I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time.

I have already explained this Bill on the second reading. The Bill has been through the Scottish Committee, and with one slight alteration in the title comes before us now. The purpose of the Bill is pretty well explained in the one clause of which it consists. Reference to the schedule shows that all that we propose has always been the law of Scotland. By the law of Scotland a man who is poor has always had a certain privilege when he goes to the Law Courts. He does not get there as a matter of right. He has first to go to a preliminary court called a court of probable cause. There he has to produce evidence that is primâ facie in the right. That court consists of counsel and solicitor.

They have to make a scrutiny of the man's case to see if he has got a good primâ facie case. If he succeeds in passing that court then he gets credit for his court fees and is entitled to commandeer the service of counsel and agent who are appointed by the different Faculties, so many of them for the year. He proceeds to fight his case to the end, and on getting judgment is allowed to tax, his costs against his defeated opponent. This is only just and equitable.

Costs always follow, or should follow damages, and a man who has wronged another ought certainly to make good both to the victor, because if a different result had followed, the loser could not have paid. It may be said that this is a hardship, but a man against whom the damages may be cast is always protected by the existence of the preliminary investigation which finds whether or not there is a primâ facie case. This, I say, has been the law of Scotland since 1424. It was the law of appeals to the Lords up to comparatively recently, and I believe it is even now Since 1892 however, they have been treating Scottish pauper appeals as if they were English pauper appeals. The English law for the pauper is entirely different. The poor litigant—unless the law has been altered by recent legislation—has no right to commandeer counsel free, and in the event of his succeeding, in his case no costs of any kind are recoverable. The law got round this anomalous state of affairs for many years by having what they call the doctrine of Dives costs. That is to say, that if the poor litigant won his case and the verdict was for more than £5 he ceased to be Lazarus and became Dives. He ceased to be a pauper and was allowed to tax his costs against his opponents In 1885 a decision was given which made a change in the English law. It was held to be a fraud upon the statute of Henry VII. to give costs to a pauper. That statute gave the poor man the privileges of the court but expressly withheld expenses. This was amended by Henry VIII., who said that the poor man if he did not win his case was liable to be severely punished for engaging in the action; and that punishment is said to have been whipping.

Scottish law has been much more humane and practical. Unfortunately in 1892 this law was altered by a rule, proceeding on a decision, and it has been felt by the Scotch since that this was a considerable hardship, and that they were entitled to have in the Supreme Court of Scotland, which is the House of Lords, the same privilege extended to Scottish litigants as in the Scottish courts. No hardship is involved upon anyone because the House of Lords is completely protected from frivolous actions. They have the Appeal Committee which has to be satisfied as to the result of any invstigation in the courts below. When the case comes to the House of Lords the litigant sues in forma pauperis and that again comes before the Appeal Committee, and another investigation can be made into the circumstances, which includes an inquiry into the merits of the case. The solicitor or the litigant himself appear before the Appeal Committee, and complete protection is afforded against those who may be engaged in the litigation against anything in the nature of oppressive action. The difficulty is this: That unless the Bill is passed the poor Scottish litigant will have the greatest possible difficulty in finding anybody to represent him. There is no power over English counsel and no claim upon Scottish counsel to compel them to act in the Lords, unless he finds his expenses, the peculiar hardship is this: whereas the English pauper litigant in winning his case legally owes nothing whatever to his counsel or agent, because it is expressly provided by English law that nothing can be taken, while a Scotch pauper does owe the expenses to his counsel and agent. The result of that is that he is obliged to make arrangements with his Scottish counsel and assent that some portion of the damages which are recoverable shall be applied to costs. The consequence is that he is put in a very unfair position compared with the English pauper, who gets his damages net That is a state of affairs that should not be allowed to exist

This Bill commended itself practically unanimously to the Scottish Grand Committee. I feel that this is entirely consonant with modern principles of treatment of the poor man who has been landed in poverty which may have been caused by the very man whom he is suing. and whom he has brought into the Law Courts. I think this is consistent with our modern ideas of justice, and it is a principle which was introduced by James I., one of our famous Scotch kings, and perhaps the greatest of our Scotch poets Away back in what we call the Dark Ages this monarch had it in his mind to frame a measure so just and equitable. It makes one proud of our old Scotch kings that he should. I trust the British Parliament will not be behind in insisting on this measure of justice to the very poor I feel that this is entirely consonant with modern principles of treatment of the man who has been landed in litigation, which may have been caused by the very man whom he is suing, and whom he has brought into the Law Courts. I think this is consistent with our modern ideas of justice, and it is a principle which was introduced by James I., one of our famous Scotch kings, and perhaps the greatest of our Scotch poets. Away back in the Dark Ages this monarch had it in his mind that a measure of this kind was just and equitable, and this fact makes me proud of our old Scotch kings, and I trust the British Parliament will not be behind On considering this question of justice to the poor.

The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has given us a very clear explanation of a Bill which is very difficult to understand, and I do not know that the House has clearly understood it. I think I have, because the hon. and learned Member himself was kind enough to lend me a very interesting pamphlet upon the Bill, and I think I understand it. As far as my views go, I think every man is worthy of his hire, and the learned counsel who take up these cases ought to be paid. It seems to me that the real object of this Bill is to secure fees for counsel.

The point is that counsel are paid their fees, but they take them from the pauper, whereas the fees ought to be taken from the man who has caused the injustice.

I really do not understand how the people will be able to get these fees from paupers. The hon. and learned Member referred to the Dark Ages, and he said that a certain statute was passed, and it was altered in Scotland in 1892 in order to assimilate the Scotch law with the English law. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to alter the law passed in 1892 and to return to the Dark Ages. I have always said in this House that I have a very great preference for our old customs, and in many cases they are superior to the modern customs, but I do not want to go back fourteen hundred years, which would be the result of passing this Bill. I have with some labour managed to understand this Measure, and I thought it only right that I should inform the House what is the real object of this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

I do not propose to discuss this Measure at any length because it has already been fully gone into before the Scottish Grand Committee. Since that time certain information has been laid before those interested in the Bill, and it seems to me that Clause 6 may require a certain amount of adjustment. That is the Clause which makes the Bill retrospective, and it has been indicated to us that possibly some sort of alteration and adjustment will be required. Of course we cannot make such alterations now, but I understand that this can be done in another place.

This Bill, I understand, has passed the Scottish Grand Committee, but the representatives of other parts of the United Kingdom know very little about it, and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has not explained it.

I did not explain the Bill because the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) is largely responsible for this Measure and he is in charge of the Bill, but in reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I may say—

The hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I have been in charge of this Measure since it was sent to the Committee, and we have been in touch with the various legal bodies in Scotland and they are all agreed that there will have to be one or two small drafting Amendments. Otherwise it is a perfectly agreed Bill and there is no opposition to it in Scotland. I rather shrink from going into a detailed explanation of such questions as Duplicands of Feu-duties in Scotland, because this Measure deals with an obscure branch of the feudal law in Scotland, and I really think it would be more acceptable to the House if I simply here and now moved the Third Reading. I think that course would be more accept able to the House.

I agree with what my hon. Friends who have already spoken have said in regard to this measure, but I am bound to point out that there must be minor Amendments made, and I trust that no effort will be made in another place to undermine the retrospective character of Clause 6. What Clause 6 does is to date back to 4th April, 1919, and to give feuars is Scotland, who are not otherwise covered by this Bill, the protection that this Clause offers. I am not in favour of trying to weaken the Clause in another place. I admit the dangers of retrospective action of this kind, but I am bound to point out that immediately the decision come to in another place was reached, there was a widespread and general feeling in Scotland that this was a state of affairs that must be remedied by legislation at the earliest possible moment. Clause 6 appears to me to do nothing more than to offer the protection which should have been afforded without delay, but which could not be introduced because of the time necessarily occupied in inquiries of this kind. I hope that nothing will be done to undermine Clause 6; I will go beyond that, and say, on behalf of at least 100 feuars on the Warrender estate in Edinburgh, who have commuted their casualties between that date and the present time, on the only condition that the superior's agent would accept, i.e., two years' feu duty in addition to the feu duty for the year, which is consequently popularly called a triplicand, that that class of feuars should have the protection of this Bill. Partly through timidity, and partly because of the fear that a Parliamentary reform or remedy would not be forthcoming, they commuted on the terms I have just stated, and I think it is unjust that they should be penalised, either be cause of that timidity, or because of a desire to set their house in order, or because of the fear that Parliamentary legislation would not be introduced. On these grounds, while concurring heartily with the hon. Member who supported this Bill, I express very strongly indeed the hope tnat in no respect will it be weakened or amended in another place.

This is a rather curious Bill, and a very curious position. The hon. Member who spoke on the Bill (Colonel Greig) began by stating that it would require some alteration, but that it was not possible to do it in this House, and therefore it had better be done in another place. Such a token of appreciation of that "other place" by a Liberal Member I do not feel inclined to find fault with, I may, however, point out to the hon. Member that the alterations could have been made in this House, and that it would have been perfectly in order for him to have moved to re-commit the Bill.

The fact is, that certain documents and information have only come into our possession since the Committee stage was concluded.

Quite so, but still the hon. Member could have moved to-day to recommit the Bill, and got the Amendments made here. He could have put into the Bill all the Amendments which have been rendered necessary by the information and documents that have now come into his possession. I am, under the circumstances, not surprised that there should be some hesitation on the part of the House in acceding to the Third Reading of a Bill which its promoters admit requires further amendment. The object of this Bill is to amend the law relating to duplicands of feu duties in Scotland. I have taken the trouble to look into the matter. As I understand it, the object aimed at is one with which I can have no sympathy. Apparently, if anybody gets a decision against him in a court of law, and if he is able to exercise sufficient influence to get a Bill brought in here to alter the law on which that decision has been based, he may do so. My information is that in Scotland the courts have held that the feu duty on the entry of an heir shall be payable not for one year, but for three years. As long as other people were called upon to pay it, my hon. Friend who moved the Third Reading was not concerned, but seeing that he has to pay, he looks upon the matter in an entirely different way, and in order to get over the decision which was given in the courts this Bill has been introduced. I think a Bill brought in under such circumstances ought to be approached with a considerable amount of caution. It is to date back for 14 months, to the 4th April, 1919. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) say that he deprecated retrospective legislation as a rule. I have always fought strongly against such legislation. I think it is the very worst kind among the many bad forms of legislation which can be undertaken in the present day. But while the hon. Member said it was a bad form of legislation he expressed a hope that the House of Lords would not alter it. I do not quite understand how he reconciles these two arguments. Personally, I hope that the House of Lords will alter the Bill, and I would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), who is one of the few remaining supporters of the rights of contract with whom I have been associated in this House, to support my request, which is, that if we pass the Third Reading of this Bill it must be on the understanding that an Amendment shall be moved in the House of Lords in consequence of the documents which have come to the knowledge of the hon. Member, and that that Amendment shall be supported by the supporters of the Bill. If we could get such an undertaking I have no objection to the Bill going on, but before this House passes legislation which the promoters say requires amendment, we should have an understanding that such amendment will be done in another place.

So far as I am aware, and I think I can speak for others in this matter, there is no opposition to the main principle of this Bill on the part of the landowners of Scotland. It seems extraordinary that there should be any doubt as to the precise meaning of the word "duplicand" in an expression which enjoins that a certain feu duty shall be payable every year, and that every, say, twentieth year, a duplicand shall be paid in addition. I believe it arises upon a certain form of words which has been used in certain old feu charters, but in the great majority of feu charters in Scotland that is the meaning of the word "duplicand." This doubt, started by a decision given quite recently in the Court of Session, in which it was held that the word "duplicand" meant that there should be, in that case, three, and not two, years' duty paid. From the landowner's point of view it is desirable that this doubt should be removed for all time. The existence of such a doubt necessarily creates great dissatisfaction, and I believe I am right in saying that from the landowner's point of view there is no objection whatever to the main principle embodied in this Bill.

