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

It may be conceded to be a somewhat unusual task for a private Member to deal with an Act of Parliament that has been in operation for a considerable number of years, but in private Members' aspirations towards forming legislation there are generally two aspects that are taken into consideration. One is possibly the conceiving of a new idea towards legislation of a character that has yet to be brought before the public and to create public opinion. The second is generally something that has been before public opinion and has the force of that opinion behind it. The unusual course which I am taking is to deal with an Act of Parliament that has been in operation, from the point of view not of extending its powers, but rather of dealing with the effects of its administration and the lack of machinery that has been established to carry it out in the interests of the general public.

I would remind the House of the tremendous changes that have taken place since the Copyright Act of 1911 came into operation in this country. People in the pre-War period probably conceived the facts of copyright as giving facilities and advantages, not merely to authors, sculptors, artists, and other men of genius, but they did include on that occasion the musical and performing rights in copyright, which probably it was never anticipated would reach the development that they have reached in the present time. But even in 1911, when the Bill was introduced as a Government Measure, although there was a Motion for rejection on Second Reading, it was not pressed to a Division, and the Bill was referred to a Standing Committee.

It is interesting to note that there was a Motion, when the Bill was reported to the House, that it be re-committed to a Select Committee, and the grounds upon which that Motion was moved are very interesting, in the light of our latter-day experience of the administration of this Measure. The reasons were that the Bill did not deal with the machinery of the Bill or to the necessity for that machinery. Obviously, then, there were some individuals in this House who recognised how futile it was to pass an Act of Parliament without the machinery behind it to administer it in the interests of the general public; but, nevertheless, the Bill was carried and brought into operation. There was perhaps a redeeming feature of the Act as carried in 1911, because it incorporated many other Acts of Parliament. In fact, 18 Acts of Parliament were repealed in 1911 by that very Measure, and probably for the first time it simplified the subject and prevented confusion through reference to all those Acts of Parliament that dealt with copyright.

I want to say at the outset that I have no intention, nor have those who support me, in this Measure of infringing upon the right either of copyright or of the privileges that it gives to men of genius, to men who have given of their experience for the betterment of (musical and other forms of entertainment, so that they cannot at least have something in the nature of a protective right in (their interest; but in the main the position that I am asking the House to deal with this morning is to establish adequate machinery, and this Bill aims at providing for the administration of the Act of 1911, not merely in the interests of a few private individuals, but in the interests of the public generally.

Many hon. Members in this House may occasionally have had cases referred to them as to the administration of the Act, but even if they have not had that experience, the probability is that within the last few weeks it has been borne upon them with a considerable amount of force that aggrieved individuals, private organisations, disgruntled societies were giving their opinions to Members as to how this Act operated to their disadvantage, and it may have been borne upon hon. Members that not only city, town, and urban authorities, but private organisations dealing with all forms of musical entertainment and private individuals in our various constituencies, were all giving of their protestations against the administration of the Act and saying how it affected the public interest generally.

Consequently, it is due to the House that we should consider this from the point of view of the general interest and of the enormous development of scientific resources in the post-war period. There are those of us who can cast our minds back, even to the time of the War, when broadcasting became a new science. It was developing even in its infancy, and it has rapidly developed ever since, and we are aware of the extraordinary means for the reproduction of music that have developed and become a fine art in these days of musical aspirations for the betterment of that tired feeling in those things that make life happier and better for the great masses of our population.

I would remind hon. Members that even when the Act of 1911 was being discussed on Second Reading, such a well-known and respected Member of this House as the late Sir Henry Craik, the Member for the Scottish Universities, revered for his opinions and position in this House, on that occasion in a few words characterised the Bill which was before the House. He said: publishers in future, so as to protect, not merely their own interests, but the interests of music users and of the public generally.

Clause 1 provides that publishers of music shall be forced to print upon each copy whether the rights of performance are reserved or not. You have to-day, in the multifarious extension of musical reproductions, the fact that an ordinary purchaser of music is not aware that he uses that music in public, either vocally, orchestrally or instrumentally, under a penalty for infringement of the performing rights. It is because no responsibility has been placed upon the publishers under the 1911 Act that there is uncertainty on the part of the general public as to how the Act should be carried out. We seek in Clause 1 to put that responsibility upon the authors, so that, before public performance can be made, the liability will be placed upon the individual purchasing the music to ascertain his rights in the matter. In Clause 2 the provisions of infringement are clearly laid down, and further protection of the conditions regarding public performance are clearly stated in Clause 3. The Clause is a very minor alteration in this respect, and it deals mainly with the establishment of machinery for the collection of the payments for the rights of performing the music in public.

What are the provisions in regard to gramophone records?

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will deal with the provisions in regard to reproductive music at a later stage. That brings me to the effect of the Bill on performing rights. The interpretation of "performance" under the original Act is as follows: greater security on behalf of the general public, and we ask for this machinery to be established not merely in the interests of entertainment, but for the protection of those who are engaged in it.

We have to-day an enormous development in the cinemas, especially in what are popularly called the "talkies." The majority of the cinematograph productions in this country are talking films. I have had instances brought before me in which for a three days' production a cinema film would be rented at £5, but when the "talkies" were introduced, the price went up from £5 to as much as £20. Here, again, the question of performing rights comes in. Innumerable instances could be given, not merely in the case of theatrical entertainments and picture houses, but of cafes, voluntary organisations which give concerts to raise funds for charitable objects, church institutes and chapel halls, of entertainments being attacked by an organisation termed the Performing Right Society, which acts on behalf of authors and composers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton) in seconding this Bill, will give instances of the action of this organisation in the administration of the Act. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite regarding the reproduction of records, you will notice on a record of music which has been put into circulation since 1900 a copyright stamp stating the amount of the copyright fee which has been paid for the use of that particular record. The makers put on that stamp in order to show that the copyright fee has been paid, but if the individual who purchases that record should wish to enliven, say, a village concert by taking his gramophone there and playing that record in public, he would, under the 1911 Act, be contravening the performing rights. There was an instance recently at Caister of a company which had bought a contract to give a performance with a machine with amplifiers at a fair. The contract price for giving about 6 or 7 records was £3, and the claim of the Performing Eight Society for the infringement of their rights was for a sum of 7 guineas. That is only one instance which comes to my mind in reply to the interjection of the hon. Member.

That was not the point. What I had in mind was this: If a gramophone company purchase a copy of music with a copyright fee of 2d. and make 10,000 records, would they pay one sum of twopence or 10,000 sums of twopence?

I do not wish to be drawn into the question of either the amount or the principle in regard to that point. It is a question which could be rather better dealt with in Committee. There is a conflict of interests over this Measure and I want to deal with what is probably the main contention of the opposition, that this Measure would contravene certain international agreements which were entered into between this country and other countries at the Conventions of Berne and Berlin. We have no intention of avoiding any responsibility in that direction.

First of all, we are not attacking the original copyright, but merely the administration of that side of copyright law which concerns performing rights, and it is doubtful whether the true interpretation will be that there is any contravention of those agreements, because the Berne Conference in 1886 only gave protection to the author if he desired to forbid public rights, whereas by Article 11 of the Berlin Convention it was laid down that the author was not bound to protect those rights. Under Article 11 he need not state upon the copy of the music that he is protecting his rights, but in the interests of the public generally and of the development of reproductive music it is essential that this responsibility should be laid upon authors and composers and publishers, so that the public may be secure in the knowledge of what the position is, because there have been instances of alleged contravention of performing rights and a large organisation has instituted proceedings in the form of an injunction restraining for the time being the contravention of those rights. To get that restraint lifted may involve endless trouble and probably cost about £80; if the action is contested, the cost may rise to £200 or £250, with, all the time, the possibility of the action being lost. Be that as it may, whilst we believe there is no infringement of any international agreement we are prepared to consider that point in the later stages of the Measure, and if necessary we can insert a Clause which would protect music published in foreign countries, so that this would apply only to musical copyright and performing rights in this country.

I would appeal to hon. Members to support our claim to put upon the composer and, through the composer, the publisher of the copies of music the responsibility of laying down his position with regard to performing rights, and thereby letting the general public know the possibility of the infringement of the law. I appeal to hon. Members to give the Measure the consideration to which it is entitled, not merely from the point of view of any interest which may he concerned, but from the point of view of interest of the population as a whole, so that in this new era of musical development, when we all appreciate the wonderful effects of music in our every-day life, the sale of music can be developed, and to do nothing which would hinder the possibilities of our enjoying music. In moving the Second Reading of this Measure, I ask that it may be given such sympathetic consideration, in order that we may secure an amendment of a law which to-day affects the interests of so wide a section of the public.

I beg to second the Motion.

The Mover has explained the provisions of the Bill in detail, and I will content myself with giving reasons why we decided to take up this question on the Floor of the House. It is true, as the Mover has pointed out, that, following the passage of the Copyright Act of 1911, an organisation was formed to protect the rights of authors and publishers in getting fair remuneration for their work. We have no quarrel whatever with the aspirations of that organisation. Our quarrel is mainly with the methods of administration which have been adopted by the Performing Right Society. During the first years of its existence that society conducted its business on what we might term legitimate lines, but for a number of years past many of us have had complaints as to the conduct of this society in connection with what they term their legitimate work.

They employ a body of inspectors who visit various cities and provincial towns, principally on Friday and Saturday after- noons and evenings. They go where they find music being played and where there is an open door. These inspectors give every inducement to the musicians to play a certain piece of music. When this has been done, the inspector makes himself known to the proprietors, and, in addition to imposing copyright fees, he imposes an exorbitant fee for the licence of that particular hall, and, in doing this, he is backed up by that organisation. That practice has become almost a nuisance in many of the towns and cities of this country. The method adopted by this society, in the first place, is to issue a licence to the owner of a public building where music of any description is to be played, and, if the society had carried on its business in that way, we should have been satisfied.

I have here a few examples of what has been done in connection with the work of these inspectors. I may say that the examples which I am going to give could be multiplied many times over. I ask the House to permit me to give these examples without mentioning the names of the halls or the proprietors. I think hon. Members will understand and appreciate why I make this request, but, if any hon or right hon. Gentleman challenges the veracity of my statement, I shall be prepared to show the official information in my posession justifying the statements that I am going to make. In the case of a small hall in a village in Scotland which was used once a week for dancing a charge of 1s. and 6d. was made for admission. The hall was large enough to permit 30 couples to take part in the dancing. The fee demanded by this organisation was five guineas per annum for one night a week only and 22s. for the inspector's expenses for catching them playing copyright music. Another case is that of a small hotel lounge to which admission was free. Two musicians were employed, and they gave seven performances per week. The fee demanded in this instance was £15 15s. per annum.

In another case, the concert hall fee has been increased during recent months from £10 10s. to over £80. Another hall was taken by a teacher of dancing, where a small class was conducted one evening per week with three musicians. In this instance the society demanded £3 3s. per annum. A firm of seaside caterers had the fee arbitrarily increased from £8 8s. to £18 18s. My last instance is a rather glaring one, and it is rather strange that it should have occurred in the constituency represented by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), who has put down an Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. In this case, there is a small dance hall where the fee has recently been increased from £5 5s. to £16 16s. I have mentioned only one or two of the abuses of which we complain. There is the case of a Labour Hall which does not permit of more than from 20 to 25 couples dancing, and the licence fee demanded was £11 11s. and £2 4s. 10d. for the inspector's expenses.

There are instances in which the proprietors of public halls have refused to bow to the demands of this society, among which is the well known case of the Bradford Corporation. The Bradford Corporation resisted the demands of the inspector who visited their hall and. urged that they were entitled to play the music which they were playing. The case came into court and the Bradford Corporation were mulcted in damages, and they had to give way on a question upon which they thought that in law they were perfectly sound. In this case, the piece of music challenged was one which has brought joy to many thousands of homes in this country at a period when even the smallest modicum of joy was appreciated. The piece which they were playing was "Keep the home fires burning," and the result of that action kept the home fires burning in Bradford for some considerable time. Those are some of the reasons for bringing in this Measure.

Will the hon. Gentleman give the dates of the cases to which he has referred, or at any rate the year in which they occurred?

The cases are all recent, with the exception of the Bradford Corporation case which occurred just after the termination of the War. The other cases which I have quoted occurred within the last 12 months. [ Interruption. ] If my memory serves me right, the Bradford Corporation refused to acknowledge the claim of this organisation. The case of Edinburgh has been described by the Edinburgh City Coucil in a statement issued to Members of this House by the Town Clerk this week, and I think I cannot do better than read, not the whole statement, but the material parts of it. The Edinburgh Corporation say: made by this Society on constituents of his own in the City of Norwich. I have here a bill relating to the 20th annual season of an amateur society who gave performances in the Agricultural Hall, Norwich, on the 7th, 8th and 9th November, 1929, on behalf of the Jenny Lind Hospital. This organisation has come down upon them, and the Secretary of the amateur society in Norwich writes as follows to my hon. Friend the Mover of the Bill:

It may be said that all this is necessary in the interests of the authors and composers who are members of this particular society; but everything is not well even inside this organisation. I have here a copy of a leaflet issued by a vigilance committee of this association. So far as the ramifications of the organisation are concerned, everyone associated with it seems to be satisfied with the impositions that are being placed upon the public from one end of the country to the other, but with the dividing-out principle at the other end there is not the same complete satisfaction, and so even the members of the organisation have found it necessary to elect a vigilance committee, and the vigilance committee were elected before the last annual meeting. I will read the first three or four paragraphs of the circular issued by the vigilance committee:

The Mover of the Bill has dealt with the question of international regulation. In a statement issued by the Performing Eight Society, their main point against this Bill is stated to be that it might lead to certain international complications. As the Mover has said, we have no desire to embroil this country in international complications with any other nation, and we are quite prepared to discuss in Committee any reasonable Amendment which will allow the Bill to apply to this country, on condition that our Government take steps to call a meeting of the Convention which placed such powers in the hands of certain individuals, and attempt to get a revision of either the Berne or the Berlin Con- vention. As to the suggestion that international complications might be brought about, I put it to the common sense of this House as to whether there is any likelihood of this country being embroiled through this Copyright Bill in some kind of international war. It is too late in the day for even gentlemen of that type to come along with any such fallacious argument, and I fancy that the House generally will agree that it is fallacious.

