My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Peel, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper agreeing with the Commons in the modifications they have made in the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order. It looks rather more formidable than it really is and perhaps the procedure requires a word of explanation. The Order in question does not take effect until it is approved by both Houses. Your Lordships approved the Order after it had been referred to a Select Committee, with one modification, which is incorporated in the modifications you are now asked to approve. After your Lordships had approved the Order, it came up for approval in the House of Commons, the Motion being made to approve the Order in exactly the same form as passed by your Lordships' House. But in the House of Commons the Motion to approve the Order was amended by further modifications, which the Motion I now move asks your Lordships also to approve.

If this Motion is not carried, the result will be that the Order has been approved by your Lordships' House in one form and by the House of Commons in another form. No Order can take effect until it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament in the same form. The effect of this Motion is to give your Lordships' approval to the Order as modified by the House of Commons, and if it is carried the Order will have been approved by both Houses. The effect of one Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount is simply to change the date. That is the effect of the last Amendment. The other Amendments are concerned with the exclusion of the Watford area from the operation of the Order. All these Amendments have been carefully considered by the Ministry and have been approved by them.

Moved, That this House agrees to the modifications, subject to which the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the London and Home Counties Electricity District, and establishing and incorporating the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, which was presented on the 21st day of May, 1925, has been approved by the House of Commons, and approves the said Order as so modified, viz:—

In Article 7 the deletion of lines lb to 20, inclusive.

In paragraph 1 of the Schedule the deletion of lines 32 and 33, page 20, and the substitution of the words "the municipal borough of Hertford."

The deletion of the word "Bushey" in line 34, page 20, and of the word "Rickmansworth" in line 36, page 20.

The deletion of lines 37 to 43 inclusive, page 20, and the substitution of the words "The rural districts of Barnet, Hatfield, Hertford, St. Albans, Ware, and Welwyn; the detached part (lying between the rural districts of Ware and Epping) of the parish of High Wych, in the rural district of Hadham."

The parish of Flaunden, in the rural district of Hemel Hempstead.

So much of the urban district of Rickmansworth and the rural district of Watford as are not included in the authorised area of supply of the Corporation of Watford as constituted at the date of this Order.

In paragraph (3) (a) of Part I of the Second Annex the deletion of the words "Watford…Watford Corporation."

Clause 39, subsection (2), paragraph (b), after the first "district" insert "represented on the Joint Authority."

In paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part II of the First Annex, the deletion of the word "April" wherever it occurs, and the substitution of the word "December"—(Viscount Peel.)

My Lords, I have looked into the modifications inserted by the other House as closely as I am able to do and so far as I can speak with any authority, and it is only for myself, my advice to your Lordships is to accept the alterations made by the Commons. They make very little difference. The one material point is, I think, that which has been alluded to by the noble Viscount—namely, the exclusion of the Watford area. I had rather that it had not been excluded, but it can be put in again at a later stage. The great importance of this scheme is that it sets up an electricity authority for London and the Home Counties. That is an enormous step forward, which will give rise to a good deal of employment and will become operative very soon. I should be very sorry if anything drove us to put back this long delayed scheme. Here it is in a form which at any rate will work very well. I think that your Lordships would do well to accept the Motion of the noble Viscount and to adopt it with the alterations that have been made, which are not really material to its principle.

My Lords, the sequence of events which has led up to this Bill is shortly as follows. The port of Richborough was constructed by the War Office during the War. It was more or less within the statutory limits of the Sandwich Haven authorities. The Government, to all intents and purposes, assumed the functions of the Haven authority, although that authority continued to own and operate a smaller wharf further up the Haven. The port was created purely for War purposes and I think that subsequent events entirely justified its construction. A very large amount of war material was sent through this port to the Front and after the Armistice a vast amount of surplus material was imported through Richborough for sale in this country.

Later on, however, the administration of the port became entirely unsatisfactory. The Government had no power to levy dues of any kind and all dues that were levied went to the Sandwich Haven authority. In March, 1921, the Disposals Board sold the port as a going concern to the Port of Queenborough Development Company. This firm made an agreement with the Sandwich Corporation to present a Bill to Parliament providing for a joint board of control and a revision of the schedule of dues, which was already greatly overdue. This Bill, however, came to nothing because the firm in question were unable to implement their contract, with the result that in July, 1923, the Government accepted the rescission of the contract and re-entered into possession. Obviously the state of affairs was then even more unsatisfactory than before. The Government had to expend a considerable amount of money on dredging and on the general expenses of maintenance of the haven and works, bur in spite of that fact all the dues in respect of cargo and vessels went not to the Government but to the Haven authority.

About this time the mineral rights in that part of the country were acquired by the firm of Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long, and it became evident to those who were intimately connected with the situation that the future of the port depended entirely upon the development of industry in that vicinity. Consequently the Government once again opened negotiations with the Sandwich Corporation with a view to promoting a new Bill in Parliament, and at the same time they entered into negotiations with Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long with a view to their leasing or buying the Government interest in Richborough. These negotiations have now materialised. This firm is buying the port on condition that the Government promote and pass a measure similar to the Bill that was before Parliament in 1922. This Bill was to secure, among other things, an equal representation to the purchasers on the joint board of control that was to be set up, and, more important still, it was to secure to them the rights in perpetuity to cross the main Ramsgate-Sandwich road with certain railways on the level. The Bill to which I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is the Bill referred to, and it has the support of the Sandwich Corporation.

It is around the subject of these three level crossings that most of the discussion with regard to this Bill has centred. It is suggested that bridges should be constructed over these crossings forthwith, but I should like to put forward certain points for your Lordships' consideration in respect of this suggestion. In the first place, all these crossings are gated—that is to say, the railways are gated, not the roads—and in the second place, the road traffic on this Ramsgate-Sandwich road is admitted to be on the decrease. Furthermore, this traffic is almost entirely of a pleasure character. There are numbers of charabancs, and the road is connected very intimately with the game of golf. The Government do not think that the interests of the development of industry in that district should be sacrificed lightly for those purposes. Furthermore, each bridge would cost about £18,000 to construct. After having received expert advice on the matter, the Government consider that it would be a great waste of money to spend these large sums at the present moment. They do not consider that the conditions obtaining on this road warrant such a large expenditure of money at the present time.

As a result, I understand, of the representations of the Kent County Council the following provisions have been inserted in the Bill: (1), that no level crossing shall be used for shunting; (2), that one of these crossings is to be used only between the hours of nine o'clock in the evening and nine o'clock in the morning; and (3), if the Kent County Council ever wish to construct bridges over any of these level crossings, Messrs. Pearson. Dorman, Long have undertaken to contribute a sum of £5,000 in respect of each bridge and, further, to give free any land which may be necessary for the construction of embankments and other works in connection with this bridge building.

I suggest to your Lordships that this last concession is a very important and considerable one indeed. In addition to that, I think I may say that if the Kent County Council ever wish to undertake this work of bridging it is open to them to apply in the ordinary way for an additional grant towards their expenses from the Road Board. Furthermore, I think it is fair to point out that if this bridging does become necessary it will be entirely due to the industrial development of that district, and, consequently, the rateable value of that district will have gone up considerably and therefore profited the Kent County Council to that extent. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the undertaking of Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long to purchase this property is clearly contingent upon their being granted the privilege of using these crossings.

May I ask the noble Earl the terms of the contract?

I am afraid I cannot inform the noble Lord on the spur of the moment, but I will find out and let him know in the course of the debate. I was pointing out that the undertaking of Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long is contingent, upon their being allowed the use of these level crossings. If this privilege is withdrawn, or if this Bill is not passed I think by January 31 next, the agreement will be rescinded. There is no other prospective purchaser: it is most unlikely that the Government, will find another purchaser, and they will be faced with two alternatives—either of operating the port as a Government or semi-Government concern and probably making a loss, or of breaking up the port, in which case they will probably not get more than a quarter, and certainly not, more than one-third, of the scrap value. I suggest to your Lordships that in these circumstances, both from a financial and a national point of view, it is of the utmost importance that this Bill should be passed as early as possible. Therefore I beg to move that it be read a second time.

had given Notice to more after the Second Reading, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred, to provide that it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of State or any purchaser from him of any interest in the Rich-borough port and depot to maintain any level crossing over the main road from Ramsgate to Sandwich, and that a bridge shall be substituted for any level crossing which the Committee may regard as a necessary means of communication with the port or depot, and that the whole cost of such bridge and its approaches shall be borne by the purchaser of the above port and depot.

£54,000.

But Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long have offered to give £5,000 per bridge; therefore you have to deduct £15,000 from the total cost. That leaves something like £40,000 to be thrown upon the shoulders of the ratepayers because a private company wants to get down to the seashore. What chance would a private company have, if it had not the assistance of the Government, if it came to Parliament for running powers and rights of crossing a main road? None whatever. And, remember, this is a private line; the public have no rights over it whatever. The public rights are being given away to a private company. If a public company came to Parliament and requested the right to cross a main road by level crossing what would the Standing Orders do with regard to that? The Standing Orders are perfectly distinct. They say that Parliament objects to level crossings, and these level crossings only exist because they were necessary in the War, and under the agreement which exists the County Council only consented by licence to these level crossings up to next year. After that they were to be terminable at a year's notice.

On all these grounds, therefore, I submit that Parliament may very fairly take a little more time to consider this matter, and defer the appointment of this Select Committee until the autumn, by which time, I have very little doubt, some influence may have been brought to bear upon the War Office to give up part of the price that Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long have agreed to give them subject to their having these rights. I dare say the noble Earl is right that it is not absolutely essential that the bridges should be build at once. It is perfectly easy of arrange ment that the War Office shall return to Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long, if and when they have to build bridges, such part of the price as that firm have to pay a excess of the £5,000, and that will come out of the price the War Office have obtained for the sale.

