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

In asking the House to grant a Second Reading to this Bill, I feel that I am making a very reasonable request, for its, main object is to grant to the solicitors' profession in Scotland the rights and privileges which are at present enjoyed by solicitors both in England and in Ireland. It seeks to give to the profession the right to control its own affairs, and I am sure the House, and certainly all Scottish Members, will agree with me that Scottish solicitors are quite as capable of looking after their own affairs as solicitors in England or Ireland. The Bill sets up two bodies, a General Council and a Discipline Committee. The General Council is to be composed entirely of solicitors who are to be elected by certain constituencies or units. The various legal societies are grouped into units of either single societies or groups of two or more. There are 16 of these units, and there must be at least 16 members on the General Council. There may be more, for this reason. The First Schedule, which makes provision for the election of the council, provides that, if any society or group of societies—that is, any unit—contains under 80 members capable of voting, they are to be entitled to have one representative on the General Council, if there are more than 80 members in any unit but under 200 they are to be entitled to two members, between 200 and 400 they are to be entitled to three, and, if there are more than 400, they are to be entitled to four members. These members are to be elected by the solicitors themselves.

The other body that is to be set up, the Discipline Committee, is to consist of not less than five or more than seven persons who are to be chosen by the Lord President from a panel of names to be submitted by the General Council. The Discipline Committee will have certain definite powers. The provisions with regard to the election of the General Council are in Clause 2 and the First and Second Schedules and the method in which the Discipline Committee is to be set up will he found in Clause 24. The General Council is to regulate the admission and. enrolment of solicitors. It is to make provision for the necessary examination, and Part II shows what is necessary before a man can become a solicitor. He has to have certain qualifications. He must be over 21 years of age, and he must have had an apprenticeship of five years with a practising solicitor. In certain cases the five years may be reduced to three; for instance, in the case of an advocate who desires to become a solicitor, in the case of a barrister at the English Bar and also in the case of an English solicitor and in two other cases where certain degrees have been taken.

The General Council has to make provision for the examination of solicitors in accordance with regulations copies of which are to be transmitted to the Lord President and which come into force 21 days thereafter, so that it rests with the Lord President to see that these rules and regulations are in order. The General Council have to recommend and give a certificate to applicants before they become solicitors. The registration and enrolment of solicitors is at present in the hands of the Registrar of Law Agents. The present Registrar will continue until there is a vacancy. After the first vacancy, the registration will pass into the hands of the General Council.

The Discipline Committee is to have power to deal with cases of any unfortunate action on the part of a solicitor which calls for inquiry. At present anyone can apply to the Court in the case of alleged professional misconduct by a solicitor. The Bill gives the Discipline Committee the right to make the first inquiry into the facts of the case and to say whether there is a case to go to the Court. That seems to me a very reasonable provision which is certainly to the advantage of solicitors, because they will, first of all, be dealt with and judged by their own brethren. No one need fear that the rights of the general public are taken away, because the complainer has a right of appeal from the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Court, and any decision can be appealed against by the solicitor if he considers that he has been unfairly treated. The Discipline Committee is given power to censure and also to impose a fine.

I hope the House will give the Measure a Second Reading. We are seeking to adopt a system which has worked well in England and in Ireland, and it is only reasonable to expect that it will work well in Scotland. I would appeal to my Scottish colleagues to support the Bill, because it is a purely Scottish Measure. We Scottish people always rather like to conduct our own affairs ourselves if possible. Therefore, I say to the House that if you give us a Second Reading the Bill will naturally then go upstairs to the Scottish Standing Committee which, of course, is purely Scottish. There it will receive careful and detailed examination, and, when it has received that detailed examination, it will be clear to all that the Bill is certainly for the benefit, not only of the solicitor profession in Scotland, but also of the general public, because their interests are being safeguarded. There is no doubt that we all want to see the profession conducted in the best manner possible. The profession only want to be able to behave properly. Therefore, I suggest that we ought to give them the power to regulate the affairs of the profession in every detail, not because I think that it has not been the case in the past. The whole outlook of the solicitors has been to keep their profession absolutely clean and pure, and to that extent we are giving a further safeguard to the solicitors in Scotland in dealing with their work, so much of which is of great importance. I appeal to the House, therefore, to give me a Second Reading of the Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

The Bill deals with what has long been one of the most important and indispensable professions in Scotland. It is only right that the solicitors' branch of the legal profession in Scotland should have the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by the profession in England and in Ireland. The Bill has been very fully explained by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith), and I need not take up the time of the House unduly, but I would like to refer to one point embracing both important branches of the Bill. Although powers are being handed over to the solicitors themselves, those powers are to be subject to control by the court. The General Council is to have the power of conducting the examinations of entrants to the profession. At present a board appointed by the courts conducts these examinations, but the regulations for the conduct of the examinations which may be made by the General Council have to receive the approval of the Lord President of the Court of Session. So that there is no reason to doubt that any material change will be made in the standard of qualification necessary to qualify for the carrying on of the profession of solicitor in Scotland.

The setting up of a Discipline Committee is not entirely new. Other professions have this power, and there is no reason why the solicitor profession in Scotland, as in England, should not have a committee to examine into such cases of misconduct as may occur. Luckily in Scotland these are not many, but where misconduct has occurred great expense has been involved upon legal societies in prosecuting before the court and getting the defaulting solicitor struck off the rolls. The object of setting up a Discipline Committee is that a great deal of that expense may be avoided. But again the court has a controlling and overriding power, because if the misconduct, after being investigated, is such that the Discipline Committee think it is so grave as to warrant the solicitor being suspended or struck off the rolls, then the Discipline Committee has to report to the court, and it is the court and not the Discipline Committee which has to make the decision.

The rights of the solicitor brought before the Discipline Committee are fully safeguarded, because if the Discipline Committee consider that the offence is not so grave as to warrant their reporting to the court and they inflict a fine or a censure the right of appeal is given to the solicitor. Similarly, if any member of the public or any other person makes a complaint to the Discipline Committee, and they think that there is not a primâ facie case and do not go on with the full investigation, the complainer has the right of going to the court just as he has at present. So that the rights, not only of the so-called defaulting solicitor, but of any persons who think they have a grievance in respect of any misconduct on the part of the solicitor, are fully safeguarded, just as they are at present. I do not think that it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House further, but I hope that the Government will give the Bill their blessing, and, what is more important, that they will find time for its passage into law.

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

It is a very pleasant thing on this fine Spring morning to be able to turn for a short time from the more important matters of legislation to the question of the protection of trout. The Bill which has just passed its Second Reading dealt with the interests of a very large and important section of the community, but the people who are interested in this Bill are also a large and important fraternity, and, as Izaak Walton said long ago and has been accepted ever since, it is well known that

"all anglers be such honest, quiet, civil men."

