed to be amended will simply make it lawful for an actor without a firearm certificate to be in possession of a fire-arm during and for the purpose of the performance.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 38, at end insert:
("(d) in the case of any person, by having in his possession a firearm at an athletic meeting for the purpose of starting races at that meeting; or")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment proposes that exemption from the requirement to hold a firearm certificate should be given to a further category of persons—namely, persons possessing firearms at an athletic meeting for the purpose of starting races at that meeting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 5, line 29, after ("with") insert ("so much of")
line 30, after ("Act") insert ("as relates to appeals,").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that the Commons Amendments on page 5, which are drafting, be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 7, line 17, after ("with") insert ("so much of")
line 18, at end insert; ("as relates to appeals").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that we agree with the Commons Amendments on page 7, which are drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 7, page 8, line 43, at end insert:
("(3) Where the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council are satisfied, on the application of a person in charge of a theatrical performance, that such a firearm as aforesaid is required for the purposes of the performance they may, if they think fit, not only authorise that person to have possession of the firearm but also authorise such other persons as he may select to have possession thereof while taking part in the performance.
In this subsection the expression 'theatrical performance' includes a rehearsal of such a performance and the production of a cinematograph film.").
Page 9, line 8, at end insert:
("(5) The conditions specified in an authority as aforesaid shall include such conditions as the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council, having regard to the circumstances of each particular case, think fit to impose for the purpose of securing that the prohibited weapon or prohibited ammunition to which the authority relates will not endanger the public safety or the peace.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that we agree with the Commons Amendments to Clause 7. Clause 7 provides that "continuous firearms," that is machine guns and sub-machine guns, shall be prohibited weapons—that is, that they shall not be manufactured, sold, purchased or possessed without the authority of the Defence Departments. I believe that in connection with certain cinema productions prohibited weapons such as machine guns or sub-machine
194
guns are sometimes used. Under the clause as it originally stood it would have been necessary for each individual actor who uses such a weapon to obtain an authority from one of the Defence Departments to cover the possession of such a weapon. The object of the proposed new subsection (3) is to avoid the necessity of issuing authorities to individual actors, and it is proposed that the Defence Departments should have the power to authorise by a single authority not only the person in charge of the performance to acquire and possess the weapon, but also such actors as he may select to have possession of the weapon while taking part in the actual performance.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons it the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, may I ask with regard to that whether ammunition is expressly excluded from this? I can understand that a machine gun may be used in a cinema performance in making pictures, but I cannot sec that they would want ammunition, yet I notice that in the new subsection (5) ammunition appears to be included.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, theatrical producers and performers will not be able to obtain ball ammunition unless they are authorised to do so by a firearm certificate granted by a chief officer of police. It is, of course, very unlikely that such an authority will be given to those persons under that category save in the most exceptional circumstances.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 10, line 5, leave out from ("may") to ("apply") in line 7.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment. This Amendment is proposed to take out of Clause 8 the requirement that twenty-one days' notice of an application to Quarter Sessions under Clause 8 shall be given to the chief officer of police, because other and fuller provisions are being made in the later Amendment to the first Schedule of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 10, line 25, after ("on") insert ("conviction on").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 13, page 11, line 14, at end insert ("and not less than twenty-one days' notice of such an application shall be given to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 14, page 12, line 11, after ("section") insert ("and such of the provisions of this Act as amend Section six and Section nine of the principal Act").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, Clause 14 of the Bill is the Irish application clause. Law and order in Northern Ireland is, as your Lordships are aware, a transferred subject. That is, it is a subject on which the Parliament of Northern Ireland is competent to pass its own legislation. Most of the matters with which the Firearms Act deal are within the province of the Parliament of Northern Ireland but there are certain matters which are reserved. Such matters are the position of Imperial servants of the Crown, which is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill, and the functions of the Defence Departments, which are dealt with under Clause 7 of the Bill and Section 6 of the Firearms Act, 1920. It is necessary, therefore, that certain provisions of this Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. The present Amendment proposes that the Amendment to Section 6 of the Act of 1920 embodied in the Second Schedule to the Bill and the Amendment to the Second Schedule on page 20, line 21, shall extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 15, page 13, line 40, at end insert:
("(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section a Secretary of State may make rules under Section fifteen of the principal Act for enabling all or any of the functions of a chief officer of police to be discharged by deputy in the event of the illness or absence, or a vacancy in the office, of the chief officer of police.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, difficulties arise at present owing to the fact that decisions for applications for firearm certificates should be the personal decision of the Chief Constable, and delay occurs when he is absent either owing to illness or on leave. This Amendment proposes to meet this difficulty by empowering the Secretary of State to make rules under Section 15 of the principal Act for enabling the functions of a chief officer of police to be discharged by deputy in the event of illness or absence or a vacancy in the office of the chief officer of police. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 16, page 15, line 14, leave out ("January") and insert ("May").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, Clause 16 originally proposed that the Bill should come into operation on January 1, 1937. A Consolidation Bill has been promised and as such a measure would facilitate the administration of the law as amended by the Amendment Bill, it is desired to fix a date for the operation of the Amendment Bill which will allow time for the passing of a Consolidation Bill. The Amendment Bill has taken longer than was expected and the Amendment accordingly proposes to defer the date of operation until May 1, 1937. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
First Schedule, page 16, line 4, leave out paragraph 1, and insert:
("1. Notice of an appeal or application, signed by the appellant or applicant or by

197
his agent on his behalf and stating the general grounds of the appeal or application, shall be given by him to the clerk of the peace and also—

(a) in the case of an appeal, to the chief officer of police by whose decision the appellant is aggrieved, and

(b) in the case of an application, to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides.