There is one further point that I wish to make, and that is in connection with the licence issued by this organisation, of which I have a copy here. The licensee is carefully warned to read the conditions and provisions printed on the back of the licence, and I will just read one or two of these. In the first place, it says: Eight Society present in another part of the House, so I will not. Every piece of music here has marked on the top, "Music Hall and Theatre Eights Re-served." The licence to the owner of a hall where that is played does not cover one single item in that popular piece of music, so that they have failed in their duty. The only reason for their existence is that they are an imposition and a cause of vexation to many thousands of people. We are not interfering in any way with the work of authors or composers. We are simply endeavouring to do justice to many people who, in our opinion, have a legitimate grievance.

When we made a move in the direction of introducing this Bill, various organisations who were interested wrote, I suppose, to Members in every part of the House. It is rather difficult to reply to all communications, but the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to move the rejection of the Bill replied on one of the usual cards that are to be found in the writing-rooms, that the subject matter was receiving his attention. Not satisfied with that, he so desired to impress that portion of his constituents who had communicated with him that he struck out the word "attention" and substituted the word "support." That was posted on 4th November.

I think the hon. Member might have the fairness to point out that that was several days before the Bill was printed.

12 n.

I am going to deal with that. A few days later, evidently believing that he could not give the support that he had intended to give, he wrote a further letter.

"There is another side to the Musical Copyright Bill. In its present form, it presents a lot of difficulties, e.g., it would lead music buyers to believe that there was no copyright in all existing publications, as they would not have the required note. Again, if copyright runs out, they would believe it still existed, as copies in existence would still have the note. I cannot support the Bill as it stands. It does not deal with music from abroad. I sympathise with your union's objections but I do not see my way to vote for the Bill as it now stands. I am sorry. With best wishes,

Gerald Hurst."

The startling thing about it is that the hon. and learned Gentleman put down his Motion for rejection on 12th November, and the Bill was not printed until the 14th. The letter and the Motion for rejection were several days ahead of the Bill, so that he could not possibly have seen it as it has been printed. That is a political somersault which, in my innocence, I am quite incapable of understanding or appreciating. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can explain. I think I have dealt sufficiently with the ramifications of this organisation to show that a real grievance exists, not only in the home, but in connection with public entertainers from one end of the country to the other. There are imperfections in the Bill. It is a difficult subject for amateurs to deal with. But, whatever imperfections there may be, we are prepared to see that the rights of those who have a real interest, the authors and composers in the first place, and those who provide the entertainment halls, are safeguarded as far as possible. Any imperfection will be dealt with reasonably in Committee, and I trust that we shall have a Second Reading and shall be able to put an end to this vexatious and tyrannical procedure.

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

I should like, first of all, to say a word or two with regard to my own action in the matter. I was one, I imagine, of many Members who received, before the Bill was actually printed, a request to support it on the ground that it would help composers and that it would relieve licensees and other persons from heavy penalties which they were unwittingly incurring in the then state of the law. Very naturally I said that I should be willing to support a Bill which helped composers and relieved persons from those penalties. When, later on, I received a print of the Bill, not exactly in this form, but with the omission of Clause 3, I felt that it was impossible to give the support that I had promised on the face of representations which were, no doubt unintentionally, untrue. It is the most ridiculous thing to suggest that this Measure is going to help composers in any way at all. We have heard a great deal about the alleged wrongs of persons who use copyright music, but we have heard very little indeed about the actual Bill. In fact, no attempt at all has been made to explain its provisions. In my submission, its effect is to inflict very great hardship upon composers and authors; it is a breach of an international convention and an encouragement of piracy.

Before I come to the details of the Bill, I should like to deal with some of the complaints which hon. Members have raised against the Performing Right Society. It is an old complaint in our history that those men whose creative genius gives the world the literature and the music and the art which make so much for our civilisation are in many cases deprived of the just fruits of their labours. The Copyright Law is not an attempt to violate the rights of users of music, as the hon. Member assumed. It is an attempt to secure them against piracy, which is otherwise so extraordinarily easy. In 1842, the great Copyright Bill was brought in upon the petition of Thomas Carlyle, who described himself as a writer of books and asked that the fruits of his labour should not be filched from him, and it is interesting to remember that the Pickwick Papers were dedicated to Serjeant Talford, who brought in the Bill that established literary copyright.

The position of composers and of songwriters is one of peculiar difficulty. The writer of books can very well find out when his copyright has been infringed—it is the easiest thing in the world—but a man who enjoys the copyright of a song or of music is not in a position to know if his copyright is being infringed in some remote concert hall, whether in Scotland, or in Wales, or in the provinces, or in London. It is very difficult indeed to know when these proprietory rights given to him by Parliament are being infringed. It was in order to give composers and authors the full fruits of their labour that this society, the Society of Music Publishers, Authors and Composers, was formed in 1914. The object of the society is to have an organisation, which no doubt at considerable expense—and considerable expense is inevitable—can obtain surveys of evidence as to what is going on in the country, and to see that copyright is not infringed with impunity. The hon. Gentleman opposite has talked about the Performing Right Society as if it were a society composed principally of ruffians and thieves, or, at any rate, of profiteers. As a matter of fact, practically all the musical composers in this country and all the authors of songs belong to the Performing Eight Society. [An HON. MEMBER: "All of them?"] Yes, all of them. They number among their members Professor Granville Bantock, Sir Frederic Cowen, Frederick Delius, Sir Edward Elgar, Sir Edward German, Sir Hamilton Harty, John Ireland, A. A. Milne, Ivor Novello, Sir Landon Ronald, Dame Ethel Smyth; and the late Mr. Weatherly was also a member. Practically, all the well-known composers and authors belong to this society, and, also, they are affiliated with composers and authors abroad. What do they do? Instead of having, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, an arbitrary and extortionate scale of fees, they have a very large number of tariffs tabulated from A to X graduated according to the ability of the persons who are in the habit of performing musical compositions to pay the tariffs. [ Interruption. ] I will give some illustrations. There are special tariffs for small parish halls, hotels, cinemas, theatres, municipal bodies, and so on. It is said that £45,000 a year is taken from the British Broadcasting Corporation, who can very well look after themselves, but it does not follow that any such claim can or would be made against a small parish hall.

If I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the case of a small workman's club whose total income from a dance was £l 7s. 9d., and state that this society insisted upon a fee of three guineas, would he regard that as coming within the tariff, and would he regard that as reasonable?

It depends, of course, on the number of concerts which are given. These are charges for licences which apply to something like 2,000,000 musical compositions, and they include licences to perform according to the scale on any day, or every day, during the week, according to the wants of the particular society. If hon. Members would like to look at this tariff, I am quite willing to hand it over. [An HON. MEMBER: "I know too much about them."] It will be recognised, I think, that those cases to which hon. Members refer, are cases probably where the rights of the Performing Right Society have been abused by the users, and they are not charges normally made for the licences. In actual fact they are regarded as fair by many people who use the licences. I have here a statement by the "Hotel Review, Restaurant Gazette and Catering News," who look at this from the hotel point of view, and who made a careful inquiry into the matter. They say that

"they are satisfied that the fees charged by the society for its licence are assessed upon carefully considered tariffs, and represent no more than a fair charge for the advantages which their licence confers upon music users."

It is said that inspectors are used in this case. How otherwise can the society, the headquarters of which are in London, go about the country and find out the breaches of copyright which are being committed. It can only be done by inspectors who see that where concerts are being held the concert hall holds a licence. If the licence has been paid, in some cases the fee charged, for instance, for a parish institute, is as low as 2s. a year.

Is the scale submitted by the Performing Right Society one of 2s.?

That is a special term for, say, a women's institute.

Per performance?

No. Per year.

I should like to have particulars of that.

I will show the right hon. Gentleman these papers if he wants to see them. The income derived from these licences is pooled, and the pool from the proceeds of the year's work is distributed—one-third to the writers of songs, one-third to the publishers, and one-third to the musicians. In actual fact, the authors and composers are thoroughly satisfied. They make far more than used to be the case when piracy was open and unchecked. I will quote the remarks of Mr. Ansell, a prominent composer-member who quite recently said:

"The sales of sheet music have been reduced very seriously, and I do not know where the composer would be to-day if he were not able to derive the compensating revenue from other sources. Without the society and the splendid work it does, there would be no effective means of turning performing rights to account. Until it was founded, I, like many others, received nothing at all in this direction. As you know, I have been a member of the society since its inception in 1914, and I have the greatest admiration for the able manner in which its complicated task is carried out."

May I call attention to a leaflet which I imagine hon. Members have received from the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers—not publishers. There is on the Council of that society such names as the Prime Minister, and practically all the leading novelists and authors of to-day. Hon. Members opposite will be interested to know that among these names are Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. H. G. Wells. It is not a party organisation at all. They say that, owing to the decline in the sales of sheet music, the livelihood of the composer depends almost entirely at the present time on the moneys obtained from the marketing of his performing rights. The passing of the present Bill will rob the composer of almost the only means remaining by which he can secure a financial return for his labour. That is not a statement of my own, but one by the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers, among whom are such famous names as Mr. Arnold Bennett, Miss Clemence Dane, Miss May Sinclair, Mr. Hugh Walpole, Mr. W. B. Maxwell, Mr. John Galsworthy, Mr. Eden Phillpotts and others.

Are we to take it that each of these persons who are distinguished in the world of literature agrees with the recommendation of the document that you are reading?

The notice has been sent out on behalf of the committee of management who are appointed by the council. Not all the names that I have given are on the committee of management, but two or three of them are. Mr. John Galsworthy, Mr. W. B. Maxwell, Mr. Hugh Walpole, and some of the others are actually on the committee which has sent out this manifesto.

Are any of them composers?

Yes. Dame Ethel Smyth and Dr. Vaughan-Williams are also on the council. I do not think that those supporting this Bill will be able to mention a single composer who is in favour of the Bill. Why should he be? The effect of this Measure is to filch from him the due reward of his labour. So much for the Performing Right Society. I want to deal with the Bill. We have not heard a word about the Bill from the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. I direct the attention of the House with due earnestness to what I submit is not a Committee point, but a point which goes to the very root of the Bill. It is Clause 3. If it were not for Clause 3 we should not have had this Bill brought forward at all. That is my submission.

In England, every man can charge for the product of his industry what he can command in the market. You allow a man who makes building materials, beer, whiskey, cheese or any other commodity to obtain, by contract, whatever he can get in the open market. This Bill singles out one class only in the community as a class the product of whose labour, mental and creative labour, is to be severely restricted by Act of Parliament. Under Clause 3, while all the rest of the community can earn what they please as a result of their labours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"], certainly, what they can get in the market, composers and those who own the copyright in musical compositions are to be restricted in regard to what they can get for the performing rights during the operation of the copyright.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fees are to be paid."] What a fee! The payment of a fee of twopence is to cover the whole life of the copyright, which is the life of the author and for 50 years afterwards. It is a scandal. The fee is not to be regulated on any scale according to merit or popularity. A mere comic song and a musical composition by Beethoven or Mozart are put in the same category. The possession of a copy of the composition with a notice upon it is, under Clause 3, to be "conclusive evidence" of the right of the person in possession of that copy to perform the work in public. Therefore, for half a century the possession of one copy with this notice upon it, saying that a fee not exceeding twopence has been paid, will entitle the person who holds the document—not necessarily the person who bought it, but the mere possessor of it—to perform that work. It will be con- clusive evidence during the life of the copyright that they have the performing rights in that work. We are told that that is a point that can be discussed in Committee. It is not a Committee point.

Is it the performing rights, or only the user rights?

It is the performing rights. Under Clause 3 (b) it is provided that:

Clause 3 is a Clause which no one can justify. It makes a difference, and a very essential difference between different classes of authors. It singles out musical compositions for differential treatment. The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton) has made a speech this morning. If he makes a drama out of his speech, he can charge what he likes; if he makes a poem he can charge what he likes; if he writes home about it, he can charge what he likes, but if he makes a song about it he cannot charge more than twopence. It is said that musical users will support the Bill. Of course, they will. We all like to get as much as we can for as little as possible. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the Second Reading said that there were people in my own division who would like to have these copyright works at a cheap price. I have received a message from the Manchester Corporation saying that they would like the Bill to go through, no doubt, because they are users of copyright musical works. There are two sides to this question, but bearing in mind that our principle in dealing between contractors is to give them complete freedom, there is no reason for singling out composers and penalising them as compared with the rest of the community.

Another bad feature of the Bill is that if one copy of a musical work is printed without the notice upon it, under Clause 1 the copyright rights are lost. That seems to be vindictive. I should like to say something more about Clauses 1 and 2, which are the Clauses which say that you have to print a notice upon copies of your musical compositions, in order to preserve the copyright, the fact that the performing rights are specially reserved. It is said by hon. Members opposite that at the present time the public are in ignorance about the legal position. There is no need for them to be in ignorance about the legal position, because since 1911 on publication the copyright has ipso facto followed. It is about time, after 18 years, that the public knew the law.

Under the Bill, by the manner in which the notice required is laid down by Clause 3, the ignorance and confusion will be very much greater. There would, in fact, be very much more confusion, because all musical compositions published between 1912 and the passing of this Measure, would be absolved from the need for printing the prescribed notice upon it. The fact that something like 2,000,000 musical compositions are in circulation in this country with protected copyright, and without the notice upon them, would cause very great confusion, because people knowing of this Bill would say: "Here is a copy of a composition without such a notice upon it. I am, therefore, presumably able to perform it." That would be wrong, because if it had been published between 1912 and the present time, the copyright would still cling to the musical composition. So far as foreign works which are brought into this country are concerned, it is suggested that in order to avoid a breach of the revised Berne Convention, the foreign music should come in free from the restrictions imposed by this Bill. I do not see why that privilege should be given to foreign musical compositions and denied to our own.

Something was said by the mover of the Second Reading about the Copyright Act of 1911. He suggested that that Act was passed in a hurry, without much consideration. I rather gathered that the Hon. Member said that it was opposed by the late Sir Henry Craik. I have looked up the Debates of 1911, and it seems to me that the Act was passed without any opposition. It was not done ill-advisedly. There was a Commission in 1909, upon which a great many celebrated people sat, including the present Lord Justice Scrutton and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman). This Commission reported unanimously in favour of not having this notice on the musical composition, and the reason they gave in their report was very largely because that was the view taken by all other civilised countries. All European countries at the International Convention of 1908 took the view that the notice was unnecessary and that it was far better to let people in the different countries of Europe assume the existence of copyright. That is the law to-day in our self-governing Dominions and all over Europe, and that is the reason why we say that there is no ground for departing from that International Convention. Has anything happened since 1911 to render the view taken by the House of Commons at that time as being ill-founded? Three things have happened which have a bearing on this matter. In February, 1924, during the time of the last Socialist Government, this Bill, with the exception of odious Clause 3, was brought in, and it was unanimously rejected by the House of Commons on the advice of the then President of the Board of Trade, the present Lord Passfield. It shows that there is no party division in this matter the the Socialist Government themselves decided against the Bill in 1924.