There has been legislation in the past on this subject in Scotland, and, in fact, the earliest legislation dates back to the time of James VI when a law was passed

"anent destroyers of Parks, Woods, Plantings, Doweats, Lochs, and Stanks."

Subsequent to that there were two Acts passed, one in the reign of Queen Victoria, and the other in the time of Edward VII. Then we come to 1913, when the angling societies in Scotland thought it desirable that a consolidating Bill should be produced. Consequently, a consolidating Bill was introduced into this House by Lord Dalrymple, but it raised so many points of controversy that it was decided to modify the Bill, and in the following year a modified measure was introduced by Sir John Barran. Then came the War, which of course, stopped all legislation of that nature, and it was not until 1928 that I had the honour of introducing what was then entitled the Fresh Water Fish (Scotland) Bill. That Bill also raised various matters of controversy such as polution and so on, and after consideration it was decided that it would be better to cut out all those controversial matters and reduce the scope of the Bill so as to cover the two most important things which the angling associations in Scotland wished to see dealt with at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, in 1930 I again introduced a modified Bill, known as the Trout (Scotland) Bill. The Bill which I am introducing to-day is the same as that which I introduced in 1928 and also at the close of 1932. It is quite possible that had we some reasonable measure of devolution in Scotland this modest little Bill would have already found its way on to the Statute Book.

The two main objects of the Bill are, first, to alter the date of the commencement of trout fishing. At the present time, trout fishing begins in Scotland on 28th February, but by general consent it is agreed that the 28th February is too early a date. Therefore, it is proposed to make the opening date in future the 14th day of March. The father of fishing, to whom I have referred, said that:

"A man should not in honesty catch a trout till the middle of March."

When we find that in England, and in the south of England, the middle of March is generally accepted as a fair opening date for trout fishing, it will be agreed that in the northern country of Scotland the 14th March will meet the general requirements just as well as in England.

The second point of the Bill is to stop the sale of undersized fish. When the Bill was under consideration and being drafted we found some difficulty in regard to the method that should be adopted to meet, this point. It was first suggested that it should be made an offence to take undersized fish, but it was very soon realised that it would be impossible to carry out such a proposal, also that in many of the hill burns in Scotland the fish are very small indeed and that it would be rediculous to make it an offence for small boys to catch small fish. Therefore, the line on which we decided to proceed was to make it an offence to expose undersized fish for sale. That, I think, is accepted as being a most reasonable way of getting over the difficulty. It so happens that a fish about 7 inches in length is very acceptable to restaurants and hotels. These small fish can be placed on a large platter and handed round, each guest taking one. Where there is a commercial demand for small fish of that size there is no doubt that that commercial demand should be supplied. It has been thought that the best way to meet that point is to make it an offence to expose undersized fish for sale, and the size that has been adopted is 8 inches in length.

If the Bill becomes law we are satisfied that it will improve the trout stock in the rivers in Scotland, improve fishing generally and be of benefit not only to the home anglers but to the strangers from south of the Tweed who come in such great numbers to Scotland to enjoy the trout fishing there. In these days when there is such a strong movement in support of the "Come to Scotland" cry, I think that anything that can be done to improve our fishing there should be looked upon with a welcoming eye. The originators of the Bill—when I say the originators I mean the people who have taken the greatest interest in it and in its drafting—were the late Lord Constable and those well known anglers and delightful writers, Mr. John Stirling and Mr. Henry Lamond. The Bill is sponsored by the Scottish Anglers' Association, a very important association in Scotland, to which a large number of important angling clubs and association are affiliated. The Bill is backed by Members of all parties in this House, and I commend it for speedy passage into law.

I rise with great pleasure to second the Second Reading of the Bill. I usually confine myself in this House to questions of high finance, and it is a delight to change to the most delightful pursuit of supporting a Bill intended to further the gentle art of trout fishing. Lord Grey of Fallodon, a great authority, says that trout fishing develops not only patience but self-control and endurance. I should like to commend the art to many hon. Members. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) might devote a little of his spare time to fishing, because there is no art more likely to lay the foundations for the career of a great statesman than the pursuit of this gentle art.

There are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention in relation to Clause 4. Under the Game Licensing Act of 1860 a person desiring a licence to kill game makes an application to the Justices of the peace, who hold a Special Sessions for that purpose. The Clerk of the Peace keeps a register of licensed dealers in game and that register is available for inspection. I suggest that the same procedure should apply to trout fishing. That point might be borne in mind on the Committee stage. Another suggestion is that Clause 8 should be so drafted that proceedings can be instituted in any court of summary jurisdiction.

I entirely agree as to not making it a penal offence to take out trout that are undersized. Like many other people, I started trout fishing with a stick and a bent pin, and, of course, we do not want to penalise small boys, but every sportsman will agree that it is unsportsmanlike to take out undersized fish and attempt to sell them. This Bill will prevent that in future. With regard to the date for the commencement of trout fishing the proposal to fix the date in March is all to the good. It will improve Scottish fishing. Every fisherman will agree with me—and there are many Members of this House who pursue the art of fishing—there is nothing more discouraging than to take out a fish which is flabby in appearance. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this desirable Measure.

I am a little surprised, but none the less pleased that two members of the Liberal party have shown an interest in this subject and have moved and seconded the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. D. Mason) is not considering mixing up trout with gold fish, because he has a well-known antipathy to anything which is not gold. It is also interesting to notice that members of the Liberal party, who in the past have been inclined to be a little cranky on the question of blood sports, should be introducing a Bill which permits a blood sport. Fishing, after all, is an occupation for the patient, and it is appropriate, therefore, that members of the Liberal party should be introducing this Bill because they have often been called in the past the patient oxen. In spite of all this, however, I heartily welcome the Bill as an English Member, but none the less a Scotsman, because anything which can be done to improve fishing in Scotland is all to the good. The change of date from the 28th February to the 14th March is very desirable. For the North of Scotland which I know best even the 14th March is too early, because not only is the weather beastly as a rule in the early part of the season, but the trout themselves are not in a fit condition to be caught before the 1st April. I should be perfectly happy to support an even later date than the 14th March. Clause 3 (1, a) says:

"He shall not sell to any person in Scotland except a person licensed to deal in trout."