2. A notice of an appeal shall be given within twenty-one days after the date on which the appellant has received notice of the decision of the chief officer of police by which he is aggrieved.
3. On receiving notice of an appeal or application, the clerk of the peace shall enter the appeal or application and give notice to the appellant or applicant, and to the chief officer of police to whom the notice of the appeal or application is required by paragraph 1 of this Schedule to be given, of the date, time, and place fixed for the hearing:
Provided that, in the case of an application, the date fixed for the hearing shall not be less than twenty-one clear days after the date when the clerk of the peace received the notice of the application.")
page 16, line 20, leave out ("in person or by a representative")
page 16, line 24, at end insert:
("7. On the hearing of an appeal the court may either dismiss the appeal or give the chief officer of police such directions as the court think fit as respects the certificate or register which is the subject of the appeal.")
page 10, line 27, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think")
line 28, at end insert ("and any costs ordered to be paid by the court may be recovered summarily as a civil debt and shall not be recoverable in any other manner")
page 16, line 41, at end insert:
("and the said Sections seven and eight, and the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1832, as amended by the said Section seven shall apply to the appeal or application accordingly as they apply to an appeal from a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to take the six Amendments to the First Schedule together. They are to a large extent drafting Amendments since it has been thought necessary to set out in the Schedules in greater detail the procedure in connection with appeals or applications to Quarter Sessions. I beg to move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Second Schedule, page 17, line 44, after ("auctioneer") insert ("after the word 'warehouseman' there shall be inserted the words 'or the servant of such a person'")
Page 18, line 32, after ("warehouseman") insert ("or the servant of a carrier or warehouseman")
line 33, after ("business") insert ("or employment").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, with your permission I should like to take the first three Amendments to this Schedule together. The object of these Amendments is to enable a servant of an auctioneer or warehouseman to possess firearms in the course of his duties. Such servants are by these Amendments placed in the same position as servants of gunsmiths. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 21, at end insert:
("Section nine.—In subsection (4) after the words 'contravention of' there shall be inserted the words 'any of the provisions of an order made by a Secretary of State under this section or a failure to comply with'; and at the end of the section there shall be inserted the following subsection:
(5) An order made by a Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by a Secretary of State.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is partly drafting, but it also gives to the Secretary of State express power to revoke or vary an Order made under Section 9 of the Act of 1920 relating to the removal of firearms. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 36, at end insert:
("Section thirteen.—In subsection (1) for the word 'bought' there shall be substituted the word 'purchased.'")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 14:
Indication of presence of obstructions near aerodromes.
(3) Every such order as aforesaid shall provide for requiring the proprietor of the aerodrome to which the order relates to pay to any person having an interest in any land affected by the order such compensation in respect of any loss or damage which that person may suffer as a consequence of the order as may, in default of agreement, be determined from time to time by a single arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and for the purposes of this subsection, any expense reasonably incurred in connection with the lawful removal of any apparatus installed in pursuance of such an order, and so much of any expense incurred in connection with the repair, alteration, demolition or removal of any building, structure or erection to which such an order relates as is attributable to the operation of the order, shall be deemed to be loss or damage suffered as a consequence of the order.
(7) The following provisions shall have effect for the protection of statutory undertakers:—

(a) any order made under this section affecting any property held by such undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking shall be so framed as to avoid interference with the proper carrying on of the undertaking;

(b) no person shall, except in a case of emergency, enter, in pursuance of such an order, upon any land held by such undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking, unless he has given to the undertakers at least three clear days' notice of his intention so to do, and any person so entering on any such land shall comply with any reasonable directions given to him by or on behalf of the undertakers for preventing interference with the proper carrying on of the undertaking.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON) moved, in subsection (3), after "Every such order as aforesaid shall provide," to insert:
200

"(a) that, except in a case of emergency, no works shall be executed on any land in pursuance of the order, unless, at least fourteen days previously, the proprietor of the aerodrome to which the order relates has served in the manner prescribed by the order on the occupier of that land, and on every other person known by the proprietor to have an interest therein, a written notice containing such particulars of the nature of the proposed works, and the manner in which and the time at which it is proposed to execute them, as may be prescribed by or in accordance with the order; and

(b) that if, within fourteen days after service of the said notice on any person having such an interest, the proprietor of the aerodrome receives a written intimation of objection on the part of that person to the proposals contained in the notice, being an intimation which specifies the grounds of objection, then, unless and except in so far as the objection is withdrawn, no steps shall be taken in pursuance of the notice without the specific sanction of the Secretary of State;