In 1928, there was again an International Conference at Rome, at which the recommendation of the revised Berne Convention of 1908 was reaffirmed by all parties to the Berne Convention. Since 1911 nobody can say that the actual sales of sheet music have increased; in fact, they have decreased, and composers are more dependent on the products of the marketing of their performing rights. This is a vital matter to the man of letters and the musician, and I feel justified in drawing the attention of the House to the real points of the Bill rather than to matters of prejudice which were brought forward by the mover and seconder of the Motion. Shortly, the case against the Bill comes under three heads. First, when the producer of any article of commerce or manufacture in this country is free to charge what he likes for the product of his work, in my submission the creative genius who composes a song or an opera ought similarly to be free to make his own terms. Secondly, if they are not to be free, and if a maximum price is to be fixed on their performing rights, a charge of 2d. is an insult to the musical profession. In the third place, rather than discourage and penalise this small section of the community, we ought to do all we can to encourage the writers of songs and the composers of the music.

It is easy to criticise; how few of us can create. The people who compose the words and music of songs are entitled to the same position in English law as the person who makes soap. A great writer has said: "Let me make the ballads of a nation, and I do not care who makes its laws." The hon. mover eloquently alluded to the enormous addition to the pleasures of life which composers and others afford and, speaking as one who has spent a great deal of his life in Yorkshire and Lancashire, I say that nothing has softened the asperities and hardships of industrial life there more than delight in music. I ask the House, before it passes this Bill which breaks away from the convention and makes England the only country in the world which will place these restrictions on music, to think once and think twice before they penalise this small section of the community who have done so much for the happiness and contentment of mankind.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I want to claim the sympathy of hon. Members of the House for this special reason. My hon. and learned friend and myself, for reasons over which we had no control, have not been able to come to any arrangement as to the points he would touch upon and the points with which I should deal. I have spent a considerable time in preparing some arguments against the Bill but I have had to sit here and sigh as my hon. and learned friend, a brilliant King's Counsel, has dealt with all my points one by one. He has made them far better than I can hope to do, and I do not propose to do my cause any harm by repeating arguments which have been so eloquently stated. I want to enter a protest against the way the Performing Eight Society has been attacked. It is an old society which was formed in 1914. I have here a letter and I shall be prepared to give hon. friends opposite the name of the writer privately. It is from a man I know well, whose honour is above suspicion. He says:

One word as regard the Berne Convention and our responsibilities for! the part we took in that international agreement. The Committee over which Lord Gorell presided came to this unanimous conclusion: extremely technical matter. I contend that it is unfair that we should insist on certain regulations in regard to music published in this country and let in music from other countries which is not subject to the same regulations.

Let me quote again the gentleman whom I have already mentioned. He is a man who ought to know and does know, and he says:—

I agree with what the Mover and Seconder of the Second Reading said that not in every case has the society used means which are altogether right. We all know the inspectors and officials of any society or of any Government are apt to be over-zealous. None the less, I beg the House seriously to consider what they are doing in restricting the price of copyright to 2d. per copy, and to consider if it is fair that the price should be the same, whether a piece of music is performed in the Queen's Hall or the Albert Hall, is broadcast by the B.B.C or is performed in the parish hall in my own village. I appreciate very much the points made by the Mover and Seconder of the Second Reading, but on the other hand I want to emphasise as strongly as I can the points made by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. I ask the House not to vote lightly for the Second Reading because it happens to have been moved by a body of hon. Gentlemen on one side of the House, to use independent judgment in coming to a decision.

In addressing this House for the first time I claim the usual indulgence, and I do so with all the greater hope of success in view of the fact that I have had a long and close connection with the question that we are discussing. I have been connected with the entertainment industry for nearly 20 years, and, in addition, as Chairman of the Parks Committee in Glasgow, I have been called upon to conduct certain negotiations with the Performing Right Society. I want to say at the outset—and I think I am speaking for every Member in favour of the Bill—that we have no desire to rob the men of capacity who are composers, of the results of their labour. All that we ask is that there should be some other method of remunerating these composers, a method fairer to every section of the community than that which prevails now. The great difficulty in connection with this Copyright Act is the fact that it is impossible for those who use music for public purposes to distinguish between copyright and non-copyright music. We have asked on many occasions that something should be done to make up a register, so that those of us who may desire to run our entertainments without the use of copyright music can do so. But that has been found impossible.

I, therefore, suggest that the position in which we are now, is very far from satisfactory. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the Commission that sat in 1911. We are surely entitled to keep in view the experience that has been gained in the working of the Act since that time. In the course of my considerable experience I have found very great difficulties arising and in a way that every member of the House will appreciate. Some people think that any song which was written before the Copyright Act came into operation can be used, but it happens that if some other composer takes what might be a very old song and gives it a new setting, thereby it becomes copyright, with the result that if the inspector happens to put in an appearance, an entertainment that would otherwise not be liable to have a licence comes under the Act. There should be no objection to stating on music whether it is copyright or not.

Frankly, I am not prepared to justify Clause 3 of the Bill as it is now drafted, but I am sure that some other method can be adopted that will have the effect of giving just as much remuneration to the composer without the hardships that prevail now. There is still a great deal of ignorance as to the widespread effect of this particular Act. As a matter of fact the Performing Right Society has not yet been able to cover the whole ground that it may ultimately cover. They started with one class of entertainment and proceeded from that to the concert hall. They are working right through to the smaller halls throughout the community. When they have finished that task they can quite well go on and proceed to street musicians. Every one is liable to contravene the Act and is liable to prosecution. On one occasion I observed a procession of policemen—the guardians of the law—headed by a police band which was playing copyright music and which could have been prosecuted for doing so.

The main idea in the Bill which is to ask the publishers to make it quite clear whether music is copyright or not, is a very reasonable one and, with regard to Clause 3, I think we all agree that there ought to be some limitation on fees. The difficulty of the present arrangement is that while the fees fixed are it may be in some cases quite moderate, there is no guarantee that they will continue. The method adopted by the Performing Right Society is from their point of view the right method—that is to get every possible method of public performance brought within their authority. We would then be in the position of being entirely in their hands, and would have to deal with a practical monopoly. Surely it is reasonable—and I think the Statutes in other matters have laid it down—that there should be some limitation as to the fees payable for the right to produce or perform works in public. Twopence per copy would be quite fair payment in regard to piano scores and songs and might result in more gain to the composer than the present method, but when it comes to dealing with orchestral settings, 2d. per copy is quite obviously not fair. I hope the Government, in view of experience throughout the country, will not oppose a Second Reading for the Bill, and I believe it is not outside the wit of man or the capacity of this House to evolve something which will give to those responsible for public entertainments—sometimes on a very small scale—some protection from the law as it stands at the present time.

I have the pleasing duty of congratulating the last speaker on a very excellent maiden speech. I am sure the House will agree that we shall be delighted to hear him on many occasions in future. With regard to this Bill I am in a difficult position. On the merits I support it. There is no possible question about the fact that the present position with regard to musical copyright is very unsatisfactory and the public are at a great disadvantage. For instance, there is no obligation to print on the music the date of publication and the whole question of reservation of performing rights depends on the date. If the music has been published between 1882 and July 1912 and has not a reservation on it, it is perfectly free from all copyright and anybody can perform it. The public are in this position, that, not having the date on which this music was published, they cannot possibly tell—even the most technically expert person cannot tell—whether any copyright attaches to it or not. For example, a village band may want to perform what they regard as a fairly oldish tune. They cannot very well find out whether it has been published between 1882 and 1912, They perform the music in the village hall, or at a village fete, or something of the kind, and they are immediately faced with a claim for damages for breach of copyright. The Society does not say to them "Our charge is so much," but puts in a claim for liquidated damages and these poor people are in the position that they have to negotiate with the Society or fight an action in the High Court—and an action in the High Court by a village band or a village choir is an absurdity.

They are entirely in the hands of this body. A claim may be made for £1,000, or for sixpence; it is perfectly arbitrary, as far as the public are concerned. No doubt the Society in their own books have some scale, but they do not tell anybody what it is and these people are entirely at the mercy of the Society in negotiations. The claim may be for £1,000; the band may offer half-a-crown and the matter may ultimately be settled for £2. But the claim is there and I do not think that that is at all right. Something ought to be done and I think this Bill attempts to put that matter right. I am not going into the details of the Bill now but I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) when he said that people should get exactly what their work would fetch in the market. As regards copyright that is not so and the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked the fact that Clause 19 of the Copyright Act specifically mentions the rates of royalties to be paid for the mechanical reproduction of music and, the principle being admitted, the matter is one of detail. If the Bill goes to Committee the question of amount ought to be carefully considered from every point of view and all sorts of evidence ought to be provided. I said at the beginning that I was in a difficulty, and my difficulty is this. I fear that this Bill goes against the Berne Convention as altered at Rome in 1928. Article 11 of the Convention says: In the various papers circulated to Members this matter has been, to a certain extent, dealt with, and reference has been made to Article 4, which deals with the enforcement of these rights. Article 4, Sub-section (2) says:

I rise with much fear and trembling to address the House for the first time, and my plight, I feel, is a particularly sad one, because I am speaking in opposition to this Bill, and will thus tax the patience and sympathy of my colleagues on these benches; but the law of this House is one of toleration, and I feel that hon. Members will listen to me with that patience for which this House is traditional. I am happy to this extent, that I have some slight knowledge of this particular subject, for I have been associated with the Entertainment Industry for many years. Straight away I want to disclaim any association with the Performing Right Society. I hold no brief for them, and I think that some of the allegations which have been made against that society in this House, if they can be sustained—and I imagine that they can be sustained—lead one to believe that that society is in need of drastic reorganisation.

1.0 p.m.

But, having said that, I would draw the attention of the House to one or two other illustrations which would rather contravene my own statement. For instance, the municipal authorities at Hastings hold on an average, I believe, about 700 concerts per year, and they pay to the Performing Right Society something like £150 per year. That averages out, speaking roughly, at about 3s. per concert, and I do not think anybody could pretend that that is an exorbitant figure. Again, we have to-day heard a statement that the British Broadcasting Corporation has to hand over £45,000 per year to the Performing Right Society. That has been claimed to be an exorbitant figure, but may I remind hon. Members that, if they will look up the figures of the expenditure of the British Broadcasting Corporation, they will find that on programmes alone that Corporation spent in 1927 something like £480,000; that is to say, that of the expenditure on three items, artists, orchestra and performing rights, the composers, without whom none of these things could be performed at all, got less than 10 per cent. There, again, I think that is a very modest figure. I would also remind hon. Members on this side that the Working Men's Club and Institute Union have an arrangement with the Performing Right Society whereby, I believe, individual clubs pay a flat rate of one guinea per year, and, having paid that, they can hold as many concerts as they like and play what music they like. I think that is quite a reasonable charge. It seems to me that those three illustrations lead one to think that where the Performing Right Society comes up against a good, sound, strong organisation, they are perfectly willing to come to reasonable terms, but where they can come down upon some isolated and modest club in some little place, then they may be inclined to be unreasonable in their demands. Therefore, I suggest that it is necessary that those isolated societies should be able in some way to protect themselves, so that they can deal with the Performing Right Society on something like equal terms.

There is one other matter on the subject of copyright. I must say that if I felt that I could support this Bill at all, I would support it, but I feel that the Bill is so drawn that it contains nothing good whatever. The cure is worse than the disease. I fully admit that there are many causes for complaint, but I do not believe that the Bill can possibly be the means of curing them. Copyright in a work of music is presumed, and I think that in the course of the next few years—and perhaps this Debate will bring the time nearer—the public will appreciate that the very fact of a piece of music being published carries with it that copyright; and as the name of the composer, or at any rate the name of the publisher, is on every piece of music, it seems to be a simple thing for a person who wishes to perform a piece of music in public to find out what are the conditions attaching to it.

We have heard something about the breach of an international Convention, and the House should pause before creating a breach of an international Convention to which Great Britain is a contracting party. But I do not want to base my criticism of this Bill on those grounds; I hope I can make a much warmer and more human appeal than that. The appeal which I want to make is a Socialist appeal. In the course of the next few weeks, this House will probably be discussing the question of coal, and my hon. friends on this side who represent mining constituencies will have one absorbing thought and one anxious fear, and that will be the protection of the producers of coal. They have found by experience that the best method of protecting the producers of coal is by organisation. The same applies to cotton, to woollen goods, and to steel and iron goods. Wherever you get humble men producing wealth, we believe, as a fundamental Socialist principle, that the first claim on that wealth should be a share for the producers of that wealth. I make no stronger claim than that for the producer of music. This Bill denies that principle to our comrades who, instead of being producers of coal, are producers of music. Let me read Clause 3:

But I am not concerned so much with popular music. I am taking my stand to-day on serious music, and the composer who has the mechanical rights in a gramophone record of a piece of music of quality, first of all suffers from a greatly reduced amount of sales as compared with the composer of popular music, and further, if his piece of music, however good it might be, fails to attract that small public for which it is written, the great gramophone firms have no hesitation in breaking up the whole lot of records and creating new records with them, so that the serious composer gets very little from his mechanical instrument rights either, and the only thing left are his performing rights. We find that the performing rights, therefore, are the only real source of income for the composer, and yet Clause 3 of this Bill lays it down that for a fee of twopence a composer of genius, who has to devote months, and perhaps years, to the creation of a work of art, shall sell his copyright in perpetuity to anybody who cares to make use of it. That, on the face of it, is not a Socialist proposition; it is not a commonsense proposition.

Let me once more take the light music side of the question. We are all familiar with that ditty, "I lift up my finger, and I say Tweet, tweet,' "or with "Yes, we have no bananas." Those two popular pieces of music, shall we say, took each a few hours to compose. They might have taken a few days. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or minutes!"] They probably took very much longer than is suspected.

It was not worth the time.