Very often people who are selling trout sell game to the big dealers in the Midlands and in London, and that is a point which may have to be looked into. In Clause 4 the county council is to keep a register, and any officer of constabulary or officer of the Fishery Board may inspect such register of licences. Surely it should be within the right of anybody who wants to sell trout to see the register so that he may know whether the person to whom he is selling the fish is on the register. I think the Bill should be amended in this respect. Speaking as a Scotsman, as a sportsman, and as one interested in fishing, I welcome the Bill, although it comes from such a surprising source. I hope it will receive a Second Reading, will be improved in Committee, and become law at an early date.

I do not object to the main principles of the Bill, but I look in vain to the somewhat uninformative memorandum affixed to the Bill for any justification for the extremely elaborate machinery which is set up in the various clauses, and I listened in vain to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder for any justification for that machinery. I do not know of any other machinery which is like it, and to me it seems totally unnecessary in order to achieve the main purposes of the Bill, which appear to be an alteration of the close time and to restrict the sale of fish under a certain size, both undoubtedly most desirable objects. But I entirely fail to connect these purposes with the machinery which we find in the Bill, and before the House passes the Second Reading I think we are entitled to a fairly full explanation of the reasons which make this machinery necessary.

Let me for a moment examine the machinery proposed, but, before I do so, may I say that as far as my knowledge is concerned there is no corresponding machinery regarding the sale of salmon trout or sea trout, and I see no reason why these fish should not require protection, and why trout should require protection of this character. If you look at Clause 3 you will find that the person who consigns trout to a dealer has not only to furnish his full name and address but he has to append a statement specifying when, where and how, such trout were caught. I shudder to think of some illiterate fishermen being confronted with all these requirements and having to put down on paper how he caught the fish consigned for sale. I fail to understand the meaning of the word "how". Is it sufficient to say that he canght it by means of a rod, or has he to say the kind of fly which he used? It is an example of particularly bad draftsmanship, and I think that paragraph will have to come out altogether.

But let us go on and see what he has to do next. When consigning the trout by means of a carrier he has to put on the outside of the parcel a statement which shall not only say that it contains trout consigned for sale but he has to specify the number and weight of the trout. That will put an intolerable burden on these people. Why should people in respect of trout alone of all merchandise have to give particulars of this kind? If this kind of protection is a good thing—I am glad the Liberal party think that some kind of protection is necessary for somebody, if only for trout—why is it not a good thing for all other kinds of fish, and indeed for all kinds of game which are protected by the Game Laws? We cannot introduce a new and entirely separate code for trout as distinct from salmon or wing game or every other kind of bird, which Parlia- ment has in the past sought to protect against the depredations of those who are not true sportsmen.

Let us go on to see how these requirements are to be backed up by sanctions. We find that any officer of a market authority or any officer of police may open any package that is consigned which is suspected to contain trout. That is putting an impossible burden upon a police officer. How is he to suspect that the package contains trout? Is it to be by smell; or how is it to be done? This is an attempt to put upon police officers, whose duties are multifarious and difficult enough, already a duty which cannot possibly be carried out and which will become a dead letter from the moment it is enacted, because it is quite impracticable. It may be a good thing to provide things that look nice in Acts of Parliament. Personally, I do not think it is. It is the function of this House to pass Acts of Parliament which are going to work and not Acts which are going to look nice. I beg the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading to say that he is prepared to drop all this elaborate machinery. If he is not I think that some of us will have to think very closely whether or not we can give a Second Reading to a Bill which is mixed up with things of this kind.

Then again a police officer may detain any package of that kind, but as it is obvious that if he detains a package of that kind the trout will be quite unusable, the Bill is good enough to go on and say that when the trout become unfit for human food the package may be destroyed. That will happen in any case. Surely it would be very much easier for the Bill to say that in every case where a package is suspected it has to be destroyed straightaway. Do not let us have any humbug about keeping it until the time when the fish become unfit for human food. Then we have in Clause 4 another thing to which I thoroughly object, namely, a licence solely for the purpose of selling trout. If I mistake not, there is already a game licence in operation, and I should have expected that the Bill would provide that any dealer who already held a game licence required no further licence. But apparently that is not so. He will have to pay an extra 10s. for a trout licence. I can conceive of no possible justification for elaborating and duplicating licences in that way.

Moreover the licensee has quite intolerable burdens put upon him under Clause 5. The holder of the licence has to keep a book and to put in it particulars of every parcel of trout, not only the date and the names and particulars of the people by whom the trout were sent, but the number and weight of the trout of each consignment. Can one imagine a thing of that sort being carried out properly by a country butcher or fishmonger It is the one type of merchandise, fish or flesh, in respect of which any such proposals have ever been suggested. To try to introduce elaborate provisions of this sort, which so far as has been explained serve no useful purpose whatever, is going far beyond anything that the House will authorise.

I am completely in the dark in the matter, but it looks to me as though the framers of this Bill thought that any commercial dealings in trout were a thoroughly bad thing. They do not like to say in the Bill that no trout may be sold; they thought that that would be going too far; but they have achieved the same object by tying up the sale of trout in such elaborate restrictions that in point of fact no trout ever will be sold within the law. It will be sold surreptitiously outside the Bill, but if the provision of the Bill were followed they would stop all commercial dealings in trout, because the difficulty of carrying out the provisions is so great compared with any profit that might result from the sale of trout as a commercial proposition. If the Mover of the Second Reading really thinks that trout ought not to be sold in the market, let him get up and say so, and let him put that into the Bill. If he does not think that, let him tell us that he is willing to withdraw all these vexatious restrictions. We are entitled to have it one way or the other.

Police constables are to be given very large powers of search, not only of parcels, to which I have referred, but of un-offending individuals, without a warrant. Look at Clause 7. Any police constable may, without a special warrant, "search any person found in or upon any river, water or loch or in any enclosed or unenclosed ground;" that is to say found anywhere at all in Scotland. The constable is to be entitled to search if he has cause to suspect a person of possessing any trout taken in contravention of the provisions of the Bill. That appears to me to provide that any angler who is going about may be liable to search. I do not understand the Clause myself, and I hope it will be explained to us. The police already have quite adequate powers of search to prevent criminal offences, and to discover them after they have been committed, but to put in elaborate and ill-thought-out provisions of this kind without any explanation at all, is rather trespassing on the patience of the House, and in effect is asking us to buy a pig in a poke. Personally I do not want to be in the least obstructive. I do not want to divide the House against the Bill but I do think that I and others are entitled to have a much fuller explanation of the machinery of the Bill, as distinct from its general provisions, before we are asked to assent to its passage.

Though I do not represent a Scottish seat I do, as a humble member of the fraternity to which the hon. Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton) referred, wish to support the Bill. It strikes me as being not only a humble but a meagre Bill. The Bill does not say that it will be illegal to take trout under age; it says only that it will be illegal to sell trout under age. No respectable fisherman fishing on respectable water would ever think of taking out a trout of that size.