and shall also provide."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to carry out an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships at the Committee stage to put down an Amendment which would give effect to two points raised by my noble friend Lord Eltisley. The first is that where an order is made due notice shall be given by the aerodrome proprietor. Your Lordships will observe that in the Amendment I am proposing notice has to be given to the occupier of the land and to every other person known by the proprietor to have an interest therein. I think that fully covers the point of notice. The other point raised which I thought was reasonable was that if the owner of land took objection, and specified his objection to the nature of the works which it was proposed to execute upon his land, the owner should have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State as to whether his objection was reasonable or not. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment carries out that provision. I think the two paragraphs together carry out fully the undertaking I gave to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, after ("provide") insert the said new paragraphs.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the next Amendment on the Paper is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("in respect of") and insert ("for").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the next Amendment on the Paper is also a drafting Amendment, but I want to be allowed to move it in a somewhat different form. Instead of inserting "in respect of that interest in" I move to insert the word "in" only.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("as a") and insert ("in").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the next Amendment is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("as a") and insert ("in").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to subsection (7):
"(c) If any such undertakers show that, by reason of the operation of such an order, they have been obliged to take special measures for the purpose of ensuring the safety of persons so entering on any such land or otherwise acting under the order in relation to any property of the undertakers, the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by the undertakers in taking such measures shall be paid to them by the proprietor of the aerodrome to which the order relates, and any dispute as to whether any sum is payable under this paragraph, or as to the amount of any sum so payable, shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be referred for determination to a single arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.
Nothing in this subsection shall be taken to affect the general application of subsection (3) of this section."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of substance. Your Lordships will remember that we had a considerable discussion during the Committee stage as to the liability of statutory undertakers. I felt it was impossible to ask your Lordships to alter the general Common Law as to the liability of statutory undertakers towards a person who went on to their land by statutory authority, but I was impressed by the case made by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor. The noble Earl put it to me that there might be
202
certain exceptional cases—for instance, that of a railway company with an electrified line, where, in order to ensure that harm should not come to a person going on to that line, the statutory authority might deem it necessary to put somebody to look after that man and see that he did not meet with an accident. I think that is a genuine case which ought to be met.
As I told your Lordships, it was common ground between us that we did not want anybody to make a profit out of the safety measures which it might be necessary to take. It would be quite unreasonable, however, that where measures have to be taken, and rightly taken, by the aerodrome proprietor, a man on whose land these measures are taken should actually suffer loss thereby. I think that in the case of a statutory undertaker, if it is right and indeed necessary that he should incur expense in order to ensure the safety of the aerodrome employee who goes on to his land, then the aerodrome proprietor ought to meet the reasonable and proper cost of ensuring the safety of the aerodrome employee. This paragraph is inserted in order to give effect to that principle. The short sentence at the end:
"Nothing in this subsection shall be taken to affect the general application of subsection (3) of this section,"
is merely inserted in order to show that the special right which the statutory undertaker has under my Amendment will not deprive him of the ordinary rights which he, in common with every other landowner, has where entry is made on to his land. I think that is a fair compromise, if I may say so. It leaves the Common Law liability where it stands, but it does ensure that the statutory undertaker shall be indemnified against any proper expense which he incurs in the carrying out of this measure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Swinton for putting in this Amendment in response to an Amendment of mine which I moved on the Committee stage on behalf of the railway companies. I think it goes

203
a very long way to meet what I asked for. In fact I think, on consideration, that it is probably a great deal better than the Amendment which I moved. So far as I can see, in practice under this Amendment what will happen will be that if there is real danger to the aerodrome employee in any particular case, the expenses of the statutory undertaker in protecting him will be such that the aerodrome proprietor will turn round to the statutory undertaker and ask him to affix and look after the necessary light. That will mean that, instead of a man who may be experienced in aerodrome work working on a dangerous railway line, you will have a railway employee who is cognisant of the dangers, knows how to deal with them and is therefore much less likely to suffer death or injury. I should therefore very much like to thank my noble friend for the way in which he has met my difficulty.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, on behalf of the gas, electricity and water interests, may I join in thanking the noble Viscount for this Amendment? I, too, agree that it is better than the Amendment which was put down, and I thank him very much.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word on behalf of the gas undertakers to thank the noble Viscount, who has met us, if I may say so, in a very handsome manner. I hope he will not object to the shower of praise that has fallen upon him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is very unusual, and I accept it with pleasure. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Amendment of s. 13 of 7 and 8 Geo. 5 c. 51]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, there is a consequential and drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("(3)").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Limitation of power of exemption under Act of 1901.
4.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1901, an education authority shall not, after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, grant under that Act exemption to any child from the obligation to attend school unless the exemption is granted for the purpose of enabling the child to give assistance at home and the authority are satisfied that by reason of any circumstances existing at his home it would cause exceptional hardship to require the child to attend school.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-six" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-nine." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move again the Amendment that I moved during the Committee stage. I do not know that I need repeat the arguments fully, but, put shortly, they were that it is most unfortunate that this country cannot ratify an International Convention on the minimum age for work in agriculture which has been signed by nineteen other countries—the International Convention of 1921—merely because we are insisting on exempting a very small number of Scottish children from school over the age of twelve for work in agriculture. This very small alteration in the Bill would enable us to ratify this Convention, but without it we shall have to wait another three years. So far as the children themselves are concerned the result of adopting the Amendment would be that Scottish children would be put in exactly the same position with regard to exemption in 1936 as the English children occupy in 1936: for another three years they would not be able to be exempted if they were over the age of twelve for home duties and agricultural employment. That would be the only difference, just as our children here cannot be exempted for those purposes. That is a very small alteration. Altering that "nine" into a "six" would make no difference really to the children of Scotland. It would be advantageous to the children of Scotland, would be good from an educational point of view and would enable this country to ratify the Convention to which I have referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, said in his reply on the Committee stage that the trouble was the difficulty of arranging accommodation for these, children. But there are so very few children—only 2,500 altogether—who have been exempted last year between the ages of twelve and fourteen, and of those only 1,105 have been permanently exempted. It cannot be impossible to find accommodation for those children in the schools of Scotland, supposing they are not exempted, when the schools are presumably adapted to hold all the children who may be in them. Nobody knows beforehand how many children will be exempted under this law, or whether any children will be exempted. The accommodation must be there, and it is such a small number. As the schools will have to be increased anyhow in connection with the Bill, it must be quite possible to find room for them during the next few years. The Government very much exaggerate the difficulty of building school accommodation in the country generally. After all, if it were a question of a barracks, an aerodrome or a munition factory, the country would be covered with them in six months' time. Why should the Government take two-and-a-half years to build proper schools for the children? If the Government meant business about education the schools could all be provided in a year at the most. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("thirty-nine") and insert ("thirty-six")—(Lord Sanderson.)
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord opposite should have returned to the charge after the similar Amendment which he moved in Committee and the reply he received from my noble friend Lord Strathcona. I must say that when the Bill was introduced I thought that the middle of 1039 was rather late for the Bill to come into operation, but the great majority of the county councils in Scotland, through their education committees, say that they cannot be ready before the middle of 1939. New buildings have to be erected, existing buildings have to be added to, and, as the noble Lord stated in Committee, new teachers have to be trained. It would be impossible to be ready to grant exemptions after the end of next month. I hope, therefore, that
206
the noble Lord will not press his Amendment and that my noble friend will resist it on behalf of the Government.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I regret that owing to the insufficiency of the reply that I was able to give at short notice to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, on the Committee stage of this Bill, I have to trouble your Lordships with a further reply to this Amendment. He was, however, quite right to put it down, because I was not prepared then to deal with the important issue which he raised—what I call the Geneva Convention point—though I did endeavour, in my previous reply, to cover the other matters to which he referred. The noble Lord said that the Draft Convention would forbid the employment of a child under fourteen in agriculture, but as a matter of fact the purpose of the Convention is almost entirely satisfied in Scotland under present conditions. The number of children between twelve and actual age fourteen who go into agricultural employment in any year is probably at the most not more than 600. Most of these are over thirteen and many are released only for very short temporary periods. The total number of children between five and fourteen is about 750,000, and the number between twelve and fourteen at school is about 180,000. It is felt that the actual departure from the principle of the Geneva Convention is really so small that it does not justify alteration of the principles of the Bill. Also I should point out to the noble Lord that whereas the exemption in Scotland does prevent adhesion to the Convention at present, that objection will disappear in 1939 when this Bill comes into operation.
The other point to which the noble Lord referred the other day is really the difference in this matter between England and Scotland, and I want to take this opportunity of pointing out to him and other noble Lords that on the question of education there has been a desire in Scotland to keep the question of exemptions flexible. That was the case in the two previous Education Acts, and people in Scotland feel very strongly about the matter. The particular question he raised was whether exemptions between twelve and fourteen should be restricted now to the case of domestic hardship and none