The fact remains that they have given immense joy to tens of thousands of people. They have done more. They have brought tens of thousands of pounds into the pockets of certain people, and wherever those two songs have been played, music halls have had larger audiences, concert party halls have been filled, and the proprietors or lessees of those halls have accordingly enriched themselves. According to this Bill, the poor composer will get twopence.

Quite enough!

As I said before, serious music is my chief concern, but may I impress this upon hon. Members, that if a man should write a symphony, it would take perhaps a year to compose, and another six months to orchestrate; yet at the end of that period, when the composer has created that immense work of art, I suppose a few score copies of that music would suffice to supply the libraries of all the famous orchestras in the world—there are not a great many of them—so that for twopence every famous orchestra in the world could play this wonderful symphony, according to this Bill. There is no justice or equity in that. There is a well-known composer of serious music in this country to-day who last year received the total sum of £20 in royalties, and yet that man's compositions are a household word among musicians. This Bill would lay it down that a man like Vaughan-Williams, who perhaps will write some future Pastoral Symphony, will get twopence for his pains. This Bill lays it down that Sir Edward Elgar, in any future work that he should write, will hand it over to the public for twopence. The same applies to Norman O'Neill or Eric Coates. These are British musicians and composers, whom we want to see flourishing and raising the dignity of British music throughout the world, and instead of giving them every possible assistance, we are driving them down and down and discouraging the best elements in one of the most beautiful arts that this world knows.

May I just compare their parlous state with the condition of dramatists? If you are going to lay down this proposition for composers, are you going to ask Bernard Shaw and Galsworthy and Barrie to submit themselves to the same process? Do you think they would submit to some outside body dictating the terms upon which they should sell their works to the public? The position is simply ludicrous. The average dramatic rights fee for a play is 5 per cent. on the gross takings of the play, and I suppose it is fairly reasonable to assume that in the West End of London the average nightly performance would perhaps result in a taking of £250. If a play is doing reasonably well, in a moderate size theatre, they would take £200 to £250 per night, and the author claims 5 per cent. of the gross takings, and rightly claims it, because without him there would be no play at all.

What I would like to bring hon. Members on this side to realise is this, that instead of attacking the composer, the man who creates, and the dramatist, the man who produces, should we not pay attention to the question of the rents that are paid in halls and theatres in which the works are performed? The average rent of a West End theatre of moderate size is anything from £300 to £400 per week to the landlords, and yet hon. Members on this side have so missed the mark with their shot that they are leaving the landlord to wallow in his profits and they are attacking the poor composer, who already gets next to nothing.

May I ask—

Maiden speech!

I beg pardon.

You cannot even read a novel, or a short story, or a poem, or a play, in public, let alone perform them, without paying a royalty, and the position is perfectly right and equitable, because it is only by those means that these creative artists have any sort of income at all. This Bill attacks the fundamental right of an author to payment for work done, and in so far as it does that, it is surely an unsocialist measure. I feel very deeply on this, because among my friends I have two or three humble composers of music, who are trying to do serious work. They have not met with very much success, and when they have met with success, it is probable that they have had very little remuneration. Here I stand on the Socialist benches of this House opposing a Bill which my colleagues are supporting, because I believe that, if carried, it will drive my composer friends to absolute penury. As the Bill stands, it must do that. My appeal is for the interests of English music. I am told that in Germany next year, for the first time, a concert exclusively of British music is to be performed in Munich. We are just beginning to be recognised on the continent as a musical nation, and we should therefore do everything we can to assist composers to produce music instead of, as this Bill would do, discourage them and cause British music to sink lower than it has ever been before.

I wonder why the promoters of this Bill did not consult the fountain head of the musical profession before they introduced it. The Incorporated Society of Musicians is the "T.U.C." of the musical world. All the most famous composers and executive artists belong to this society, which has something like 2,500 members, including the principals of the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music, professors of music at all the universities, composers, performers and teachers. This Society has no axe to grind whatever, and yet they are opposing this Bill, not because they have any great sympathy with the Performing Right Society, but because they realise that there is nothing in this Bill that will in any way help the musical profession or composers. However, if the Bill does nothing more, I hope that it will act as a warning to the Performing Right Society to put their house in order. I would suggest again, in harmony with the feelings of this side of the House, that if the composers of music, as distinct from the publishers of music, got together a strong organisation, and saw to it that they were not going to be blamed for the aggressive attitude of the publishers, these unfortunate problems would probably be solved.

May I be allowed, before giving my reasons for supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, to offer a word of congratulation to the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young), who has addressed the House in such persuasive terms. I hope that we may hear him on many future occasions, and I trust that he will promote some Measure in which I can share with him the enthusiasm which he puts into his support of a cause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) cited the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers, and brought a recommendation from the Managing Committee of that Society expressing an opinion against this Bill. I have seen the list of Members of that Committee, and it does not include a single composer. The members are entirely authors who are well-known as novelists and so forth. I was at one time Chairman of that same Committee, and we set up a Committee consisting of Sir Villiers Stanford, Sir Hubert Parry, and one or two other composers of importance, to investigate this very question of the relation of the Performing Right Society with the great body of composers. I remember, although it is a good many years ago, the unanimous opinion at which we arrived, after taking a good deal of evidence that this Performing Right Society was a tyrannous and benighted body, that sat like a vampire upon the carcass of composition, and was injurious in its effect upon the composers, and unfair it is treatment of the public. At that time, we proposed to put forward a Measure on the lines of this Bill for the consideration of the House of Commons, but it was not possible, under the circumstances of those days, to bring anybody to bring it forward. The Authors Society, by their committee of composers which was set up for the special purpose, would have supported this Bill most completely. I do not say that I support it in every one of its minor provisions, but they are questions to be considered in Committee.

Broadly speaking, however, now is the chance to break the tyrannous power of the Performing Right Society. As I remember it, there were three principal criticisms made by the committee to which I have referred. One was on behalf of the composers themselves. The composers said that they had no kind of assurance that they were paid the proper proportion of the profits of the society for their share of performances. It works in this way. The Performing Right Society charges so much a year for the right of performing in a given musical hall, for instance, works of which the rights belong to the society, but no kind of record is kept nor could there be, of how often a particular piece of music is performed. The result is that a composer might have a piece of music performed over and over again in a number of subscription halls, and he gets no sort of security that he is paid anything like the proper fees for this indefinite number of performances. That was one point that was felt to be very unfair, and there was a feeling that certain composers were favoured and that others were not favoured in the distribution of the profits of the society.

The next point on which there was much criticism was that you cannot go to the society and say, "I am going to have a village concert, and I want to see what performing rights you possess for the pieces of music that we might want to perform." The society will not let you examine their registers, and you have got to take your luck. They will not tell you beforehand whether a piece of music which you might want to perform is or is not under their control. You perform it at your own risk, and they will not tell you what they are going to do, and you do not know until they come down upon you for damages for breach of copyright. It is an entirely unfair situation. We have been told that they have a certain scale of fees for different kinds of halls, and the like, but the ignorant outsider has no possible means of telling what sort of a fee he is going to be charged for the performance of a piece of music that is under the control of the society.

Finally, there is the sense of injustice which is felt when perfectly innocent people have given a performance in some out-of-the-way place—say, the parson of a country village, or the schoolmaster, or some friend of some enterprising musical person in an out-of-the-way part of the country—and then find that an inspector who has been around comes down upon them and demands fees for the performance of pieces of music which apparently are the common property of the community. We have a very strong case against this Performing Right Society, and I regard the Second Reading of this Bill as a definite step in warning this Society off those—I was going to say those areas in which it swindles, but perhaps I ought not to use that phrase; to warn them that musicians, composers and the public alike have a grievance against them, that they are a wart growing upon the healthy tissue of music, and that the sooner they are abolished and got out of the way the better it will be.

I trust the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, but whether it gets a Second Reading or not will depend very largely upon which of the two main Clauses is regarded as the principal Clause. I gather that the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) regards Clause 1 as the principal Clause, whereas the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young) regards Clause 3 as the principal one. I think most of us will admit that Clause 3 requires a very considerable amount of amendment. We must all have been deeply impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington, and I am specially glad to be able to thank him as he and I are old students of the same historic school. He brought forward a very strong case indeed against this Clause, or at any rate against its details. The sum of 2d. may be an adequate fee for some music, it is more than an adequate fee for a good deal of music, but, quite obviously, in the case of great works of music it is a fee which is utterly and hopelessly beneath what ought to be paid, even when we remember that the 2d. is paid not for the whole control of the work, but simply for a single copy of it. For a symphony by Sir Edward Elgar, for a fine choral work by Hamilton Harty, 2d. a copy is, of course, a pitiful underpayment; for even where there is an orchestra of some 80 members, that means only something like 13s. for the performance of a great work which has cost, it may be, months of creative energy—and the repeated performance of that work. When we come to consider the fees which are to be paid for these great works, quite obviously this Clause must be very seriously amended. That matter, however, though it is important, is one for the Committee stage, especially when we consider the great desirability of passing into law what I, along with the hon. Member for the English Universities, regard as the principal Clause of the Measure, Clause I.

Clause 1 embodies a very simple proposal which is demanded by a very large number of people. It has been said, I think by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) and also by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) that this Clause is a contravention of our international conventions. That, of course, is a complex problem, and I hope we shall have some information from one of the legal representatives of the Government on the point. So far as I can find out, the only clause in the international convention which is feared is the proviso that authors shall not be bound in publishing their works to forbid the public representation or performance of them. What is proposed in Clause 1 does not, surely, forbid the representation or performance of any work. It fixes a certain condition to the performance, but the fixing of a condition—and such a simple condition as the printing of a mere notice on the outside of a copy—cannot be called anything but the fixing of a condition: it is not in any way a prohibition of the performance of the work. Therefore, so far as international conventions are concerned, though this is a complex matter I do not think we have anything to fear; and if we have, I am glad to hear that the promoters of the Bill have publicly stated that in Committee they will be prepared to accept any amendment which will free us from the disastrous consequences of breaking international agreements.

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst to the Gorell Committee, a very important committee presided over by a very great lawyer, which considered this matter in 1909 and reported against the printing of a clause of this kind upon copies of music. The hon. Member for Chislehurst read out the finding of that committee, which stated that it was extremely important

Will the hon. Member continue?

Yes, I am going on: place since the Gorell Committee sat. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side asked towards the conclusion of his speech, What has happened since 1911? He mentioned the Bill of 1924, which this House did not pass, and one or two other matters more or less irrelevant, but the big change which has taken place is the coming into existence of this Performing Right Society.

The Performing Eight Society is in its operations quite as harsh as anybody who used the courts of law in order to exact large penalties and fines before 1882, and it is because of the coming into existence of this society that some change is now required. These cases do not go to the courts of law, because the Performing Right Society has been there before, and the fines do not go into the public exchequer. The fines go into the exchequer of the Performing Right Society. There has been a great deal of litigation over this society. When it first began its operations an attempt was made to restrict them by submitting to the courts that it was a society which existed for the restriction of trade. Unfortunately the highest court in the land has held that that was not so. I think some disability should be placed upon them, and this Bill attempts to do that, or at any rate it gives protection to the innocent people who infringe unwittingly the rights which have been open to this society, and which more and more is having a complete monopoly. This Measure is only a small attempt to give protection to the public against this ever increasing menace.

The Association of Municipal Corporations have deemed this question of sufficient importance to give it their consideration. This body represents every borough and county borough, and it has unanimously expressed its approval of this Bill. I think there are ample reasons why every hon. Member representing a borough or a county borough should support this Bill. The chief reason is the operations of the Performing Right Society. If a small borough council offends the law of copyright it can be fined for its crime, and if the same crime is committed by a larger borough a larger fine may be inflicted. This has become practically a case—I do not like to use the word—of extortion.

We have already been told of a case where a particular town was literally trapped into performing a certain piece of music, and then found itself up against this octopus. That town preferred to fight the octopus but owing to the state of the present law the case was lost in the public court. There are hundreds of cases where this disinterested society whose directors, we are told, do not receive any remuneration, come down on these small village organisations and make demands upon them according to their ability to pay. When it comes to a corporation where there is a bag sufficiently full of the ratepayers' money this society uses every endeavour to extract its pound of flesh. I think composers should be under a debt of gratitude to the enlightened public authorities who give facilities for the performance of serious music, which the public has not had the privilege of listen-to before.

The hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young) mentioned the parlous state and the serious condition of our musical composers. I suggest to my hon. Friend that by this Bill with the addition of certain Amendments for the protection of the people who have given of their best will not place them at any disadvantage in the future. I agree that a pitiful £20 seems to be a miserable reward for producing something that is going to live for ever. The hon. Member opposite, in the brief which he has sent to us, mentions the difficulty in which we find ourselves and he alluded to the fact that copyright lasts for 50 years. The hon. Member is out to protect music which ought not last for 50 minutes, but, fortunately, the music which the hon. Member is so eloquently supporting, owing to the good sense of the people of this country, is forgotten in 50 weeks. We remember when we refresh our memories those songs which were sung to us only a few short years ago. I will not harry the minds of hon. Members by repeating some of their titles, but the Performing Right Society is not out to protect serious music but to reap in even more shekels from a generous British public.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) would have us believe that twopence was all the composer received who gave us "The Painted Doll," and he said that that was all the composer received for that effusion. There is a profit on the composition. I had to buy a piece of music the other day under duress, and I had to give 2s. for it. Under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman's supporters would be able to receive 2s. 2d. for the composition of this great effort. I am a Free Trader, but I am ready to join with hon. Members opposite if they will introduce a Bill to put a high tariff upon some of those importations from Carolina and Kentucky. I hope this House will give a Second Beading to this Bill and allow it to go to a Committee upstairs. I appeal to the Government to afford facilities for the passage of this Measure. In the name of the Boroughs and County Boroughs we ask for protection against this octopus. We ask for facilities to be given to carry this Bill through, and we shall be quite willing to insert suitable Amendments for the protection of the cases, which have been put forward so eloquently by the Member for Islington.

I object to this Bill on three grounds, any one of which, in my opinion, is sufficient to justify its rejection. The first ground is that this Bill, as I read and understand it, will, if passed into law, be a contravention of the Berne Convention. That is a matter serious enough to call for consideration, because, if such be the fact, what will happen will be that British composers, British nationals, will be deprived of all protection for the public performance of their works in Continental countries which are signatories of that Convention. The result of that will be not only a breach of an international convention, but the inflicting of loss and hardship upon British nationals in excess of the loss and hardship that is sought to be imposed by Clause 3 of this Bill.