The Bill says "expose" trout. Have we not both often exposed trout?

The hon. and gallant Member is facetious but his remark does not alter the point. The phrase in the Bill is "expose for sale". In the Trent Conservancy Board area, a very large watershed, and in the Severn area, both of which I know very well, it is illegal to take a trout under nine inches. The hon. Member opposite spoke in feeling terms about the small boy fishing in the Highland burn. Nobody desires that he should not be able to catch his fish, but I do not think that is quite the standard to apply to a whole county. A hill stream in Caithness, for example, is no criterion of the conditions which ought to apply to larger rivers. If the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill will consider Amendments in Committee to deal with that point he will be doing a service to the fishing community.

As I have said, I have no vested interest in Scottish fishing, but I have an occasional interest, because I fish from time to time in Scotland, and I have no desire that my predatory countrymen should kill off the young trout before the rest of us can get there. A young fish is much easier to catch than one which has reached years of maturity. If these 8-inch troutlings were allowed to grow to 10 inches, there would be more difficulty in catching them, but there would be a great deal more fun in the process. There is a definite financial interest involved in this matter. I do not know how many hon. Members are acquainted with the Welsh waters. In Wales, miles from anywhere, there is excellent trout water which has been spoiled by over-fishing and failure to restock, but, particularly, because it has been the national fashion to take out immature trout. Thus, a great potential source of wealth is bringing in no money at all, because people do not go to fish in the Welsh waters. Were it otherwise, this fishing would be a valuable asset.

With regard to the question of the date, I do not attach great importance to that, and I think the House might accept 14th March as suggested in the Bill. In the Trent Valley the opening date of the season is, I think, 15th March, and in the Severn area, dominated by the Lord President of the Council, the season opens on 2nd March. Whether that indicates that the men of Worcestershire have Scottish charactristics or not, I cannot say, but I do not think there is much practical difference involved, because a man fishing with a fly is very lucky if he gets many trout before 1st April, and the man fishing with a worm ought not to be encouraged, while the netter ought to be driven out of any civilised community.

As to the hon. Member who subjected the Bill to such a great deal of criticism, I wish he could have been a little more friendly. It seems to me that he went out of his way to make difficulties. One of the difficulties which he suggested was that of a policeman not knowing when to suspect that a bag might contain trout. I have often seen a policeman inspecting a very ordinary bag in a village street, because he suspected that it contained rabbits, and what the hon. Member forgets is that trout-fishing is not done in back gardens but in rivers, lochs or estuaries where very frequently there are water bailiffs. In any case, the local policeman generally knows what is happening within his own range and, apart from all that, there is the moral sanction, the moral effect of making this thing illegal, which, I believe, would do a great deal to change the habits of my countrymen in this respect.

I do not wish to oppose the Bill, and I am in agreement with its object as set out in the very brief Memorandum which accompanies it, but I feel that there is a great deal in what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. J. Duncan). If this Bill goes to Committee an effort should be made to make its provisions less vexatious. As it stands at present, it appears to me that the Bill may give rise to a considerable amount of evasion. There is the point of view of the licensed dealer in trout who accepts fish for sale. I quite agree with the hon. Member in thinking that the existing system ought to be quite adequate, and I think that, as far as possible, the provisions in the latter part of Clause 3 of the Bill should be made As easy of application as possible rather than more difficult. For example, there is the provision requiring a statement specifying when, where and how such trout were caught. It must be clear that such a provision will give rise to a great deal of trouble to the ordinary fisherman who is merely out to enjoy himself and who, after a successful day's fishing, may wish to dispose of some of the proceeds in order to help to pay his expenses.

I also take exception to the power of search which seems unnecessarily severe. It is proposed to give the police powers which might on occasion give rise to a good deal of ill-feeling. It has just been said that the local constable is generally in touch with the people in his own district who are likely to go fishing, and I agree that in most places that is so. On the other hand, there are some centres in the North, on the Spey, for example, to which visitors go during every holiday season for the fishing and those visitors cannot possibly be known to the local police officers. To empower any policeman to search any person whom he may suspect of having been fishing for trout seems to be going very far. The only possible justification that I can see for it is to be found in the words,

"any police constable may without special warrant search any person found in or upon any river, water or loch."

If I were "in any river, water or loch," I should be very much indebted to the policeman who came to search me. As I say, I am in agreement with the object of the Bill and have no desire to see it killed. At the same time, I hope that if it receives a Second Reading everything possible will be done in Committee to make it easier to work and to avoid the vexatious restrictions to which I have referred. I hope also that steps will be taken to see that visitors to a district for holiday fishing are not subjected to too strict a watch by the police for no reason whatever.

I am in general agreement with the intentions of the Bill as expressed by my hon. Friend, but, like other hon. Members, I am doubtful about the machinery by which he proposes to give effect to it, and it is our duty to examine that machinery carefully. There does not appear to be any exemption under Clause 3 from the risk of penalty for exposing for sale trout under 8 inches in length. There is a considerable industry in Scotland in connection with trout hatcheries. How does this Clause affect that matter?

The Bill specifies that the fish must be exposed for sale for food purposes.

If that wording proves, in practice, a safeguard it would meet my point. The hon. Member said he did not propose to impose any penalty for the taking of fish under 8 inches in length, but in Clause 6 of the Bill he goes very near doing so. There it is laid down:

"It shall be lawful for any officer of police to seize and detain any boat, net, or article of any kind or description, used or intended to be used in the commission of any offence against this Act. …"

It seems to me that the only offence of that description which could be committed would be that of catching a fish of less than eight inches in length.

Fishing in the Close season.

That may be the intention of the hon. Member, but I am taking the words of his Clause. It seems to me a very wide provision indeed. I pass to Clause 9, and I am not at all sure that the hon. Member, in spite of all his machinery, has succeeded in making his interpretation watertight, because while he says that trout shall

"include all trout by whatsoever name called,"

there is a number of exceptions, including trout known "by other local name." It is very difficult, I think, to interpret that Clause in practice. There is the general criticism of this machinery that if the proposals for restriction, and so on, are too elaborate, they will defeat their own ends. The hon. Member who spoke just now referred to the by-laws in force in Wales, I think, in regard to certain rivers there, but I suggest that what may be appropriate for a. local by-law, where you may, for the benefit of the fish and the fishermen, have a very definite limit of length of fish, which may be taken, may not necessarily be appropriate in legislation for the whole of Scotland.

I was speaking of the great watersheds of the Severn and Trent, which can scarcely be described as covered by local by-laws.

