Commons Sitting of 15 April 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill; Tottenham Improvement Bill. Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Acton Improvement Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill (King's Consent signified). Read the third time, and passed.
  Colney Hatch Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill, Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Earsdon, the Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, and Longton, the Henley and Wallingford, the Wallingford and Crowmarsh, and the Whitchurch and District Joint Hospital Districts. Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Earsdon, the Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, and Longton, the Henley and Wallingford, the Wallingford and Crowmarsh, and the Whitchurch and District Joint Hospital Districts." Presented accordingly, and read the first
  294
  time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
  East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Mr. CAWLEY reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills, That Mr. Remnant, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Barnsley (two); Falkirk; Rochester; Eccles; Mere; Kilburn; Weymouth; Tenbury; Cheetham; Staincross; Helensburgh; Rutherglen; Llanganor: Stranraer: Kirkintilloch: Berwick-on-Tweed; Newton Heath; Potton; Lochgilphead; Birmingham; Ashton-under-Lyne; Street; Wibsey; Gravesend: Portobello: Manchester; Lewin's Mead: Hatfield Broad Oak; Briton Ferry; Neath: Tabor Bryncaws; Maesteg; and Nantymoel; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour to lie upon the Table.
  MORTGAGE OF PREMISES BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER FULL.
  Petitions against; from Birmingham; and Cannock; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th March; Mr. Nannetti]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 126.]
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd March; Mr. John Morley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 127.]

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum Explanatory of Amendments proposed to the Army Act."—(Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The King-Harman Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of William H. Plant, tenant of part of the lands of Toome and Barry on the King-Harman (Kenagh) Estate; whether he is aware that in the Pink Schedule these lands are described as of very poor quality, and that the tenant on being pressed to purchase at the same price as the good lands on this estate wrote to the solicitors offering to do so if the holding was inspected by an officer of the Estates Commission; and, if so, will he direct that before this sale is given effect to, inspection will be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No agreement to purchase has yet been lodged by this tenant. There are no Pink Schedules attached to the fair-rent files in his case. Should the vendor apply that the holding in question be excluded from the lands to be declared an estate, the circumstances and offer made to the tenant will be carefully considered and inquired into by the Estates Commissioners.

  Salvage of Damaged Submarines.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether submarine vessels belonging to His Majesty's Fleet are so fitted that they may be easily grappled and raised in the event of their being so injured that the crew are unable to bring their vessel to the surface; whether Al Submarine could have been raised to the surface within forty-eight hours in the event of her crew having survived the shock of collision; and whether His Majesty's Fleet possesses any special salvage vessels or apparatus for the speedy recovery of vessels sunk in a harbour fairway during war-time, or whether they are entirely dependent upon private firms for such work.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No special means are provided, these vessels are easily grappled owing to their shape. In the case of the Al no difficulty was experienced in passing hawsers under the vessel and attaching to lighters, and this was done by the dockyard; but, through the send of the sea, the hawsers parted, and the Commander-in-Chief then reported that there was no alternative but regular salvage operations. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is impossible to say; the crew of the Al were probably drowned at once. The Admiralty have no special salvage vessels and are dependent on private firms for such work. At each dockyard port, however, there are very experienced divers, and a number of craft, that could be utilised for raising vessels.

  Construction of Battleships by Foreign Countries.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the battleships now under construction in Russia number nine, in Germany eight, in the United States thirteen, and in Great Britain eight; whether the projected battleships are for Russia four, for Germany two, for the United States one, and for Great Britain two, making the total of battleships building and projected for Russia thirteen, for Germany ten, for the United States fourteen, and for Great Britain ten; and, if so, whether he can state the total tonnage of the battleships

  297
  building and projected for each of the above countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." The projected battleships for Great Britain and United States are as stated in the hon. Member's Question, but nothing is known of any projected battleships for Russia and Germany beyond the four recently laid down by Russia and the two by Germany, and which are included in the total of battleships building. The total tonnage of battleships building and projected is:— Great Britain, 187.000; Russia, 125,270; Germany, 103,976; United States, 209,180.'