I would like to tell your Lordships than I am very doubtful whether the Ministry of Transport has ever been consulted on this subject. As I said before, it is the Treasury which is conducting the Bill and the War Office which is the vendor. I have now found the Standing Order for which I was looking just now. It is Standing Order No. 155 of the House of Commons, and it provides that

"No railway whereon carriages are moved by mechanical power shall be authorised to be made across any railway, tramway, tramroad or public carriage road on the level, and no tramway shall be authorised to be made across any railway on the level, unless a Report thereupon from some officer of the Ministry of Transport shall be laid before the Committee on the Bill, and unless the Committee, after considering such Report, and hearing the officer, if the Committee think fit, if they shall disagree with the said Report, shall recommend such level crossing, with the reasons and facts upon which their opinion is founded;"—

I have not seen any reasons or facts quoted—

"and in every clause authorising a level crossing the number of lines of rails authorised to he made at such crossings shall be specified."

I have not seen any specification as regards the number of lines, though I believe, as a matter of fact, there are at least five.

There are one or two other points I desire to mention to your Lordships. I need hardly tell your Lordships that the whole policy of Parliament for years has been to do away with level crossings. That cannot be contested, I am perfectly sure. If such a proposition as is contained in this Bill came from a private enterprise it would be most strongly condemned, and would have no possible chance of obtaining the approval of Parliament. This is really a Private Bill. It was part of the terms of the contract that the Government should conduct it through Parliament; in other words, the vendors who are interested are to conduct this Bill through Parliament. It is a very funny story, my Lords. The view that the County Council take of this matter—and I can assure your Lordships they are most indignant—is that by this Bill the Government are asking Parliament to sanction something which their own responsible Minister would strenuously oppose if it were promoted by anybody else.

On May 21 of this year the Minister of Transport, in a speech in another place, made use of the following words:—

"It is a sound policy to build by-pass roads around many of our towns. That policy is being pursued. If there is one thing more than another which annoys me when I can get into the country, it is the level crossings. Level crossings are out of date and ought never to have been allowed."

Do you not think that after the Minister has given expression to such an opinion as that I am justified in inferring that the Minister of Transport has never been consulted about this Bill? I am informed that large sums of money are now being provided by the Ministry of Transport for the purpose of doing away with existing level crossings.

Those, I think, are the facts of the ease and I desire now to say something about procedure. I told your Lordships that I proposed to divide the House in regard to the Second Reading of the Bill. I have been in communication with the executive of the County Council. They are so indignant that they have asked me to do that and I shall do it. If, as I assume they will be, the Government are successful in carrying this point and the Bill is read a second time—although, I hope, I shall at least find a Teller—I shall, as I am informed is the proper procedure, immediately move the instruction to the Select Committee, of which I have given Notice, to take care that the cost of these bridges, if and when they are constructed, shall not be thrown upon the ratepayers. It will not be necessary for me to inflict a second speech upon your Lordships because I have dealt fully with every point. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this clay three months.

My Lords, I only intervene in this debate because I happen to be a ratepayer in Kent and I very often use this road. Indeed, I know this place probably as well as anybody in recent years because this was one of the ports which was constructed and used, when I was First Lord of the Admiralty, for the ferry across to France. Accommodation was erected there for some 18,000 men, and now it is a pitiably derelict concern. So far as I am concerned, I should be very glad to see the matter disposed of and the liability or the Government for any upkeep there may be—though I do not observe any as I pass along there from day to day; but I suppose there is somebody there or thereabouts—got rid of and the Government cut their losses. In my opinion the whole thing was constructed on the most elaborate and ridiculously expensive permanent basis at a time when it was thought that to throw away as much as possible of the money of the taxpayers of this country showed extreme patriotism. For Messrs. Pearson, Dorman and Long who bought these quarries—I know the situation perfectly well—it is absolutely essential to try to get possession of part of this place which will then be a private port. I think they will find it a very expensive one, having regard to the amount of dredging I was acquainted with when I was First Lord; but at the same time it will enable them to do exactly what we did during the War with munitions, guns and all sorts of things of the kind—to find an easy means of transport of coal across to France and up the rivers and elsewhere.

But this is the main road from Ramsgate to Sandwich. It is none too wide; indeed, in my opinion, it is very much too narrow for the traffic. The whole traffic to Sandwich, and all along the road from Sandwich and from the direction of Ramsgate and through Richborough, goes along this road and nothing astonished me more than the statement of the noble Earl that the traffic on this road was diminishing. You come down to a toll bridge as you enter Sandwich, and I have seen long queues of cars and vehicles held up there. In passing by Richborough at many places I have also seen cars held up. I have never counted the number of cars or chars-a-bancs or other vehicles that use this road. What I am stating is what I have learnt merely from personal observation.

If Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long are successful, just imagine what it will be going across a road of that kind from a colliery by level crossings. I do not believe the traffic will be maintainable in those circumstances. You may as well block up the road altogether. It is quite true, as my noble friend has said, that there were level crossings there during the War. The whole place was at that time cut off as being a military area. I remember myself, when I was First Lord of the Admiralty, being refused admittance because I had not a pass when I went down to visit the port for some reasons connected with the Admiralty. The whole area was cut off and there was practically no traffic because no one could get through without a pass. Now, however, the position is entirely different. Why should not there be bridges made? That is the modern way of providing crossings over public highways.

My noble friend exactly hit the point when he said that the result of what has happened is that you want to get more money for the War Office at the expense of the Kent ratepayers. That is what it really comes to. The Government say "Let us carry out this. If we lose this opportunity we may not be able to sell. We will carry it out at a price which will enable the bridges to be built and put the obligation upon somebody to build them." But why should you say: "We must carry this out, we must exact our price, and we will put in a provision—Messrs. Pearson, Dorman, Long are willing it should be put in—that at any time the Kent County Council think that they do not like level crossings going over this important road they can at their own expense, at the cost of £18,000 per bridge, put up the necessary structures"? Is that fair to the ratepayers? Is that in accordance with the practice of this House? I should be sorry to do anything that would prevent Pearson, Dorman, Long getting their contract to carry this out, because I believe it is a good opportunity to do so, and I think the proposition that my noble friend has made is a perfectly fair one.

Give a little more time for negotiations in the matter. See what you can do with Pearson, Dorman, Long. See what you can do by negotiations as to price and by give and take to get the necessary bridges built, but do not, in the hurry of trying to dispose of a surplus asset of the War, attempt to inflict what will really be a great hardship upon the inhabitants, the County Council and the ratepayers of Kent. I have no interest in this matter except that I am an inhabitant of the district. Terms ought surely to be possible in a case of this kind. That the matter is looked upon by the Government as one of extreme importance is shown by the fact that they themselves have put in certain conditions regarding the level crossings being allowed to be built at the expense of the Kent County Council hereafter. There appears to be a controversy as to whether the Kent County Council was ever consulted at all. It appears to have been stated to the House of Commons that they had agreed to it. If anybody ought to know about that I think it is my noble friend Lord Harris, than whom Kent has no greater champion. He does more public work for his County than any man I know, and his opinion ought to have some weight. This Bill ought not to be carried by the arbitrary authority of a Conservative Government, which always surmounts every difficulty by its majority. It ought to see whether a business-like arrangement cannot be made, and the feelings of the people of Kent should be ascertained upon this matter.

My Lords, I can assure my noble friends that I do not approach this subject in any spirit of hostility to them, or to the cause which they represent. I fully endorse everything which my noble friend Lord Harris has said, both as to his great service to us, and his loyalty to his County and to everything which, politically, I hold dear. My noble friends could have had no more welcome champion in your Lordships' House in respect of this Bill or in respect of the Party which sits around me, and I shall show before I sit down that these are not merely words, but that I intend to act upon them.

Let me, first, deprecate a certain feeling, perhaps a natural feeling, of hostility which my noble friend displayed towards the War Office. Surely the War Office are not to be found fault with in this matter. He himself bore witness to the great service which this port conferred upon the country during the War and spoke in the highest terms of those who had established it, and by that means carried on warlike operations and communications for warlike operations which reflected the highest credit upon them. That was done during the War and, as my noble friend who has just sat down truly said, money was poured out like water at that time. But the War Office, no doubt, want, if they can, to recover a little of that money, It will be a very small quantity that they will recover, but they are not to be blamed for trying to recover as much as they can. It is, after all, in the interests of all of us that they should do that so far as they can do it consistently with what is fair to the Kent County Council. Therefore we ought not to find fault with them, and ought not to hold them up as grasping individuals who are trying to exact their pound of flesh from an unfortunate county council. All they are trying to do is to recover a little money for the British taxpayer where they can. In trying to present the matter in that spirit let me say one other word of caution. My noble friend has assumed that the other relevant Departments of the Government have dot been consulted. I have made inquiries, and, as far as the information which was furnished to me goes, that appears to be quite a delusion. The Ministry of Transport were consulted.

May I ask whether the Minister of Transport is now disposed to change his views with regard to level crossings?

That I do not know. I only know that the Ministry of Transport proposed certain Amendments, and those Amendments were inserted in the Bill. Therefore everything has been done in that respect perfectly regularly. But my noble friends say that the Government were misinformed, that the House of Commons was misinformed, as to the views of the Kent County Council and their agreement—

I want to be quite clear about that. It is in a letter from the solicitor to the Kent County Council. It is on the authority of that official.

I do not question it at all. My noble friend speaks with great authority. There may have been some misunderstanding, and that is a strong reason why your Lordships should in this matter proceed with the greatest caution. I fully admit that. But that is not a reason for rejecting the Second Reading of the Bill. That clearly is a wrong remedy. The Bill is a large measure. It does not deal only with level crossings over these main roads. It deals with other things; it establishes a new body of commissioners and disposes of the harbour and docks, and to reject it on Second Reading because there is something wrong with regard to two or three level crossings would be an unwise proceeding. The noble Lord really does not want to reject the Second Reading of the Bill at all, although he has moved it. What he wants is to have a change in the terms under which the Bill is to be carried out and I would most respectfully submit to him that it is not a proper way in which to proceed. If he wants to amend the Bill let him amend it at the proper stage and not try to throw it out on Second Reading when he does not object to it.