I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend, but my own view is that such descriptions as might be applicable to a loch or a particular river might not be appropriate when you come to legislate for the whole of Scotland. It is on those grounds that I feel some doubt as to whether my hon. Friend has in fact provided suitable machinery for the very admirable purpose of extending the close season and prohibiting as far as possible the sale of these small trout, because there can be no doubt that the efficient protection of small fish of whatever species is essential if we are not to run the risk of losing the supply of that fish, whether it be fresh-water fish or sea fish. There is only one other question that I would like to ask my hon. Friend, and that is whether there is in fact any precedent for these restrictions which he is seeking to impose. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Acts dealing with the sale of salmon to know whether they are on similar lines, but it would undoubtedly strenthen his case if that were so, otherwise it seems that we are seeking to impose very considerable restrictions on a number of people for what, after all, may be an important object, but not, I think, an object of sufficient importance to warrant us in creating a number of new offences, which we should be very chary of doing. If my hon. Friend can say that the provisions here are in line with what has already been enacted for the purpose of protecting and limiting the sale of salmon, it would make me more willing than am to support the Bill on its Second Reading.

I do not apologise for intervening in a debate on a Scottish Bill, but I hope the House will give me every consideration in joining in a subject about which, in a sense perhaps, I have not the same facility for talking as have all those who have preceded me. I come of a most accurate and careful race, and the discussion of fish becomes much more difficult, therefore, to me than it would be to Scottish people, but it is interesting to notice that we are having this peculiar Encouragement of Blood Sports Bill simply because of the luck of the ballot, a Bill that is very different in every respect from that which came before it and that which follows it on the Order Paper. It is preceded by the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill and followed by the Banditry Bill, two quite similar Bills possibly, but this Bill at any rate is violently different in every way.

I would like to congratulate most sincerely the promoters of this Bill, who are, if I may say so, a very mixed crowd, on doing something to try to get what can only be called one of the blood sports into some sort of orderly fashion in Scotland. I would like to call attention to the fact that not only were the Mover and the Seconder of the Second Reading both Liberals, but that one of the most prominent names on the back of the Bill, possibly the most prominent, if I may so so without offence, is that of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). It is really nice to think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs is changing his habits. I am sorry he is not here, but the other day he was becoming the leading supporter of the Government, and to-day he is a supporter of a Blood Sports Bill. I think those of us who come down here on a Friday afternoon and find these things happening must congratulate ourselves that this House of Commons has a marvellous capacity for widening the outlook of its Members.

The fact of the Liberal party promoting a Blood Sports Bill is one of the nicest things that has happened for a long time, particularly when we think of so peculiar a Member of the Liberal party as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), supported by an even more peculiar Liberal Member for one of the Scottish divisions, solemnly coming down here and devoting their time and energy to the constructive Liberalism of promoting a Blood Sports Bill on a Friday afternoon. I congratulate the Liberal party also on having at last found one thing on which two Liberal Members can agree. May I further congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on coming down here in a very fit and proper spirit? A very interesting feature of the Debate is that we are being told by one Scotsman after another that if you are to have anything good, you must come to England for it. This is a most becoming thing for Scotsmen, and they are really giving me some hope of progress. What did the hon. Member say in introducing the Bill? The basis of his argument, very largely, was that, having become acquainted with the literature of the great sister nation of England, he had discovered a gentleman who was born about the year 1593, somewhere in the centre of England, called Walton; and the hon Member, I can assure the House, was on this occasion absolutely accurate when he called him "the father of fishing." But how becoming for a Scotsman to take as his example an Englishman; how very nice, how very pleasant; and I am sure he did it looking across to this side of the House so that he might get the support of any Englishman here. The proposer of the Bill, it may not be known, possibly, to all Members of the House, at one time took a prominent part in destroying grey seals.

I took a prominent part in helping to pass a Bill for the protection of grey seals.

But if you take protection too far, as the Liberals tell us, it always kills itself. If you take the protection of grey seals too far, it is fatal. I am glad of the interruption, because I gather that the real object is to deprive human beings in the towns of fish, in order that its friends, the grey seals, may have rather more, if possible. I leave it at that.

I come to the Bill, and to a remark of my hon. Friend sitting behind the Treasury Bench. I do think that, especially for the Highlands of Scotland, the date of the close season, 14th March, is rather early, and that it might really go on another fortnight. I am not altogether innocent of fishing in Scotland, and I feel that there is a very strong case, both from the point of view of the condition of the fish, and also because of the fact that until early in April it is very difficult, at any rate in the Highlands, to get very much with fly. I would therefore ask whether a later close season would not be a good thing, and that at least another week should be given. There is another point I would raise. It is no use stopping the sale of this fish in Scotland if you are not going to prohibit its sale in England. It is not right that it should be prohibited in a Scottish town if it can be sold quite freely and easily in an English town. I have always taken the side of the Scots in everything fair and right, and I say that on this occasion it is up to some of us to see that the position is made absolutely impartial.

There is one further point, and that is on Clause 9. There, I think, you have got into rather the danger which is becoming increasingly obvious in much of our legislation, that of putting too much in a Bill. I have often heard skilled lawyers say that you must not overdo the definition part of a Bill. So far as I read the Clause, there may be something in it which will make the law less watertight than is desired, and I would recommend, most humbly and respectfully, that in this, and even some of the previous Clauses possibly, in the Scottish Standing Committee the Bill might be simplified very considerably. One of my hon. Friends has pointed out the large number of Committee points in regard to this Bill. It is always said that Tories are probably Liberal on one point. My hon. Friend undoubtedly exposed his one Liberal point to-day. He made a speech which was very excellent in many ways, but it was rather like a cantankerous Liberal speech in picking out little holes. I am sure that he has never made a speech like it before, and I hope that he never will again. I hope that the House this afternoon will look on the wider and broader lines of the Bill, and recognise that it does, on the whole, do something to encourage a very valuable part of our great sister nation north of the Tweed. There you have an extraordinary capacity for development if some help and encouragement are given in this way. I hope that Members of the House, whether they come from north or south of the Tweed, realising that, will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I trust that in Committee it will be dealt with in an expeditious way. Therefore, I recommend that it might possibly be sent to an English Committee, so that the proceedings may be shortened and the Bill improved.