With the leave of the House, I should like to take up one point referred to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). This is not a Bill in which the landowning interest is against other interests; it is between two sets of landowners, namely, the feuers and the superiors. In the Scottish feu contracts under the feudal system a superior and a vassal are the great features. In the Scottish feu contract, which is the title deed under which almost all the land in Scottish towns is held, the superior, who is the old proprietor, gives out his land to the new proprietor, who is the feuer, for an annual feu duty. In addition to that, it became the habit to stipulate for a casualty, which may occur at various times, and that casualty, in course of time, came to be fixed generally at double the feu duty. A word was coined. It is called "duplicand," and, accordingly, you have the feu contract stipulating for a feu duty of, say, £10 every year, and a duplicand, say, every 20 years. It is called a "feudal casualty." It used to be held that that necessarily included the feu duty for the year, and that, accordingly, every twentieth year you had two feu duties to pay. Now about the 1850's there was a case, namely, that of the Earl of Zetland, in which that construction was not put upon it. The words under construction in that case were, that a duplicand was to be payable "over and above" the feu duty for the year, and the Court held, upon the words "over and above," that in that year three feu duties were to be paid, namely, the annual feu duty and a duplicand in addition. That holds the field. We do not want to go back upon it, and we have a special provision in this Bill that, where by the use of any such words as "over and above," it is expressly stated that the duplicand is not to include the annual feu duty, then it is not to be included. It was always thought, however, that when simply a duplicand was stipulated for, in the absence of such express and unequivocal words, there were to be two feu duties in that year. Last year, in the House of Lords, a case was under construction, and the words were "for payment of an annual feu duty of (so much), and, further, every twentieth year a duplicand." That is a case where there were just ordinary words, and yet in that case it was held that the duplicand was over and above, and that it meant three feu duties. Of course, that case is the law. One naturally speaks of it with the greatest respect, and it has been accepted as good law in the construction of that deed. Undoubtedly, however, it was against the general understanding of the legal profession and of the superiors and vassals and all parties concerned in Scotland. It was one of those cases in which words, on which the good faith of these contracts depended, had been, under the general understanding, interpreted in a certain way, but in which, when it was dragged into the somewhat hard light of the law courts and subjected to microscopic examination, it turned out that the true interpretation was otherwise. The superiors in Scotland have adopted an almost unanimous attitude towards this. They admit that that was the good faith of the contracts and the understanding underlying those words. There has been no opposition from them, but cordial support, and they have held up many transactions in order to await this Bill. The object of the Bill is to set up a canon of construction of feu contracts, and to lay down that, unless there are unequivocal words expressing that there shall be three feu duties in that year, it shall only include two feu duties. There is also a most important Clause providing that, where a superior in the past has accepted the two feu duties for the year, he shall be bound by that practice under which he himself has interpreted it. All sides are at one upon this Bill. I am sorry that the word "duplicand" appears not to lend itself to such thrilling treatment as the words "pauper litigant," but I hope that this other little Scottish Bill will go through.

May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he will undertake, as I think is very necessary after his explanation, that the Clause making this retrospective shall be amended in another place?

I am sorry to say I see no chance of my becoming a peer within the next week or two, and, therefore, I cannot give such an undertaking. There is no doubt, however, that one or two drafting amendments will necessarily have to be made, and I am sure that the matter will be gone into in the Lords. After all, they are the authority, because they had the case in their hands, and, no doubt, they will take a great interest in the matter.

Supposing that the Lords struck out the Clause?

I certainly will not raise any objection. I know that there is great opposition to this Clause in, perhaps, the largest conveyancing body in Scotland, the Procurators of Glasgow, from whom I have had representations. This Clause was put in because the under- standing of the law was changed at the time of that decision, and the idea was that the principle should be that the law should run on, so to speak, continuously. The Procurators of Glasgow have represented that, once a thing like that is done, you cannot go back upon it. A tremendous number of sales of feu duties, land, and so on, have been carried through in the meantime on the footing of that law as it stood, and they said that really you could not remedy the whole injustice now, if there has been any. I certainly will not oppose the deletion of the Clause.

I was very glad to hear the explanation of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Jameson). Without it, I certainly should have protested against the passing through this House, without explanation, of a Bill involving important principles of retrospective legislation. I scarcely remember any Bill passing through this House in which the general body of hon. Members could survive an elementary examination, and certainly no one could possibly have understood without explanation what this Bill was or what was the principle involved in it. Even now I am not sure that I quite understand what a "triplicand" is; but, having regard to the evident anxiety to proceed to the next Order, I shall not detain the House further by going into that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is the result of an undertaking made in Committee with reference to shops which include post offices. This new Clause follows generally the lines of Clause 12 of the Shops Act, 1912. Its effect is that shops which contain post offices can only be kept open for the purpose of post office duties if it appears to the Postmaster-General that such opening is necessary for the public service. Otherwise, those shops come within the operation of the Bill. I do not think any lengthy explanation is necessary with regard to this Clause. The Clause itself states its effect quite clearly, and it is briefly as I have indicated.

This Clause shows the difficulty of the whole Bill. The moment a Bill of this sort comes in we have to fill it up with exceptions that it shall not apply to certain people. I do not know why my hon. Friend has moved a Clause relating to the Post Office. I do not know if he has been promoted from the Home Office to the Post Office. Supposing this is a good Bill and it is necessary that all these shops should be closed at such an hour, why should not the Post Office be closed in exactly the same way? It may be all right and I do not intend to oppose the Clause, but the same justice which is meted out to some should be meted out to all. We are fast getting into a position when the Government is being put above the law. After all, a post office is only a Government shop and why should the Government receive this particular advantage? I should also like to ask this question. In country villages a very large number of post offices are in shops where sweets, newspapers and a variety of other things are sold. What is to prevent a person who is desirous of obtaining a penny stamp going into a post office after closing hours and at the same time asking whether he cannot be supplied with tobacco or sweets or whatever else he requires? Human nature being what it is, the owner of the shop will probably oblige him. He would render himself liable to a prosecution if anyone saw him do it, but the person who buys the article is not likely to give information and he is not likely to give information himself that he has broken the law. In a town lots of people would see what was going on and would give information, but in a small country village the only people in the shop are the owner or his son or his daughter and very often only himself or his wife. The Clause will give a privilege to people who happen also to have in their shop a branch of the post office. I should be obliged if the Assistant Postmaster-General could give me some explanation on these points.

In the event of this being carried, is it proposed to give the Postmasters of sub-offices extra pay? The right hon. Baronet seems to think that sub-postmasters will be tumbling over each other.

That is a matter for the Post Office Estimates.

This Clause has been approved by the Sub-Postmasters' Association. In regard to the action that may be taken against any person who contravenes the Clause, it will be found in Clause 7 that the penalty is, in the case of a first offence, one pound; in the case of a second offence, five pounds; and in the case of a third or subsequent offence, twenty pounds. That is what will happen to anyone who contravenes this law.

You would want evidence. Where would you get it?

If there be no evidence of course there will be no conviction. Under the Shops Act, 1912, the position of post offices in regard to closing orders is as follows: A Closing Order has no application where the only business carried on is post office business (Section 5 (4)) of the Act of 1912, and the Third Schedule to that Act. Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop, and one of such businesses is post office business, the shop may be kept open after the closing hour for the purpose of that business, but on such terms and under such conditions as may be specified in the Order (Section 10 (2)) of the Act of 1912. Any such terms or conditions as to the keeping open of a shop for the transaction of post office business, are subject to the approval of the Postmaster-General. It is proposed by the Bill to abolish the system of Closing Orders under the Act of 1912, and to substitute an enactment requiring the closing of all shops at a fixed hour. The Postmaster-General has a right to say whether that is necessary or not.

I agree that this Clause is necessary as regards Sub-section (2). Surely that would be sufficient. Where nothing but post office business is concerned, the place is exempted from the Shops Act, but where there is a certain amount of other work going on, the Postmaster-General can keep the shop open for post office purposes, but for no other. There is ample penalty to enforce that, and I do not share the fears of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), that you will not get informers very frequently. I object to the continual creating of fresh criminal offences. I have protested against it every year I have been in the House, and I shall continue to do so. You are tempting people to commit crime by legislation of this sort. You keep a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress at the shop for post office business during the time the shop is closed for other business, but if they happen to sell a bottle of ink to a person who desires to write a letter, it is a criminal offence. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pike Pease) reeled off the offences and the penalties, and it seemed to give satisfaction to the House. I object to putting temptation in the way of people under these circumstances. It is acting contrary to common sense, and contrary to the administration of the criminal law. If you have to keep people there for post office business, it is straining the law if at the time the sub-postmaster sells a stamp to a person, he also sells them ink or paper, to make that a criminal offence. People who have post offices connected with their shop are entitled to the gratitude of the community, because generally they are not very well paid for the work they do, and if they make a little profit by selling a few shillingsworth of other things during the afternoon, when they are open for post office business, but closed for other business, I cannot see any harm in it. Subsection (2) might be kept in, and the first part of the Clause left out. I hope the Government will do that, and bring in the Clause in an amended form.

1.0 P.M.

The object of the clause in limiting the hours during which the shop can be open is, of course, to prevent other work being done by the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress, who may be serving in the shop during the time it is only open for post office business. At the same time it is a restriction on the rights and conveniences of the public generally. Therefore, when you have a case such as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) has pointed out, of a shop where the postmaster or postmistress has to be there in order to transact post office business, and you are not giving them a half-holiday, that brings in the general argument of public convenience in shops where other things are sold besides stamps, and you should act as much as possible for the public convenience, consistent with treating properly the people who sell the goods. In many villages it is a real convenience to the public that when they go to get stamps or to transact post office business, they should not be deprived of the opportunity of transacting other business. The danger in legislation of this kind is that, while the attention of Parliament is concentrated on the benefits to the individual, we are overlooking the general advantage of the community, or we may very easily do so. As in this case you are not preventing and cannot prevent the individual being there to transact business, let that transaction be such as is in consonance with the general convenience as we can make it.

I wish to express my approbation of the attitude adopted by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) and my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins). In legislation of this sort we have immediately brought before us the. whole viciousness of the principles that are embodied in it. It simply means that you are trying to do something which restrains the liberty of the subject, and restrains that liberty throughout the country. Take the case of a man on a Sunday night who, under this repressive legislation, when the whole village is abed and in darkness, goes to the post office.

Those post offices are not open on Sunday nights.

With all due respect may I say that, although I do not live in the country, I visit the country and post offices are open on Sunday night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The main post offices all over the country are open on Sunday night. I will not pursue that point, but my argument is that wherever you have a post office open on a Sunday and other shops are shut, you are putting a premium on an offence against the law. A man goes to a post office to get a stamp, but he cannot write a letter unless he has paper and an envelope, and you make it a crime for the postmaster to sell him anything but a stamp. I do not know whether he could sell him a postcard, because he would be selling something which is not merely a stamp. This is vicious legislation, and I hope the Government will agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rawlinson), and confine the Clause to the second Subsection.

I do not see that the suggestion is going to help us at all. It is the same as under the existing Shop Act, where one part of the shop is shut and the other is kept open for a special purpose. I could understand if these people in the post office were going to get a half-holiday for the rest of the evening. But that is not so. The gentleman who suggests the rejection of this Amendment wants to keep the people there all the time. If he had suggested that the post office part should close, I do not see any harm in that, as it would give the relief required, and the village could very well do without postage stamps for that time.

If a man wants to send a telegram—

I hope the House will accept the proposition of the Government. Opposition to this proposition is the first attempt entirely to wreck this Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection has put before us the very painful case of someone who wants to write a letter between the hours of 7 and 8. Then we have the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) distressed that someone who was compelled to keep open until 8 could not sell ink and other things between 7 and 8.

No, I said that he would sell them, and that he would break the law.

If he breaks the law he takes the risks. Take any village or suburban area you like. In every sub-post office you have employed, say, two persons and you have a hundred shops perhaps employing a thousand persons. These persons have got to be kept behind their counters unnecessarily between 7 and 8 so that the sub-post office may sell other things between 7 and 8. The right hon. Member for the City of London has nine hours a day in which to buy an egg for his breakfast in the morning. If he cannot buy his egg in that time he ought to do without his boiled egg. The hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) has between 8 in the morning and 7 at night to buy postage stamps, and if he cannot buy them in that time he can do without postage stamps.

If an hon Member is in this House—

The post office here is open. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for the City of London, after all his years in this House, has not found the post office yet. Take the case of a sub-postmaster with a wife and daughter. He is very ill-paid, but he is the sub-postmaster because he knows that it brings trade to his shop. Otherwise, he would not take the business on. Round about you have a large number of shop assistants, men and women, employed until 7 o'clock at night, which is quite late enough to work. Anyone who is in a shop from 7 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night has done a fair clay's work. The right hon. Member for the City of London, and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), have the right perhaps to speak for the democracy, the common herd, but it does not come right from the bottom. I have no appeal from the poor folk of the country that these persons shall be kept working unnecessary hours. I hope, therefore, that this attempt to destroy the Bill will fail and that the House will stand by what the Government have proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

I beg to move to leave out: "(1) Where post office business is carried on in any shop in addition to any other business this Act shall apply to that shop subject to this modification, that where, in 1650 the opinion of the Postmaster-General, the exigencies of the service require that post office business should be transacted in any such shop at times when, under the provisions of this Act, the shop would be required to be closed, the shop shall, for the purposes of the transaction of post office business, be exempted from the provisions of this Act to such extent as the Postmaster General may direct. (2) Save as aforesaid." The Clause will then read, "That nothing in this Act shall apply to post office business or to any premises in which post office business is transacted."

That will meet the objection that has been raised and will avoid the necessity of the Postmaster-General having to become involved in the question of shop hours. This is a very real point, especially in regard to village post offices. If the post office transacts other business, selling stationery and general goods, and is not allowed to do that in the hours during which it has to be open for post office business, the net receipts may be reduced appreciably. They could come to the post office and say that they are obliged to be open for post office business in the hours when they can transact no other business, and consequently the post office shall make up for their loss. The post office does gain benefit from the fact that these people do earn revenue from other sources. I had a case not long ago in which a village post office was asked to undertake the duty of sub-telephone exchange. They could sell other goods, and they relied for their income on other business. In order to take on the business of the telephone exchange they were offered the magnificent sum of £5 per year. If a post office is deprived of a certain part of its other business it would not be in a position to take on such a thing as a telephone exchange for £5 a year. I do not want to interfere with the progress of this Bill, but for the reasons stated I trust that the House will accept this Amendment to the new Clause.