What we had hoped was that my noble friends would have agreed in the ordinary course that this Bill should be sent to a Committee upstairs. It is a Hybrid Bill and it must go before a Private Bill Committee. My noble friends say that all these things are wrong, that level crossings should be abolished, that bridges ought to be built, and that the cost of building these bridges—several thousands of pounds—should not be thrown on the Kent County Council. Are we to discuss all these matters on the floor of the House? Is that a reasonable proceeding? Is it a regular proceeding? Is it ordinarily done? Of course not. Those are obviously matters for the Private Bill Committee to which the Bill goes in the ordinary way. My noble friend Lord Harris quoted something that happened before the Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons. We have, of course, profound respect for the Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons, but we do not rely upon that Committee. We rely upon our own Committee and that is why we send Bills upstairs, in order that these particular points can be discussed and determined, and for no other reason whatever.

My noble friends say that all this is very bad and that the Kent County Council is being very badly treated. If so, I should be the first man to desire to do them justice, but surely it is not reasonable to throw out the Bill on Second Reading, or bind the hands of the Committee before they have had time to consider the matter at all. I suggest that that is not a reasonable attitude on the part of my noble friend. Let the Bill go before the Private Bill Committee—that is the right course. Then my noble friend says: Let us have a little postponement. I should be very sorry to appear to have even the appearance of doing an injustice to the case put forward by my noble friends. If they insist on a postponement until the autumn, in order to show how anxious I am to meet them, I shall not resist it. The reason I say that is this. It is quite true that the Government are a party in this matter, they are one of the parties to the issue, and certainly to use, or try to use—I cannot pretend to do more —the majority of your Lordships' House in order to justify the Government in what is a Private Bill matter, without general consent, would be to attempt a thing which I should dislike very much to do.

I should not like, in a matter which should be decided purely on grounds of justice, to ask your Lordships, merely because you support the Government, to pass this Bill through. If my noble friends say they would like to have time and a postponement until the autumn, I shall not oppose them. But let me just put this consideration before them. The Government are anxious to get on with these works because of their importance.

What works?

I understand that a good deal of employment will be immediately involved if this is carried through. My noble friends will not expect me to have personal knowledge of this matter, but that is my information. The thing is to push on, and the Government want to push on, in order to give general employment. We are anxious to do that if we can and we would like to get the Bill pushed through. There is no question of sacrificing the contract. If your Lordships pass it in the autumn the contract will be perfectly sound, but we want to push on with the work. I was going to suggest that we should postpone any decision on this matter until to-morrow, in order that I might confer with my noble friends on the question of the postponement until the autumn. It was not until my noble friend spoke just now that I had any idea there was to be a suggestion of a postponement of the Committee. It has come upon me rather as a complete surprise and I have not had time to consider whether this is really a wise course of procedure.

My counsel to your Lordships, therefore, is this. If my noble friends insist, the Government will consent to postpone the Committee until the autumn, but if they will take a suggestion from me we should postpone this debate now as soon as we have agreed to the Second Beading and, between now and to-morrow, I shall he able to consult with them as to whether a postponement until the autumn is really a reasonable suggestion. I think that is a generous offer. It is because of the peculiar position of the Government in respect to this matter, and because of my great regard for my noble friends behind me, that I venture to submit it to your Lordships.

My Lords, I find the argument of the noble Marquess really unconvincing on the main point. It is all very well to pass this Bill, but if it goes to the Select Committee without an instruction then the Select Committee, if it acts like other Select Committees, will say: "You have dropped this question, and we are not going to insist on something which might be fatal to the prospects of the Bill." That raises really a question of principle. It is proposed to sell this port to the purchaser without any stipulation as to these three level crossings. Is it right, in the times in which we live, to leave railways with level crossings not protected?

I listened to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill and I observed that he did not propose that these crossings should be guarded by any signalmen. If he had he would have been open to the comment that it was about as cheap to build bridges as to maintain signalmen. But it is not proposed to do that. It is said: We will see that they are opened only at certain hours, and it does not matter very much because the only persons concerned are golfers and pleasure seekers. I am not a golfer, and I am not much of a pleasure seeker, but at the same time I have a certain human regard for these people and I do not want to see golfers and pleasure seekers run over, as they might be at these level crossings. They will be all the more liable to be run over because there are gates which will cause delay, trains will come along and there will be the usual accidents that are inevitable in those circumstances.

The noble Marquess asks us to give the Bill a Second Reading and then agree to a certain delay. I think that this is a reasonable proposal if it is a substantial one, but my interpretation of it as a substantial proposal is that the noble Marquess has listened to all that the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Carson, have said and is prepared to say that there may be negotiations and bargaining as to how this matter can be decided. It is all very well to say that the War Office only want to get this money back. No doubt they do and that is very reasonable, but the War Office might have to abate something of its price if it is going to hand over these railways in a proper condition from the public point of view. If the noble Marquess means that this matter is to be the subject of a genuine negotiation with the Government, having regard to the principle that a railway should not be made with level crossings unprotected and that it is better that there should be some kind of bridges—I find it difficult to believe that these bridges will cost £18,000 a piece, as was suggested by the noble Earl—I for one am quite ready individually to assent to the course proposed to be taken—namely, that we should read this Bill a second time now on the understanding that the Committee is postponed, that this debate is adjourned and that the noble Marquess opposite means what one would gather that he meant, that things are to be taken up in a substantial way and that negotiation is to be entered into whereby, by abatement of the price if necessary, or in some other way, these level crossings are to be secured. I notice that the noble Marquess does not assent to that. In that case I for one, speaking in the public interest, do not like this proposition.

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to say a few words on this Bill in view of my official connection with this neighbourhood. May I say, first of all, that I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is under some slight misconcep- tion. I think I heard him say that his idea was that this House was likely to adjourn on Tuesday next and that there would not be time for this Committee to consider the matter properly on Monday. That is not what I believe to be the intention of His Majesty's Government. I understand that this House will sit until the end of next week and therefore this Committee, if it is set up on Monday, will have plenty of time to go into this matter fully.

I confess, as one who lives in the neighbourhood, that I am quite unable to agree with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill that the traffic along this road is in any way decreasing. I am quite sure that the direct contrary is more likely to prove true, especially if a new census is taken this year. All over Kent the amount of traffic, especially charabanc traffic, is growing to immense proportions. Each charabanc carries something like fifty people and their numbers are increasing yearly. Even if it were the fact that the actual number of charabancs is not growing very largely, the number of people carried is undoubtedly increasing by leaps and bounds. Although I hold this view, and should immensely regret the continuance of these level crossings, I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that it is before a Committee of your Lordships' House that matters of this kind are most usefully dealt with and that we cannot deal with them upon the floor of the House. The Private Bill Committee was set up in order that your Lordships' House might be relieved of matters of this kind. Accordingly I venture to hope that the matter will be allowed to go before that tribunal, and I am quite sure that justice will be done to it by that body.

My Lords, if I understand the proposal of the noble Marquess aright, it is not that we should adjourn the debate, as the noble and learned Viscount opposite suggested. The noble Marquess offered, as I understand the matter, that, subject to this Bill being allowed to pass its Second Reading, no Committee would be appointed. In that case, what will happen in the autumn? Will there be a distinct Motion to appoint a Committee? The Lord Chairman of Committees advises me that on a Private Bill there is no formal Motion to appoint a Select Committee, but the; Bill goes automatically to the Committee. I should like to know whether, when consideration of this matter is resumed in the autumn, there will be a clear Motion to appoint a Select Committee, allowing us to bring the matter up again publicly so that we may know whether any agreement has been arrived at between the Ministry and the parties concerned. If that is the offer of the noble Marquess, then, speaking on behalf of the Kent County Council, I accept it.

My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to answer the questions that have been addressed to me, for I have already exhausted my right to speak in this debate. I think the noble Lord has rightly interpreted my offer to him. If the House will be good enough to agree to the Second Reading, I will take care that the Committee stage is not taken until the autumn. My noble friend has said that there is some difficulty as to procedure. I think that there will be no such difficulty if he will leave his Motion for this instruction on the Paper. That must come before your Lordships again on the floor of the House, and the Committee cannot be set up until it is disposed of. I earnestly hope that, when the time comes, my noble friend will not insist upon his instruction, but of course I do not expect him to give any undertaking in that regard now. I think that the matter ought to be left open to the Committee to decide as it thinks best, but, as far as procedure is concerned, that is the simple way. Accordingly I hope that your Lordships will consent to the Second Reading of this Bill.

With your Lordships' approval, I will withdraw my Amendment.

My Lords, before this Motion is put there are two or three matters which I should like to mention to your Lordships with a view, if possible, to secure procedure by which the Bill may have a fair chance of being considered in another place during this Session of Parliament. There are differences of principle between the Amendments which have been put down and the Bill as it stands, but as I ventured to say to your Lordships when the Second Reading was moved, I do not believe there is any difference of opinion anywhere as to the desirability of doing something to check the publication of matters tending to immorality. On that basis I have considered some proposals which I have put down on the Order Paper and which it seemed to me, in the form in which I put them down and having regard to the conflict which arose between the proposers of the Bill and myself, may be more fit for consideration by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House. But I have had some consultation with my noble and learned friend Lord Darling and many of those who support the Bill and, if I may take up your Lordships' time, I would like to lay before your Lordships what I understand to be the questions between the promoters of the Bill and myself, with a view to seeing whether we could not proceed in Committee to arrive at some agreed settlement about the matters between us.