I am sure that the House will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on his fortune in the Ballot which, after many years persistency in this matter, has today given him the opening for which he has sought for years past. The Debate has ranged over the Bill, and we have had certain criticisms directed against certain Clauses. I suggest that those are points for consideration on the Committee stage of the Bill. I have risen to say, on behalf of the Government, that we welcome this Bill. It is a, modest Bill, but it is a Bill in the right direction. Many hon. Members have discussed, with more knowledge than I possess, the question of the exact date of the close time at the beginning of the season. I am advised that the close time could with advantage be extended further than the Bill proposes. In the majority of districts, I understand, the 21st March would be none too late for the opening of the fishing. On the other hand, I understand that 14th March, the date suggested in the Bill, may be regarded as a reasonable compromise, and the hon. Member, having tried for so long to get this Bill through, may feel that we should stick to the exact date incorporated in the Bill. But there are also good grounds for the view that the open season should be curtailed at the other end, also.

I throw out these points for the consideration of my hon. Friend when the Bill reaches, as I hope, the Committee stage. The B ill itself does nut propose any size limit at which fish may be legally caught, and while the different circumstances of the numerous rivers and streams in Scotland may make it difficult to impose a uniform size limit for general application, I suggest to my hon. Friend whether it might not be worth considering inserting in the Bill a provision giving the local authorities power to draft by-laws to meet the various necessities of the different rivers in Scotland. With regard to the proposal which was touched on by several hon. Members that there should be a limit during which trout may be sold, the question arises whether the period during which it is proposed that it may be sold should be restricted both at the beginning and the end of the season. It has been suggested that the season during which trout may be sold should be restricted to the period from the 1st April to the end of August of each year.

Provisions with regard to licences to deal in trout are new to Scottish fishery law, but in my opinion they will substantially assist in the prevention of poaching. On that ground, I regard them as worthy of support, although some minor amendments may be necessary. The Bill, as the hon. Member who introduced it reminded the House, has been supported by the Scottish Anglers' Association. He advocated the Bill on that ground and also on the merits of the case. He observed that if the Bill passed into law the "Come to Scotland" movement might be increased. We hope that that will be one of the results of the Measure. It is a modest Bill, and on behalf of the Government I have pleasure in supporting it and asking my colleagues to give it a Second Reading, so that the various points which have been brought up to-day may be considered upstairs on the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

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

I trust that the House will give me a few moments on this beautiful day to explain this Bill and to give it a Second Reading so that it may go to a Committee upstairs. To-day we have been treated to a real Scottish feast. We have been preventing bandits among solicitors and stopping bandits catching trout, and I think that it will be quite proper that we should ask the Scottish Members present to give us their support to stop the motor bandit in England. I do not think that it is out of place, therefore, if I explain what induced my hon. Friends and I, whose names are on the back of the Bill, to introduce it. It must be common knowledge to every hon Member that crimes have been on the increase during the last few years, particularly crimes of violence. These crimes of violence have frequently been associated with mechanically propelled vehicles, otherwise motor cars. Smash and grab raids which have taken place so frequently in our large cities have only been made possible by motor vehicles and a rapid get-away. It is a peculiarly cowardly form of crime because it places law and order at a great disadvantage.

It will be known to the House how these crimes are perpetrated. They are very elaborately organised. The gang that intends to smash a jewellery shop window puts out its scouts and then brings along a motor-car crawling along a street. At a given moment the shop window is broken and a grab is made at the jewellery trays, and a get-away by means of the motor car is effected. The police have very little opportunity of dealing with a case of that kind, because it is always so carefully planned and organised that very often there is no policeman on duty at the spot at the time, and by the time the police arrive the motor-car is many miles away. Another crime which is on the increase in assocation with motor-cars is that of the hold-up of motor-cars on the high road. This again is a peculiarly cowardly form of crime, because it is mostly a crime of violence and takes advantage of someone who is in the cramped posi- tion of driving a motor-car, or people are held up to give succour to people whom they think are injured. As a result, an unfair advantage is taken of the victim. This Bill has been drafted in order that the police may meet this type of case. Its long Title gives a complete description of what it means. It says that it is to

"Provide for the more effectual prevention of banditry by and against persons using mechanically-propelled vehicles and to provide the police with additional powers; and to amend the law for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."

I should like to make it clear that the presenters of the Bill have no criticism of the police for the action that the police have taken in endeavouring to prevent these crimes or to capture the criminals after the crime has been committed. We believe that the police have done their best with the facilities at their disposal, and by passing this Bill we hope to help the police in the execution of their duty. It has only three main Clauses. To-day we have taken 50 Clauses to keep the solicitors of Scotland clean and pure, and 11 to control trout fishing, but I am asking the House for only three Clauses to assist in the prevention of the crimes of banditry. The first Clause gives the police outside the Metropolitan area the power of searching motor vehicles. We have heard to-day a good deal about the searching of bags of trout. The powers of searching vehicles of all kinds was given to the Metropolitan police under the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839, and it seems illogical that that power should not be extended to the police all over the country. The value of it must be obvious, because, if the police are not entitled to stop a motor car and search for contraband or other proceeds of a robbery, they are placed at a great disadvantage in dealing with crimes for which motor vehicles have been used.

The second Clause gives powers to the police to block up roads by barricades. The type of criminal associated with motor banditry is peculiarly violent. He takes all sorts of risks and would never hesitate to run over a man if that man attempted to stop him. He does hesitate, however, to run into a substantial barricade, and the only way by which you can give any warning that a gang of bandits are escaping in a high-powered vehicle, and the only effective way by which the police can stop them from making a getaway is to put a substantial barrier across the road. I am advised that no such power exists to-day on the part of the police. At least, it is very doubtful whether they would put any barricades across a road. I believe they would find it immensely to their advantage, not only in catching raiders of this kind, but also in preventing the escape of prisoners from gaol, and in other ways. It will be no disadvantage to the motoring community as a whole, because if a barricade is put across the road a notice and warning must be put up on each side of it.

The third Clause, which is perhaps the most important one, increases the penalties for offences by persons using mechanically-propelled vehicles. This is the Clause which, I suppose, will be the most criticised. Obviously we cannot go on allowing the criminal class to take advantage of such a wonderful and beneficient new invention as the motor car; greater penalties must be imposed upon anybody who misuses this wonderful invention in order to commit a crime. When firearms were introduced into this country the Firearms Act was passed imposing a more severe penalty on anyone who perpetrated a crime of violence by the use of a firearm than on one who used a bludgeon, and I suggest that anyone who abuses the greater facilities which mechanically-propelled vehicles afford for the commission of a crime should also be more severely dealt with. After all, we only propose to give the magistrate an extra power of imposing a penalty to that which he already possesses. If it is found that a crime is committed by the direct aid and use of a mechanically-propelled vehicle then the magistrate will have it within his power to order an additional whipping to the whipping he can already impose for a crime of violence. I think most of us realise that criminals of this class, who perpetrate crimes of cowardly violence, really fear only one thing. They do not much mind being "put away for a long stretch"; experience has shown that what they really dislike and fear is physical pain, and if we consider the matter we must appreciate that such crimes as these justify such a punishment being inflicted.