I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Simm) made a speech—

No!

It sounded like one. If there was anything in it, it meant that you were not to give any exemption to the post office at all, but to put them on, the same basis as any other shop.

No, Sir. You have a proposition here to allow a post office to be open until 8 o'clock, but that an ordinary shopkeeper who did not conduct post office business but is selling eggs and collars, which is not post office business, should close at 7. That is quite clear.

I am glad that it is clear to my hon. Friend. This Amendment simply provides that if a post office is kept open for any longer period than shops in the neighbourhood, if that necessitates somebody being in the post office to sell stamps and look after telegraph work, and so on, they ought to have the right, if the post office does its other business in the shop at the same time, to sell such things as it happens to sell. That would admittedly give an advantage over shops dealing in these things. A man cannot be in a big business if he takes on a post office as a general rule, but he would get a slight advantage. The hon. Gentleman was on the question of people staying there. It does not necessitate a person staying there. He is bound to be there, and the only question is whether he can sell other things at the same time.

Would you extend this to Selfridge's?

It is a private post office at Selfridge's in the same way as at a club.

Many people take advantage of the opportunity to get cheap notepaper.

You will never get cheap notepaper in any Government office. So that we need not trouble about Selfridge's. The hon. Member (Mr. Simm) chaffed me for not speaking on behalf of democracy. He may be entitled to speak for democracy, but I have been in the world longer than he has, and I have been in close touch with the working classes both in town and country, and know where the shoe pinches.

The hon. and learned Member is replying to a speech which he says was made in the last Debate. We cannot go back on that Debate. We have concluded it.

I am very sorry if I have transgressed. The result of my Amendment would be that there would be fewer people liable to fines or imprison- ment. I do not know whether democracy is in favour of that or not, but I want to limit the number of people liable to fines and imprisonment as much as possible. This particular Amendment deals with small country shopkeepers and similar people, and says that they shall not be taken to have committed an offence against the law and be subject to certain penalties should they sell some small article while remaining open for post office business.

I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend did not stop to consider this question before he made his speech. He must know that there are a very large number of sub-postmasters, both in this country and in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, where the post office plays a very small and indeed infinitesimal part in the whole business. In a case where there are two shops in a village in competition, it would be so manifestly unfair to allow the establishment with the post office to remain open for a longer time than the other shop that it is hardly necessary to answer the question, although I am always willing to answer anything which the hon. and learned Member puts forward. I should like to say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for one of the divisions of Manchester (Major Nall), that it is perfectly true that there are very small payments made to some sub-postmasters, but that is due to the fact that very little work is (lone Cases are often mentioned in this House of long hours at sub-post offices. That means that some man or woman has to attend to the telephone during the night, but on three or four nights in the week there will be no one ring up at all. It would be quite impossible to shut up the post offices as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), because it would be contrary to public opinion. Public opinion would not be in favour of curtailing the facilities to that extent.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would mean a species of unfair competition for a post office to be allowed to remain open and sell other goods if another shop were closed. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is against the public interest and convenience that people should be deprived of the opportunity of buying stamps or postal orders between the hours of seven and eight at night. I should like to know whether it is not against the public interest and convenience that people should be deprived of the opportunity of buying anything else at that particular time. This legislation is introduced for the purpose of shortening the hours of assistants in shops, but we do not have similar legislation for other businesses.

The hon. Gentleman is getting into a discussion of the Bill as a whole, whereas the Debate is upon a very small point.

I do not wish to transgress beyond the limits of the Amendment before the House. I think it is a very great injustice to compel anyone to work these extra hours in order to sell a few stamps or a few postal orders. After all these people run these post offices more to attract trade than anything else, and they look to make their profits out of the other articles which they sell rather than out of the post office business. It would be a great injustice therefore to require them to close their premises for other business while at the same time compelling them to do an extra hour's post office work. If the Government took the thing from the right point of view, they would come out openly and oppose the Bill altogether.

My right hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) unintentionally misrepresented me when he said that he could not comply with my request to close the post office at the hours mentioned in the Bill. I did not ask him to do that. I am going to support the Clause, and all I said was that it was rather a commentary upon the legislation as a whole that it was necessary to exempt Government offices or Government shops from the provisions which apply to other people. My right hon. Friend says that it is quite impossible to alter that, because it would be very inconvenient if people could not buy certain things at the post office in these hours. That is a very strong argument against the Bill. My right hon. Friend also said that the people who keep these post offices are paid by results. Let me point out the hardship which will ensue of this Amendment be not carried. If you keep people in the post offices during this time it is quite possible that they may get no pay because they are paid by results, and. although they are in their own shops, they are to be precluded from supplying somebody who may be passing and wants to purchase something. My right hon. Friend says, "Yes, we have considered all that and we have come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to accept any Amendment such as is proposed, because it would entail hardships on other people." Legislation of this sort always entails hardship on someone. At the very start of our discussion of this Clause we have come up against the undoubted fact that if the Amendment is carried hardship will be imposed on someone. If the Amendment is not carried no doubt hardship will be imposed on someone. On the whole I am inclined to think that I ought to vote for the Amendment.

I think the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken has over-looked the fact that the great difference between the post office and any other business is that the post office has to deal with world affairs, cables, and so on, with New York and other places which only wake up about four o'clock in the afternoon.

I hope the Amendment is not going to be accepted. Suppose that the post office is used for general business, what is going to prevent an ordinary customer going in and having goods handed to him and saying, "I am not going to purchase these to-day because of the Regulations. You know me well; you can give me these things and in a day or two I will pay you?" Surely that would handicap the ordinary trader most unfairly. Whether it is advisable that the post office should be kept open till eight or nine o'clock is another question. We cannot give facilities to the post office to the general detriment of the ratepayer and the taxpayer. You must put them all on the same basis. What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to see that there is no innovation in regard to this Clause? Are there to be penalties in the event of anything being handed over to customers?

I read the whole list of penalties.

I apologise for not having heard the list read. It would have been a great deal better had they been formulated in this Amendment, for we could then have known exactly what they were. I am not prepared to support the Amendment in the way it is put forward.

Clause added to the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause,"

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 19.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a proposal which has been made in deference to strong representations to the Home Office by the Trade Board and it is to confer the advantages which this Bill confers on persons engaged in boot repairing. The body of feeling in favour of this Clause in the trade is very strong. The Trade Board, under Section 10 of the Trade Boards Act of 1918, has power to make recommendations to any Government department in reference to industrial conditions and the Government department can take those recommendations into consideration. When the Trade Board made strong representations to us with regard to this Measure we made enquiries whether they claimed to represent the people who would be principally affected, that is to say the one-man business, and we satisfied ourselves that, so far as England is concerned, they represent 75 per cent. of the one-man businesses. The other point is that the particular portion of the boot trade known as boot repairing is of a very special character which constitutes it a particular branch of the trade. Boot repairing is a business by itself. This Clause does not, of course, affect the hours of work at actual repairing although it does affect and prevent a shop being kept open on the chance that somebody will bring boots to be repaired. A man may be forced to do that quite against his will because other people in the same locality do the same thing. The hours of work are not a matter for this Bill and they arise under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Act. There is, as I have said, a very strong feeling in favour of this proposal, so far as we have been able to ascertain, on the part of a large majority of the people who are directly concerned and who wish to be included in this Bill.

I am not sure that I thoroughly understand this proposal. Is it to apply only to the weekly half-holiday?

It simply brings this class of people under the operation of the Bill in every respect, and they would not have come under the Bill without this Clause.

Does it mean that if you put a note into a letter box giving an order to repair a pair of boots to be sent the next day, and the man takes the note out of the letter box and repairs the boots, he is committing an offence? I think that would be going too far. It is really too absurd if we go on in this kind of way making regulations which nobody will understand.

I venture to think that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman are substantial as to the construction of this clause, and it is difficult to anticipate how the Courts might construe it. But it would have this ridiculous result, that supposing you are in a village where there is one bootshop, and you are anxious to get your boots back, it would be possible for the boot repairer to send his assistant or his small child for two or three miles carrying a pair of boots to the customer, because that would not be delivering to the customer at the place of business, but it would be illegal for the customer, who might have sent his servant with a pair of boots to be repaired on a Saturday, to call himself at the place of business and take delivery of the boots over the counter after church on Sunday, because Sunday is very often the only day in Scotland, for instance, where a customer may be in the place where the boot repairer has his shop. I do not think my hon. Friend can have contemplated that as a result of his clause. It will be oppressive to the public, it will produce ridiculous results, and it will be very difficult to construe in a reasonable sense in the Courts of Law.

I gather that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is opposed to the Amendment, but that the hon. and learned Member for Bristol who has just sat down is only opposed to the drafting.

My objection is not purely a drafting point. My objection is that a proposal of this sort cannot be satisfactorily drafted; it is a point of substance.

This Bill may not be well drafted, but I suggest that the sense of the House as a whole probably is in favour of giving effect to the wishes that have been expressed by this very large number of people engaged in this work. Surely arguments about whether or not you can put a letter into a letter-box or pick up a pair of shoes on the way back from church are beside the mark. What we desire to do is to bring within the effect of this clause a very large number of people who have been asked to be brought within it. They are men who are engaged in a precarious kind of business, and it is clear to us that owing to competition their shops have to be kept open for many hours into the night—up to 8, 9, or 10 o'clock at night—on the chance of somebody bringing along a pair of boots for repair. I fail to see the hardship of everybody bringing their boots to be repaired at a reasonable hour. In regard to the question whether receiving a letter in which a man is asked to repair a pair of boots would bring a man within the four corners of this Bill, I would point out that he is not asked to repair the letter but the boots, and before the boots can be repaired, they must be brought to the shop, and all we seek to prevent is that a man should be forced, owing to competition, to keep his shop open at all hours of the evening. The whole of the Bill is a restriction on the liberties and the convenience of the community in the interests of a particular section of the community who exist for the purpose of serving the community, and in these days I do not think it is unreasonable to attempt legislation in Parliament which is going to render the lives of people engaged in serving the community rather less hard than they have been hitherto.

That is the whole object of this Bill. It is undoubtedly an innovation, and any change in our habits and customs is necessarily unpopular with a considerable section of the community, but I suggest that these people who seek to be brought within the Bill and to get the advantages of early closing which are going to be conferred on very large numbers of people engaged on the same kind of work, should not be discriminated against, and that these men, who, if they were employed in an ordinary retail shop would be included, are entitled to the same treatment, which they would not get unless this Clause were passed. The people employed in repairing shops come under the Factory Act when they are in big shops, but the one-man business and the small shop do not come under that Act, and we say that it is impossible to justify making a difference between the boot repairer employed in the retail shop and the boot repairer who is simply a boot repairer and nothing else. I am sorry if the drafting of the Clause is defective. I am not prepared to argue with my hon. and learned Friend as to whether his point is a real one or not, but the Clause has been drafted with great care, with a view to giving effect to the ideas which I nave explained to the House, and if my hon. and learned Friend, who I do not think is against the principle, will allow me to have the Clause further examined between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place, I will see that such modifications are made, if necessary, as will make the Clause quite watertight and give effect to the ideas which we seek to carry out

I think my hon. Friend is well-advised to give the undertaking that these words shall be further examined. I am a supporter of the Bill and of the proposal, but I am advised that there is a good deal of ambiguity about the construction of these words, and they are introduced at a stage in the Bill when it is not open to us to give the full consideration to them that would have been possible if they had been brought forward when the Bill was first introduced. I understand this is an endeavour to give effect to a recommendation of the Wages Board under the powers of Section 10 of the Trade Boards Act, 1918. As it was my privilege to be responsible for the passage through the House of that Bill, I am aware that at the time we introduced that provision into the Bill we were advised that there might be many difficulties arising from the exercise of those powers. But, nevertheless, having the assurance that the vast majority of those who are affected by the Trade Board in the boot and shoe repairing industry are in favour of this provision, I think it ought to weigh with this House. What I understand it is desired to do is to prevent the delivery to, or conveyance from, a repairing shop, of work during the tims that the shop ought to be closed under this Act, and, after all, I think these words have to be read in connection with the purpose of this Bill, which is an Early Closing Bill. I still think that, acting on advice which has been tendered to him, my hon. Friend is well advised to undertake to give further consideration to the Amendment, and I think he will find it possible in another place to provide a more suitable set of words to carry out the effect desired.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The next Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. R. Smith) and the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Sexton) [ Closing Orders ], is an Amendment to Clause 6, which is entitled "Amendment of 2 Geo. 5, c. 3," and therefore this would be an Amendment to 2 Geo. 5, c. 3.