207
allowed between these age limits after the passing of the Act for any other reason, such as employment. For a long time the education authorities in Scotland have had the power to give exemptions between twelve and fourteen. They have exercised this power with discretion and the Department have found extremely few occasions on which to question the authorities as to what they have done. About half of the exemptions are given between the actual age of fourteen and the next following leaving date which is what is called the legal age fourteen, and which in some cases is as much as six months later. Of the exemptions below the actual age of fourteen, over 55 per cent. are of a temporary nature, the child returning to school later on.
If the Amendment were accepted, then under the leaving date provisions no child could be exempted for employment even between fourteen and the following school-leaving date; that is to say, the case of a child who might be over fourteen according to the date of its birth. The Government feel that the appropriate date to narrow the present exempting" power is when the higher age comes into operation. That would follow the principles of the 1918 Act, which provided that when the age was raised to fifteen, the exemption range should at the same date be changed from twelve-fourteen to thirteen-fifteen. The present Bill, I need hardly remind your Lordships, goes further than this in that it abolishes exemptions under fourteen altogether when the higher age becomes effective. To make the change now, abolishing all exemptions below fourteen except those for domestic hardship, would be a very sudden alteration in Scottish practice which would probably arouse considerable opposition, specially in the rural areas. If the three-year interval is given as proposed in the Bill, parents, who value these exemptions, will have sufficient warning of the new state of affairs. We think the abolition of the existing powers should be a matter of gradual adjustment rather than an immediate and drastic change. I hope, therefore, that with that fuller explanation which I have now been able to give, the noble Lord will not press this point, but will allow the Bill to pass as it stands.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his amplification of his former
208
reply to my Amendment. Possibly I owe him an apology for not having given him notice that in Committee I was going to raise the point about the Geneva Convention, which is perhaps a litle bit outside the scope of the Bill, but I must say I do wish he could have extended his amplification to the acceptance of my Amendment. As he has said, there are very few children who would be affected if the Amendment were passed. Only 2,600 odd children between twelve and fourteen were exempted last year, and I think that if you took all those over fourteen and exempted them before the end of the leaving term there would only be about 5,000. That is not very many, and I think that could be easily arranged. The point is that by not accepting my Amendment the Scottish law is a stumbling block in the way of signing the Convention, and by not removing it we cannot sign for another three years. However, I have done my best, though I seem to be incapable of convincing the noble Lord. I do not think I shall succeed if I say any more, and therefore I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House His Majesty's Government should not propose, support, approve, or agree to, any alterations in the Articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations which do not provide for the removal, in letter and spirit, of the coercive clauses in the Covenant.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I come to the subject matter of the Resolution which stands in my name, I feel that an explanation is due to your Lordships for its presence there to-day. It is the result of a concatenation of unfortunate circumstances. When a number of us began to grow anxious at the lack of any Government pronouncement on the future policy of this country towards the Covenant of the League, those of