If I have your Lordships' leave, I would state as concisely as possible the view which I take of the Bill regarding it as a whole and upon the question whether it can properly, be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. It is a short Bill, and the Amendments are not very lengthy. Now with regard to Clause 1, subsection (1) (a), I think there is substantial agreement between the promoters of the Bill and its critics, speaking generally. I do not know of any difference in principle. The comment made upon Clause 1, subsection (1) (a), is that it states in a concise form part of the Common Law with regard to indecent publications, and does not help very much. Subsection (1) (b) (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) deals with matters which are permitted to be published. The view I took and upon which I prepared an amendment was that if people were minded to break the law they should be reminded of what the law is and then you should take care they do not break it, or break it at their peril, but I have found among friends of mine of great experience in these matters a prevalent view that it is desirable that the extravagant and prolix publication of reports of some classes of judicial proceedings should be dealt with.

I have grave doubts about the principle myself, but I desire, so far as I can, to meet the views of those, many of them certainly with as long and some of them with longer experience than my own, to whom I have referred on these matters and who do take the view that subsection (1) (b) will be a useful subsection. It will certainly prevent such publications as one saw during the week-end, when a page, or a large part of two pages, of a London weekly paper was devoted to the unwholesome details of one cause in the Divorce Court. I know that the Bill is aimed at that kind of publication. Taking that view, unless there is some objection stronger than my own, what I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord who is in charge of the Bill is this: that paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) (b) really opens a door to a peril which he has not, perhaps, quite apprehended. It implied by sanctions the publication of the grounds on which the proceedings in question are brought and resisted, as set forth in the petition and answer and particulars.

It is quite true that is qualified by the proviso, but the proviso again and the enactments in paragraph (ii) are so at variance that my impression is that excuses will be found for publication if the Bill passes in its present form, which, although they may avoid prosecution under the proviso, will have a very unwholesome effect. The petition, answer and particulars referred to here are, in a great number of cases, wholly unfit for publication. They contain sometimes matters absolutely revolting, which are never specifically mentioned in Court, and without enlarging upon that matter I would suggest to my learned friend whether, if what he intends to do is to combine conciseness with decency, it would not be better to frame paragraph (ii) in some such terms as these:

"A concise statement of the grounds on which the proceedings are brought and resisted."

and to omit that reference to papers in Court, the mention of which, I think, would lead to difficulty and danger. As to paragraphs (iii) and (iv) I will only say that I see no objection to (iii) and as to (iv), as the publications there are subject immediately to the proviso, I think that would be reasonably safe. If it be the common sense of your Lordships that subsection (1) (b) will be useful in the Bill, subject to any other Amendments which are made, I certainly should not desire to divide the House upon the question of omitting it and, I tell any noble and learned friend that at once.

Then we pass on to subsection (2). I have raised there a question which is undoubtedly a question of principle. I propose to move to omit the words "on summary conviction" and to substitute a different type of tribunal. One of the perils of setting up a tribunal for examination of matters such as are in question here is that you may introduce new centres from which contamination will proceed in bad cases, and having that very strongly in view I desired to bring to your Lordships' notice that there is a tribunal which could deal with the matter—namely, a Judge of the High Court, who would deal with it summarily, who would come to his conclusion upon it. I propose that that conclusion, if it were a conclusion in favour of conviction, should be subject to review in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have heard from various quarters that there is likely to be serious opposition to the introduction of a new tribunal to deal with a new criminal offence and that the consideration of the Bill is likely to be regarded with less hostility if the existing tribunals are resorted to. There is an Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, which proposes that this Bill should apply to reports of proceedinge before the tribunal which dealt with charges under it. If that Amendment were adopted I see no objection at all to sending the cases under the Bill to some court of summary jurisdiction. Most of these cases will arise in London, no doubt; the place of publication, or at least the seat of publication, of most of the newspapers would be in London. It would be easy to deal with it in London.

If you adopt the final clause in the Amendment of which I have given Notice and provide that no prosecution shall be commenced without the fiat of the Attorney-General, which I think is a necessary and wholesome precaution in any view of the matter, then I do not see any difficulty in limiting these prosecutions either to courts in London or to courts where there is a stipendiary magistrate. I confess that if the prosecution could be limited in that way, instead of cases being liable to spring up sporadically as centres of mischief in all parts of the country, I should regard the proposal with much more favour, and I should see much less objection to resorting to a court of summary jurisdiction. Rather than divide the House on the matter, although my view was different, I should fall in with the view of my noble and learned friend.

There is one other matter and that is the substantive proposal which is contained in my proposed new subsection (3), whereby the Court which deals with immoral publications of the kind in question, if it should find that there have been within a limited period repeated publications of the same kind in the same newspaper or periodical, should be at liberty, for a period to be determined by the Court and not exceeding six months, to suspend the publication of the newspaper or periodical. I regard that proposal as really crucial in this Bill. That will be a real deterrent against laxity and licence in the matters which the promoters of the Bill have in view. To that proposal I attach importance. Upon that proposal if my noble and learned friend is ready to concur we can be agreed, but if not I should desire there, as it is quite outside the matters generally in question between the supporters of the Bill and myself, to know what the sense of the House is. I am much obliged to the House for the indulgence it has shown me, but I thought it would be convenient if I outlined the position as between my noble friends and myself with a view, if possible, to saving prolonged discussion.

My Lords, I venture to think that the public who are interested in preserving something like decency in the reporting of these offending cases will welcome, as I do, the speech which my noble friend has just delivered. As I understand, he assents to the first clause of the Bill altogether, down to the beginning of paragraph (ii) of subsection (b).

Yes, subject to one or two suggestions about detail. There is an Amendment of the Lord Chancellor which ought to be considered and an Amendment of the noble Earl opposite which I think ought to be considered.

Yes, and they naturally will be. But as I understand, down to the end of paragraph (i) my noble and learned friend assents to the Bill in the form in which it stands, subject to the Amendments to be proposed by the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. Nothing could be more satisfactory to those who desire this Bill to pass than that. Now we come to paragraph (ii), which says that the papers may be allowed to publish the grounds upon which the proceedings are brought and resisted as set forth in the petition and answer and particulars thereof. My noble and learned friend would not allow the newspapers to do that and I may thank him for this. This Bill was not drawn by me; it was the result of a Select Committee It has very influential backing from all Parties in the other House. and with regard to this all I can say is that, whereas those promoters and supporters of the Bill would chastise the offenders with whips, my noble and learned friend the President of the Divorce Court would chastise them, I think very properly, with scorpions. And therefore it is not likely that I shall resist him, if he moves to omit paragraph (ii).

With regard to the rest, my noble friend assents to paragraph (iii), so there, can be no difference of opinion between him and myself on that. He assents also to paragraph (iv). We therefore do rot differ about that. With regard to pars graph (ii) he would substitute a proposal that the newspapers may publish a concise statement of the grounds upon which the petition is drawn. If he can put that into words I will accept it at once. I imagine he will do so before this Committee stage closes. It seems to me there can be no difficulty about it because paragraph (iv), to which he assents, allows the newspapers to publish the summing up of the Judge and the finding of the jury, if there be a jury and they find anything. They may also publish the judgment of the Court and observations made by the Judge in giving judgment. My noble and learned friend assents to that, and that, of course, would cover the ground which would be in the concise statement which he proposes the newspapers are to publish. So that it seems to me there is very little difference between us.

Your Lordships all know that a most offensive case has been before Mr. Justice Hill in the Divorce Court within the last few days. To-day there is his judgment in the case. There was no jury but there is his judgment, and I read it, not for pleasure but because of this debate, to see what kind of thing the newspapers would be likely to publish under this paragraph (iv). If any of your Lordships read the judgment you will see that, although it deals with most offensive subjects, it deals with them as a Judge would be certain to deal with them, in a perfectly proper and decent way. Therefore, taking even so extreme an instance as this peculiarly offensive case it seems to me there would be no danger in allowing paragraph (iv) to stand as it appears in the Bill and as my noble and learned friend thinks it should stand.

Now all this is to allow the newspapers to publish a great deal more than they are allowed to publish in most Continental countries. Long ago a statesman wrote in a celebrated Despatch: "With equal advantage the French are content." We know what the French do. They allow Practically nothing to be published, not more than we publish in a case where a bankrupt is examined, beyond just the official notification. We do not set before ourselves in this Bill so high an ideal of purity as exists in Paris. We are content with a little less advantage than the French in this matter, and so our newspapers may congratulate themselves that they have more liberty than is allowed in these matters to their confrères who write in Paris or other parts of France.

In regard to the rest my noble and learned friend would substitute certain provisions for those which are in the Bill. I must insist upon this. This Bill passed a Select Committee of the House of Commons. It bears the names of Mr. Clynes, Sir John Simon, Mr. Thomas and Sir Leslie Scott, men of various Parties who have made themselves responsible for the introduction of this Bill. What they put into the Bill is that when a prosecution is taken it should be brought before the justices. I much prefer that, as they did. My noble and learned friend suggests that the cases should come before a Judge in Chambers. My objection to that is this. What goes on in Chambers is in camera. The only people there are the clerks of the attorneys who are interested in the cases that are to come on. They are a very noisy body of persons, and very often when I sat in Chambers I excluded a great many of them. The other people there are not the public but people interested in the case under consideration or other cases.

It appears to me that it would be far better to allow these cases to come on before the justices as most criminal eases do now. Judges in Chambers do not deal with criminal cases. This proposal of my noble and learned friend is revolutionary and I think would shock the noble and learned Viscount opposite. It is that a Judge in Chambers may pass sentence upon a person who may then be taken away without any public inquiry and put into prison. If he is sentenced before the magistrates it happens in public. The noble Earl opposite has an Amendment on the Paper which would perhaps safeguard those proceedings from being turned into a means of gratifying obscene persons, with which your Lordships will deal as you please. But the case will come before the magistrates in public and if the person accused is convicted there is an appeal to Quarter Sessions—to the assembly of all the justices in Quarter Sessions. That is what commended itself to those who drew this Bill; it would, I think, be far preferable to the kind of exceptional tribunal which my noble and learned friend would set up. I know what it would be called the moment it was set up. People who have a false notion that the Star Chamber was what it was not, a very infamous tribunal, would say "This is the Star Chamber." My noble and learned friend would be held up to all the condemnation which has fallen on those who were responsible for the Star Chamber in the latter days of its existence, and I want to save him from that. Therefore I shall have to differ from my noble and learned friend in regard to that matter.