The first Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—to leave out the Clause—goes against the whole principle of the Bill.

I beg to move after the word "shop" ["provided every shop shall be"] to insert the words "where any assistant is employed".

2.0 P.M.

I think it will be generally agreed that in all popular movements a line can be drawn within which one can act with safety and advantage, but if you go beyond that line, then you are almost certain to be launched into the region of evil and regrettable consequences. I often feel that in some particular directions Parliament has been so engaged in legislation that if we go very much further a man will not be able to speak or move or act without some well-paid Government official dodging his heels and insulting his self-respect. What is the object of this Bill? It is called the "Shop Assist- ants' Charter," and its object is to secure to a very worthy and responsible body in this country leisure by which they can indulge in rest, recreation and culture, which every law of equity demands that they shall possess. If it is desired, so far as the ship assistants are concerned, to effect this purpose, I would suggest to the promoters of the Bill that a very easy way is simply to pass an Act providing that no shop assistant shall work for more than, say, forty-eight hours a week, but this Bill has cast its net so as to include a very large and important body of small shopkeepers, to interfere with whom any further would, I submit, be not only an act of injustice but really approaching an act of tyranny. Of whom is that class very largely composed? It includes the single and unprotected woman; it includes the widow who has a family to rear; it includes the old pensioner and the man of small means, with a small business possessing, in many cases, stock to the value of anything from £5 to £50, or even £100, living in one or two rooms behind or above the shop, living peaceful and quiet lives, and, above all, desiring to be let alone to manage their own affairs. Why should we try to prevent a man, say, in a little village or little town keeping his shop open, if he pleases, until half-past seven or even eight o'clock on a summer night or on a fair day, so that he may by so doing add a little to his slender income I hope the Government will consider this point, and accent this Amendment. I quite agree that to secure that liberty which is possessed by this country more than any other country in the world, we have to sacrifice a certain amount, but when legislation is sought to curtail and hamper the industry, ambition and desire of the small man to add a little to his income, while doing no harm to any member of the community and only good to himself, I think the time has come when Parliament should say, "Enough! Stop! "and should refuse to adopt any such legislation.

I beg to second the Amendment, on the ground already expressed by the Mover. There is no doubt that the inclusion within the Bill of the many small men, who have set tip in trade during the last twelve months, many with grants from the Civil Liability Commissioners, will be absolutely ruined if the Bill passes in its present shape. I have had deputations and long communications from organisations representing these people, and I do not think it is generally realised what a great state of alarm does. exist amongst these people, who, unfortunately, are not sufficiently organised to make their protest felt as it ought to be felt. I suppose it will be argued on the other hand that the small shop will get the business of the larger shops which has been forced to close under this Bill. I am one of those who has expressed himself in favour of early closing as a general principle. At that time I never for a moment expected that when this Bill came up it would seek to do more than to maintain the hours which have been enforced under D.O.R.A. I never expected that it would refuse to consider the case of the man who trades in a small way on his own account, for the most part in a back street, and who in no way competes with the larger, or more prosperous, or multiple shop in the main street.

This Bill not only seeks to enforce one of the most pernicious forms of D.O.R.A.—and who in this House is not pledged to see the burial of D.O.R.A.—it not only seeks to continue one of the most repressive forms of D.O.R.A., it seeks to make it far worse. Having, like many other bon. Members, undertaken to support early closing, that is, 8 o'clock on Mondays and 9 o'clock on Saturdays, it really, I think, is not fair to small traders to make them close at 7 p.m. Many of these men and women have told me that they are quite prepared to be closed all day, or for the greater part of the day, if they can pursue their legitimate trade in the evening They deal in a form of trade which only arises after the workers have got home. They get home now in many cases at 5 o'clock, under the shorter hours, and they may come out again about half-past six or seven; but how on earth are these people going to trade, the one with the other, as they have been accustomed to if these shops are to close at 7 o'clock? Therefore, while there is a case for earlier compulsory closing of shops in general there is, to my mind, no case at all for making the small trader who depends upon his evening sale shut down at the hour that he does not want and at an hour that will do him no good. There is no sense in stopping him trading in the evening if he has had the greater part of the day for recreation. Such a measure of repression as is proposed in the present Bill can only be described as Prussianism gone mad. Therefore, on these grounds I second the Amendment, which will exempt altogether the man or woman referred to, promote a much better state of things, and exempt those small traders whose trade is absolutely dependent, on the evening hours.

I only desire to make a brief reply to the case which has been made for the Amendment, because obviously, if this Bill is to have any success, it is necessary for the supporters of it to be very brief though adequate in their reply. The Amendment seeks to exempt from the operation of the early closing set out in the Bill those shops which do not employ assistants. It would be fatal to the whole principle of the Bill if shopkeepers who employ no assistants remained open as long as they liked, while, on the other hand, those who employ assistants had to obey the provisions of the Bill. No one could administer such a law. You might have the members of a family, say, engaged in a shop under no contract of service yet being permitted to remain open at any time.

The Amendment to include contract of service has not been moved. It includes any assistants, whether members of the family or not.

That would add to the difficulty of the situation. It would simply mean an examination into the business of proprietors of shops, as to the people engaged in their shops. My final observation is, that it is not a fact that this Bill adversely affects shop assistants or proprietors of shops in this country. This Bill largely owes its origin to the request of these very people themselves. The owners of shops desire that this Bill should speedily become law. I hope, therefore, the House will see its way to reject the Amendment.

Certain hon. Members who have spoken represent town constituencies. I should like to point out that in the case of country villages in remote country districts, people will be disappointed if this Amendment is not carried. There may be difficulty in the working of it. In many country villages there is a small shop run by a man without an assistant. The case certainly is different and harder in the case of the country village than in the ordinary town. There may be strong arguments for what is here advocated in the towns. I am quite sure that the case of the country village, or trader there, may prove to be one of very considerable hardship. After their work is done, men go a long way to get what they want, and if they find practically no shops open, it will be a hardship both for the dealer and the customer.

I shall cordially support this Amendment, because I feel that it does get to the root of the whole business, which is; that the man who runs a small shop should be allowed to conduct his business in his own way. In my small experience as a Member of this House, I have had scores of letters from ex-soldiers who want concessions from one Government Department or another to open a little business. I know, from the thousands of letters I have received, that they want to make up for lost time. These men have fought, and have given to the country their best. They come back here to find—what? Immediately they open their little shop, we get a gentleman here, without the authority of the Government even—it is this peddling Private Bill business—coming to try to put a new embargo on the activities of the small shopkeeper. I say this: If we have secured to the assistant a good wage and decent hours, we ought to leave the employer the whole of his business to conduct in his own way. We are living still under D.O.R.A., and what is going to happen is that either the Government or these interfering private people are going to fasten D.O.R.A. upon us. This is a Bill which is a restriction of private enterprise and the liberty of the subject, and every Amendment which whittles down the interference that this Bill imposes I shall cordially support. The hon. Member who has just spoken said something about little villages. Although a townsman myself, I have the honour of representing a constituency comprising a number of little villages, and I can imagine nothing more inconvenient than to say to an ex-soldier who has opened a general dealer's shop in one of those villages, "You must shut up at five o'clock, or you shall not do any more business after seven o'clock." The whole of this Bill is based on false and impertinent principles, and I am sure, when the country understands it, and when the small shopkeeper realises what it means, such principles will not receive the support of the people of this country.

After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) in support of this Bill, I fail to understand what is the exact object of this Measure. Three or four weeks ago, when I heard this Bill discussed on the Second Reading, I gathered that its main object was to prevent shop assistants in large establishments from being compelled to work after 7 o'clock, or more than a certain number of hours per week. Now I understand that this Bill has nothing to do with that. I cannot understand why shop assistants are not able to take care of their own interests. They might form a trade union, which would dictate their terms of service and wages, and every other condition, and it does not require legislation to do that. This particular Amendment has nothing to do with large undertakings. I agree with the Mover of this Amendment that sometimes legislation is required to protect persons from exercising freedom on behalf of individuals when it is injurious to the whole community.

We have been told that every virtue lies between two extremes, both of which are bad. I cannot help thinking this is one of the extremes which is bad, because it prevents everyone having that freedom which every citizen has a right to have. I hope the House will consider carefully the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. Hon. Members appear to think that all shops have a large number of assistants, but in our villages the small shop is generally kept by one person, with his wife, or daughter, or perhaps a son, to assist, and there are no shop assistants employed in the ordinary sense. Are you going to prevent such shops as those being kept open an hour later than the time indicated in this Bill. Why such, a proposal should be made it is impossible for an ordinary citizen to understand. Why should you prevent people in one of those villages knocking a tradesman up to serve them.

It is said that the object of the Bill is to prevent assistants being employed for longer hours than is necessary, but this can be achieved without inflicting this extreme hardship upon hundreds and thousands of small shopkeepers in different villages who are crying out against this Bill. Since this Measure was introduced I have received piles of letters protesting against the iniquity of this Bill, and they are nearly all from small shopkeepers. They come from all parts of the country, from Birmingham, Gravesend, Leicester, Essex Road, Edinburgh and Glasgow, but I will not weary the House by reading them. I might very well have read every one of them, and I am sure the House would have been impressed, because they come from very poor people who will be oppressed by this Bill, the object of which is said to be to enable a large number of shop assistants to leave their shops an hour earlier. It is, without exception, the greatest restriction upon the liberty of the poor people of this country than has been the case in regard to any Bill which was ever brought before this House. I urge those who are desirous that this Bill should pass to give their support to this Amendment.

I am sorry the supporters of the Bill have not seen their way to accept this Amendment. There are, first of all, a large number of people who shop between 6 and 8 o'clock, and secondly, there are a large number of small shops belonging to very poor people whose trade is nearly all done between those hours. I have received quite a pathetic letter from an old lady in the East End, who says that her business is done between the hours of 6 and 8 o'clock (evening), and her principal customers are those who are out at work all day. Unless the promoters of this Bill can do something to meet these cases I am afraid there are many of us who cannot support this Measure.

The circumstances in which hon. Members are placed to-day cannot but make one glad that this is the last of the interfering Fridays. We are placed by this private Bill somewhat in a dilemma. Evidently this measure is supported by the Government, although I do not know to what extent. I notice there is a sort of collusion between the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Major Baird) and the hon. Gentleman (Sir K. Wood) who has spoken from the Front Bench. A private Member is placed in such a position that, with every desire to do his duty to-day, he feels that he might as well have participated in pleasures of the first magnitude which offer elsewhere.

I would like to know what is the attitude of small shopkeepers on this question, and I have been trying to find out the view of my own constituency. I am not much impressed by the result of the canvass which has been placed before us. I do not think we should be pushed on a Friday into voting large sums of public money or interfering with the liberty of the subject. I understand my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to say that the Government is in no way responsible for this Bill, but to me their attitude seems more than platonic, and the hon. Member on the front Bench has manifested all the outward and visible signs of a Member of the Government in charge of a Bill. I do not understand the hon. Member for Woolwich when he delivers such an ex cathedral sort of speech. He spoke of finality in this matter, but I shall be glad if we do not reach the stage of finality—

The hon. Baronet had better keep to the Amendment.

I realise that this Amendment will largely alter the effect of this Bill. I want to know what is the attitude of the small shopkeeper on this point. There are bound to be many in my own constituency who employ no assistant. I think it would be an exceedingly strong measure to say that a woman who single-handedly carries on a shop should be compelled to close in this way. The great shops agree that the small shops do not seriously compete with them, and I hope, therefore, we shall have an opportunity of consulting our constituents before we are forced to vote on this exceedingly important matter. It is no use our having beaten the Prussians if we are going to introduce Prussianism into the management of our own affairs.

I rise to support the Amendment. The nature of my own business has possibly given me more knowledge of small shopkeepers than is possessed by many Members of this House. They are opposed to being compelled to close their shops at this early hour. An old lady recently came to see me. She keeps a sweet shop in the neighbourhood of some theatres. She tells me she does practically the whole of her business between seven and eight at night. She does not employ any assistant whatever. She does not do much business during the daytime. If legislation is passed compelling that woman to give up that last hour of the evening when she is perfectly willing to attend to the shop, it will be very hard on her. She supplies, presumably, a necessary want in the neighbourhood. People often purchase sweets while they are waiting for the second house. Why should she be interfered with in carrying on her business? Then we have the case of ex-soldiers coming back from the Front and trying to build up little businesses for themselves. I have a letter here from one of these men in which he says: I beg to point out my strong disapproval of the 7 o'clock closing. In 1914 I volunteered for the front and was accepted. I won the Mons star. I joined up to fight for freedom—that freedom which every Englishman desires to enjoy. Now the war is over the small man is not wanted to light. But why should his privileges be taken away by the large men who have already made their money? If this early closing takes place it will be the first step towards bankruptcy for thousands of men like myself. The small shopkeeper fought for freedom, expecting to be able to earn a livelihood in England after fighting for it. I hope you will do your utmost to get early closing ruled out. The essential point is this, when the business grows to such an extent that assistants are necessary it will automatically come under the other provisions of the Bill, so that there can be no possible hardship in regard to the multiple or other large shopkeepers who employ a number of assistants. Why need they be afraid of small individual shopkeepers entering into serious competition with them? That seems to be the whole essence of the objection they have to the small shops keeping open. I submit that, inasmuch as when the business has grown sufficiently big to employ assistants it will automatically have to close at 7 o'clock, there is no ground for putting them under this obligation. We hear a lot to-day about the monopolies which we have in our midst. I do not believe that the public have suffered any very great hardship from monopolies, as so far they have been conducted efficiently and have sold their goods at reasonable prices. These small shopkeepers feel the competition of the great tradespeople in the neighbourhood. They are handicapped in various ways. They cannot buy in large quantities, and therefore they ought to be allowed as much freedom as possible in order to develop their business. We have to rely on competition for bringing down prices and for the prosperity of this country, and if we are going to cut away the opportunity of competition at its lowest point by handicapping these small shopkeepers, I submit it will be a very bad thing for this country.