209
us who formed a not unimportant political organisation, known as the Imperial Policy Group, and numbering some three score members in this House and another place, debated whether this question should not be raised, and I was deputed to put down a Motion on the subject. This I did, but unfortunately I was travelling about the country. I looked carefully at the Order Paper to see if anything on the subject appeared, but found nothing. It happened, however, that the Order Paper available was some three days' old, owing to my having been moving about and not getting any Parliamentary Papers for three or four days.
The next misfortune was that the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, addressed to me was addressed to a house which was unoccupied save for the presence of a caretaker, and his communication followed me about the country. Your Lordships will naturally inquire why, at the end of this time, when I became aware of Lord Ponsonby's letter at the end of last week, I did not remove my Resolution. The reasons were twofold. I was on the horns of a very unpleasant dilemma. Either I had to do something which was, in spirit at least, contrary to the etiquette of your Lordships' House to some extent, and which was undoubtedly, though entirely unintentionally, discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or else I had to lot down a large number of people who were depending upon me. It was a difficult decision to take, and, being possibly rather a fanatic on the subject of loyalty to one's immediate political associates, I chose to be loyal to them and to risk this seeming discourtesy to the unwritten laws of this House and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This I regret very much having had to do. Your Lordships may blame me for it, but I assure you that I am willing to take the blame. It was a matter of conscience, and I felt it was my duty to do as I did. No discourtesy was intended to your Lordships' House or to any individual member of it.
Now turn to the subject of the Resolution. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, said on Monday that there would not be a Government reply to-day. I respectfully suggest that, without any question of the merits of any case that I may put forward, that would be rather a mistake. I do not think that
210
it is really fair to your Lordships' House, to the members of another place, or to the country, that we should have a really important pronouncement on a first-class question of national and international policy made to us at the very end of a Session, when there is totally inadequate opportunity to discuss it within Parliament or without, and I do hope therefore that, even if there is not an amplification, we may have some small indication to-day of the Government's attitude before we leave.
To deal as briefly as possible with our contentions, those of us who desire to see the coercive clauses removed from the Covenant of the League are convinced that the Covenant in its present form is more an incitement to war than an inducement to peace. If it had not been for the existence of the League of Nations it is probable that Abyssinia would not have lost its independence, simply because it would have been possible, and I think probable, that this country would have gone early in the operations and quietly have informed Italy that any further aggression in Abyssinia would have meant that Italy had to cope not only with Abyssinia but with the resources of Great Britain and the British Empire. But such unilateral action was of course, and still is, impossible under our League obligations. Collective security has proved itself unfortunately—or fortunately, as some people may think—a complete failure. We had the sad spectacle of fifty-three nations at Geneva paying lip-service to it, but only one, namely, our own, doing anything whatever to implement its pledges. No one has ever attempted to deny the statement of Sir Samuel Hoare that no country save this one had moved a ship, a man, or an aeroplane, and in these circumstances I cannot see that there is any expectation that in new, and possibly greater, dangers that may face this country in the future, there is any reason to suppose that those countries will show themselves any more regardful of their obligations than they have done in the past.
And not merely were we left to bear the brunt of expenditure and risk, but none of those other countries which declared themselves so passionately opposed to aggression even made the slightest promise that, should hostilities

211
break out between Italy and ourselves, we should receive from it any form of substantial assistance. We had no definite promise, say, from any of the Scandinavian, Balkan or South American countries that in the event of war breaking out they would provide a division, a brigade, even a battalion, or say £500,000 or £100,000 for the prosecution of that campaign. That is to say that the coercive clauses come to this, that fifty-three nations shall pass a resolution saying that Great Britain shall act as policeman. I suggest that that state of affairs is not satisfactory either from the point of view of this country or from the point of view of the world. That, I think, is pretty generally recognised, and I think that, even in Government circles, there is a very decided difference of attitude towards the Covenant of the League of Nations from that which was held a very few months ago.
There are now three bodies of opinion in regard to the Covenant. There are those who say that, after all, it does not work too badly in small matters, and therefore it would be advisable to adopt the policy of laissez faire. But then there are others, who are much more dangerous, who take the line that the Covenant should be reformed on a definitely much more coercive basis—apparently coercion almost automatic—and should apply force to make any country guilty of aggression sec the error of its ways immediately. I do not think that those worthy persons who would thus reform the Covenant have ever properly envisaged the difficulties of such a performance. Many of them at least now think that some form of regional pact would be better than some form of collective security covering the whole of the civilised world. That, I think, is open to doubt, because I submit that the existence of a regional pact whereby a number of nations are pledged at once to attack any country which is guilty of aggression, so far from restraining a country which wishes to undertake aggression, is only too likely to make that aggression more violent, more wholesale, and more cruel than would otherwise be the case.
It is useless to blind ourselves to the fact that at the present time the potential danger in Western Europe is regarded as Germany. We cannot view without acute anxiety the warlike preparations which that country is making, but can it be
212
reasonably supposed that, if Germany or any other country which is preparing an aggression wishes that aggression to be successful, it would wait to give notice of what it is going to do? I think it is far more likely, and indeed practically certain, that it would strike at once; and if it knew that several surrounding countries were likely to take up arms against it immediately, its first task would be to ensure that there was such chaos and destruction and confusion in the main cities of those countries within bombing distance that it would be quite impossible for them to carry on a successful counterattack to repel or check the aggression.
There is one other system which is suggested by certain people, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that is, the creation of a powerful International Army, I presume mostly of an aerial character, to enforce the will of the League of Nations. I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that this, too, is not likely to prove a great success. In the first place, in dealing with a large country, or even a country considerably smaller than Germany, such a force, to be of any practical value, would have to be a quarter of a million or, better still, half a million strong to begin with. Where will such a force have its headquarters? If the various units are to be spread about in their own or other people's countries, then it is going to be a matter, not of days, but of weeks getting them together. If they are going to be in one place, say in Switzerland, it is quite obvious that it is going to be a very long time before they can reach the scene of hostilities, if that scene of hostilities should perchance be in the Balkans.
Furthermore, although Switzerland has been hitherto the centre of all international transactions, I am pretty certain that the Swiss would not view with any favour the establishment of a large force within their boundaries, which would certainly be the object of attack by any country which wished to commit aggression, simply because it is perfectly plain that any country which wished to commit an act of aggression and knew that it would be likely to be attacked immediately by the aerial forces under the control of the League of Nations, would make its first step the bombing out of existence of the barracks and aerodromes at