Then he proposes that part of the sentence should be the suspension of the newspaper which offends in this way. I shall be content to leave that to those who judge the matter. If the paper had offended before and was in the habit of offending in this particular, those who decided the ease might well be allowed to suspend it for a time from its harmful activities. My only difficulty is to know exactly how my noble and learned friend and I are to arrive at the result upon which we are agreed. The Bill must go into Committee. I take it that my noble friend desires that it shall go into Committee. In Committee he could propose the few Amendments which would bring him, the supporters of the Bill and myself into harmony. Therefore, I welcome what he says.

My Lords, I am sorry the House did not go into Committee half an hour ago. I think your Lordships have been somewhat harshly treated. What has taken place illustrates the extreme inconvenience of discussing in detail almost every Amendment which is upon the Paper at the moment when we should discuss, as we shall have still to discuss, all those Amendments in Committee. The inconvenience of the course is, perhaps, best illustrated by the fact that the noble and learned Lord who spoke last spent about five minutes of his speech in objecting to the proposal that these matters should be dealt with by a Judge in Chambers. My noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale had previously and privately informed me that he intended to withdraw this Amendment. If only your Lordships had been allowed to proceed with the ordinary Committee stage of the Bill no discussion of this kind would have been necessary. I hope that your Lordships will now go into Committee.

had Amendments on the Paper to move, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "proceedings," to insert "(i)" and after "mischief," to insert "or (ii) any portrait or pictorial representation of any party to or witness in such proceedings." The noble Lord said: Since putting down these Amendments I have ascertained that there is a clause in a Government Bill in another place which deals with photography, and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendments.

had an Amendment on the Paper to omit all words in subsection (1) after paragraph (a). The noble and learned Lord said: I will not move this Amendment, in order that a little later I may move an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Darling is ready to accept to Clause 1, subsection (1), paragraph (ii).

Will the noble and learned Lord tell me exactly where it occurs?

It occurs in paragraph (ii), at the beginning of line 24, and would read "a concise statement of."

The Lord Chancellor has art Amendment in line 17, which comes first.

moved to leave out of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) the words "or proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction in which an order for judicial separation is made or applied for." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment will somewhat lighten the Bill. The effect of paragraph (b) is that in respect of certain proceedings, which I will describe as matrimonial proceedings, only certain particulars shall be published. No doubt the reason for that proposal is that that kind of proceeding can hardly ever take place without involving some matter unfit for publication. But that does not apply to proceedings before justices for a separation. I do not know what your Lordships experience is, but I hardly remember a case where a summons for separation before magistrates has been succeeded by publication of a substantial amount of improper matter. In most cases no matrimonial offence in the ordinary sense of that word is involved. It is usually a question of assault or cruelty or something of that kind, and it seems to me to be absurd to forbid the publication of details in cases of that kind. In these proceedings there is no such thing as a petition and answer and particulars, such as is referred to in paragraph (ii) of (b), nor is there any summing-up by the Judge or any finding of the jury, so that really these words do not fit into the rest of the clause. I think it would be wise to leave them out and confine the paragraph to real matrimonial proceedings. I beg to move.

So far as I am concerned, I accept this Amendment.

moved, in paragraph (b), after "made or applied for," to insert "or any proceedings taken under this Act." The noble Earl said: I put down this Amendment to meet criticisms made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, on the Second Reading, which seemed to me so cogent as to require some Amendment of the Bill. I hope that this Amendment will meet with his approval and also with that of the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that it is designed to prevent proceedings taken under this Bill from being, as it were, a fresh source of infection.

May I point out that although the object of this Amendment is one with which I am sure we shall all sympathise the wording hardly achieves the object that is desired, for reasons very similar to those which the learned Lord Chancellor has just given regarding his Amendment. If the Amendment is adopted the paragraph would read:—

"in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage for nullity of marriage, or for judicial separation or proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction in which an order for judicial separation is made or applied for or any proceedings taken under this Act."

That, in effect, prevents a newspaper from publishing in its account of the proceedings taken against it the argument that it should be let off leniently and the grounds upon which the magistrate decided that it was a case for leniency and a number of other things of that kind.

Moreover, the expressions which are referred to in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) obviously refer to the proceedings in a Divorce Court because they refer to the Judge and possibly to the jury, and if nothing of those things can be published after the proceedings the newspaper, by the terms of the clause, is prohibited from publishing a report of the proceedings in which it is subsequently a party. I can appreciate that the noble Earl wishes to prevent them from, first of all, publishing a highly salacious paragraph offending against the principle of this Bill and then printing a full report of proceedings taken against them for having published such a paragraph and reprinting that salacious paragraph and saying: "That is what we were fined for." I am quite desirous to see that what the noble Earl wishes should be made effective, but may I suggest that he should reconsider the words?

If the noble and learned Lord would communicate with me privately I will put down a proviso in order to see that his point is met.

I think it may be more convenient if the noble Earl would take the other course and not press the Amendment to-day, but consider the form of it before the Report Stage. I do see great difficulty in the words which he proposes. Whatever else may be inserted they do not fit in with the clause as drawn and there is also the fact, which has been strongly brought before me, that a newspaper which is prosecuted, which is subjected to criminal proceedings on an allegation of indecency, is very reluctant to be forbidden to state its defence fully so as to bring it before its readers. That is a matter which ought to be considered, although I quite agree with what has been said by my noble and learned friend that something ought to be done to prevent a re-publication of improper matter. Whether the proviso at the end of this paragraph will be enough for that purpose is no doubt a matter to be considered, but I rather hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment to-day and consider the form of it before Report.

Certainly, if that is more convenient I will do so.

May I suggest to the noble Earl that there will be consider-able difficulty in drawing a clause which will achieve the result that we all desire—namely, that reports of proceedings under the Bill should not contain indecent matter? May I suggest for the noble Earl's consideration before he draws his new clause whether the evil which we anticipate and desire to prevent might not already be met by Clause 1, subsection (1) (a), which prohibits in relation to any judicial proceedings any indecent matter whatever? If the Bill is passed in that form might it not really meet the object that we have in view?

I would if I may move in line 24, subsection (1) (b) (ii), to insert these words, "a concise statement of" the grounds on which the proceedings are brought and resisted.

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "on summary conviction." The noble and learned Lord said: I have stated already my personal view about this matter, and I move it formally now in order that the view of the House might appear.

I ask your Lordships' pardon for what I did. When my noble and learned friend mentioned this in the course of his introductory remarks I said that I disagreed, and considered that the words "on summary conviction" should remain. I need say no more now.

I hope these words will be retained. There may be many offences under this Bill of quite a trifling character in which the judgment and decision of a stipendiary magistrate in London, or magistrates in other large cities, will be all that is required. If a person accused of an offence desires to appeal he has an appeal to Quarter Sessions. On the whole I think it is a beneficial proposal that summary proceedings should be possible.

moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection:

"(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of a publication made in any newspaper or periodical, and there have previously been two or more convictions of offences under this Act in respect of publications in the same newspaper or periodical within a period of two years, the Court may in addition to any other penalty under this Act order that the publication of the newspaper or periodical be suspended for such time, not exceeding six months, as the Court thinks fit, provided that before any such order is made such notice shall be given to the proprietor, publisher and printer of the newspaper or periodical as the Court may direct."

I do not wish to object to the new subsection, but it seems to me rather a big order altogether to suspend the circulation of a newspaper.

Whose fault will that be?

It may have been an accidental offence. It seems to me rather a strong order.

There is another aspect of the matter which must occur to many of your Lordships. Supposing this absolutely new power of punishment were entrusted to magistrates, does anyone think that this Bill has the least chance of making any progress in another place? We hear a good deal about the power of the Press. I have nothing to say about it, except that every newspaper in the Kingdom will mobilise all its forces against a Bill which proposes to entrust stipendiary magistrates with a power, under any circumstances, of suspending the publication of the newspaper for a period not exceeding six months. I do not propose to discuss whether it is a meritorious penalty or not. We do not live in an ideal world, and the penalties which we have hitherto known in the criminal law show a marked tendency to become more lenient and more limited in their scope rather than more extended. There is no parallel to this that I know of, and although I have no knowledge of the feelings of another place, as I have never witnessed any exhibitions except like a peri at the gates of Paradise—from the Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons—it passes my imagination what will happen as soon as a proposal like this is seriously introduced there. I feel confident, although I am sure my noble and learned friend will entirely disagree with me, that only ill wishers of the Bill would really insert a clause like this new subsection.

I will leave the matter entirely to the judgment of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, drew a pathetic picture of the plight of the owner of a paper who might be ruined by the suspension of his right to publish. If he has proved himself unfit to publish a newspaper by repeated gross offences against public decency I do not myself think he is a subject for commiseration. Then my noble and learned friend is apprehensive as to what will happen in another place on this proposal. Those who support the principle of this Bill, if they really intend it to be operative, must in my judgment face the imposition of real penalties. Those who have been the authors of the Bill and its supporters in another place will, I think, desire to find some means by which the power to continue publication of a newspaper shall be fettered in the case of those who have shown themselves unfit to have that power. Whether the form of the Amendment is the correct form I am not at all sure. It was for that reason that I reserved the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the same reason that I originally proposed that a Judge of the High Court should deal with these matters. One may be suspected of a desire to wreck the Bill, but I desire, if Parliament passes the Bill, that it shall be an operative Bill and do something to remove a public nuisance and peril.