Listening to the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, one would almost imagine that this question of early closing has come under the notice of some hon. Members for the first time to-day. Let me try to educate some of my hon. Friends by calling attention to the fact that for at least 30 or 40 years there has been gradually created a public opinion in this country in respect of this question that has no relation to shop premises. This has not been sprung upon the House or upon the country within the last two months. Ever since my early days, as the son of a shopkeeper, I can remember the endeavour gradually to educate not only the shopkeepers but the people of the country to a more reasonable and sound line of conduct in relation to shopping. Over a long period grave abuses have grown up in relation to this matter.

Will the hon. Member please come to the Amendment?

I beg pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I am on Clause 1.

We are not on Clause 1; we are on the Amendment.

As a rule I extend the greatest courtesy to hon. Members of this House, and I venture to hope I may receive the same from them. This Amendment, in my judgment, cuts at the root of the whole thing. During these later years we have learned that it was possible to make considerable alterations. The speeches this afternoon might have been delivered with good effect in 1914, when the provisions of D.O.R.A. were enacted, not only in relation to multiple shops, but in relation to all kinds and conditions of business premises, the proprietors of which, whether they liked it or not, were compelled to come under those provisions, whether they carried on their business themselves as individuals or with assistants. They had no appeal. I hope we have learned from that not to want to go back to pre-War conditions. Where are you going to differentiate between the proprietor of a small shop who carries on his business by himself, the proprietor of a small undertaking who has one or two assistants, and the proprietor of a large undertaking with scores or hundreds of assistants? I think it may rightly be urged, so far as the larger undertakings are concerned, that they would not be seriously affected, but certainly hardship would be imposed upon the small shopkeeper who keeps one, two or three assistants. Who is going to differentiate in regard to that? Where is the hardship if this Clause goes through as it stands, seeing that under Clause 4 all these small persons could get exemption by making application in the proper quarter? I hope we are not going to destroy this Bill by such an Amendment as this, and by damning it with faint praise, because there is a great public opinion in favour of this Measure. For these reasons I shall resist the Amendment.

I desire to support the Amendment. I note with interest that there are at least two hon. Members who are prepared to justify the proposal contained in the Bill that the proprietor of a one-man business—or one-woman business for that matter—shall not be allowed to trade because of the possibility of their interfering with the large establishments that may exist in their district. A good deal has been said from the point of view of the shopkeeper, and also of the shop assistant, and as far as the reduction of the hours of shop assistants is concerned, I am prepared to support any reasonable proposal that will reduce their present hours. I am not so much concerned at this moment about the assistants, or even the proprietor of what is known as the one-man business; but I am a little concerned about the consumer who patronises those shops. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) stated that he would be very brief, and, after listening to his arguments, I congratulate him upon his discretion, because he referred very little indeed to, and did not put forward any solid reason to justify, the proposed interference with the people whom we are now discussing. Like myself, he is in the fortunate position, doubtless, of being able to obtain what he requires during certain hours of the day. If we are not at home ourselves, we can leave someone there who can take in what we require, and place it in some place suitable for its keeping. There are, however, a considerable number of people who are not so fortunate. They have to go out day by day to earn whatever they can obtain, and at the end of their day they have to go and obtain their requirements. They have no reserve, and have to wait until the end of the day to receive their daily wage; and in many cases they have no suitable place in which to keep provisions for any period. On behalf of people of that kind we might reasonably consider whether these small shops in the back streets, which at the present time supply a public need, should be interfered with. The only justification for interfering with them is that in some way some hardship might be inflicted by causing shop assistants to work longer hours than is necessary If that is the only reason, I suggest that there is a suitable way of dealing with the difficulty, namely, by bringing in another Bill to limit shop assistants' hours of labour. I think that such a proposal would receive the unanimous consent of this House.

I rise to support the Amendment, because I do not believe in the ringing of the curfew and in telling people exactly what to do and what not to do. I believe in giving all care and attention to those who are working for one, but when you turn round and say to the principal, "You shall not do such and such a thing at such and such an hour," it is a fine pass that we are coming to if this House of Commons is going to adopt such a Measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) said just now, many of these small shopkeepers take the bulk of their money quite late in the evening. They have nothing else to keep them. You are going to turn round and tell these people that, because it is necessary and advisable that the large multiple shops shall be closed at a certain hour, we, the House of Commons, say that they shall not have a right, whatever their requirements may be, to do any work after a certain given hour. The next thing we shall have brought into this House will be some Bill to compel a man to go to bed at a certain given time. Why not? If you turn round and say that a man shall not work after a certain time, why not also say that he shall go to bed and go to sleep at a certain time? I really cannot think that the majority of the Members of this House intend to put such a limitation upon the hours one may work. Only quite recently we have had discussions with regard to production. We are always told by the Government that we must produce more. Yet, while on the one hand we are told that there must be a larger production, on the other hand people are told that they shall not produce their income after a certain given hour. I sincerely trust that this Amendment will be accepted, and if my hon. Friends go to a Division upon it I shall certainly support them.

This is an extremely important Amendment, which deals with the livelihood of a very large number of people, and those hon. Members who always say they support the poor and oppressed ought at any rate to listen to the arguments of those of us who, from our own experience, know how hardly this Bill, unless amended as is now proposed, would press upon the poorer and smaller class of shopkeepers. My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane Fox) said that the arguments had been advanced as if the only people who were concerned were people in large cities. He pointed out quite rightly how hardly this would press upon people who dwell in the smaller country towns and villages, but I think he forgets that there are in many large towns—I have had personal experience of this which I propose to acquaint the House with—the same class of people as exist in the Yorkshire villages. An hon. Member suggested earlier in the day that I did not sit for a democratic constituency. I do not know what the meaning of the word "democratic" is in the hon. Member's mind. I thought it meant that everyone, whoever he was, whether he happened to be rich or poor, should have an equal voice in the management of the Government. The hon. Member apparently thinks it is only the people he represents who should have that voice and the people I represent should have nothing whatever to say to it. The illustration I am going to give is an illustration of what occurred when I formerly sat for what I think the hon. Member will admit was an extremely democratic constituency, because it was mostly composed of working men, who, I suppose, in his idea, are the only people who are democrats. For 14 years I sat for the Peckham Division of Camberwell.

I must ask the right hon. Baronet kindly to keep to the Amendment.

That is exactly what I was going to do. I was going to say, and I think you, Sir, will agree that it is in order, that when I sat for Peckham there were a large number of shopkeepers who had small shops which they managed by themselves, or possibly with the assistance of one of their family, and consequently I had great experience of what this Amendment means to a very large number of people. The manner in which they carried on their shop was this. They lived over the shop, their sitting-room, and very often their kitchen, was behind the shop, and there was a door which communicated with a bell, and when you opened the shop door the bell rang and the owner of the shop, who was sitting in his back parlour, came in and served you. The only opportunity these people have of selling their goods is when the larger shops are shut. I am glad the hon Member (Viscountess Astor) approves of what I am saying. I hope she will back me up, especially as her name is on the Bill, and probably a very large number of people in Plymouth are in the same position as were my former constituents. Their livelihood could only be maintained if they were allowed to serve the working classes when returning from their work—in those days, thank God, they worked longer than they do now—between 6 and 8, and finding the larger shops closed, were able to go to the smaller ones. I have received a letter from an ex-soldier pointing out that he desired when he came back to this country to do his best to make a living and advance himself in this world. I have had letters from small shopkeepers thanking me for the action I have taken, not only now, but ever since I have been a Member of the House, and as an illustration of how strongly these small shopkeepers feel on this interference, let me point out what occurred in my last election at Peckham. The small shopkeepers were so strong upon this matter, that because a proposal had been made to limit their hours, and because someone, in disregard of the truth, had said that I was in favour of it, they would hardly allow me to go into their shops when I went round canvassing. I remember going into one shop kept by a woman, and I thought at first I should have to run for my life. I asked her what it was about, and she said, "Because you people in the House of Commons have been endeavouring to take away my sole means of livelihood." That is what will happen if the Amendment is accepted. We ought to encourage these people—shop assistants do not come into the question at all—who are endeavouring to advance themselves in life and earn a livelihood. How is it that hon. Gentlemen learned in the law have come to the front and a great many of them have arrived at the Woolsack? By working hard, not for a few hours in the day, but very often sixteen, seventeen and eighteen hours out of the twenty-four. I know the idea on the other side of the House is that the less you do the better for everyone. That is not my idea, and it is not the idea which has made England what it is.

For some it is.

I will not be drawn aside by the hon. Member's interruption. Just as these great men, learned in the law, have arrived at the position at which they have arrived by their hard work, so ought we to encourage, instead of endeavouring to prevent, the small shopkeeper earning an honest livelihood and advancing himself to a better position and a larger shop.

The necessity for this Amendment is very apparent, and I cannot understand why it is resisted. There is no doubt whatever, that the purpose of restricting hours of labour is because, owing to the complexity in the development of modern countries, there have grown up large employers of labour, limited companies, and other soulless corporations, between whom and their employés there is no human tie, and there has become a tendency, therefore, to oppress and overdrive the individual, and it is to protect the individual against the large employer that you have these various, what would be called in a primitive state of society, infringements of personal liberty. But we have not yet reached a stage when we are to prevent a man from oppressing himself. Why should a small man be prevented from working in his own shop? It is his own. It is the pleasure of his life. A man who is simply working for a wage may want to get away to his cycle, or something else, as soon as he can; but the man who is conducting his own business is in a totally different position. The gentlemen whom my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) mentioned, are working for themselves, and they do not mind how much work they do. Is he to have his liberty restricted? Everybody knows that the reason for the success of the smallholder in this country and in other countries, is because very often the land and the industry is his own, and nobody is his master. Are you going to spread this principle that, a large farmer may come and say, "My labourer only works nine or 10 hours, and this smallholder is working 10, 12 or 14. I demand that his working hours be restricted." This principle is possible of infinite extension. Therefore, while there is the greatest possible justification for extending the protection to shop assistants, we must consider all sides of the question. I have always believed that shops were open far too long, and that they could do their business in five hours. Under the Liquor Control Restrictions, with the shorter hours, the public-houses are able to make more profits than they made under long hours. The same with many of the shops. They could close for half the time they are now working, because most of the shop assistants are marking time, but it is a different matter with the small individual, the old lady whose shop bell goes ting ting, as the right hon. Member for the City of London enters in order to purchase his sweets. It is the greatest possible cruelty to inflict this arbitrary rule upon them. It is an entire infringement of our principles of liberty. There is no demand for it by the small shopkeeper. The demand is made by the large shopkeeper who has many assistants, and if they are not to work full time, he wants to collar the whole of the business in the hours of the day that he is open. The enormous business which he has gives him a great advantage. The only way for the little man to get even is, if he likes, to work a little longer, so that he may have a little longer time in which to make ends meet. We must return to the old maxim and act upon it, "Seest thou a man who is diligent in his own business, and he shall stand before kings."

3.0 P.M

I want to give the reasons why the supporters of the Bill must oppose this Amendment until it comes with facilities given by the Government for serious discussion. This Amendment goes to the root of the whole Bill and like similar Amendments must be rejected. I have lived in South Africa where a Bill very similar to this has worked with highly beneficial results to the shop assistant and with practically no embarrassment to the public. There the hour for closing is, I think, 5.30 or 6, and it has been found there, in spite of the sympathy we have for the small shopkeeper, that it is quite impossible and that it would be highly inequitable to make an exception on his behalf. The reason is very simple. If you enforce the rule as against one man because he has an assistant you must enforce it in ordinary fairness against his rival who is in the same street, but who has not an assistant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Let hon. Members put themselves in the position of the shopkeeper with one assistant who has one rival in the street, without an assistant. The shops in the town are closed, or at any rate the shops for some considerable distance, and it follows that a very large proportion of the trade goes to the one man who is not compelled to close, for the simple reason that there is no competition with him. Otherwise, if all close, it does not affect the takings of the shopkeeper, it simply means that the shopkeeping public will in a shorter period of time do the same bulk of trade. You cannot make this particular exception, despite the very plausible arguments put before the Committee.