My second objection is that the Bill is, in principle, unworkable. Upon the passing of the Bill into law, the position will be that the country will be flooded with millions of copies of music published between July, 1912 and the date, if ever the date arrives, when this Bill becomes law. From the date when the Bill becomes law there will be published throughout the country tens of thousands of copies of music bearing the prescribed statement as to copyright. Who is to decide, when he gets these copies, whether a copy from which the statement as to the existence of copyright is omitted is a pre-Act copy, or whether it is a copy which has been published since the passing of the Act and in contravention of the provisions of the Act? That will be the first embarrassment with which the public will be confronted.

There will be a further embarrassment, because every published copy of a foreign work of music will come into this country without the prescribed words upon it, because the laws of foreign countries which are parties to the Berne Convention make no such requirement. Therefore, there will be three classes of sheets of music published and circulated in this country, namely, pre-Act music, post-Act music, and foreign music whether published before or after the passing of the Act. The Bill provides that the copyright in any musical composition shall not be deemed to be infringed unless every published copy contains the prescribed notice, so that, as I read the Bill, if one published copy omits to set forth that notice, notwithstanding that the larger number of published copies of the same work do bear the notice, the copyright is lost to the author. The House will note that what the copy has to state, among other things, is the name of the person retaining such rights, and the name of that person has to be given in order to give the opportunity to the person who is about to give a public performance of the music to profit by Clause 2 (c) of the Bill.

There is such a thing as assignment of copyright. The person retaining the right of copyright in a particular piece of music may on one day be A, on another day B, on another day C, and so on; there may be an indefinite number of changes. What is the position then going to be? The music is put upon the world bearing the name of the original author as the party retaining the copyright. He assigns his copyright, and the assignees of that copyright will lose the benefit of the assignment by reason of the fact that there are in existence copies which do not bear their names as the persons who at the date of the performance are the persons retaining the copyright.

My third reason for objecting to the Bill is that it is a gross interference, in my view, with rights of private property, and I venture to think that a good many of those who have addressed the House on this matter have not kept in mind the fact that this is a Bill to regulate the position as between composers and public. Several of the speeches have been directed, not to the composers of music, but to the Performing Eight Society, which has been called indifferently an octopus, a wart, and I know not what else. In my submission to the House, the Performing Eight Society has nothing whatever to do with the consideration of this Bill. It is the composer of music against whom this Bill is directed, and, if anybody wants legislation against the Performing Eight Society or any other society, let them seek it in the ordinary way, and not seek to prejudice the progress through this House of legislation which will affect people other than the Performing Eight Society or other societies.

I ask hon. Members, before they vote, if the question goes to a Division, to exclude from their minds the very existence of the Performing Right Society. I do not associate myself with any of the observations that have been made with regard to the activities of that society, but I do not seek to remove the impression that may have been created with regard to the society, because the whole matter, in my submission, is irrelevant to the consideration of this Bill. I ask the House to reject the Bill, first and foremost because it is in contravention of the Berne Convention; secondly, because it is unworkable; and, thirdly, because it will create very grave injustice by interfering with private rights of property.

It is usual for a Member, in rising to address the House on a Bill, to state whether he is proposing to support or to oppose the Bill. I find myself at the moment in the position that I cannot say which of these two courses of action I shall follow, and I think that very probably I am not singular in that respect. There must be many Members who have been in the House—they are not all here now; perhaps the reason why some of them have left is that they could not make up their minds—who at present are in the unfortunate position of not knowing on which side they ought to take their stand. Therefore, I hope it will not be long before we hear from the Front Government Bench what their attitude is towards the Bill and what the possibilities are for the future. I have been asked by some of my constituents to support the Bill, but I think I have taken the safest line in saying that I would listen to both sides and make up my mind when the Bill came before the House. That is what I am doing.

I must say that in my opinion the promoters of the Bill have made a strong case with regard to the requirement that there should be printed upon the music, not only a notice as to whether there are rights or not, but also—I admit that this is not in the Bill; it was a suggestion made by an hon. Member on these benches—that the date should be placed upon it. I think that these two demands are legitimate and should be met. Then I think the fees which are to be charged should be published in some form or other, and I propose to refer to that point a little later. A great deal has been said with regard to performing rights, but I would submit that the performing rights are not the only rights connected with music. There are other rights which are of considerable value. I am not going to say that in my belief the sum of 2d. at present fixed in the Bill is an adequate one, but I do think that people should have some opportunity of knowing what their fees are likely to be; and, in addition, we should not forget that the 2d. is not the only amount that the author is entitled to receive.

A great deal has been said with regard to the Performing Eight Society, but I think it is a great pity that we should make statements in public about societies of this description unless they are very well founded. My own belief is that the Performing Eight Society is performing a legitimate object. This is a day of societies joined together for the protection of individuals, and the rights of individuals should be, and can be, protected better by organisation than by disorganised or personal effort. On the other hand, we must admit that many organisations which have legitimate objects can abuse those rights, and if the statements we have heard to-day have any truth whatever—I do not doubt that they are made in good faith—there is a case which proves that further consideration, either by the Bill or in some other form, should be given to the rights of these societies.

What are the objections that have been made to the Bill? In the first place, many legal gentlemen have spoken. Mine is not a legal mind, consequently I bow to their superior knowledge. They have proved to me that the Bill, as drafted, would require a great deal of amendment. That would give one the idea that one should be very careful how one votes for the Bill in its present form unless there are very good causes why further consideration should be given to it. They have pointed particularly to Clause 3, but I cannot help believing that that Clause can be so amended in Committee as to make it workable, and perhaps of very great value. I suggest that there should be attached to the Bill a schedule of fees, or in any case it should be made compulsory that a schedule of fees should be accessible to the public so that they should have knowledge and should not sin against any act of Parliament simply from the fact of ignorance. I know it is an accepted axiom of the law that ignorance is no excuse. On the other hand, it is our duty to see that, so far as is practicable, no one should sin against the law by ignorance without an opportunity of informing himself what the law is.

2.0 p.m.

Consequently, I think—this is the real object with which I have risen—that we should ask, if possible now, that some statement should be made from the Government Bench as to their attitude to the Bill. I suggest that it should either receive a Second Reading, and so receive further consideration in Committee, or, as a very much better alternative, it might go to a Select Committee, and the whole question, which is undoubtedly one of very great complication, touching the rights of many individuals and not of one party only, should receive full consideration, and, after that consideration has been given, we should have an opportunity of voting on some measure which would do more to preserve the rights of individuals than this Bill in its present form does.

I do not think there has been any proposal before the House during the short time I have been a Member upon which I have had so many doubts as the one we are discussing now. I belong to a party which is interested in the spread of knowledge of the best music, the best drama and the best literature amongst the people, and naturally, therefore, we are strongly opposed to any obstacles, legal or otherwise, that are placed in the way of the spreading of that knowledge. On the other hand, my party stands equally strongly for the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire and that he is justified, whether he is an intellectual or a manual labourer, in organising for the defence of his interests. What I am not clear about, however, after hearing the discussion, and especially after listening to the remarkable and moving speech of my colleague on these Benches against the Bill, is how far this society against which the Bill is really directed, whatever the Bill itself may say, protects the interests of the people with whom we are most vitally concerned. I have in my mind as the result of the discussion, two well-known phrases from the literature of my country. One is "Now Barabbas was a publisher." The other is that every profession is a conspiracy against the laity. I do not know how far these gentlemen who are so disinterestedly engaged in securing the proper reward for musical composers are acting on behalf of those composers or of those who have secured at a cheap rate rights from composers.

The Bill deals with a very complicated and complex question, hence I am puzzled about it. I am pretty sure, however, that the composer at present is not very well protected. If anything has been taught to me by my reading and my knowledge of the world, it is that the creative mind generally is not a commercial mind, and that the commercial mind very often exploits the creative mind for its own profit and for its own purposes. Therefore, on the whole, believing that we on this side of the House wish to place composers as far as possible in the same position as literary men, who write novels and histories and books generally, and dramatists, who are well protected, and also, to encourage them, that the composers themselves should follow the example of authors and dramatists and organise themselves more thoroughly, I am strongly in favour of letting the Bill go to a Select Committee, if for no other purpose than to ventilate this very important question and clear the ground so that we know exactly how the matter really stands. Probably out of the discussion and out of the revelations made in the Select Committee we may be able to get a Bill which will really protect the interests of the composers and which at the same time will not put obstacles in the way of providing a knowledge of good music among the masses of the people of our country.

An hon. Member who spoke from the benches behind me almost at the close of his speech stated that the Performing Right Society had nothing to do with this Bill. I should like to ask why we have had placed in the hands of almost every Member of this House pages and pages of leaflets giving various objections to this Bill, and requesting Members of the House to vote against it to-day? I agree with the same hon. Member that there ought to be a great deal of difference made with regard to the music published prior to the passing of this Bill. The Mover and Seconder of this Bill when it goes before a Committee might take into consideration the question as to whether there is any reasonable justification for imposing a fee of 2d. per copy in respect of music which has been published in years gone by. With regard to the post-Act music which may be published, and which, of course, may be pirated, I submit that there will be plenty of opportunities to look after cases of that description in the future.

It may seem passing strange that one, who, like myself, has spent the whole of his business life in industry on a competitive basis and believes in the competitive system should favour this Bill which comes from the Government benches. While I am a believer in the competitive system—and I am certainly not in favour of nationalisation or socialisation—I am not a believer in the maintenance of monopolies, and I see the difficulty and danger with which we are faced in connection with this Performing Bight Society. I think that on the whole there has been a fair amount of evidence to show that there is general agreement in the House upon the point that this society has been making excessive charges in various parts of the country.

Apart from mention of the fact that various municipal associations in various parts of the country have entered protests against extortionate charges made by the society, I have had numerous communications from my constituents along the same lines. We have had plenty of evidence from the hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill to show that the Society have not been satisfied to make reasonable and fair charges for the services that they have rendered. In order to prove that the society have been doing very well out of their work, evidence was given by the hon. Member to the effect that of the funds received by the society, one-third went to the society itself, and only one-third to the people who composed the music, and who were the originators of the beauty put into the minds and hearts of this country from time to time. I take it from a reading of the Bill that the intention of the promoters is, that there shall be imposed upon every person who purchases a piece of music the payment of 2d. in respect of that piece of music.

Only in the case of performing rights in public will payment have to be made.

Take a case like this. Suppose you have a gramophone record manufacturing company, who at the present time are undoubtedly paying heavy copyright charges. How will they be affected in the future? Will they buy one piece of music and make 1,000 or 10,000 records? What is to be done with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation? I am mentioning these paints in order to obtain information, because it is desirable and necessary that we should know all the facts of the case and what is in the minds of the promoters of the Bill before we can give it wholehearted support. We were informed this morning that last year the British Broadcasting Corporation paid £45,000 to this Performing Right Society because of the fact that they made use of their copyright. In future, will the British Broadcasting Corporation be able to buy a copy of music and broadcast it all over the country for the payment of a fee of 2d.? If they do, at the end of the year they will have saved a lot of money as compared with their expenditure in this connection last year. If one goes, as I have done sometimes, either to a concert or to a football match and there is community singing and a certain newspaper distributes thousands and thousands of leaflets containing the words of the songs, will it mean that the newspaper will simply pay 2d. in respect of a copy, or that all the people will have to pay 2d. each? These are points which ought to be elucidated in Committee.

A great objection on the part of the opponents of the Bill is the fact that notice must be given that all music, British and foreign, is copyright music. I do not see any great difficulty there. If it so happens that there is a piece of music coming from Germany, I do not see why it cannot contain an imprint "For use in this country" just as you have under the Merchandise Marks Act certain goods coming from Germany marked "Made in Germany." Some years ago the United States of America brought into operation a law insisting on the stamping or marking in an indelible way of the words "Made in England" on articles going into the United States. I am referring to the particular industry with which I am connected. I was proud and pleased to put those words on the articles I sent out, for I am never ashamed to put the words "Made in England" on goods which I export. Unfortunately, there was a little difficulty in that case. I was shipping to Boston, in Massachusetts, where there are a lot of Irishmen, and one of our customers advised our firm one day that they would be very glad if we would put the stamp on a part of the article where it could easily be cut off, because the goods were sold to firms, the principals of which were Irishmen who would not buy the goods if they knew that they came from England. There is another point which arises in connection with a statement in the circular issued by the Performing Eight Society that Hon. Members will know that the copyright holds good during the life of the author and 50 years afterwards, so that I do not think we need to consider that objection very seriously. The object of the Bill is to give a fair and reasonable protection to the public, without the upholding of any monopoly which extorts unfairly and unreasonably from the public. One of the objections to the attitude of the Society has been the fact that damages sometimes are unfairly claimed. The Seconder of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill gave instances of extortionate charges. We have particulars of cases where charges have been made in certain cases and where the people who have been asked to make certain payments considered that they were unreasonable, they have been very politely informed that cases have been before the High Court, that the Society invariably win their cases, and that in some instances the costs amounted to £300; therefore, they would be well advised to pay the smaller sum rather than run the risk of having to pay £300 in costs. That, if it means anything at all, is a mild type of blackmail which ought to be resisted utterly by this House. If it so happens that the Performing Right Society by the unfair manner, so far as I can see at the moment, of doing its business has dug its own grave, it has only itself to blame.

In supporting most heartily the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to make one personal reference and to say that, as a journalist and author of sorts, I am just as keen as any other hon. Member to give a proper measure of protection for dramatists, writers, and composers; but I do not believe that this Bill will in any way infringe the rights of musical composers or others, of whom we have heard so much this afternoon. I do not think that this Bill will be, from our point of view, as expressed by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young), anti-Socialistic in its operation. What are the facts in relation to the unknown authors and composers? In practice, the writer of a new song must inevitably go to the publishing-house and, in practice, he is generally offered a ridiculously small sum for it, and he parts with all his rights, or, on the other hand, it pays him to get a small cash payment, with a royalty attaching to every copy of his composition. The hon. Member for North Islington mentioned that £20 was all that had been paid to the composer for a work of considerable merit. We would all agree that that was a ridiculously small sum, but, in practice, that is just how the unknown writer or the unknown composer is treated, and I fail to see how under the operation of this Bill, if it passes into law, the composer will be any worse off. In the case of a writer of a great symphony it seems to me quite clear that no one is going to pirate that work, and that the village glee club is not going to attempt to produce it. It can only be produced under conditions whereby the composer himself is consulted, and under which he, necessarily, gets a full measure of reward.