Take the case of the hold-up of a woman who is driving a car along a dark road by a man who pretends that he is injured and wants help. As soon as the woman has drawn up she finds herself hit over the head with a bludgeon or held to ransom. That is a very cowardly form of crime, and the only way to protect women who drive motor cars, and to preserve to them the free right of the road, is to say that any man who does that sort of thing shall be subjected to a whipping. That is really the purpose of this Bill. I have described it very shortly, and it will take hon. Members only a few minutes to read it for themselves. It is a genuine effort on our part to assist the authorities to preserve law and order in the country. There have been too many of these crimes of violence carried out with the aid of motorcars, and it is now time that steps should be taken to assist the police to prevent them and to see that the criminal is punished if found guilty. I hope the House will be as generous to this Bill as it has been to its two predecessors, and give it a Second Reading, and if any Amendments are necessary they can easily be inserted in Committee upstairs.

I beg to second the Motion.

I do this with some confidence because the object of the Bill is solely to support the police. It is brought forward in no spirit of criticism of the police whatever. We feel that the police have their hands very largely tied. There is so much they know and so little they can do in dealing with these eases. My hon. Friend has pointed out how the introduction of the motor-car has revolutionised crime by affording greater opportunities for it, and the use of the motor-car as an antidote to crime has hitherto not been very successful. I support this Bill for many reasons, but possibly the reason which will most commend itself to hon. Members is to be found in the individual knowledge which each of us has of how such a Bill can benefit motorists. In my own domestic circle life has been very largely reorganised by reason of this banditry. My wife, a most courageous woman, has frequently taken a car over to France alone and driven it about, but she does not like doing it in England after dark—does not like it at all.

Take the situation, of my own house. To walk after dark from Belgrave Square along Halkin Street into Lowndes Street, where I live, is a thing that no woman alone dare do. It would be a most foolish thing to do. Any number of crimes have been committed just in that area, and nearly always in the same way. A woman is walking alone, carrying her handbag; a car comes up very slowly; a man jumps out and snatches the bag. If there is the slightest resistance he deals the woman a most cruel, cowardly and crippling blow, and then leaps into the car, which accelerates, and he is gone. That kind of thing is happening continually all over the country. I read only yesterday of a domestic servant who is still, I believe, in danger of her life as the result of an attack by bandits—all for the sum of 10s. Unless something is done we shall be reduced by fear and terrorism to the state of affairs which exists in some cities in the United States. They have been brought to that state of terrorism through gunmen. In the early stages they would always shoot, but now they have succeeded in bringing things to such a pitch that they never need shoot, because the public will deliver up the goods, or do whatever the gunmen tell them, merely as a result of the ascendancy which the gunmen have achieved.

That is the position at which we are arriving in this country through this form of banditry. Every woman will naturally protect her belongings, although if she had time to think it over for a moment she would willingly give up her bag and its contents to these men sooner than run risks. In this connection I would specially point out the advantages of certain Clauses of the Bill in cases of robbery with menaces, because it is not the blow itself the woman fears, it is the continual sense of fear, this continual terror which makes her feel that she cannot walk out alone after dark without the possibility of something happening to her. In the case, too, of those of us who live in the country, our whole domestic life has had to be altered. People talk about the lack of domestic servants. We cannot get servants because many of them fear to live in the country. They dare not be in a house where they have to walk a mile or two along a lane to get to an omnibus or the post office. With regard to the object of the Bill, there may be other intentions, but my purpose as an individual in supporting it is to give protection to women and children throughout the country who are now living, many of them, in a state of complete terror of what may happen if they go out alone after dark.

I will not say much further, because my hon. Friend has mentioned practically everything that can be said in connection with the Bill. I agree that the Bill is probably in rather rough shape, and it is highly probable that the Under-Secretary may point out that there are certain defects in it. No doubt there are. It may be that many of these Clauses, in particular Clause 3, contain provisions that are already covered by existing legislation; possibly they are. We are not suggesting that they are not, but what we feel is that it is high time that extra legislation were introduced for the sole purpose of stopping such crime.

The Under-Secretary may say that the figures for the last period show that there is a decrease; that may be. I sincerely trust that he is not satisfied by that, if he is going to say such a thing. These brutal bandits—many of them are brutes—are sent to prison for a very short time. I am always very sorry for the police, who, with great difficulty and great danger to themselves, round up these dangerous criminals, who will then be sent to prison for a totally inadequate period. While they are in prison, what do they do? They are quite well, and they are well looked after, and they take the opportunity of laying more plans and of improving their technique, so that they can enlarge their sphere of operations when they get out. If there has been a slight diminution in these crimes, we can be perfectly certain that, if nothing is done, a larger wave of crime will be coming in the near future.

I will say no more, except to ask the House to allow the Bill to go through on Second Reading, so that later on, in the Committee stage, such defects as there are may be made good. I trust that the Bill will be accepted. There are very few hon. Members in the House at the moment, but I am sure that many would be able to give instances of the effects that the Bill would have. I am sure that in its final shape it would be of great assistance in putting down what threatens to become a terror throughout the country.

I wish to support this Bill in order that it may go to Committee and there be carefully considered. The subject of banditry is one that played a large part in our social history during the eighteenth century. There was a time when banditry was very prevalent in and round the House of Commons. We are all aware that the signal for departure, when we finish our business in this House, is the cry, "Who goes home?" The historical explanation of that cry is that there were so many bandits in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament that it was the custom of Members to make up groups and go home together, to protect themselves from the banditti. Round about the City of London, and throughout the whole of the Metropolis, there were remarkable cases of successful banditry constantly taking place. It may interest the House if I give one or two historical details.

Horace Walpole, who lived in Arlington Street, describes his being awakened on one occasion at night by bandits operating in Piccadilly at the end of Arlington Street. On one occasion George IV, when he was Prince Regent, was going home with a group of friends when he was stopped in Hay Hill by bandits. I regret to say that George IV and his friends were not able to muster half-a-crown between them to give the bandits. Many hon. Members may be familiar with the bar that stands, or used to stand, in the passage between Lansdowne House and the adjoining house. That bar was placed there to prevent highwaymen from coming along the passage, and so that a horse could not pass along. When Sadlers Wells Theatre was founded, the theatre put out bills on the walls stating that people coming from the West End of London to Islington to attend the performances at Sadlers Wells would be protected by mounted horsemen, who would parade the road between Sadlers Wells and the West End of London.