When the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord appeared on the Paper it seemed to me to be of such a staggering character that I really did not think your Lordships would give it serious consideration, largely on the grounds indicated by Lord Sumner. It is an unprecedented thing to say that a stipendiary magistrate should be able to arrest the circulation of The Times or the Daily Telegraph, or any one of our huge machines of publication, simply on the grounds of a repeated offence against decency, but, even if this power were acceptable, you are admitting an extremely dangerous principle, because the publication of indecent matter is not at all the only mischievous public act which a newspaper might commit. A stipendiary magistrate might, on a third conviction for indecency, suspend the paper, and we are thus brought face to face with the question of the administrative right to suspend a newspaper when it has offended on the third occasion against the Government in power or has committed some other action which is commonly regarded, or may be regarded, as contrary to public interests. This is a condition of things which we should tolerate in this country only in a state of war or in circumstances of grave emergency. It is not the kind of offence or evil which is covered in my opinion by the mere offensive and disgusting action of publishing details which a stipendiary magistrate justly, or otherwise, whether prejudiced or not, might consider indecent. It seems to me, there- fore, as Lord Sumner has indicated, to be such a far-reaching proposal that it is not likely for a moment that the other House would consider it.

I should like to associate myself with that which my noble friend Lord Sumner has said. I think that this Amendment will greatly jeopardise the passage of this Bill, which I myself would very much like to see passed. After all, we are entering upon a somewhat new line of legislation as regards the right of the public to know what goes on in the Law Courts and, while I entirely agree with the principle of the Bill, I think we ought to be very careful to go by steps. Indeed, I do not believe for a moment that we should have the least chance of passing this Amendment in another place. We must go by steps in trying to carry out that which the promoters of the Bill have in view. Already considerable penalties are enacted in this Bill. Offenders are liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

If you want magistrates to convict and do not want them to get nervous about the newspapers, it would be wiser to leave the Bill as it stands. It will be urged upon the magistrate each time that he must decide the very difficult consideration as to what is—

"… in relation to any judicial proceedings any indecent matter or medical, surgical or physiological details … the publication of which would be calculated to injure public morals…"

That is a very large subject to leave to the magistrates. If it is found, after this novel legislation has been working for a while, that the penalties here proposed are not a sufficient deterrent—though I do not anticipate that this will happen—it will then be time enough to come to the Legislature and ask them to strengthen the hands of the Ministry. I am perfectly sure that if you are going to carry with you the newspaper world—you may sneer at it as you like, but it is not unimportant—and the public generally when you adopt a new line of legislation such as this, it is far better to go by degrees than to make such drastic alterations as will turn against you a great deal of the newspaper world and very many of the public who would like to see a Bill of this kind passed.

Speaking as a layman, I venture to agree entirely with the remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Sumner and Lord Carson. We are all anxious that this Bill should pass, and I do not anticipate, having been a member of the House of Commons for more years than I care to remember, that, if we put in this very drastic Amendment, we shall be able to save the Bill. As has been said, the Press will be mobilised against it. I think it will be well worth while to accept the Bill as it stands rather than insist upon this Amendment. I would point out to the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment that, although the great newspapers with large circulations, as the noble and learned Lord said, may not regard the fine provided in subsection (2) as a sufficient inducement to carry out the Act, there is also a liability of imprisonment for the person responsible, who will be the editor, and, surely, this penalty will be imposed in the event of a newspaper breaking the law on more than two or three occasions. I venture to put it very strongly to my noble and learned friend opposite that he would really be risking the passage of this Bill if he insisted upon this Amendment. The Bill would be lost, and I am sure that this House and, I think, the other House is very anxious that the Bill should be passed in its present form.

The Government are not, of course, responsible for this Bill, but I venture to add my views to those of the noble Earl, and to say that my noble and learned friend would take a course favourable to the. Bill if he withdrew this Amendment at this stage. After all, it is rather a strong thing to ask Parliament to authorise a magistrate to suspend a newspaper for a period not exceeding six months. If it were proposed to give this power to a Judge of the High Court, it might be a different matter, but to give it to a court of summary jurisdiction is a thing to which I, for one, cannot assent. I may add that I believe that the representatives of the best newspapers in this country share with this House the desire to put an end to certain practices which obtain to-day, not I think to any great extent but to some extent, and to purify the Press, and I want to keep their collaboration. I know that they intend to consult together with regard to this Bill, and to see whether they can make any suggestion which will improve it or make it more suitable for the approval of Parliament, and I am glad to think that we shall have, at all events their advice, and possibly their co-operation. That being so, I think force is added to the view of my noble friend Lord Sumner and other speakers that it is better not to insist on putting a provision of this kind into the Bill.

This proposal was part of a series of proposals, one of which was that this drastic power should be in the hands of Judges of the High Court with resort to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but, after that which has been said by noble Lords on both sides of the House, I do not wish to press this proposal any further, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—

"(3) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be commenced by any person without the sanction of the Attorney-General."

The noble and learned Lord said: I think that this Amendment is very desirable to prevent prosecutions being commenced at the instance of irresponsible persons all over the country, and to ensure that, when they are commenced, they shall be properly conducted.

moved to leave out Clause 4. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee Stage I moved this Amendment, but in deference to Earl Beauchamp I withdrew it in order to move it again on the Report stage. The effect of this clause is to allow a council to make provision with regard to allotments if in their opinion the expenses of the council would not exceed the receipts by a greater amount than one penny in the pound. I believe that if this clause is allowed to remain in the Bill the result would be that in certain cases, if not in many cases, the council will say: "We can spend a penny rate. Therefore we and prepared to take allotments and let them at uneconomic rents, because we can make up the difference between expenses and receipts by a rate of a penny in the pound." I believe there will be considerable pressure put upon the councils by allotment holders to avail themselves of this provision.

My Lords, I am bound to say I am a little surprised at my noble friend Lord Banbury deeming it worth while to move the omission of this clause, after the most convincing arguments which were used by Lord Clinton in opposition to any such course. I am not prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I most profoundly hope your Lordships will not approve of it. I may remind your Lordships that, after all, the House of Commons have a very special duty vested in them of safeguarding the public purse, and it is a significant fact that, although there are plenty of potential critics in another place of such a clause as this if it is likely to operate to the disadvantage of the taxpayer or ratepayer, there was no criticism of this provision and it passed unamended. Lord Clinton pointed out, and I cannot do better than repeat his arguments, that in fact this clause is not only an enabling clause but, so far as the local authorities are concerned, it is at the same time a disabling clause. Under the law as set out in Section 16 of the Act of 1922 it was open to the local authority to prepare an allotments scheme, including negotiations for the acquisition of land suitable for allotments, and to estimate beforehand what was likely to be the expense to the ratepayers of the locality, and if by chance they miscalculated, and the expenditure, in fact exceeded receipts by a sum far in excess of a penny rate, such rate would have to be levied.

This clause limits the potential expenditure out of the rates in any locality to a penny in the pound, not a very generous provision in these days, when, as we all know, a penny rate in most localities is not capable of providing a very large capital sum. In any case I would suggest to the noble Lord, and certainly to your Lordships, that this is not the time of day to interfere materially with the autonomy of the local authorities. I have greater respect for democracy than my noble friend, but in any case, surely, if there is pressure put by a group of allotment holders upon the local authority, and the result is that an expensive scheme is embarked upon, there are plenty of other ratepayers who are going to express their disapproval, and the local authority who are merely representing the ratepayers will take care that the minority ratepayers are not going to put the locality to unnecessary expense. At any rate, I do suggest that this is a matter about which the local authorities feel strongly, and the local authorities can perfectly well be trusted to administer allotments according to the views of those who elect them.

But I should like to anticipate, if your Lordships will allow me, the further Amendment of my noble friend, who desires to omit Clause 5, as well as Clause 4. Clause 5 invites local authorities to exercise an intelligent foresight in acquiring in populous neighbourhoods suitable land to meet their further requirements in the matter of allotments. It is in respect very particularly of such anticipated requirements that Clause 4 is most likely to be put into operation; in other words, where you have got a developing city, with land appreciating in value as time goes on, it is obviously in the best interests of the ratepayers themselves, as well as of the allotment holders, that the local authorities should anticipate future allotment requirements, and, before land appreciates too much in value, obtain it at a reasonable figure. It is bearing very specially in mind that new power for which the local authorities have asked, and which it is proposed to vest in them by Clause 5, that I ask you very favourably to consider the advantages of this particular clause where, within the limits of a penny rate, the local authorities may be able to acquire land for future allotment purposes which they might not be able to acquire if they did not possess this power.

The noble Lord reminded me, when I referred to Swindon the other day, that he is a near neighbour of the people of Swindon. Swindon is the great example in this country of the advantages of foresight on the part of a municipal authority in the provision of allotments. These Swindon allotment holders to-day are obtaining, on land which has very greatly appreciated in value, allotments at a particularly low rent because of the prevision of the local authority in anticipating allotment requirements and some years ago obtaining land at a reasonable figure. I hope that your Lordships will not approve of this Amendment, especially in view of the fact that it might operate as a set-back to the development of allotments at a time when allotments are proving to be of very great value, when there is serious unemployment prevalent in the country. After all, there are many men to-day who are not receiving out-door relief because they can fall back on an allotment to provide them very largely with the means of subsistence.

I should like to point out to my noble friend that I think he is mistaken when he says that the effect of this clause will be to limit the amount paid by the council to a penny rate, because the words are—

"the expenses referred to in such section may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to exceed the receipts of the council under those provisions by no greater amount than would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound."

Presuming that the council find that it is necessary to raise a twopenny rate, all they would say is: "Well, we reasonably expected that the rate would not be more than a penny, but, though we took every reasonable precaution, we were wrong, and therefore we imposed a rate of twopence to meet the expense." My own opinion is that the section, the provisions of which it is proposed to alter, quite meets the case put by my noble friend, and I certainly will not withdraw. I hope the House will omit the clause.

I do not move the next Amendment standing in my name to omit Clause 5.

had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India whether measures are in contemplation adequately to fulfil the medical requirements of the Indian Army, British residents, official and non-official, and the civil hospitals, and to secure the progress of medical science in all its branches throughout India; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Earl for giving me this opportunity of raising this important question before the Recess. We have conferred immense benefits upon the peoples of India by the introduction of Western medicine and surgery. This most important part of our duty to the peoples of India may be said to have begun when Lord William Bentinck opened the Calcutta Medical College in 1835, but since then it has been vastly developed, and the Indian Medical Service grow in time to be one of the finest, perhaps even the finest public medical service ever created.