Those of us who support this Bill are desirous of protecting the users from conditions which are chaotic and highly undesirable. I have in mind a case which happened in my own constituency, where a branch of the Independent Labour Party produced a certain composition at a small social gathering, for which 6d. admission was charged. I was present and witnessed the performance which, I must say, with all due consideration for those who were responsible, was rather crude. The entire takings of that gathering amounted to 15s. 6d., but the precious Society of which we have heard so much to-day came along in the course of a week or two, because a paragraph had appeared in a local journal, and abstracted from that branch £4 17s. 6d. for performing rights. If the fee of 2d. is imposed on each copy of music it is quite an erroneous idea to imagine that the composer is to be deprived of anything. Actually under the present conditions, as I know them as a writer, that fee of 2d. will go into the pockets of the publishing company and will never reach the composer himself, because he has actually parted with the performing and other rights in the majority of cases. That, of course, is not true in regard to a writer, dramatist or composer who has arrived at such a stage or degree of public prestige and reputation that he can demand his own terms, and usually does so.

I wish to indicate the point of view of big corporate bodies which cannot be accused of having any personal or mercenary interest in the passage of legislation of this kind. I have been supplied with the point of view of the Borough Council of Lambeth, who control the one big hall in a highly populous borough in which entertainments of any kind can be given. They have expressed their point of view in a document, and have asked me if I would support this Measure and convey their point of view to this House. I will, therefore, with the permission of the House, read what they have to say on this question:

I have felt considerable difficulty about this Bill. I have read it with more or less understanding, and I must say that, at first, I was rather intrigued by Clause 1 of the Bill, but I got further enlightenment by listening to the discussion in this House, and notably to the very powerful speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young). I do not think that I have heard a more convincing speech on any subject in this Parliament, and I was glad that it had a visible effect upon hon. Members on his own side. When I came to Clauses 2 and 3, of course I came to the conclusion that the Bill was so tainted with fraud and oppression that really no honest man could vote for it. The power of composition is born in very few brains, and that composition really belongs to the creator more than anything else does. Nobody can say that a composer is an exploiter of others; but, unfortunately, poets and writers from time immemorial have always been very badly treated by us Philistines. We have, however, protected them by a certain amount of legislation in comparatively recent years. There is the case of our national poet Burns who wrote his songs—he framed the words, and he composed the tune too—and who declined to accept a single halfpenny of reward, because he thought that his achievement was reward enough; but then of course he was an exception and he had an exciseman's job to carry on with.

The ordinary member of the longhaired fraternity which composes music has no other visible means of support, and the members of that fraternity were robbed right and left. [An HON. MEMBER: "And still are."] And still are to a large extent. They got up a protection society, which was a trade union of a kind, and, if you compare the expenses of working that society, which amount to about 22 per cent. of the contributions, with the expenses of trade unions, I think you will find that the Performing Right Society compares very favourably with the average trade union, and certainly compares much more favourably with the average industrial insurance society. I remember being waited upon by some gentlemen connected with an industrial insurance society, who protested against a Bill which proposed to limit their on-cost expenses to 50 per cent. of their drawings. I said, "If it costs as much as that, you should not exist at all; people should be told to put their savings into a teapot or a stocking and be done with it." If this society costs only 22 per cent. to run, it is very cheap.

When you talk of inspectors, why are those inspectors needed? Because the people of this country are fond of music, and they all want to play music free. They all know perfectly well, when they lift up a song, that it has come from somebody's brains or somebody's harmonious soul, and they know perfectly well that they ought to be paying for that; but they just chance it, and hope to get away with it. Of course it is very annoying to them when an inspector comes along and checks them up. Then you have people like the City of Bradford; we have heard an hon. Member make a bitter speech about it. It was stupid enough, and foolish enough, and badly-advised enough, to fight the case and lose. [ Interruption. ] It may be that the society is acting here and there oppressively. I have no doubt that it is. Whenever you give powers to a body and it has inspectors and so on, something of that kind is bound to happen. But what about the ultimate result? We hear that the bulk of its total drawings goes to the musical and other composers. Would they ever have the slightest chance of recovering a fiftieth part of that if the society did not exist? It is somewhat unfortunate that composers, as a body, have no business sense. It is almost a sign of a want of mental balance to have musical gifts. It is very hard. No doubt, they occasionally do part with their songs for what is really "a song," commercially speaking, and they part with them to the Performing Eight Society; but, then, take the enormous number of musicians and composers who are members of that society; they are at least getting a substantial share of the total drawings.

What does this proposed Measure do? It does not deal with the Performing Right Society as a body by providing that there is to be any supervision of it whatever. It says: "No, twopence is the value of your song, twopence is the value of your opera, twopence is the value of your symphony. You have to print your name on them, and, if you ask any more, you are then to lose your copyright; and if some printer's devil maliciously omits on a few copies to print the fact that it is copyright, then, too, you lose your copyright." Again, as an hon. Member has pointed out, so soon as the copyright is changed over it no longer comes within the terms of this Bill; the copy, then, has not the proper notice on it, because the notice with which it began is wrong; it is another person who holds the copyright, and therefore the whole thing goes by the board.

I do not think that this Bill has been adequately considered by those who have promoted and produced it. They have gathered a number of cases of prejudice; but, when you get cases of people who have broken a copyright, you do not know how often they have done it. When one gets complaints, for all one knows, the offenders have been pinching the copyright for years and years and getting away with it, and then suddenly an inspector comes down and catches them out. The inspector or the detective may have suspicions that they have been doing it for a long time, but it is difficult to get at the facts. Take the case of municipalities. They are very tyrannical bodies indeed. I know them intimately; I have acted for them and acted against them; and I know that when I used to act against them it was treated as almost a form of lèse majesté. I remember once being taken to task by an eminent town clerk for daring to act against the municipality, and I said that, if he wanted me not to act against them, the only thing to do was to retain me, in every possible case, to represent them. They are very tyrannical bodies. It would be interesting if you were to get the whole history and were to find the percentage of cases in which copyright had been infringed, and the tens of thousands of performances which have taken place up and down the country and in every corner of it, where the rights of the composer have been invaded, and where he has been defrauded. Where are the rights of the composers? What about the number of times that they have not got what is their due? You are taking only the number of times that performers are caught. But what about the many times when they have not been caught? The cases must be innumerable, for the number of detectives that the Society employs cannot be very great.

I think the Bill is irremediable because of Clause 3, which shows a determination to deprive composers, and through them the Society, of everything which is of the slightest value. It is our duty to protect the weak, and in the interests of our own honour we should give this Bill an emphatic rejection. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the Second Reading no doubt know perfectly well that a composition must be copyright unless it is very old. They might as well say that a man should have his property labelled in his pocket. I have in my pocket a knife bearing the inscription, "Stolen from F. A. Macquisten, K.C., M.P." I also have that inscription on the handle of my umbrella. It invariably brings the umbrella back, because the man who picked it up cannot go about with that on it. But that does not excuse the man who lifts an umbrella that has no name on it, or a knife from a desk, and does not try to find out the owner. He is just as bad as the man who keeps a thing with an inscription on it. The promoters of this Bill say in Clause 1 that every man has to state that a thing is copyright. Musical compositions, especially some of the moderns, do not last very long, and the wretched composer, and the publisher who takes the risk, must make their money in a few weeks' time. Is this all to be taken and the sum of twopence handed out? The proposal reminds one of the twopence that was handed by the Good Samaritan to the man who had fallen amongst robbers.

The twopence put him on his feet again.

No, he was in his bed, for the Samaritan said, "When I come again I will advance more to you." Are you, under the Bill, going to hand over this money to the municipalities? Strongly as one might support Clause 1, if there were need for it, I say that the rest of the Bill reflects very great discredit on its authors, and that we should not have spent time in discussing it. In the Old Book there is the Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

I wish to support the Second Reading. I am quite persuaded that the Bill suggests no invasion of the rights of authors or composers or anyone else who places music on the market. The Bill does, however, endeavour to correct many grave abuses in relation to the activities of this Society that forms the main feature of this discussion. I was particularly interested in hearing the main reason which the Mover of the rejection of the Bill brought forward as a justification for denying a Second Reading to the Bill. He said that the manufacturer, the builder, the engineer, the brewer, the publican, the clothier and the bootmaker very often put a commodity on the market at a profiteering price, that they could charge their own price, whereas under this Bill it is presumed that the people who manufacture and place on the market good music are to be restricted in their activities. There was, however, one very important fact that opponents of the Bill failed to observe, and if the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) had understood it he would not have been quite so enthusiastic in opposition to the Measure. We all know his liking for joining issue on almost any subject. I am sure that if he went into a public house and asked for a glass of whisky, had it supplied to him, and paid the proper price for it, and then someone said to him, "But stay, before you can consume this glass of whisky, for which you have paid, you must pay some additional charge to someone else," he would regard it as unfair.

That is exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does. I go and buy a half-pennyworth of whisky and I pay about 9d. in duty.

But in the original price which he paid the exorbitant charge made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been included. After he has paid even that exorbitant charge and made all allowance for the colossal profits of the brewers—putting all that in, assuming the commodity is his, he is told that he cannot use it as he likes and cannot consume it until he has paid an additional charge to some invisible person of whom he has no knowledge and with whom he has no contract. The same point arises in regard to the appeal which was made to the House by the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. We all know his combative spirit, and I wonder what he would say if he went to a shoemaker and purchased a pair of boots and paid the proper charge—the all-in cost—for the pair of boots and if, after delivery of the boots, he was told, "You are not free as the owner of these boots to use them as you like. You are not to use them in certain ways unless you pay an additional cost to some invisible person, of whom you have no knowledge and with whom you have had no contract."

It is because of that consideration that I believe the objection to this Bill breaks down. We say that, having paid the proper price, having honestly purchased the property, those who make the purchase are entitled to regard that property, as property which can be used by them in such directions and in such ways as they may dictate or desire—unless it is made abundantly clear, when the purchase is being made, that certain conditions attach to it. I believe that Clause 1 covers that point. It provides that if there is a copyright which it is desired to exercise; if there is some privilege which the producer or the publishers care to continue, then they are to make it clear. It should be stated on the publication that those rights exist and that they must be observed, as I am sure they would be observed, in such circumstances.

We all welcome that fact that in this country, in our social life, in our charitable work and in our temperance work, music is playing an increasingly important part. As a temperance reformer I welcome the extension of music in the public-house, and so must every temperance reformer in the land. I mean "temperance" in the sense of the temperate use and not abuse of the virtues and opportunities which good-nature has placed at the disposal of mankind. Every temperance reformer is bound to look with gratitude on the very substantial reduction in the number of convictions for drunkenness in this country. That is a feature of our public life which everybody is bound to admire and encourage. One factor which has led to that end, is the provision of music in well-conducted public houses. It has been a great preventive of excess and drunkenness. But what is the position of the publican in relation to this society? In order to provide musical entertainment for his customers, he engages musicians and pays them an agreed rate—normally, I believe, quite a proper rate. I suppose the ordinary publican, like myself, is not an authority on music and I should think in that respect he is also like the average Member of this House. Incidentally I noticed that while quite a number of hon. Members invited the Seconder of the Motion for the Second Reading to sing the piece of music which he had in his hand, none of them seemed anxious to take the first line, or even to join in the chorus. The activities of this society have been such that, in my own constituency, only comparatively recently a publican, who had an entertainer for the evening, and had not the time or the opportunity to check the music which was being rendered, was mulcted of £40 because the music which was being rendered when the inspector or agent or detective of this society visited the public house was regarded as a breach of the rights of the society.

I have no sympathy with an organisation which very often—according to the best possible evidence—either by its own agents direct or by proxy, encourages the rendering of music which they know to be copyright in order to be able to get a case against a licence holder. The society that is conducting its affairs in such a way is acting in a manner so reprehensible to the public mind of this country, that the activities or lawlessness, say, of Charles Peace or Dick Turpin pale into insignificance by comparison. This Bill is not intended to injure people who compose music or to deprive of their rights authors who spend many months and burn the midnight oil to provide us with fine music. It is specifically designed to correct the activities of an association which, by its actions over a period of years, has created the revulsion of feeling expressed to-day in all quarters of the House. In regard to Clause 3 and the miserable payment of twopence, let us be quite frank. I am sure I express the point of view of the Mover when I say that the promoters of the Bill have not in mind heavy music for which there is not a great deal of sale in the public market. It is not that kind of thing which is in consideration. What is in consideration is to provide that those who have vested interests and rights in music should publicly declare their rights on the copies exposed for sale, in order that purchasers may know the limits to which they may use purchased copies, and in order to prevent unsuspecting people falling unwittingly into a trap set for them by this organisation and being mulcted in a manner which I am sure public opinion in this country would not support for one moment.

I support this Bill because of Clause 1. I agree that Clause 3 will need consideration in Committee, if the Bill gets there, but I would beg of the House to give it a Second Reading because of the importance of Clause 1. It is important to realise what is the grievance with which this Clause is intended to deal, and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) certainly did not seem to appreciate the point. There is nothing in the Clause which will enable an intending wrong-doer to do more than he does now. The whole point is to prevent the present position of uncertainty being utilised to enforce unjust demands. The House will appreciate the position of the user. This Performing Right Society will not deal with the performer, but with the owner of the hall where the music is performed. You pay the tax levied for the right of performing their music, but there are no means whatever of knowing what music it entitles you to perform. The Performing Right Society will not, and cannot, tell you, because their music runs into such colossal figures. There is a reported case on this subject of which I have some knowledge because I was interested in it, and you have no means of knowing what music you can perform when you have paid this tax. You may think you are safe, but suddenly some publisher who is not in the ring comes upon you and you have no defence.

Take the other side. In the reported case the owner of the hall could not afford to pay the sum demanded, and as he had an honest desire not to have performed in his house any music that belonged to this society, all he could do was to warn every performer that nothing should be performed until they had the consent of the publisher. Things went on all right for some time, and then a singer, having the consent of the publisher, sang a song which led to litigation. In a day or two the owner of the hall was dropped upon by the Performing Right Society who said it was one of their songs. The owner said that the performer had the consent of the publisher. "That makes no difference," said the society, as the publisher has assigned that piece of music to us. Then came litigation and it took the House of Lords to decide in whom the copyright was vested. The Performing Right Society claimed the copyright on the basis of the assignment by the publisher of all the music he had ever published or would publish. As it turned out the song in question was published a day or two after that assignment had been given, and it was contended that that did not give the Performing Right Society the title to that piece of music and that it was still in the publisher who had the right to give consent.