I represent a very large constituency which has a considerable number of small shopkeepers. This Bill goes to the very root of their business. I have also a number of large stores in my constituency. I was one of the first people to support early closing in this Parliament. I am entirely in sympathy with the shop assistant with the large store who wants to get away and to get as much open air as possible; but that is no reason for taking away the livelihood possibly of an ex-service man who has come back from the front and started in business as a small shopkeeper. I speak as an ex-service man who came direct to this House from the service in which I had been engaged, and this question came upon me then for the first time. One hon. Member says that it was not before the House for the first time, but so far as I am concerned it was, and if I was an ex-service man who was wanting to start in business, I should feel it very hard if I were compelled to close my shop at seven o'clock if I wanted to go on longer. It is done in the interests of the larger stores who are well able to look after themselves. The small shopkeeper is the man whom we must help, and we must consider his interests first. I support this Amendment in the interests of the small shopkeeper whilst having every sympathy for the assistants in the large stores.

I appreciate fully the argument and the sentiment behind this Amendment in favour of those people who do not employ assistants. I have been familiar with this type of legislation for a great many years. I have seen the law developed in another part of the Empire. I have laboured in the very direction in which this Amendment is moved and while I did take an active part in that direction, in the long run uniformity did come into operation in that particular part of the Empire. Further, I am bound to say that in the lapse of years the effect on the small shopkeeper was not such as I then feared and such as is now feared by several hon. Members. I speak from experience and while not without sympathy for the purpose of the Amendment yet in the light of that experience I feel bound to vote in support of the promoters of the Bill.

One aspect of the question has not been touched on yet. Like many other Members, I have received a large number of letters from small shopkeepers asking to be exempted from this Bill. I have received no such request from the big shopkeepers. The point that I am most concerned at is that the small shopkeeper, while he wishes to be left alone himself, is not above trying to interfere with other people. The question that occurs to my mind is that there are different sections of the community who take their rest while others are enjoying themselves. That is one of the difficulties we have got to face. The shopkeeper, so far as I can see, is in no different position from these other industries and pro- fessions, and if you are going to apply this kind of legislation to everyone who wants to reduce the hours of labour, and not only that, but to cease working at a specific time, if it is fair for one section of the community it is perfectly fair for all other sections. I do not see how you are going to apply it to the entertainments profession, or to such people as tramway-

men and busmen. However, I will not pursue that. I want to make my protest against one section who want privileges for themselves, wishing to prevent those privileges being extended to other sections.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 96.

I beg to move, after the word "customers," to insert the words "on Sundays and".

I move this Amendment in order to call attention to the consequences of this Bill if it should have the effect of compulsorily closing every business, except those which have been already exempted, at 7 o'clock in the evening. I am encouraged to think that this Amendment will have the support of hon. Members who are responsible for the Bill, because the Early Closing Association, who have really conducted the agitation in favour of the Bill, in their last annual report, intimated their intention of introducing a measure to deal with this question of Sunday trading. They say: The Board hope to give more of their attention and energy in future to this important phase of the labour question, as they fully realise that an evil of this kind is sure to grow rapidly unless checked. After this present Bill is on the Statute Book, they propose to direct their energy towards introducing the promised Bill dealing with this important question. I venture to think that it is desirable that they should receive assistance in this matter, and that we should lend them our assistance this afternoon and try and incorporate in this Bill the principle that they are so anxious to introduce at the earliest possible moment. This Amendment has nothing on earth to do with the sale of Sunday newspapers. It has been supposed that I am particularly concerned with Sunday newspapers. I realise that Sunday newspapers are a profitable source of income for some persons, not only those who publish them but also those who are engaged in political affairs and who wish to issue manifestoes. I should be very sorry in these needy days to interfere with any one source of income, and therefore the last thing in the world that I desire to do is to interfere with the publication or the writing of Sunday newspapers. My Amendment is directed to this Bill because the inevitable result of compelling shops to close at 7 o'clock in the evening will be to lead to Sunday opening. A day of rest is still one of the greatest blessings that a man can have. I value it myself, and I think others would value it also. I do not introduce this Amendment in any narrow spirit. The newspapers have published a manifesto which says that these Amendments are believed to be promoted by religious bodies. One would imagine that the only Amendments that this House would favour are those promoted by non-religious bodies. As a matter of fact, the religious bodies have nothing to do with this Amendment or with my action in putting it down on the paper. I was led to put it on the paper by a letter, the first of many of its kind, which I have received from obviously a comparatively uneducated person.

There is such a thing as educated ignorance.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to me—if so, he shows less than his habitual courtesy to other hon. Members—or whether he is referring to the writer of this letter.

It does not matter.

Well, if it does not matter, perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough not to intervene. This letter comes from somebody whom I should think the hon. Member would be glad to represent if she would give him her vote. She says: If they would only allow me to keep open till 9 o'clock I need never open on Sundays, but, if this Bill goes through, I will have to, because I will not be able to live on what I take in the week. I have been in this shop 22 years. I put all I had into it, and I have made it a success. It this Bill goes through, I will have half my living taken from me. I hope you will see your way to do something for us small people. It is quite evident that the Amendment does go some way to protect people of this class. The inevitable result of closing these shops at 7 o'clock will be to drive people into opening on Sundays. I am not in a position to say whether that is desired by the movers and promoters of this Bill, but, if the Bill is to go through in its present form, I hope that the House will add an Amendment of this sort, because, otherwise, it is a piece of organised hypocrisy. You are going to give men or women an extra hour or half-hour on the score that it is good for their health, but you are going at the same time to force them into the slavery and drudgery—you are going to drive them by economic necessity—of keeping their shops open when they might have a whole's day's holiday and recreation instead of merely an extra hour or half-hour at the end of the day when they are jaded and tired. In spite of what an hon. Member said earlier this afternoon, there is no desire to wreck this Bill, and if its promoters had been a little more tolerant of the opinions of other people and had been prepared to meet them a little more reasonably, we might have composed such differences as exist in regard to this Bill, in which case an Amendment of this sort would not have been necessary.

On a point of Order. The object of this Amendment is to secure the closing of all shops on Sundays. Is not that the present law of the land?

That does not affect an Amendment to this Bill.

Surely it makes the Amendment out of Order?

The Amendment is quite in order.

If the hon. Member were more acquainted with the laws of the land, he would know that certain shops can open on Sundays. I move the Amendment solely in the interests of that large class of the population who, if they are driven to close early, will lose the chance of doing business. If the promoters of the Bill will say that they will accept an Amendment later on the Paper, which proposes that shops shall only be closed at 8 o'clock, and they will make that permanent, instead of 7 o'clock, it will be open to us to withdraw this Amendment and facilitate the passage of the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment. There is an aspect of the question of Sunday trade which has not yet been touched upon, and that is in reference to those cities where there is an ever-increasing number of alien settlers. I do not want to bring into the discussion the question of alien immigration into this country, but in the division I represent this danger will arise if this Bill is passed. It is arising even now without the Bill. The English traders who are accustomed, as most English people are, to close on Sunday, are in some quarters feeling the pinch of competition from those who are prepared to open on Sunday, and the fact that these people in many cases will have their hours of trading curtailed, even with the provision which we hope to put into the Bill, will to a large extent induce these people to open their shops on Sunday, and so considerably to extend the volume of Sunday trading. If the promoters of the Bill are really in earnest in endeavouring to secure some reasonable measure of early closing, it is essential for them to accept this, so as to avoid the benefits conferred by the general principle of the Bill being largely whittled away by an increased volume of Sunday trading.

The House will observe that my hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, suggested that if I accepted another Amendment he would withdraw this Amendment. The Seconder suggested that if this Amendment were accepted, other Amendments would be withdrawn. I leave the House to judge of the sincerity of suggestions of that sort.

I never suggested that any other Amendment of mine would be withdrawn.

The hon. Member suggested that the passage of the Bill would be facilitated. I want to deal with this Amendment on its merits. If it were carried it would, of course, make the Bill ludicrous and fantastic. It is true that the law is perfectly plain on the question of Sunday trading. The matter of its enforcement is another story. The promoters of the Bill and the Early Closing Association have no desire to raise the question of Sunday trading in connection with this Bill. All that they are seeking to do, at the instance of many thousands of shop assistants and of shop owners, is to regulate the hours of closing. Anyone would think, from some of the statements made this afternoon, that there has been no regulations in connection with early closing in existence for the last four or five years. It has not been the experience of the shopkeepers of the country that the regulations under which they did business during the past four years have hurt them in any degree whatever. As a matter of fact, their hours have been much shorter, and they and their assistants have been able to enjoy leisure as they had never done before. Having regard to the experience of the last four years, I ask the House not to treat this as an attempt to interfere with the liberty of the subject, but rather to take advantage of experience which has been gained during the War and which has proved a public benefit and a considerable benefit to the shopkeeper and shop assistant. As to the Amendment, I do not believe that many Members will credit the seriousness of the suggestion that people will be so badly hit as to be forced to open their shops on Sunday. I think that the argument of my hon. and learned Friend and the letter which he read in support of it, are fantastic and ludicrous. I do not believe that anything of the kind they have suggested will occur. The Amendment has its purpose, of course, in delaying the passage of the Bill, but from the point of view of seriousness and merit, I do not think the House will consider that any number of shopkeepers would pursue such a course for a moment.

My hon. and learned Friend moves in a mysterious way his object to attain. Having heard him and his seconder I find their methods so mysterious that to this moment I do not understand what it is they wish to accomplish. All I can suggest is that they are very anxious that nothing should escape untouched upon the last of the available Fridays, and they have therefore decided to raise the question of Sunday trading, which is not in the Bill. It seems to me that the Amendment must be taken as intended to prevent a continuance of the existing state of things, which is satisfactory to everybody so far as I know. It is obvious that there would be the strongest opposition from the country to any interference with the present sale of newspapers on Sunday. People who read only the "Times' and "Morning Post" have no notion of the importance of Sunday papers, with their immeasurably larger circulations. They are the only literature of immense numbers of people in this country, and I do not think that any person inside or outside the House can keep abreast of public opinion who does not so far encourage Sunday trading as to buy Sunday papers and read them by the half-dozen. As I understand the Amendment—I do not understand it—on the surface it proposes to interfere with the present well-established and popular position in regard to the distribution of news on Sunday, and I shall strongly oppose it.

The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is not prepared to accept the Amendment in the spirit in which I moved it, or to say that he will accept a later Amendment. At the same time I recognise that this Sunday trading question is a very difficult question. My view is that the observance of Sunday will not be enforced by Act of Parliament unless it is in keeping with the wishes of the Nation. I beg to ask leave to with draw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "seven" and to insert instead thereof the word "nine".

I have received letters from shopkeepers on this subject, and I have had a communication from the National Market Traders' Federation stating that at a conference of the Federation on the 22nd of April they considered this subject with this expression of opinion, and whilst they are not opposed to the regulation of the hours of closing, they were strongly of the opinion that the hours proposed in the present Bill were too short and would inflict serious financial loss on all small traders and on market trading. They urged that the hours of closing should not be earlier than those at the present time made by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act, namely, 8 o'clock on four nights and on one day at 1 o'clock and 9 o'clock on Saturday nights. They also pointed out that under the general hours of closing, especially in industrial areas and particularly those in which an appreciable amount of female labour is employed, experience proved that in those areas the bulk of the shopping is being done after the workpeople have finished their daily tasks and are free to devote their mind to their purchases. That seems to me to be an extremely simple, explicit and clear statement in support of this Amendment. My hon. Friend (Sir K. Wood) said that there had been no inconvenience and no financial loss owing to the Order during the last three or four years working under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. But in this Bill it is proposed to go one better and to say 7 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock. Those Orders under the Defence of the Realm Act were passed in a period of great emergency when it was necessary to do certain things, but I would venture to suggest now that that emergency has passed away that the proper course would have been not to have shorter hours but rather to have lengthened the time. At present a majority of shops close at 7 o'clock, or a little after that time, but City clerks, shopkeepers' assistants themselves, artisans and the wives of various working people have very little opportunity of shopping unless they can do so after 7 o'clock. Then there is the consideration of the number of employed women, a fact with which we have to reckon and who were not employed in former times. When I had the honour to represent a working class constituency I found that a very large proportion of the business in the shops, especially butchers' shops and other shops of the kind, was done between 7 and 9 o'clock. In the large industrial areas large numbers of people would be seriously inconvenienced if the shopping is stopped at the hour mentioned in the Bill. I understand there is a further Amendment to substitute 7 o'clock for 8 o'clock. if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would consent to accept 8, then, although I think nine is the better hour, I should accept 8 as a compromise.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish as a shopkeeper of forty years'. standing to express what I know to be the almost unanimous wish of the shopkeeping class in respect to this early closing. I know from personal knowledge that for many years the shopkeeping class have been endeavouring by all the means they possess to get earlier closing, but there has always been a small minority of about five to ten per cent. who have persisted in keeping open later, with the result that thousands of men have been kept working in their shops when they might have been enjoying recreations and other advantages of home life. I can assure the House that the experiences of the War have demonstrated beyond dispute that there is no need for late shopping. I remember well when I was a young man working eighty hours a week myself and keeping open till 10 or 10.30 and till 12 or 12.30, and in those days the same story was told of the ruin which would come to people if they had to shut up earlier, and slowly the hours of the shopkeeping class have been reduced, and speaking from personal knowledge and from coming into contact with tens of thousands of shopkeepers in connection with their organisations, I can say that they have found during the War that they can close very much earlier and do their trade without loss or inconvenience, so much so that a large percentage of the shopkeepers during the War closed at seven and are to-day closing at seven, which is one hour earlier than under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I think that goes to show that the hours fixed under the Regulations were in excess of the needs of the occasion.