213
which that International Force was camped. In these circumstances I do not think that such an idea is going to be of very much practical value. What is the alternative? I suggest to your Lordships that the alternative is to recognise fully and frankly that in the present state of the world in general and of Europe in particular neither collective security nor regional pacts are going to work, and therefore we should endeavour to place the League of Nations on the basis of being a body used for conciliatory purposes rather than for coercion.
That is from the European point of view. Now, as to the national or, as some may believe, the more narrow point of view. As I observed a few moments ago, it is quite obvious that all the nations of Europe are agreed that whenever there is what one may colloquially term "dirty work" to be done, it is Great Britain that should be allowed to do it while everyone else pauses. I do not suggest that that is a situation which we should accept at all. We should make it quite clear in the future that as it is obvious we are not going to get the co-operation in international matters which we have been promised on paper, we consider it far better to stick more strictly to our own business and consider the interests of our own people at home and throughout our Empire.
This policy, the policy of the Imperial Policy Group, is not a policy of isolation. We are not isolationists, although that charge has sometimes been levelled against us simply because we recognise that, however much strategy may have been altered as the result of developments in the air, one fact remains unchanged, namely, that we cannot allow a hostile or potentially hostile nation to occupy the Low Countries and the Channel ports. With that I think most people will be in agreement. Some say that is no use because, even if that territory were not occupied, it would be quite possible, as during the last War, for London and the South Coast to be bombed. Certainly it would be possible, but it would be much more difficult, for the raiders going and coming would suffer many more casualties. Their appearance would be much more easy to discover, and their task rendered much more difficult. That is why I and my friends consider that we ought, if not to
214
guarantee the Low Countries and the Channel ports, at least to make it clear that we are not prepared to allow any hostile or potentially hostile country to have control of them. That in its turn brings the corollary that we should not be in a position whereby we could be dragged at the heels of any country, most especially France, if that country's unfortunate liaison with Soviet Russia should bring about a Russo-German War which would involve France and possibly mean the invasion of French territory by German Armies who, endeavouring to evade the famous Maginot line, might try to outflank that line at one end or the other.
We should make it perfectly clear that while we would not be a party to French aggression on Germany any more than to German aggression on France, we are equally not prepared to allow an army to come down through the Low Countries and establish bases within striking distance of our South and South-East Coasts. To do that we must have a drastic change in our international obligations. I do not think—I say this with great respect—that His Majesty's Government are aware of the success which is attending purely isolationist propaganda. It is succeeding to a degree which would have been considered impossible, say, a year ago. A very significant fact has been brought to the notice of our Group very recently. That is that in various parts of the country, but especially in the Midland areas, we are having the unprecedented condition that potential recruits for the Army are coming to the recruiting stations and asking first, before they are willing to make the attestation: "Does my joining the Army mean that if a war breaks out in Central Europe the League of Nations can order me to go and fight there?" Recruiting officers have done their best to explain the situation, but unfortunately they have not been able to dispel the natural and correct impression that, under certain conditions, a decision taken at Geneva would send our troops to Central Europe. The prospective recruit replies: "Thank you, I will not enlist to-day."
That is a new phenomenon. In some ways it is not an unhealthy sign. It means that the people of this country are taking an ever-increasing interest in foreign affairs, and that is all to the

215
good at the present time. But it is also a sign that no Government which is going to involve this country in hostilities on the Continent of Europe or elsewhere, unless these hostilities are directly concerned with the preservation of the integrity of Great Britain or of the British Empire, is going to last very long. I do not think that the Government realise the strength of this feeling, and I am sure that it would be a very good thing if we could have some pronouncement to-day before the greater pronouncement is made next week, as to what their intentions are, because, otherwise, we may be faced with a situation we have had to face too often in the last five or six years—that is to say, the Government coming to both Houses and presenting them with a fait accompli at home or abroad, and making it a question of confidence, so that some action which has been taken, or some decision made, which may never have been discussed at all or at least discussed most inadequately here or in another place, is then put to Parliament in such a manner that the only way to overcome it would be to throw out the Government.
For this reason more time should be given than a couple of days at the very end of the Session for both Houses to consider whatever the Government's proposals are for the reform of the League of Nations, if they have any—and I hope they are going to take the lead, because British prestige in the last eighteen months, and particularly in the last few months, has suffered terribly throughout the whole world as the result of our vacillations of policy. It does not matter so much having a bad policy so long as you have a policy of some kind, and unfortunately our policy has been one which could be not inaccurately described as one policy on Monday and a completely reversed policy on Thursday. That does not lead to international stability or international good will. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be willing to give a lead to the Government by accepting the Resolution which I respectfully lay before you this afternoon, and I hope most emphatically that some small indication of the Government's attitude may be given to your Lordships this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, His Majesty's Government
216
should not propose, support, approve, or agree to, any alterations in the Articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations which do not provide for the removal, in letter and spirit, of the coercive clauses in the Covenant.—(The. Earl of Mansfield.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I interpose for a moment at this stage. I am sure your Lordships will have heard with satisfaction the explanation which the noble Earl gave at the beginning of his remarks of the apparent discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in placing this Motion down upon the Paper for a day earlier than that already chosen by Lord Ponsonby for a similar Motion. You will have heard that explanation with satisfaction, even if your satisfaction may possibly have been a little bit modified by the fact that the noble Earl went on to explain that, even after the circumstances which had led to his apparent discourtesy to Lord Ponsonby had passed, he still decided to proceed with the course which he had originally adopted.
I am bound to express some regret at his decision, in the first place because my noble friend the Leader of the House, who was most anxious to hear what the noble Earl had to say on what is admittedly a question of the highest importance, is unable, owing to other duties, to be present in your Lordships' House this afternoon. It so happens that at the present moment discussions are taking place between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Governments of France and of Belgium in which my noble friend is taking a part, and he asked me, therefore, to express to your Lordships his regret that he is unable to be present here this afternoon. I have to remind your Lordships of the statement he made in reply to a private notice question by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on Monday last. My noble friend explained that the Government were proposing to reply to this and other Motions on Wednesday next, and that they were not prepared to make their reply this afternoon.
I am unable in any way to depart from that statement which those of your Lordships who were present at the time will agree met with the general approval of