That was the state of things in London in the eighteenth century and in the early part of the nineteenth century. Now we have a kind of revival of it. The invention of the motor-car has produced a class of men who have practically returned to the practices of the old days. What stopped the banditry of former times was mainly the substitution of railways for coaches. When the railways were established and people ceased to travel by coach, the opportunities of the bandits were very largely brought to an end. The establishment of the police force by Sir Robert Peel also had an important effect in bringing to an end the banditry of former times. I candidly confess that flogging is a distasteful thing, but it is possible that it might be a good thing to try the effect of flogging on those bandits who are now one of the curses of our social life. In the hope that the Bill may be discussed fully in Committee, I have pleasure in supporting it.

When my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) invited me to join him in supporting this Bill, I accepted the invitation with great pleasure, but that did not mean that I endorse verbatim the precise proposals. What I feel very strongly is that there is a problem to be solved. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to tell us that in the last few months there has been some improvement. I believe that that is true. The police have been making special efforts, and there has been a definite diminution in crimes of violence associated with motor-cars. Nevertheless, it is a sad thing in this country that the courtesy of the road that I remember as a boy has gone, when the person in the passing vehicle would frequently offer you a lift if you were walking. That does not happen to-day, because people dare not do it. I remember one night going home from this House to Putney, where I live, about 2 o'clock in the morning. It was raining in torrents. Halfway home I overtook a man walking along without an umbrella. I offered him a lift. He refused. He was obviously alarmed and pursued his way in the rain. It is an appalling thing that, in our capital city, a man is afraid to accept the courtesy that anybody is willing to offer because of the outrages that have occurred.

I remember on another occasion when I was Member for Reading driving back from Reading to London. I sat in the front, driving, and in the car behind me were my wife and the chairman of my organisation, who happened to be 6 ft. 4 in. tall and broad in proportion. As we got to Wokingham two men stood out in the road and signalled. I pulled up and got out, and I said, "What is the matter?" I thought that there was something the matter. They said, "Can you give us a life into Wokingham?" I said, "I am sorry. There are two of you, and my car only holds four, and there are three of us in here already." Their enthusiasm for the lift diminished, especially as they observed from the corner of their eye the size of my chairman. I said, "It is only three quarters of a mile to Wokingham. It is a fine night. Why don't you walk?" They gave some excuse and went away. If I had been alone and I had given them a lift, one of them would have sat behind and the other alongside of me, and I probably should not be addressing the House this afternoon. That is the kind of thing that is constantly happening.

I could give the experience of a friend of mine who was driving at night and who had been a, little careless about his petrol supply, which had run out. He stood at the side of the road to signal to passing motorists to see if anyone could lend him a small quantity of petrol, enough to carry him on to the nearest garage; but it was an hour before he could persuade anyone to stop, because they thought he was one of those gentlemen with whom we are trying to deal in this Bill. Eventually someone did stop, and said, "What do you want No tricks." He said he would let my friend have some petrol, and, while he was pouring the petrol into the car, the man stood over him with a spanner in order to make quite sure. That is an appalling state of affairs to exist in our country.

Again, a little time ago a lady told me of a friend of hers—the modem young lady is, perhaps, a little too courageous—who was driving herself home from a dance. She was told that it was perhaps a little unwise to do so, and she said, "Oh, it will be all right. At any rate, I will put the starting handle on the seat beside me." On her way she was stopped by someone who appeared to be in distress; a man came to the side window and grabbed her necklace. She grabbed the starting handle and hit him in the face, and he fell back. On reaching the nearest town, she reported to the police the loss of her necklace, and the constable said he would go back with her. They drove back, and, on reaching the spot, found that her defence had been only too successful, for the bandit was dead.

If these things are happening, as they are, and great numbers of our citizens are afraid to travel at night across lonely places; if, as was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden), many ladies are afraid to go out in a car alone at all at night; if the courtesy of the road has been completely abolished, and if the police, with their existing powers, despite their magnificent efforts, are not able to deal with the situation, then, clearly, in my opinion, the time has come for the passing of some Measure whether this or another, to give the police the necessary effective powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) is one of the kindest-hearted men in the world, and the fact that a man of his gentle temperament can stand up and say that it would be worth while trying a little whipping indicates the real feeling that exists. Everyone knows that the bandit is invariably a coward. The man who tries to live by violence in this way is invariably a coward, and the one thing that terrifies him is the possibility of his own hide being hurt. Therefore, I should not have the slightest hesitation in supporting a Clause which made it, not optional, but in general obligatory on those whose duty it is to administer the law, to see that people who are guilty of this kind of crime are subjected to pains and penalties of a kind that they would not like. For these reasons, and for others with which I will not weary the House, I hope that the Under-Secretary, even if he feels called upon to say that this Bill is not acceptable, will indicate that the Home Office are prepared in due course to take steps to arm our police with the necessary powers to protect law-abiding citizens from these outrages to which at the present moment they are unnecessarily exposed.

My first feeling, on reading this Bill, was one of protest, as I noticed that Clause 4 stipulates that the Bill shall not apply to Scotland. But, on pondering over the matter, I quickly saw that this was in effect a subtle compliment, because it showed one of two things—either that our people in Scotland had naturally a more honest outlook on life than was the case in England, or that our police were much more effective and did not need the assistance of such a Bill as this. Therefore, I withdraw my protest, and would like to deal with the effect of the Bill in regard to the country for which it is intended, namely, England. My criticisms are on points on which, no doubt, alterations can be made in Committee.

I fully support the Bill, and, indeed, think that it is overdue. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said, the growth of this spirit of violence, and the ease with which it can be put into effect, have undoubtedly taken away something on which we especially prided ourselves—the chivalry of the road. Every one of us has had experience of the kindness which one used to be accustomed to receive from motorists, or to extend as a motorist oneself. Its place has been taken by a suspicion, mistrust and hatred which is eating at the best of our national life. If the police require such additional help as is mentioned in this Bill, I think they should certainly have it, and, in fact, I think the House would be wise to pass any Measure within reason that will remove from our midst this menace and this danger to our women and girls.

There is a provision in Clause 2 of the Bill which strikes me as likely to defeat its own purpose. It says that the police shall be allowed to put any apparatus across a highway for the purpose of preventing the passage of any mechanically-propelled vehicle in which there is reason to suspect that persons who have committed an offence under the Larceny Act, 1916, are travelling, and it goes on to say:

"provided that reasonable measures are taken to warn traffic approaching within one hundred yards of such apparatus of its existence and nature."

Surely, if the police feel compelled to do that—