My Lords, the concluding sentence in the speech of the noble Lord seems to me to have very little relation to the interesting and largely uncontroversial observations which preceded it. It was really more appropriate to a debate which took place in your Lordships' House some few days ago. The Indian Medical Service and its organisation has always been a question of extreme difficulty. It is at the same time, as the noble Lord has pointed out, a military and a civil medical service, and no one knows better than the noble Lord that the interests of the two branches have not always been the same. The reforms of 1919, as the noble Lord informed the House, introduced a further complication, and it should be made clear at the outset that the obligations are those that are laid on the Government by the Government of India Act and the statutory Rules which were made under it. The cardinal fact is that, generally speaking, the civil medical administration of India in the Provinces, including the administration of hospitals, public health and the provision for medical education, is a Provincial Transferred Subject; that is to say, the responsibility for it rests with Ministers and by a Rule under the Act the Secretary of State, one of my predecessors, has divested himself of the powers of superintendence and control which he formerly exercised in regard to it.

The Lee Commission, subject to the limitations I will presently mention, took the same line with the Indian Medical Service as with other All-India Services dealing with Transferred Subjects. It appeared to them to be the logical and the practical sequence of the reforms that, subject to the reservation of the rights of present members of the Service, the Provincial Governments should in future recruit and control the Services for whose work they were responsible to the Provincial Legislatures. Their view has been accepted in principle for the Indian Medical Service as for the other Services in question. In the case of the Indian Medical Service, however, the general principle is limited by two important considerations: First, the Civil Medical Service is the only source from which a medical reserve for the needs of the Army, and in particular its requirements in trained British medical men, can be easily obtained in emergency; secondly, I have decided to adopt the recommendations of the Lee Commission for the provision for European services of medical attendance by British medical men.

I will now deal with the various heads mentioned specifically by the noble Lord. In the light of what I have said it will be clear that the Secretary of State will no longer undertake be recruit officers for the medical administration of India generally or, in particular, for civil hospitals as such. Nor can he assume responsibility for the medical care of British non-officials resident in India. But the Act left as "Central Subjects," for which the Government of India are responsible, a number of matters, for instance, central agencies for research and technical training and the promotion of special studies, and a reserved responsibility in regard to legislation for infectious diseases and the regulation of medical qualifications and standards. For these the Secretary of State remains responsible and he will continue to recruit officers to deal with them. He will also, of course, recruit for the civil medical needs of administrations that remain directly under the Government of India, and for the Political Department.

There remain for consideration the provisions to be made (1) for the Army, including its Medical Reserve, and (2) for medical attendance on the European Services as recommended by the Lee Commission. I have received the recommendations of the Government of India on these matters and their consideration is already well advanced in my office. I am not yet in a position to communicate my final decisions, but I may, perhaps, indicate the lines on which I think a solution of this difficult question will be found. The Lee Commission, with some hesitation, for they realised that military organisation lay outside their terms of reference, recommended that the military side of the Indian Medical Service should be absorbed in the Royal Army Medical Corps. The proposal has received very careful consideration from the Government of India and myself, and we have come to the conclusion that the solution proposed would raise many more difficulties on the military side than it would solve. We therefore think that the Indian Medical Service must be maintained. It would be essentially a Military Service, but its reserve would be secured by lending officers to the Civil Administration. A consideration of the numbers in question goes to show that the number of European officers in the reserve so lent would be sufficient to provide for the needs of the European Services on the lines of the scheme proposed by the Lee Commission. These officers would be stationed at the headquarters of groups of districts throughout India, and would be made available for the European Services and their families. The officers required by the Government of India for the central medical subjects would also be obtained from the Military Indian Medical Service.

It is, of course, a matter of the first importance whether a service constituted on these lines will attract recruits of the right class. I am inclined to think that it will be essential, with this in view, to reserve for the portion of the Army Reserve lent to the civil side but not required directly for the medical care of the British Services, a number of civil appointments; for instance, research or professorial appointments. Such appointments have always been one of the attractions of the Indian Medical Service, and if the essential Army Reserve maintained in civil employment allows a margin, as it almost certainly will, it is clearly a gain not only from the point of view of recruiting inducements but a gain to Indian public health generally that they should be employed in the departments of research and teaching in which their predecessors have done so much for the welfare of India.

My statement on the matter is necessarily tentative, for the final conclusion can only be reached after a careful balancing of the various interests involved, and, in particular, the claims of the Local Governments to the control of the Provincial medical administration. But, as I have said, I am hopeful that a solution may be found on these lines, and that it will appeal to the medical profession. I am the more optimistic on the last point because, unlike certain other Services, the Indian Medical Service is at present obtaining recruits of a high standard from the medical profession in this country, notwithstanding the uncertainty of the position pending my decision. I need hardly give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall not fail carefully to read what he said as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because it is a little difficult to gather precisely, in dealing with these somewhat technical matters, what is said at the moment. I will, however, carefully read what the noble Lord has said.

My Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Earl, and to withdraw my Motion.

had given Notice of Amendments to Clause 1.

I see that the noble Duke proposes to leave out one word, and the noble Lord proposes to leave out the same word and a number of other words. I suggest to your Lordships that it might be convenient to take first the one word "October." Then, if the noble Duke's Amendment is agreed to, the noble Lord's can follow, to leave out the rest of the words.

May I suggest to the Lord Chairman that if you put in "October" it would be too late to talk about May. In that sense, the May Amendment comes first. Perhaps it might be moved in a different form.

If that be convenient then we can take Lord Banbury's Amendment first, and in the meantime I will think out a way of saving the noble Duke's Amendment.

Would it be possible to give one reply? The reply? the same in both cases.

omit from subsection (2) all "the first Saturday in," and insert "May were substituted for the third Saturday in April, and the first Saturday in September for the third Saturday in September." The noble Lord said: This Bill is as bad an example of legislation by reference as any I have ever seen. It is quite incomprehensible unless you obtain the original Act and study it carefully. The effect of my Amendment, if carried, would be that summer time would commence upon the first Saturday in May, and terminate on the first Saturday in September. I do not deny for a moment that there are a few farmers who do not see very much objection to summer time, but taking farmers as a whole the farming interest in all parts of Great Britain is opposed to it. Farmers are opposed to it because it is detrimental to their business. In the early morning there is a large amount of dew, and consequently, in the hay and corn harvest, operations cannot be commenced. In this summer, which is a very dry one, there has hardly been, to my knowledge in my county, where I spend three or four days each week, a morning without a heavy dew. I have been out in order to see whether or not it was a fact that there was a heavy dew which prevented hay operations starting. We know that in September there always is a heavy dew, and though sometimes the harvest in England is over by the first week in September, or possibly the last week in August, in other parts of the country, especially in Scotland, the harvest does not begin until early or even the middle of September.

I have an Amendment to leave out "October" and insert "September." I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply would like me to speak now—the Amendments are really on the same point—or whether he would like me to speak on my own Amendment.

My answer will be the same to both Amendments, and it might be given once instead of twice.

So far as I understand, the view of the Government is that there are probably more votes in favour of the Bill than there are against it, and that is what has determined this question. Whether it is good for the country or not does not seem to come in. If people in England have to get up at five o'clock then they are much more fortunate than the people farther north. These people have to get up much earlier than that, and they feel this summer time very bitterly. I have had a large number of letters on this question, and it must be said that the majority have been in favour of the measure. There was one person who was so keen that he wanted summer time for the whole year round, and remarked that those who were in favour of it would be much worse off as they would have to get up so much earlier in the winter that they would get what he called a "sickener" of it.

There is, however, this important question. The Government, I understand, supports the Bill because the majority of people are in favour of it, and, therefore, they are not likely to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, or my own Amendment. It means this: that any plea on behalf of agriculture is to be turned down because agriculture has not so many votes. If that is the case I think we should be much better off if the Government were to say that we need not expect anything from them. In, effect they say: "You have not enough votes, and, therefore, you will not get justice." That is what it comes to. I do not wish to labour this question as it has been thoroughly thrashed out already, but I would like to read the concluding paragraph of the Report of the Scottish Conference on Agriculture. It puts the case very much better than I can put it.

This is what the Report says—

"We feel some reluctance in concluding our Report with a reference to a subject on which the views of agriculturists have already been so fully and cogently expressed from many quarters. But it is one of such importance and has so direct a bearing on the questions submitted to us in our terms of reference that we cannot refrain from reiterating these views in the strongest possible terms. We appreciate and sympathise with the humane and disinterested motives of those who urge the adoption of summer time for the longest period practicable, but we would appeal to them in turn not to ignore the claims of agriculture to a fair measure of consideration in this matter. These claims are advanced with the unanimous support of all sections engaged in the industry, and for this reason, if for no other, they should not be lightly set aside. Their merits, in our opinion, are indisputable. Summer time for any period, cannot out affect agriculture adversely, but we are willing to sacrifice our interests so far as to compromise on a period of four months, covering May, June, July and August. To begin it at 1st April and, even worse, to continue it through the harvest month of September, would weigh the balance heavily against agriculture, and in the later districts of Scotland, where under normal conditions the grain harvest is a difficult and speculative business, would make all the difference between possible success and certain disaster. It would also lead many to give up milk production, already a very burdensome occupation for the farmer and his employees. The detailed reasons for these statements should be sufficiently well known from the many representations that have been put forward by the various agricultural organisations."

The next paragraph is, I think, really very important. It concludes—

"All we need say is that, if the proposal for a full six months of summer time is persisted in, it will go a long way to cancel the beneficial effects which we earnestly hope our recommendations may be the means of bringing to our fundamental national industry."