Reference has been made to butchers, and it was common knowledge during the War that butchers did their business in about four hours a day, and that they could serve their customers in that time, and notwithstanding all the inconveniences of the War, all the work associated with munitions and so forth, the people found the time and opportunity to purchase from the butchers and other such traders within the limits of four or five hours a day. The suggestion that the trading class want to keep open till nine o'clock is contrary to the facts, and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) should speak on behalf and in the name of the shop-keeping class. Surely the shopkeeping class know better themselves than anybody else what they desire and what is in their own interests, and I hope the House will not listen to statements made by hon. Gentlemen who do not understand the shopkeeping class at all; and although they may say they represent them, my experience of such districts is that the Member very seldom visits the district and comes into personal touch with the shopkeepers, except at election times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh! Withdraw."] Well, I am speaking from my own experience. [ Laughter. ] I am sorry I have made the House laugh at my own expense, but I was speaking of my forty years' experience as a shopkeeper, and not of my few months' experience here. I represent here the district in which I have carried on business all my life, and therefore I am in personal touch with my constituency, which is more than the majority of Members can say. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is to say, that I am in my constituency every day of the week, and that at least is more than a great many can say, and therefore I claim that I have knowledge not only of my own constituency but of the shopkeeping class, and I appeal to the House not to approve of the Amendment, but to support the Bill, which is the result of many years of effort and labour.

The Amendment proposes to substitute nine o'clock for seven, and an Amendment in my name later on proposes to substitute eight for seven. I hope that that will be taken, as it is intended to be, as an illustration of our, I hope, reasonableness in this matter, because there is no doubt there is a large body of opinion in favour of nine o'clock. I do not claim that it is a majority, because I do not know, but the hon. Members in charge of the Bill desire seven o'clock. I desire to call attention to some facts which ought to be borne in mind. The present Closing Orders are for eight and nine o'clock and were, of course, made under the Defence of the Realm Act. My impression was, that nobody wished the Defence of the Realm Regulations to be continued longer than necessary, but the promoters of this Bill indicate that they wish those Regulations to be continued in this respect.

I think it may meet the general view of the House if we can come to some compromise or arrangement with my hon. and learned Friend, provided we are assured that he will help us to facilitate the progress of the Bill, and if it was the general desire that instead of the hours in the Bill we should take the middle course and make them eight and nine—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—so far, at any rate, as my hon. Friends and myself are concerned, we should be prepared to accept that. I would point out to those who object, that we are con- fronted by the fact that it is now ten minutes to four, and we also know that it is within the power of six or seven Members of this House easily to prevent us getting this Bill this afternoon. We think, therefore, from the point of view of the promotion of the Bill, that we should be acting wisely if we endeavoured to come to some arrangement.

My hon. Friend has made a proposal which in my judgment is a reasonable one. I made the same proposal to the hon. Member in the Lobby a fortnight ago, and if my proposal had then been accepted in the reasonable spirit which is now displayed, the hon Member would not be in the position of being too late, as I gather he is on the present occasion, but if, on behalf of the promoters, he will accept eight o'clock, I shall not continue my remarks.

I take it that if I accept, the hon. and learned Member will assist us in getting the Bill?

The hon. Member only accepts the offer subject to conditions, and therefore I must go on with my argument. I was saying that the Defence of the Realm Regulations, when first drafted, proposed to impose 7 o'clock on the country, and that it was solely in consequence of the opposition which emanated from the Labour party, and from hon. Members who represented the Labour party in those days, that 8 o'clock was substituted in the Orders under the Defence of the Realm Regulations instead of 7. That is a fact. What we are anxious to do here is to impose as a permanent obligation 8 o'clock, instead of going back to the pre-War conditions, which will be, of course, as we were before the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I venture to think that is as substantial an advance as the country is prepared to make. The Defence of the Realm Regulations will come to an end next August, and if this Bill does not pass, we shall revert to the ante-War position. We shall go back entirely upon the present Regulations, and the proposal to have 8 o'clock is merely rendering permanent Regulations which otherwise will come to an end. If there is any indication that the country as a whole desires to proceed further in the same direction, well and good; but I see no real movement in favour of 7 o'clock at the present time. A powerful and very well-organised Association has influenced a great many Members, although I think the arguments of the Associaion sometimes are not quite respectful to the working-classes. They say: The complaints against early-closing come chiefly from down-tool workers, who get away at the stroke of the clock themselves, and who would be the first to complain if they were compelled to keep at work. It is pretty well evident that the opposition to 7 o'clock comes from those who are understood as the workers. I find another illustration of the same argument, which, I think, is justified, that there is no great body of opinion in favour of 7 o'clock, because in another document issued by the Association they say: The voting among confectioners, chemists, newsagents and second-hand wardrobe dealers shows 50 per cent. in favour of 7 o'clock closing— That is surely not a strong argument, if it be intended to base this Bill on the fact that the majority of the electors of the country want 7 o'clock.

The hon. Gentleman has stopped in the middle of a sentence.

If the hon. Member had not interrupted, I was about to read the remainder of the sentence— while in all other trades, including drapers, grocers, bootdealers, fishmongers, butchers, tobacconists, etc., the voting was 93 per cent. in favour. 4.0 P.M.

Tobacconists are excepted from the Bill, and, naturally, a tobacconist who is going to be allow ed to remain open till eight or nine o'clock is quite prepared to vote in favour of the butcher or fishmonger being closed at eight o'clock, and naturally the voting in favour is swollen by support of that sort. I do not think any case has been made for any real advance on the present situation. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that some of us, undoubtedly, are not in touch with our constituents. If he had not made that observation, I should not have had to produce this documtent, which contains 15,300 odd signatures from the customers of shops in my constituency who desire that shops shall be closed at eight o'clock and nine o'clock instead of seven o'clock and eight o'clock as proposed in this Bill. I do not think my hon. Friend who lives in his con- stituency, and who is so much in touch with his electors, has ever had such a proof of closeness of touch with his electors as is shown by my constituents. I think if any Member of this House goes to his constituents he will find an overwhelming majority of people in favour of continuing the present position, and who think that to have to close at seven o'clock is an infringement of liberty.

I think we have had ho better example, during the few months I have been here, of the futility of this House to bring about social reform than the discussion to which we have listened this afternoon. The right hon. Baronet who introduced this Amendment did so on the ground that the shopkeepers were against seven o'clock closing, which has already been replied to by a shopkeeper; and, secondly, that the industrial workers of the country would be seriously inconvenienced unless shops were kept open until eight o'clock. I come from a constituency which is almost entirely industrial, and there the shopkeepers and the organised workers are co-operating with a view to getting early closing throughout the constituency. That movement is taking place throughout the whole of Wales Already, I believe, in the whole of my constituency, seven o'clock has been voluntarily agreed to as the latest hour at which shops shall be kept open.

By an Act of Parliament.

I am only replying to a suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that the shopkeepers and industrial workers do not want this. Two sections of the community are co-operating over a very large area of Wales, at any rate, to bring about the very reform contained in this Bill. I have had deputations of business men asking me to support the Bill as it stands. I know that Trades and Labour Councils throughout Wales are co-operating with the business people to try to break down the very bad habit, which has existed undoubtedly among the workers of Wales—I say Wales, because I know what I am talking about in respect of Wales—of going to shop at the last possible moment. I remember that on a Saturday night people went to shop at 11 o'clock, and deliveries took place at 1 and 2 o'clock on Sunday morning. That habit has been broken down to a considerable extent, and to-day in the town in which I live there is not a shop open after half-past seven or eight o'clock, and some of them even on Saturdays close at six. This is a movement in which the shopkeepers and working people are working in hearty cooperation. I hope this House will not put any embargo on that movement, but will encourage it in every possible way. I think there is no section of the community which has had such drudgery as the shopkeepers.

May I ask if the same people are co-operating to see that people take their amusements earlier?

I am dealing with the provisions of this Bill, and, as far as I know, as the representative of an industrial division, and as a representative of the organised working-class movement, it is their desire, at any rate, that this Bill should go through, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) seems to be very much in the position of the Minister who on one occasion was, in connection with a Bill, so pushed about from pillar to post that a Member—of course, he was an Irish Member—said: "The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill seems to me to be ready to sacrifice the whole of the Bill if he can only preserve the remainder." So far as I understand the procedure of the House, I should have thought that it was necessary to get the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City out of the way before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol relating to 8 o'clock could be considered. I frankly confess, having made considerable effort to understand what is the attitude of my own constituency in this matter, that there does appear to be a feeling of reluctance to revert to the hours which existed before the War. I do believe that. But I did not find any evidence as to what hour they desire to close, whether seven, eight, or nine. Therefore I wonder whether my hon. Friend who, I confess, was strong upon this Amendment, does not now think that it would be very much more desirable for the Government to deal with this matter rather than that it should be dealt with by a private Bill? Whether also, in regard to a crucial matter like, this, that there should not first be a re- version to the status quo before the War, and then, after fair consideration by the House, the introduction of such hours as are considered desirable. As to the proper hours, I am prejudiced by the belief that whatever happens the House should not continue the regulations made during the War in a time of peace. I have that feeling strongly, and consequently, to some extent, am prejudiced against this private Member's Bill. I believe the same feeling exists througout the country. I believe that we ought in this matter to imitate what was done in regard to the relaxation of trade union regulations during the War. We should have first of all a clear reversion to the status quo ante, and then a fair consideration, without fear or favour, to be based upon an actual inquiry which each hon. Member can make for himself as to what are the proper hours. The hon. Member for Paddington rather seemed to me to take too high ground as regards his exceptional position in the matter. He reminds me of what is said in Holy Writ: "Let another man praise thee and not thine own lips." Then there is another text that may be accounted applicable: "Seest thou a man who is wise in his own conceit, there is more hope of a fool than of him."

I sincerely hope the promoters of this Bill will not accept the proposed Amendment. I also appeal to the House that the House itself should not accept the suggestion to make the hour eight, because it has been pointed out that in doing so you will be putting the country in a worse position than it was in pre-War times. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think I could satisfy the hon. Baronet opposite that my statement is correct. A good deal of reference has been made to the Regulations under D.O.R.A., and the condition of things during the War. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten that the 1912 Act allows each locality, at the request of their own shopkeeper or tradesmen, to fix the closing hour, it may be at 7 o'clock. Therefore, if you repeal the Act of 1912, which the schedule of this Bill does, you prevent the local authorities exercising the powers which they have had up to the present of fixing the closing hours at seven. In London the hours are late. The further you get away from London the more progressive you are in matters of this kind. In many of the northern constituencies—my own in particular—a large number of the various classes of shops have had in force for a number of years compulsory closing orders fixing the hour of seven. Therefore, if the House passes this Bill, which repeals the Act of 1912, and fixes by the Amendment before the House the earliest hour at which shops may be closed at eight you are going below those districts which already have in force, under the 1912 Act, earlier closing hours. We go back to the reactionary methods, and reactionary practices. One hon. Member opposite said that if these trades are in favour of closing at an earlier hour why do you require compulsion? Surely the essence of this Bill is that you may get 10 per cent. standing out against 90 per cent. who wish to close earlier, and the 10 per cent. prevent the whole arrangement. I appeal to the House not to press this Amendment, which would really put the country into a more reactionary position than it is at present, and it will be a great blow to a large number of shop assistants and also to shopkeepers themselves.

I am very much disappointed at the reception this Bill is getting to-day, and I do not think hon. Members are reflecting the feeling of the country upon this subject. A large number of shops which used to open at eight o'clock in the morning are now opening at nine o'clock, and surely ten hours are enough. We have been talking about better conditions for our people, and now you are proposing to make it eleven hours or twelve hours. We cannot attract the best class of people into the shops because of these long hours, and when young people are thinking of going to a trade they ask, How many hours are they going to be employed behind the counter? I would like to see the shops close at six o'clock, and it has been shown that this can be done. I beg of the House to reflect the opinion of the country upon this matter, and give us better conditions by closing at seven o'clock.

I want to see this Bill passed. I represent a typical London constituency, in which retail trade is the staple industry, and my constituency is in favour of the shorter hours, which are supported by the borough council, the tradesmen, and the general public. I think we should go to a Division at once on this Amendment, and retain the earlier hour, and then get on with the Third Reading.