217
the House, and in those circumstances I am going to venture to ask the noble Earl whether he would not be prepared to withdraw his Motion to-day and to move it again formally on Wednesday next when other Motions standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, dealing with the same question, will come before your Lordships. That is the statement that I have to make on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I venture to hope that in the circumstances that proposal will commend itself to your Lordships and to the noble Earl himself.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I certainly do not wish in any way to inconvenience either your Lordships' House or the Government, and I am, therefore, quite willing to agree with the suggestion of the noble Marquess; but before formally withdrawing this Resolution I think I ought to repeat that no matter what consultations may be going on with foreign countries I do not think that it is satisfactory for Parliament to be given about two days merely to consider these matters. I think we ought to have had a definite indication given of the line of policy. I would not, of course, ask for details. However, the Government either are unable or unwilling to do that, and with that I fear we must abide content. Therefore, in order to meet their convenience but, I must say, with some dissatisfaction, I beg leave to withdraw the Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SOCIAL SERVICES IN POLICE COURTS.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask His Majesty's Government what action they intend to take to implement the recommendations regarding matrimonial jurisdiction contained in Part I of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Social Services in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction after the full consideration promised in this House on April 29; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would apologise for raising this matter of the matrimonial jurisdiction of magistrates as I have done on various occasions during the last three years with
218
what some people may say is the obstinate pertinacity of a club bore, were it not that I have become convinced by speeches made in your Lordships' House that there is a very considerable volume of sympathy here with the question I have raised, and a very serious desire that the Government may take appropriate action to achieve the necessary reforms. With your Lordships' permission I will, very briefly indeed, describe the sequence of events that has led up to this Question in my name this afternoon. In October, 1934, the Government appointed a Departmental Committee of Home Office officials, magistrates and other experts to inquire exhaustively into social services in the police courts. That Committee sat for a year and a half. It heard all the necessary and available evidence and it drafted a unanimous Report. That Report was published in March of this year. I should like to remind your Lordships that the recommendations in that Report affect two special aspects of the work done in police courts. They deal very fully with the method of treatment accorded to matrimonial cases, and with the organisation and reorganisation of the probation service.
The latter of these two problems is undoubtedly controversial. I have much sympathy with the proposals as to the improvement and increased efficiency of the probation service contained in that Report, but there are legitimate objections from many different quarters. The position in regard to the recommendations about the treatment of matrimonial cases is entirely different. Those recommendations are really non-controversial, and one might say there is a virtual unanimity of favourable opinion both inside and outside your Lordships' House wherever they have been considered. These reforms cannot, however, be achieved without legislation, and that is why it has been necessary to urge upon His Majesty's Government the necessity for legislative action. They are not drastic or sweeping in themselves, and they would, I think, obtain for these sad cases of domestic hardship and domestic difficulty among the poorer sections of the community that fair and friendly treatment which every member of your Lordships' House would desire to see accorded.
With that in mind I raised this issue in your Lordships' House on April 29 last.

219
I had hoped to extract from the Government some definite statement as to what action they propose to take. The noble Earl who answered said that it had been impossible for the Government to make up their mind because the Report had only been published a month, and they had not had time to give the fullest consideration to its proposals. That seemed a very fair answer, even if some of us, who were particularly and perhaps vividly aware of the urgency of the situation, regretted that action could not be taken earlier. But since that date almost three months have elapsed and I therefore think it is not unreasonable to expect that the Government, having given full consideration to the proposals contained in the Report, should be able to say whether or not they will be able to implement these proposals by legislative action. That is the object that I have in mind in raising this matter again. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I think your Lordships will recall that when this subject was last debated I indicated in no uncertain manner that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was in full sympathy with the general trend of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the social services in courts of summary jurisdiction and also with the objects which that Committee wished to secure. My right honourable friend is conscious of the great social importance attaching to the methods of dealing with matrimonial disputes in summary courts and is anxious to do all that is possible to secure improvements in the methods of conducting this part of the work. The main recommendations of the Committee can, I think, be classified under three heads. First, there are those which can only be carried out by legislation; secondly, there are those which may suitably be given statutory form for the purpose of securing universal adoption, but which can, nevertheless, be carried out by the justices of the peace, if they are willing to do so, without legislation; and, thirdly, there are those recommendations which are dependent solely upon administrative action and would not form part of any legislation that may be proposed.
As regards those proposals which can only be effected by means of legislation, I regret to inform the noble Earl that
220
it is not at present possible for me to make any statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships will be well aware of the crowded state of the legislative programme, and the condition of that programme has made it impossible to take up these questions in a Government Bill. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is most anxious that action shall not be deferred because of the difficulty at the present moment of carrying legislation. It is certainly possible to make considerable advances in the direction indicated by the Committee without waiting for a Bill. Therefore, pending the question of legislation, the Home Secretary has decided, with a view to avoiding delay and to securing at once improvements in the direction advocated by the Committee, that he will issue a circular letter to all courts of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales urging upon such courts the advantages of adopting those recommendations of the Committee which can be adopted without waiting for legislation.
He proposes in this circular to bring to the notice of the courts a number of the Committee's recommendations, including their recommendation for the improvement of the methods of conciliation and the desirability of holding special sessions for matrimonial cases, and also of limiting the composition of the bench so as to produce the right sort of atmosphere in dealing with matrimonial cases. My right honourable friend believes and hopes that there will be little if any disagreement with the recommendations of the Committee on these points, and he trusts there will be general readiness on the part of justices throughout the country to give their most sympathetic attention to the consideration of the proposals which he intends to bring before their notice. Although I feel confident that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will not be entirely satisfied with the Government reply, I hope he will at least rest assured that the Government through their circular letter are endeavouring to implement those recommendations of the Committee that the justices themselves can put into operation if they feel so inclined. I would like personally, as a member of the Committee, to express to the noble Earl my own appreciation of the interest he has shown in the Report that we