It went to the House of Lords, who determined that the copyright was still in the publisher, but the unfortunate owner of the house had to take the case to the House of Lords, and incur all these costs, in order to determine the simple question as to who had the copyright of that song. That is the position. If you pay the tax levied by this society it does not save you from other people, and if a man cannot afford to pay it he cannot find out what their music is. He may get the consent of the publishers who have no right to give that consent, and after a certain time it may turn out that the title is vested in this society. What objection can there be to saying that you shall put on a piece of music the name of the person who has the right to give permission for performance. That is all that is wanted in the first Clause.

What happens after that if a million copies are sold, and the rights are assigned?

They must settle in whom they wish the copyright to belong before they publish, but it would be unfair for them to publish to the world that A.B. is the owner and then entrap the world by vesting it in somebody else. It is all very well to create what is a penal offence, to say you shall not perform this and yet provide no means of finding out who is the owner. That is the first Clause, and I submit it is a purpose which should meet with the sympathy of the House. It does something to put an end to a position of uncertainty, which enables this powerful society to enforce demands which they could not otherwise enforce. I support the Bill. I certainly think that Clause 3 needs very careful attention, but even if we drop that altogether the first Clause would justify this Bill.

3.0 p.m.

If we were discussing the Third Reading of this Measure I should certainly be in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and go into the Lobby with him. But we are on the Second Reading, and I ask the House to let this Bill go upstairs to a Committee for further consideration. The essential point on which we differ is Clause 3, which will not do in its present form. That is not a question affecting the fundamental honesty of the Bill but of detailed amendment. Those who remember the original Copyright Bill in this House, and who had a hand in its passage, will have been delighted to hear the arguments on each side restated with such skill. I do not remember a Bill which was more closely examined than the 1911 Bill, which was full of complexities and rather diffcult adjustments of conflicting rights. I agree with those who in this Debate have set a high regard on the rights of the author and composer. That is fundamental. This Amending Bill does not desire to compromise any of those rights, but to combine them with those rights which we may fairly claim for the public; that the public shall know where they are. At present it is difficult to know where the copyright lies, and we have not the least idea of the terms the present owner of copyright is prepared to allow performance. I suggest there should be a considerable variation in the language of this Bill. I have been trying to draft the kind of Clause which seems to me to be fair to both sides; without conflicting with the rights of the composer to all the fruits of his own endeavour and mental capacity and the right of the public to know where they are. A provision of this kind is really what is in the mind of most of us

"No action for infringement of copyright in respect of the public performance of a musical work published in Great Britain after the passing of this Act shall lie unless there is printed on the title page thereof the royalties demanded by the owner or owners of the copyright."

In that provision there is no interference with existing law. The foreign case is completely satisfied, because there is no alteration in the law relating to foreign music. There is complete freedom on the part of the author to place on the title page precisely what amount of royalty he requires for its performance and the royalties for a performance in church or in a music hall or a parish club, would, of course, not be on the same scale. He must lay it down so that the public shall know what royalties are demanded. His interests are perfectly safeguarded, and in the event of his not wanting any royalties, he need not put anything on the title page, and anyone can sing the song without fee. The public right is also completely safeguarded, because before any performer begins to sing a song, he will see on the title page the terms on which he is entitled to do so; and even the Performing Right Society are protected, because they can issue licences to cover the copyright of all those who choose to belong to that society. Then, of course, it will probably save the author to some extent, because there will be less need for so large a body of inspectors. Because the Bill can, I hope, be moulded in Committee into a throughly useful addition to the Measure of 1911, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

I should not have intervened in this Debate if I had not taken the lead in opposition to the Bill of 1924. That Bill was introduced by the then hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Major Burnie), and a long Debate took place, occupying the whole of the evening, but the Bill was defeated on Second Reading. A good deal has happened since then. I have not been able to listen to the whole Debate, but I gathered from the speaker who was in possession when I came in that complaints have been made with regard to the Performing Right Society in the exercise of what they regard as their rights. I hold no brief for the Performing Right Society. I am simply here to say that, in my judgment, it is an unwise and an unfair thing to do anything which would jeopardise the vested rights of a composer or an author in their works and to enable them at all to be pirated or cheated.

This does not rest entirely on the question of musical compositions. I hold in my hand, and I daresay many other hon. Members have also received, a covering letter to the reasons why this Bill should be rejected, issued by the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights, and Composers, and the very distinguished list giving the names of the members of the council which appears at the head of this note-paper commences with no less a personage than our much respected former leader on this side of the House, Lord Balfour, and contains the names of certainly most, if not all, of the well-known authors and playwrights who are now contributing to the amusement of the public. They make no exception. They ask that this Bill should be rejected as inimical to their interests. Then again the Incorporated Society of Musicians make the same request in other words. Surely they are large and influential bodies and influential individuals, whose opinions ought to have some weight in this House.

I hear that the point has already been made as to the difficulties which the International law will occasion in regard to Clause 1 of this Bill. I understand that there have been two or three conferences, and I am informed that both at Berne and at Rome a very definite article was agreed upon which would bind all the countries that were signatories to the Conventions. The right hon. Gentlemen who form the Government to-day have shown unmistakably from time to time that they favour internationalism. I do not know what their own view is; possibly they are in that position of considering, as they are on most measures that are brought before them which create difficulty; but how is it that though they favour internationalism on general questions, their followers should desire to withdraw from the international agreements in respect of this question, and so allow the foreign competitor to have a distinct advantage over the English composer? If there be any desire to make these matters perfectly just, so as to please all parties it might be very well to adopt the suggestion of one hon. Mem- ber and to restrict the right of action to the author himself or his representative.

As one who is a great admirer of music, I feel very keenly for those whose natural ability, sometimes spontaneous and sometimes a great effort to them, has produced works which have charmed the public. We ought not to do anything to lessen the rights of those persons over the children of their creation. I sincerely hope, therefore, that either this Bill will be rejected in order that another may be introduced upon these lines, or that the Government will take definite steps to enable the whole matter to be inquired into—but not necessarily by a Committee of this House, which is almost as unsatisfactory as the Committee stage upstairs, perhaps far more unsatisfactory, because after long experience, I have always thought that matters that are debated on the Floor of the House in Committee are generally known to the public through the newspapers, whereas the Committee stage upstairs is not sufficiently followed to enable the public to realise what is going on. I hope that the House will not by its vote to-day do anything to penalise those who contribute to the public enjoyment, and that hon. Members will gravely consider before they give this Bill a Second Reading.

This debate has been, I think, one of the best private Members' Debates which I have ever heard, and I have heard a good many; and it is all the better because the speeches have been commendably short and to the point. Certainly, I do not propose to detain the House at any length. May I also say that it is part of our regular Friday practice—and a very good practice—that when a Bill does not raise party issues, as in the case of this Bill, the opinions expressed by hon. Members are their own. The opinions which I shall put forward are purely my own, but I venture to think that they will be found to represent a considerable body of opinion in the House.

There are really three different sets of parties concerned in the transactions which are affected by this Bill, as there are in almost every transaction that takes place—the producer, the consumer, and the middleman. As regards the producer, who is in this case the composer, there is no difference of opinion that we are all anxious to see that he shall by no manner of means be defrauded of the just reward of his work. I think that we are all equally certain that, rightly or wrongly, the consumer is rather restive under present conditions, and that, with regard to the middleman, we are all doubtful whether everything is working out as it was intended to work out.

As to that, I may say that I was a Member of the House when the debates were taking place on the Copyright Bill of 1911, and although we then had considerable discussion about gramophone records and their position, I do not think this particular point which has now arisen was ever discussed at any length, if, indeed, it was discussed at all. I have been trying to charge my memory, without referring to the actual debates, as to whether it was actually discussed, and I cannot remember, but it certainly formed no large part of the discussion. This particular development was not foreseen in 1911. No one foresaw then that a state of things might be reached in which the rights of the composer were parted with by him and acquired by somebody else; because it is a mistake to speak of this Bill as though it could only apply to the rights of composers. In many cases the rights of composers have been transferred—I am not quite certain whether to the Performing Bight Society itself, but at all events to others.

Regarding the actual detailed proposals of the Bill, I am bound to say I think they have been almost shot to pieces by the criticism which has come, particularly, from my hon. Friends behind me and the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young). I do not think the proposals as they stand could be made workable. There is the question of foreign complications, and there, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has put his finger on the weakest point. If under this Bill you do anything to jeopardise the sale of the works of British composers on the Continent you will really kick composers very hard and in a manner which you do not by any means intend. Then there is the question of the fee of twopence. I do not think that would really stand examination.

When all is said and done, there remains this consideration, that undoubtedly there is very grave dissatisfaction among a large number of people, and while I am not making, and certainly would not make—because I have not the information or the inclination—any attack upon the Performing Right Society or its operations, it is idle to say that those do not come into the consideration of the question. Really, they are the essence of the problem. It is idle for the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) to speak of people having complete freedom of contract with the Performing Right Society. Everybody knows that, in truth and in fact, certainly the small man—the small cinema proprietor, the small music hall proprietor—has not complete freedom of contract at all. He has got to take what is offered to him under A, B, H or the other headings—under all these alphabetical inflictions. It is idle to talk of his having complete freedom of contract.

In many cases, too, it is doubtful whether the same thing is not paid for over and over again. Details of one case were put before me last night. It is a case where the owners of a hall let that hall to an association, the association hired a band and the band in turn employed a singer. On comparing notes afterwards it was found that the owners of the hall were paying a licence fee to the society—in their case it was actually 5 per cent. of their gross takings—the association which hired the hall were paying a licence fee, the band were paying a licence fee and the man who sang the song had actually paid 5s. to the society for the right to sing it. That seems to be a form of multiple exaction which I do not think anyone could defend.

I feel that it is high time, and past high time, to have some further inquiry, but at the same time I could not say, if this were the Third Reading of the Bill, that I could possibly vote for the provisions which it contains. In these circumstances, what I should do, and what I believe will commend itself to other Members, is this: I should say, "I will vote for the Second Reading if the Government, on the one hand, will recommend to the House that after Second Reading the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, and if the pro- moters, equally, before the Second Reading is taken, will give an undertaking that they will agree to the Bill going to a Select Committee." If that is done, I personally shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

I have hesitated to rise in response to the request that a statement should be made from the Government benches, because I felt that this Bill was of great importance and every facility should be given to private Members to discuss it. I agree with the previous speaker that the Debate has been an excellent one, and that we have heard some very interesting contributions from both sides of the House. It is evident from the speeches which have been made that this Measure does not raise a party issue; it is equally evident that it is regarded as a matter of great importance, and the claim which has been put before the House to have the grievances dealt with has been substantiated.

I will take two aspects of the question which has been placed before the House. In the first place, there is the position of the authors and composers. I do not think anybody can deny, and it has not been denied in the Debate, that the authors and composers are entitled to be properly remunerated for the services which they render to the community. We ought not to underrate those services, and I think we are all agreed that it would be an undesirable step to take any action in this House which would hamper, restrict, or interfere with opportunities for good music being performed in this country, and we ought not to do anything to discourage those who use their brains to produce good music. I do not think anyone will dispute that both performers and composers have a right to combine in order to secure that which is their just due. I do not think hon. Members on the Government side of the House will dispute that right, having regard to the fact that most of them are associated with some sort of organisation to protect the position and the interests of those whom they represent. The point that arises is whether the present method and means of organisation for securing to authors and composers that to which they are entitled is right and proper having regard to all the interests concerned.

No one can deny the great importance of the issue which is before the House. Most of us have received from our constituents appeals to support the Second Reading of this Measure, and those appeals have reached us, not only from people who are keenly and directly interested financially in this matter, but from organisations which ought to be encouraged, and no obstacle should be placed in their path when carrying out the duties which they have to perform. I have in mind such organisations as amateur operatic societies, the members of which use their individual talents and combine together for their mutual advantage, and then give to the public a form of entertainment which is really much appreciated; and they generally, in giving that entertainment, see that the proceeds from it go to some charitable institution. We get from them very strong appeals that something should be done in order to free them from what they believe to be a penalty, from a situation which might be described as nothing more or less than a hardship imposed upon them.

The Seconder of the Second Reading, I do not know whether merely for the purpose of strengthening his case or for the purpose of putting me in any way in a difficulty, quoted a case from my own constituency. I happen to know that case well, and it illustrates very clearly the form of organisation and the form of effort that is being hampered by the policy which is now being followed by the organisation complained of. It is the case of a troupe of minstrels—a form of entertainment that is not so popular to-day as it was several years ago—composed of working men at an electrical engineering works, who once a year give a public performance, and devote the proceeds of that performance to a hospital in the City of Norwich known as the Jenny Lind Hospital. It is a hospital for children, founded by the famous Swedish singer, who when at the height of her popularity gave concerts in Norwich, and the proceeds went to found it. I am sure that everyone would agree that it is undesirable in the extreme that efforts of that description should be handicapped by any organisation acting as we have been told this organisation has acted, and, therefore, the appeal that is being made to this House for some form of protection is, I think, well founded and well justified.

I think I am, perhaps, entitled to carry that illustration a little further. We have had recently from a very eminent citizen, holding very high office, a book entitled "The New Despotism," and the criticism contained in that book is very largely directed against public Departments being entrusted with powers that are contrary to the best interests of the community as a whole. I would like to ask the House this question: What would be said if any public Department were to come to this House and ask for powers similar to those possessed by this Performing Right Society? This House would refuse to concede those powers to any one of the State Departments; and, if that be so, then I feel that the House ought to give very serious consideration to the appeal that has been made for freedom from such a line of policy as is followed by this society, which in substance and in fact is beyond any powers that would be entrusted to any public Department.