I believe it is a fact that under the present law, where there is a majority of the trade that desire it, they can get the 7 o'clock limitation. The true remedy for all this is to limit the number of hours a shop can be open, and leave it to the shops to arrange the time. There are a large number of hours in every business when there is scarcely anything to do, and there is nothing more demoralising than not to be busy. I think it would be much better if the shopkeepers could join together and make arrangements for a short day.

I hope the House will take the advice of Members who have spoken and pass this Bill. Nearly everything that can be said has been said upon it, and we do not want it to be thought that there is any intention of talking the whole thing out. I cannot believe that hon. Members who have put down Amendments have any such desire. There is a tremendous amount of feeling in the country in favour of the Bill, and although the earlier closing may interfere with the convenience of some people, I would suggest that those who have selfish habits should change them. Some people may like to work many hours, and there may be some small shopkeepers who will not like the restriction, but we are trying to legislate for the majority rather than the minority. I beg hon. Members to remember that there are many women and girls who go into the shop at 8 or 9 in the morning, and have to remain there till 7, 8 and even 9 o'clock at night.

I have an Amendment down later on to provide that shop assistants shall not work more than 48 hours.

By the time we reach that Amendment, we shall have wrecked the Bill. I would rather give the Measure up than accept 8 o'clock as the closing time. I beg hon. Members not to think so much about the freedom of the public. We hear a lot about that, but I am afraid that some of the speeches to-day are really made in the interests of the freedom of the individual. I have letters from all over the country—from working girls and women—begging the House to pass the Bill, and I hope by our action now we shall prove that we are not a body of reactionaries, but want to get this legislation through. I would appeal to hon. Members not to press their Amendments, but to let the Bill go through.

As I have an Amendment down, I hope I shall be allowed to express my views. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has touched upon the sentimental side, and has spoken of the letters she has received from all over the country in favour of the Bill. May I observe that I have myself received quite a number of letters against the Bill. The hon. Member, quite unintentionally I am sure, misled the House by saying that this Amendment would make it compulsory on shops to keep open till eight o'clock. It does nothing of the sort. The Bill as it stands, says that all shops must close at seven. The Regulations that are in existence at the present time require shops to close at eight o'clock, yet, notwithstanding that eight o'clock is the legal time at the present moment, in many districts the shops close at six o'clock. I know they do so in the City of London, and also in the City of Manchester. In the suburbs they do not desire to close so early. I have endeavoured to get some expression of opinion from those who serve in shops, and I am told by keen and active members of the Early Closing Associations in the district which I represent, that they do not want seven o'clock closing. Some say they think eight o'clock is too late, and suggest half-past seven; others say they want it to be eight o'clock. There are, of course, a very considerable number who are keen to get seven o'clock. The whole intention of this Amendment is to continue the hours that have been found to be more or less convenient up to the present time. When I was asked, as many hon. Members were, "Are you in favour of early closing?" I said "Yes"; but I never anticipated for a moment that I should be asked to come here and support a Bill which still further reduced the hours during which shops may be open. We have dealt with the question of the one-man shop, and I will confine my remarks now to the general question of shops in which assistants are employed I have here letters and resolutions from representative bodies in the Manchester district—hairdressers, furniture dealers and licensed brokers, confectioners—all emphatic in their protest against seven o'clock closing, while for the most part they do not object to eight o'clock. It is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment. It does not matter to most hon. Members personally, whether it is six o'clock or nine o'clock, but, having taken the trouble, as I have, to find out what is the most reasonable hour to meet the varying opinions expressed on this matter, I am forced to the conclusion that the present hour, eight o'clock, and nine o'clock on Saturdays, are the most reasonable hours. I hope, therefore, that the House will regard this as a genuine Amendment, based on information gleaned for the purpose, and will support the proposal which it embodies.

I do not wish to incur the censure of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), but I can claim to know something about this subject, and I want to protest emphatically against some of the tactics that have been adopted for the destruction of this Bill. The progress of closing has been protracted. I remember starting life behind the counter, from 7 o'clock in the morning till 9 o'clock at night, 12 o'clock on Saturdays, and no half-holidays. Since then there has been a great advance, not only in the minds of the shopkeepers, but in the minds of the general public, and it is realised that those long hours were not only an injury to the young life behind the counter, but were a scandal and a shame. The public have now become accustomed to 7 o'clock closing, and it would be a backward step to make it 8 o'clock. After all, the hours of the great mass of the workers have been reduced to 48 hours or less per week, and the idea of making the shop a pantry for the housekeeper is bad for hox as well as for the assistants. There are one or two Amendments still on the Paper. I am sorry they are there. The promoters of the Bill have been badly advised in dragging in one or two other questions, especially newspapers.

The promoters of the' Bill at no time inserted any provision relating to newspapers. They totally exempted them from the beginning.

They brought in chocolates and one or two other things.

No, the promoters of the Bill did not introduce any questions.

I withdraw that. The Committee upstairs have brought in these contentious quarters, I believe, in order to wreck the Bill, and I am exceedingly sorry, because I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of shop assistants are entitled to the leisure this Bill will give them. I am certain the public have been educated up to the objects of the Bill, and I hope we shall immediately go to a division and get the Third Reading of a Bill which has been long delayed and urgently needed.

By a self-denying ordinance, though one of the promoters of the Bill, I have kept quiet up to now. Though there were many matters on which I should like to have spoken I thought I should render better service by keeping quiet, leaving those who were acting from other motives than moved me to occupy the time of the House. Obviously there is no possible chance of passing the Bill by 5 o'clock. I do not know what will happen to it, but I am certain our proceedings this afternoon will fill with dismay hundreds of thousands of people. We are on an Amendment affecting hours. I am confident England has discovered, by the experience of the War, that shopping is more a habit than anything else. If at the beginning of D.O.R.A. there had been a plebiscite of the people as to whether they could shop before eight there would have been a large majority which would declare they never could do it, but once having had to do it they found it was a matter of habit. I am not prepared even at this stage to withdraw the hours as in the Bill at present, namely 7 and 8, and if it goes to a Division I shall certainly vote against the Amendment. I am a little surprised at some of the supposedly sympathetic remarks made about discharged soldiers. I have heard that the discharged soldier wants to work till any time in the night to earn a few more shillings. I know a great deal of him, and he is the last person who wants to work till 9 or 10 o'clock at night. The many tears that hon. Friends had shed over him are of doubtful sincerity. I have heard a great deal this afternoon about the hardships to people who cannot purchase before seven or eight, but who is there who cannot? The vast mass of workers, I am

glad to say, leave work at an early hour and most of them can either shop where they are working or can get home in ample time to shop before seven o'clock. I believe the country as a whole is against the House. I cannot help thinking some of the Amendments have been partially obstructive in their nature. Therefore if this goes to a division I shall certainly vote for the retention of the hours named in the Bill, and if it does not pass it will not be our fault.

I am sorry to stand between the House and a division on this point, but as one who is a British born Member of this House—and I know something of the spirit of the British people—I am sure with regard to this Amendment that it is one more attempt to encroach on the liberties of the British people for whom I have a right, as most hon. Members have a right, to speak. When the hon. Member who last spoke said that we were shedding tears over the ex-soldier, I assure him that I have in my wallet scores of letters from ex-soldiers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read them."]—asking me to take a part in defeating this Bill.

Sit down!

If the Noble Lord, whose courtesy we have noticed for many years in this House, will keep himself composed for a few minutes, I will sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am surprised that I am exciting so much heat. This Bill, as far as I am concerned, matters very little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed? "Divide!"] We have protected by one Amendment the ex-service man and the one-man shopkeeper, and I am very little concerned with this Amendment except to say that I am going to do my best to defeat at every turn every attempt of this House, whether by the Government or by private Members, to fix Defence of the Realm Act Regulations on us for all time. We will go to a division and vote against "seven" and then put "eight" into the Bill and nine if possible.

Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 19.

I beg to move, after the word "Saturday" ["eight o'clock in the evening on Saturday"], to insert the words "and no shop assistant shall be employed in any shop for more than forty-eight hours in the week."

In view of the fact that in a few observations, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) suggested that I was only anxious to wreck this Bill, I do not propose to say anything more than that this Amendment is genuinely intended to suggest the right method of dealing with this problem, instead of what I conceive to be the wrong method of the promoters of the Bill. I do not know whether they are going to accept it, but I hope that in any future Bill dealing with this problem it will have the hearty approval of this House.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

It would really do all that this elaborate Bill is supposed to do. It is the root of the whole question. The assistants, quite rightly, say that their hours should be reduced along with those of other members of the community. One is rather driven to the conclusion that the Bill before the House is based upon an unholy alliance between shop assistants and big employers. The shop assistants say, "We want shorter hours," and the employers say, "Very well, we must crush out the small man who does not depend upon assistants." Therefore, we have this unholy alliance endeavouring to strangle the small man through the machinery of this elaborate Bill. If this Amendment be accepted, it will limit the hours of employment in any shop to 48 hours in any week. The whole object of the Bill will have been secured, and the whole charter for assistants—

To save the time of the House, I may say that I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

I only wish to make an appeal to the Government. It is obvious that it is quite impossible for this Bill to pass this afternoon—

This Amendment has been accepted. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.

I only wish to make an appeal to the Government.

If the hon. and gallant Member will confine himself to the Amendment, I will listen to him, but he must not deal with other topics.

Should I not be in order in asking the Government to give further time for this Bill?

The hon. Member cannot raise that question upon this Amendment.

Before the Amendment be accepted, I wish to say how much I congratulate the promoters of the Bill in coming to their decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] It is all that we have been contending for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"].

The Amendment has been accepted, and there is no object in discussing it further.

With all respect, as one who has taken a somewhat prominent part in opposing the Bill, I beg to be allowed to say that, as this Amendment has been accepted, the whole spirit of the Bill has been altered, and I hope we shall now]et it go through.

If you bring the 48 hours into the Bill, the large shops can go in for shifts, to the detriment of the smaller shops. It will mean also the appointment of a horde of officials for the purpose of seeing that the shops open for only those hours. I protest against acceptance of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: Provided also that any shopkeeper who usually has an assistant or assistants may continue to serve customers without the aid of such assistant or assistants after the hours hereinbefore mentioned. If we allow a man who owns a shop and employs no one to clean his windows or to brush his step to keep his shop open, I think it only fair that the man who does employ occasional assistance should have the same opportunity of keeping his shop open for the same time. It is the corollary to an Amendment we have, already carried.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Briant.

On a point of Order. I do not know whether you have passed over the Amendment standing in my name as to the weekly half-holiday. That is a very important Amendment. If it be not accepted, every restaurant will have to close at seven o'clock, and no one will be able to get anything to eat after that hour.

The Clause says, "Nothing in this Act or in the provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, as to the weekly half-holiday". The hon. Member is only shifting the position of the words.

If the words I suggest were accepted, the Clause would be open to a different interpretation. The promoters told me this morning that this Amendment was necessary. I do not think the comma is sufficient to show it.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "of" ["provisions of the"], and to insert instead thereof the words "as to the closing of shops on the weekly half-holiday contained in".

I think this Amendment carries out what I want.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: "In Subsection (1) leave out the words "as to the weekly half-holiday" and insert instead thereof the words "hereinafter referred to as the principal Act."—[ Mr. Briant. ]

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i), after the word "premises", to insert the words "or, in the case of meals or refreshments sold on railway premises for consumption on the trains".

Unless an Amendment of this kind be inserted, it would be impossible for anyone travelling on a train to obtain any refreshments after seven o'clock at night.

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after Sub-section (1, iii) to add the words "or to a shop being a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform."

This Amendment will enable newspapers to be sold on railway bookstalls.

Some further explanation will be required from my right hon. Friend, because obviously it would be be unfair to newsagents in a particular town if, for instance, every railway bookstall were accessible to the general public after the ordinary hours of closing. If my right hon. Friend has in mind some of the big railway stations, where people are passing constantly at night, I think something could be done in that direction, but to have a simple Clause exempting railway bookstalls generally would not be fair to the ordinary newsagent or vendor.

I think this Amendment is extremely necessary in the interests of the public. It is quite true that it might, under certain circumstances, do some harm to one or two people. I can conceive that it would be possible that, if certain people found that they could get a newspaper at a big London terminus, they might go on to the platform in order to get it. It would be quite impossible to find means by which the railway company could tell whether the people who went on to the platform to purchase a paper were genuine travellers or not. It is true that the practice has grown up of charging a penny for admittance to a railway platform, but even if the companies charged a penny for admission to any part of the station, anyone who wanted a paper would not mind paying a penny for admission in order to achieve his object. But are we going to put the public and the newspaper trade to all this serious inconvenience because certain shops happen to be in the vicinity of a railway station? I do not think it can be advanced as a feasible proposition. A good deal of hardship is going to be inflicted by many of the provisions of this Bill; but whatever you do you cannot prevent, under certain circumstances, certain hardships being inflicted, and my own belief is that the advantage which would be gained by my Amendment is far and away greater than any little harm that would be done should the Amendment be carried.

It being Five of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next, 25th June.