221
published and his enthusiasm for seeing certain of these recommendations implemented at the earliest date.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl opposite very much for the manner in which he gave his answer to my Question and to express that sympathy that one always feels for those who are quite evidently trying to do their best in a matter of very considerable public importance. I am exceedingly glad to hear from him that the Home Office will issue a circular to courts of summary jurisdiction which will recommend such administrative action as can be taken without legislation. That at any rate is a definite step in the right direction. But the noble Earl will not be surprised to hear me say that it does not take us nearly close enough to our objective. Those of us who are extremely anxious about the present situation are perfectly convinced that sooner or later legislation must be faced. The reason the noble Earl gave for the inaction of the Government was the crowded state of the legislative programme during the last few months of the present Session. That is a very plausible reason, and I think everyone will agree that the last few months of the Session are a period when many Bills of first-rate importance have to be hurried through. But this reason will not be applicable at the beginning of the next Session, and I sincerely hope that the noble Earl, who has himself done so much to expedite these reforms, will be able to assure us that one of the first concerns of the Government at the beginning of the next Session will be to see that a Bill on the lines suggested in this Report is introduced. In view of the very courteous and on the whole satisfactory answer of the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, as one interested in this matter I may perhaps be allowed to say a word or two before the Motion is withdrawn. We are really very grateful to the noble Earl opposite for what he has done and, in my opinion, for the very rapid way in which it has been done. I advocated that something in the nature of a circular should be issued, and in fact I had the pleasure of talking to the noble Earl about it. Without taking any credit to myself, I am extremely glad to see that that view
222
has been adopted. I agree that at this period of the Session it would be unreasonable to press for legislation. I say again that I am very grateful for all that the Government have done in this matter.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, the few words which I venture to submit to your Lordships' House on this Motion are only justified by the observation of the noble Earl who spoke for the Government when he emphasised the difficulty of framing legislation owing to the crowded state of the legislative programme. That is only a partial explanation. That congested state is not likely to be relieved within the purview of the near future. There is, however, a deeper reason which makes it extremely difficult for the Government to legislate upon any matter having reference to matrimonial questions. This fact has its repercussions in making at times administration very difficult, because to administer in the absence of, or in face of contradiction in, legislation and aberrations here and there from the Common Law is a burden which should not be put upon administrators and permanent officials and those who draft Bills. The fundamental reason for this difficulty calls for a remedy applicable to all the Dominions as well as to England and this is an opinion held by many who have the interests of the Empire as a whole at heart.
Your Lordships have had before you legislative chaos disclosed by the case of the Peerage of Lord Sinha, in India. In these times, when any one can fly to India in a few days and when London becomes more and more the centre of the world and particularly the heart of the Empire, laws as to matrimonial relations cannot easily be improved or co-ordinated so long as the Common Law which British subjects carry with them into other parts of the Empire differs from the Common Law as it is said to exist in England today. The time has come for His Majesty's Government to consider whether the existing legislation in all its aspects concerning marriage, in whatever shape or form administered, and the possibility of making such legislation a standard for the Empire, had not better be tackled boldly by setting up a Committee to deal with the fundamental codification of the

223
marriage laws, not only as to England, but also in so far as the law of England as the centre of the Empire affects the rest. It is assumed and presumed that the Common Law of England and of Ireland or Scotland is that which all British subjects carry with them overseas. The Common Law of England as it was declared in the reign of Henry VIII is the law that British subjects are supposed to carry with them to-day, but since the Foreign and Consular Marriages Acts have been extended throughout the limits of the Empire, it is more likely that the Common Law has gone back to what it was before Henry VIII. In conclusion I beg leave to express thanks for the opportunity to point out that in the interests of British subjects overseas the time has come for a Committee—which perhaps would take years to report—to be set up to deal with this matter in a comprehensive manner which would make reforms here more easy in future.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MALTA: COURT PROCEDURE.
  MALTA: COURT PROCEDURE.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNSLEY) BILL. [H.L.] MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PLYMPTON SAINT MARY) BILL. [H.L.] MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEST HARTLEPOOL) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNSLEY) BILL. [H.L.] MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PLYMPTON SAINT MARY) BILL. [H.L.] MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEST HARTLEPOOL) BILL. [H.L.]
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. THORNTON CLEVELEYS IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEATHFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment; and recommitted to a Committee of the While House on Monday next.