Year after year in Scotland and the North of England the crops are absolutely wasted because we cannot get them in, and summer time in the month of September is going to make a difference between partial success and certain disaster. I hope that the Government will look thoroughly into this matter. They are very apt to appoint these Committees, but what is the use of appointing Committees if, when the Report comes in, they are going to ignore it and go against its recommendations. If the Government do not accept this Amendment they must take the responsibility and must not cry out if in a year or two—if they are still in power—the returns of arable land in Scotland have considerably gone down.

I want, not as representing the Labour Party but as a man who has lived most of his life in the country and is also familiar with town life, to support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. We who live in the country and agricultural workers generally get up about as early as is possible to do our work, especially in the dairy trades, and particularly in spring and in late autumn, when we want to start harvesting as early as we can. We get up at a reasonable time, and it appears to us rather unreasonable that, on behalf of the town dwellers, who, we think, do not get up at a reasonable time, we should be forced to get up at an earlier hour and that our spring and autumn production should be hampered in order that town dwellers—not so much of the working classes as of the middle classes—who get up later than they need and later than the majority of the human race, may have a longer period in the evening. We do not think that we ought to be put in that difficulty when we are carrying on productive industries

It would be more reasonable, and the burden would be distributed very much better, if the town workers formed the habit of getting up and starting their work earlier in the day, in order that they might leave a little earlier in the afternoon, rather than that agriculturists, at crucial times of the year, should be hampered in the morning by having to do their work at an uneconomic time and in the afternoon by having to leave off at a time when they might be doing three or four hours more work. That is why I think that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, deserves very great sympathy. The balance of convenience to the public will be very much better distributed if the Amendment is accepted.

I wish to support my noble friend the mover of this Amendment, and also to speak on behalf of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. The noble Lord has spoken of the harvest in this country. I come from a very much more northerly district than he does, where we stiffer very much from the late harvests that we usually have. Very often snow is on the ground before our harvest is gathered in. In this connection I should like to refer to the remarks of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. He said:

"The reason of the farmers' objection to summer time starting so early as the beginning of April was that in most counties there are early frost,"

He might have added that we in the North suffer not only from frost but from very heavy dew. Later on, the noble Lord said, referring to the objections of agriculturists, that. he fully admitted that they were very serious objections. The fact of the matter is that the agriculturist, because he represents a smaller body of the community than the town population, is to be sacrificed to it. History shows that in bygone days the aristocracy, supported by the country yeomanry, were usually the people to fight the country's battles.

This Bill is a compromise. Agriculturists do not oppose it from selfish motives and they do not say that there should be no summer time at all. But I do feel that the agriculturist is deserving of some consideration. We are constantly hearing cries about making the country fit for heroes to live in and about, going back to the land. What is the inducement to go bark to the land? What is the state of the land? To Scotland one-fifth of the land has changed hands since the War, and it does not look as if it is a very good thing to be a landlord. The troubles of the landlord are shared by the farmer and the agricultural worker, for each depends upon the others. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer at this time of the evening, but, if my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.

I have very great sympathy with the case put by the Farmers' Union and other agriculturists and I have no doubt whatever that, if we had to consider the agricultural industry alone, it would be better if there had never been any time-saving Bill at all. I was opposed to the scheme when it was originally introduced in another places but circumstances are not quite the same now, because the measure has been in operation, it has been very fully debated in another place and I think that the result of that debate does represent the views of a very great majority of the people of this country. As regards field work, harvesting and so on, I believe that the difficulty may be got over. After all, on moonlight nights we sometimes work all night, at least in the less favoured districts of the northern part of this country. You cannot, however, get over the hardships caused to the dairying industry and the excessively early hours at which women and other workers have to rise. That burden is greatly aggravated by this Bill. On the whole, however, I would prefer to see, and I hope that the Government will see, that agriculture receives that just consideration and those measures of relief which the noble Duke who supports this Amendment so well put before the House, rather than an interference with this Bill as it has been brought up to this house. I think it is on those lines that a real relief will be given and justice will be done to the agricultural industry. As I have said, I think that, in every respect except dairying, we can get over the undoubted hardship which this Bill causes to the agricultural industry. I need not recapitulate the advantages, real or imaginary, which the towns and large proportions of other districts in the country find in this system, which has already been tried for some years. We have to recollect also that in a great agricultural country, our neighbour on the Continent, the same system of summer time is in force. It is a little difficult to understand this. I should not have thought that France would ever adopt summer time.

They are very much further south.

That is true, but I should have thought that a great agricultural country like France would have hesitated to adopt summer time. I think it is inadvisable to oppose the measure here, although the hardships of the agricultural industry are greater than those that may be suffered in France. I regret, as an agriculturist, that summer time was ever introduced, but I think that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves it is very difficult to oppose the Bill.

I hope it will be convenient to your Lordships that I should return what will practically be one reply to both Amendments put down by my noble friends, because the result would be the same in either case, and do not wish to repeat my arguments. I must say that I was very much surprised to hear Lord Banbury say that the object of this Bill was to put another hindrance in the way of agriculture, and also to enable people to play lawn tennis and to facilitate shopping. I have had the advantage of reading the debate in another place, and I must say that there the arguments against the Bill were put in a very much more serious and more becoming way. There is no doubt, in my mind, and I have had some experience in agriculture, having been head of some of the great agricultural societies for many years past, that on the whole this Bill is not, and I do not pretend that it is, acceptable to agriculturists, but I must say, having read the debates in another place, that I was surprised and comforted to find that many representatives of agriculture, both on behalf of the labourers and the farmers, spoke in high terms of the results of summer time.

Instead of the object of this Bill being to give more time for people to play lawn tennis and for ladies to do their shopping, we have the practically unanimous opinion of doctors that this measure has greatly increased the health of the people. That is one of the main grounds on which I shall ask the House to support this Bill. We have also the testimony of those who are interested in the education of five millions of our children, who by two to one have expressed themselves in the strongest way in favour of the principle of summer time for the sake of the children.

What is the position now of this country with regard to summer time? Every Session of Parliament this country is open to a Bill being brought in to alter summer time. Hardly one member of the Legislature, either Lord or Commoner, and not even Lord Banbury, would presume to bring in a Bill to do away with summer time altogether, but every Session, as long as this matter remains open, there will be uncertainty as to the duration of summer time. It has become, as was stated in another place, a Sessional nuisance, and until some arrangement is arrived at it is impossible for this country to carry out its engagements with France and Belgium, which in the interests of all three countries it is absolutely necessary should be carried out.

The advice of the Prime Minister, who is himself an agriculturist, to agriculturists, was that they should take what they can get now for fear of getting something lees if they asked for more. This Bill comes here as an absolutely non-Party measure. It was left to the free vote of the House of Commons, and both on the Second Reading and on the Report stage it was carried by an enormous majority. On the Report Stage there was a concession made to the agricultural interest; that is to say, although the supporters of the Bill were unwilling to give up the end of the holidays—namely, the last week in September—which would necessitate the disturbing of all the railway companies' time tables and bills, they were willing, for the sake of giving what they could to the agricultural industry, to make summer time begin rather later than was at first intended.

I venture to give this advice to my friends behind me: that it would be much wiser, in the interests of agriculture, to accept the arrangement arrived at, rather than reject this Bill by carrying these Amendments, with the result that next year they would find themselves faced with a demand for the whole six months, which they would not be able to resist. Therefore I appeal to my noble friends, and to the House, in the interests of agriculture, to accept this Bill as it stands and not to amend it and so cause it to be lost. I am afraid, for the reasons I have given, and in the interests of agriculture, that I can accept neither of the Amendments proposed by my noble friends behind me.

I should like to say one word in reply. My noble friend has made a very good Second Reading speech, but he has not actually dealt with either of the Amendments at all.

I said that I was afraid I could not accept either.

That was all my noble friend said.

I pointed out that the reason I could not accept them was that they would kill the Bill. They are equally bad, in my opinion, but of the two I prefer that of the noble Duke.

It does not follow that my Amendment, if carried, would kill the Bill. We are going to have an autumn Session and therefore there is any amount of time available. I should like to point out, moreover, that my Amendment does not touch the arrangement made, if it was an arrangement, as regards the opening of summer time. The Bill as passed last year only went to the third week in September, and now we are going into October. I would be prepared to compromise in that respect, if the noble Lord will accept an Amendment ending summer time in the third week in September. If he will not do so, then we will press this question on either Lord Banbury's Amendment or my Amendment.

I think there is one thing forgotten, and that is that in the North of Scotland, where I live, conditions are very different from those in the South. September in Scotland is the time when the harvest begins, and the sun sets very much earlier than it does in the South. In the early morning, owing to summer time, the labourers come down to take up work and have to stand about for a considerable time, because of the dew on the land. There is no other work for them to do, and yet for all those hours of waiting the farmer has to pay wages to the labourers. A second point is that the daylight ends at a very much earlier hour, and therefore it is impossible for them to get through the harvest in the time available. I think these are two very important points in regard to the

I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment in order to take the Amendment of the noble Duke.

moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "September" for "October."

I am afraid the objections to this Amendment are almost as great as they are to the other. They are, at any rate, fatal. The whole of this point was debated over and over again in another place. I have tried to point out that it is most inconvenient to the people of this country to have all their trains altered towards the end of September, and I am afraid that this Amendment, if carried, would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. On both occasions the opponents of the Bill only mustered sixty-three votes in the House of Commons out of 700 against this Bill.

There are only 615 Members of the House of Commons.

I was confusing the Lords and the Commons; but, at any rate, they only mustered sixty-three. After what was said in the House of Commons the last time this was discussed, I very much doubt whether there would be even sixty-three votes for the noble Duke's Amendment.

My Lords, this is an Annual Bill which I do not think ever gives rise to discussion in your Lordships' House. I do not intend, therefore, to delay your Lordships with any observations upon it, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.

My Lords, this Bill is certified as a Money Bill, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for your Lordships to go into Committee upon it. I beg to move that the Bill be committed.

My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Irvine Burgh, and to move that it be now read a first time.