Having said that, I want to come to the question of the Bill itself, because I feel certain that, although speeches have been made in opposition to the Measure, there is a fair consensus of opinion in the House that something ought to be done to meet this appeal which the societies and interests concerned are making to us. The point arises whether this Bill will meet the difficulty. That is the first point that ought to be examined, and I am bound to say, speaking on behalf of the Department that is concerned in this matter, that we have just some little doubts in that direction. We are not altogether happy and satisfied about Clause 1 and its relationship to the International Convention that has been mentioned several times in this Debate. It has been argued that this is not a very great difficulty, but the fact remains that there is an International Convention which this country has ratified and which it is bound to carry out; and, without going into any great detail on the matter, I think it is obvious that, if that International Convention contains a Clause which suggests that composers shall not be bound to place certain things upon their compositions, and if we, in passing this Measure, turn round and say that they shall be bound to do this or lose all their rights in the matter, I feel that it must be said that this Clause does, in this respect at any rate, create difficulties in connection with the Convention.

A great deal has been said which suggests that Clause 3 is likely to constitute a very serious difficulty. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) himself indicated that there would be difficulties. He illustrated it by pointing out that the sum of 2d. might be a perfectly adequate sum for a piece to be played on the piano, but for an orchestral score it would be entirely inadequate. That illustration might be extended, and the more you extend it and examine it the more apparent does the difficulty become and the more it indicates that the drafting of the Clause may not provide the opportunity the House seeks to deal with the matter on the lines on which they would wish to deal with it. Therefore, I am bound to say that the Department with which I am associated sees some little difficulty in that respect.

It has been pointed out that the Bill can be amended and will receive due consideration in Committee. That brings me to the further point as to how far the ordinary procedure of going to a Standing Committee is adequate for the purpose. If there is one thing that has been brought out in the discussion more than another, it is the need for a wide examination of the question, and, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to meet the situation would be to give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Select Committee, which would examine the whole problem in all its aspects. It has been suggested that this is shelving the matter. I do not think it is the desire of the House that the question should be shelved, and, if the Bill is committed to a Select Committee, I hope that it will be on the understanding that the Committee will set to work to examine the issue in all its aspects, and, as a result of that examination, produce a Bill which will give all the consideration that is due to the author and composer and also give adequate protection to those people and interests who have substantiated their grievance on the Floor of the House. That is the view of the Department with which I am associated. We take that step because we believe that it will be best in the interests of the House for that line of procedure to be followed and, in the end, we believe that it will be better for those in whose interests the Bill is framed, while at the same time taking nothing from those who have interests to protect, that is, the authors and composers concerned.

Many hon. Members will feel that the hon. Gentleman has given us wise guidance. Having read all the papers which have been circulated on the Bill and having listened to nearly all the speeches to-day, the impression left upon my mind, and probably on the mind of many others, is that there is a case to be met, but that the promoters of the Bill have not quite found the right way to meet it. We are anxious to support the rights and interests of the musical composers, to see that so far as possible they have what may be considered an adequate reward for the invaluable service they render to the world at large. We have no sympathy with those who desire by some means or other to pirate their work, to secure surreptitiously, or even flagrantly, the performance of those works without adequate payment being made. Even piracy with a fee of 2d. is not a complete solution of the question. I have no sympathy with these twopenny pirates. On the other hand, there is a feeling that a monopoly such as is in practice exercised by the society which administers the rights of composers may be a very dangerous thing. This House is very jealous of anything in the nature of monopolistic powers and is eager to defend the rights of the public and of those whom in this connection we might call consumers.

In all cases such as this, where clearly there are pros and cons, where there is a strong case made on the one side, and on the other, the matter ought to be very carefully examined before Parliament should legislate; and, particularly, in a case like this where international considerations come in, and it is by no means certain that legislation would not be in conflict with international obligations that have already been undertaken on behalf of this country. In these circumstances, the right course in any such case, and particularly in this case, is to refer the matter for further investigation. I am not sure that the outcome must not be a Bill introduced by the Government on Government responsibility; and, after hearing the various parties in this conflict of interests, after considering all these international matters, it may be necessary to have a small Departmental Measure introduced by the Government Department concerned at a later stage. If to-day the House rejects the Bill, it is exceedingly probable that nothing at all will be done, and it will be well-advised to pass the Second Reading on the understanding that the Bill will go to a Select Committee, not as approving the particular proposals embodied in the draft which is before us, but rather as expressing the opinion of the House of Commons that there is a case first for inquiry and afterwards for action.

I do not consider that it is at all necessary to say anything with regard to the issues of this Bill now, except to express great appreciation of the attitude so far taken up by the Government and by representative Members on the other side of the House. There is no doubt that corporations such as that of the city which I have the honour to represent have had considerable trouble over this matter, and have deep-seated antagonism towards this society because of its extortionate exactions. It is, so far, gratifying that the general attitude of the House to-day is to support the line of going forward, and I hope that this reference to a Select Committee is going to have the effect of inducing the Government to to take up the matter. The difficulties that have arisen legally in this connection have been such as rather to retard the progress which has been attempted in times gone by. The legal minds of the House should be applied towards meeting what is generally agreed to be 'a great disadvantage to those who are anxious to share their pleasures in music with others. At the same time, we are anxious to meet the reasonable claims of those who are composers.

At an earlier stage this afternoon, we had some references of a humorous nature, but I would only make this reference with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), who said that he had the words "Stolen from Mr. Macquisten "inscribed on his umbrella. I should say that that is somewhat of a reflection upon his friends. Someone else made reference to the possibility of a glass of whisky causing some question of performing rights. I only want to say that the performing rights of taking a glass of whisky are somewhat unlimited.

The House will agree that it is most fortunate that the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) was so heartily endorsed by the hon. Member representing the Government on the Front Bench, and also by supporters in other quarters of the House. I feel moved to speak on this subject, as I have had representations from a Corporation on this subject. We have no desire to interfere with the proper functions of the Performing Right Society, but it is obvious that the sort of things that they have been encouraged to do under the law as it stands is a state of affairs that should be brought to an end. I can conceive of no one in this House, and the course of the Debate has shown that to be true, who would try in any way to filch the rights of those authors and composers who contribute to the enjoyment of the nation in general, but, on the other hand that any body of people claiming to represent the owners of copyright, perhaps not the original owners at all, should be able so to embarrass a corporation which is charged with the duty of providing reasonable musical entertainment for its citizens, is a thing that should not be tolerated in this year of grace.

I am not going to go into all the details of the brief—if I may use the term—prepared by the supporters of the Bill, but I do think they have put their fingers upon the points which this Bill, with all its faults, is well calculated to meet. With regard to the repercussions of foreign arrangements and foreign law, it is necessary that the Bill should meet those, and that is one of the reasons why it is desirable that all who want to see some Measure of this kind passed, and all who want to see the rights of the authors and composers respected should agree to the proposal for sending the Bill to a Select Committee, where all these matters can be threshed out.

There has been no party spirit imported into the discussion, nor can I conceive that that is possible. In the atmosphere of a Select Committee we shall have discussed all the points that touch the authors, that touch the corporations charged with supplying amusement to the public, and that touch the societies which, by giving performances, are able to collect funds for charitable organisations. All these interests will have their welfare best safeguarded by this Measure being given a Second Reading, and sent to a Select Committee. It will not be shelved, but it will be dealt with in a way best suited to the situation. There will be no tendency to bring in a Measure afterwards that will be defeated. If it passes its Second Reading and goes to a Select Committee, it will not be put to sleep permanently. On the other hand, the treatment that it will receive will make it, if it is somewhat of an invalid, as some hon. Members on this side have suggested, a strong and healthy man, and we shall have a Measure in every way adequate for dealing with a matter of real public importance.

I do not desire to hinder the decision on the matter, but merely to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Bill, that, if the House thinks fit to adopt the suggestion that has been made by the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), the late Postmaster-General, and agreed to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, it will meet their view that it should then be sent to a Select Committee. My hon. Friends will be prepared to fall in with that suggestion.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[ Mr. W. M. Adamson. ]

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

I desire in the few minutes which remain to explain the purpose of this Bill, and I feel sure I can trust to the goodwill of every section of the House to deal with this important Measure, though limited in its scope, this afternoon. The difficulty with which this Bill deals is that whereas in the Small Landholders Act, 1886, the crofters were granted three rights, fair rents, compensation for their improvements and fixity of tenure, the right of fixity of tenure has, by an Amendment in the Act of 1911, been filched away in certain circumstances. Originally, the right was always subject to the power of resumption being-granted to the landlord by the Crofter Commission, which was the statutory body set up for that purpose, and resumption could be claimed by the landlord if the holding was badly cultivated or required for a purpose such as the working of minerals, or for what was called "any other reasonable purpose." In the Act of 1911 it was enacted that one of these reasonable purposes should be when a man who had no other landed property at all wished to resume this particular holding for the purpose of residing upon it and working it himself.

No unfair advantage of this provision was taken until after the War, about 1920 and 1921, and then the lawyers discovered that if a man could be found to purchase a holding, although a landlord could not get vacant possession of any smallholding because the tenant was granted fixity of tenure, if he could find a man to come in and buy any holding, and that was the only holding the purchaser had, he could claim resumption of the land and the Court of Session declared in a particular case that the Land Court had no option; they could not, however unreasonable the claim, refuse to give resumption to this purchaser, nor could they exact from the purchaser any pledge that he would reside on the hold- ing. Many men have bought these holdings and have not resided upon them. Indeed they have let them outside the terms of the Landholders Acts. There is this further question. This House of Commons has given large sums of money for land settlement in Scotland. In some cases it has been used to improve farms taken over in order to make them fit for smallholdings, and when these men have been supplied with money provided by the House of Commons the holdings have been sold one by one over the heads of the men who have been settled upon them, and the value of the improvements provided by public money has inured to the benefit of the private landlord.

I hold a batch of reports of cases which have been before the Land Court. There is a constant stream of cases, not many, but they occur in every part of Scotland and are causing unsettlement and hardship. I know the case of a man whose grandfather took over in 1828 a holding of only three or four acres. There were two little huts on the holdings, one, in which his family lived, of peat and stone, and another of peat and stone where the beasts were kept. There were only six rigs cultivated. He reclaimed the rest of the holding. Eventually, when fixity of tenure and fair rents were granted under the Acts, the family built stone and lime buildings to take the place of the huts. The whole of the three or four acres were cultivated by the grandson of the original holder. Then the bondholder, who had taken over the estate on which the holding was situated, sold the holding over the occupier's head, and the occupier had to clear out of the holding which he and his family had created.

The fact that these things are happening in different parts of the country is causing a widespread feeling of insecurity. A man has described it to me as like being in the trenches; you see a shell fall here and a shell fall there. When a big estate is being sold, the men feel like that. One man has his holding sold over his head here and another has his holding sold there, and they all feel that it may be their turn next. There is, therefore, a real and substantial grievance, and it is one which surely we can all agree to rectify? It is said that if we pass the Bill, it will make it difficult for estates to be sold. It will make it difficult for owners to get a higher price than the estates are worth. Is it right that, by the unforeseen effect of a particular Section of the 1911 Act, construed by the Court of Session in a way which even the Land Court had not appreciated, a landlord should be able, by exerting fear over the tenants that they may have their holdings sold over their head, to extract a higher price for holdings than they would otherwise fetch? Is it not rather better in the public interest that security of tenure should be adequately safeguarded.

This Bill was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), to whose courtesy I owe the opportunity of being able to introduce it. I have heard criticism of the drafting. It was drafted in consultation with, and with the approval of, the Scottish Office some years ago. Other people may have suggestions to make for the amendment of the Bill. If those suggestions are made upstairs, where we Scotsmen are gathered together round the Table of the Scottish Grand Committee, I am sure that I and all my colleagues will only wish, if the suggestion are improvements, to incorporate them in the Bill. I therefore appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to let the Bill go to the Scottish Standing Committee and to act in the spirit of the Prime Minister's appeal, that we should regard ourselves as a council of the nation, and do something to strengthen the foundations of small-scale agriculture in Scotland, and remedy the great grievance from which these smallholders are suffering.

I beg to second the Motion.

I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to say a word on the Bill in the few minutes that remain. This is a Bill which had the support of the last Labour Government. I understand that at that time the Secretary of State had a Bill in draft for remedying what is undoubtedly a very serious grievance. Security of tenure should be sacrosanct so far as the crofting and small holding community in the North of Scotland is concerned. This is a Bill to ensure that security of tenure will still be sacrosanct, and I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will give his support to it and give an opportunity to the Scottish Members to discuss it fully upstairs.

In the few minutes which remain to me I should like to explain briefly the attitude of the Government towards this Bill. We heartily approve of the principle for which hon. Members opposite contend, but there are Amendments which we should like to have inserted in the Bill. If I might give an example, we should like to insert a further provision about the feuing of land for the specific purpose of resumption. That question of the feuing of land for the purposes of personal resumption is specifically dealt with in the Act of 1911, and if there is going to be any amendment of the Act at all, we should like to have it complete and leave no more room for debate. The grievances to which hon. Members opposite have referred are well known. They are officially known to the Scottish Office. We have details of them all here, and perhaps we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter more fully in Committee upstairs.

We on this side of the House have also the interests of the landholders at heart, but the interests of all parties must be considered in connection with this matter. According to the Memorandum, the object of the Bill is to restore security of tenure to small holders, but the Bill has not that effect at all. If the Bill had the effect of restoring the position which existed before the Act of 1911, I personally would look at it in a very different light, but it does not do so, and the position is that we are here dealing with Liberal legislation which introduced anomalies into the law of Scotland. The 1886 Act, as far as I can see, was a very sensible Act. It provided that a landlord could only resume occupation of his land if he satisfied the Land Court that he wished to resume for a reasonable purpose. Therefore the onus was upon him to show that he wanted it for a reasonable purpose. One of the provisions of the Act was that certain things should be deemed to be reasonable purposes. What did the Liberal party do? Instead of leaving the matter where it was in the hands of a competent Court, and in a position where no injustice was being done, they enacted in 1911 a Section which provided that, in certain cases, certain things should be deemed to be reasonable purposes, and among other things they provided that

"the feuing of land, or the occupation by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon, of a holding being his only landed estate … shall respectively be deemed a reasonable purpose as aforesaid."

It seems to me a most iniquitous thing that, having had an Act in 1911 which provided that certain things should be deemed to be a reasonable purpose, this Bill should now be introduced suggesting that those same things shall not be deemed to be a reasonable purpose, and that, accordingly, they are not going to be left—

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

It seems to me a most remarkable thing that, having first of all in an Act, introduced by a Liberal Government, enacted that these things shall be deemed to be a reasonable purpose, they are now seeking to make out that they are not reasonable.

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

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 25th November.