  Salvage of Submarine A1.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, are the Admiralty aware that there are in existence British Salvage Companies of great experience and proved ability; and can he explain why none of these companies was called upon to undertake the raising of the sunken Submarine A1; and why the work was committed to the Swedish Neptune Salvage Company of Stockholm without any opportunity being afforded to any British company to undertake it.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty is aware of the existence of qualified British Salvage Companies, and has already made use of their services. But the Neptune Salvage Company were successful in raising H.M.S. "Howe" in 1893, and having one of their ships (the "Belos") at Portsmouth at the time of the recent accident, their offer was accepted by the Commander-in-Chief so as not to lose valuable time.

  Morning Delivery of Letters in the City of London.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in parts of the City of London, the morning delivery of letters does not take place until nine o'clock or later, and that complaint has been caused thereby; and whether he will arrange that the first delivery may be concluded earlier.
  298
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I find that as a rule the bulk of the letters for the first delivery in the City of London are delivered by 8.30 a.m., and that, with very few exceptions, the whole of the delivery is completed by about 8.45 a.m. It would not be practicable to afford an earlier service without excluding a large number of letters from the delivery, thereby giving rise to grave complaint.

  Board of Education and Proposed New Voluntary Schools.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what decision the Board has come to with regard to the application to provide a new voluntary school at Hayward's Heath.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board is, to-day, informing the local education authority for East Sussex of their decision that the present deficiency of school accommodation at Hayward's Heath will best be met by the immediate provision of a council school, and that, on hearing from the local authority that they are prepared to provide such a school, the proposal to provide a new voluntary school will be refused.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what decision the Board has come to with regard to the application to provide a new voluntary school at Barton-on-Humber.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) A public inquiry was held here on 24th March. The Board hope to receive the report very shortly; they understand that the delay in receiving it is due to the need of some further statistical information.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what decision the Board has come to with regard to the application to provide a new voluntary school at Plaistow.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) A public inquiry was held here on 11th April. The report of the inquiry has not vet been received.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what derision the Board has come to with regard to the application to provide a new voluntary school at Weymouth.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board are in communication with the local authority, and no decision has yet been come to.

  Sale of Green Plovers during the Close Season.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that last week several dead green plovers were being offered for sale in Leadenhall Market at the same time as their eggs; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Wild Birds Pro-te3tion Acts, he will inquire into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have caused special inquiry to be made, and am informed that there is no evidence of any plover recently killed in England having been sold in Leadenhall Market, and that the plovers which are being sold there are frozen.

  Excise and Customs Revenues on Liquor and Drugs in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what was the total amount of the net Excise and Customs revenues on liquor and drugs consumed in India during the years 1901–2 and 1902–3.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The net Excise revenue of India from liquors and drugs for 1901–2 and 1902–3 was £4,025,770 and £4,384,181 respectively. As regards Customs revenue, the receipts from drugs other than opium arc not stated separately in the accounts, but are included with those from chemicals, dyes, etc. The net Customs revenue from liquors and opium for 1901–2 and 1902–3 was £464,481 and £504,261 respectively.

  Salaries of Irish School Teachers
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
  300
  tenant of Ireland whether he can state if the King's Scholars who were in training at the time of the abolition of the results system received any special consideration, in view of the fact that they signed agreements with the Commissioners of National Education to adopt the teaching profession; whether there was an understanding that their initial salaries would depend upon their classification and position in school, and would in most cases range from £70 to £150; and whether they have been paid the initial salary of £56 irrespective of their positions as principals or assistants.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that in the case of teachers who had entered as King's Scholars for the year of training 1899–1900, special consideration is given to any promotion in classification to which they would have been entitled under the old rules when fixing their future incomes from the State. All candidates for entrance to a training college must make a declaration that they intend bonâ fide to follow the profession of teacher in national schools, elementary schools in Great Britain, Army or Navy schools, Poor Law schools, industrial or reformatory schools. There is not at present, and there never was, any understanding that the initial salaries of such teachers when employed would range from £70 to £150 per annum. The incomes of such teachers vary with the circumstances of their employment.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when teachers entering the service of the National Board in July, 1900, and receiving favourable reports are entitled to an increment, and from what date the increment will accrue.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The claims for increments of good service salary of teachers entering the service in July, 1900, will be considered this year, and if increments are granted they will accrue from the date subsequent to July, 1900, on which the teachers have completed three years' good service.

  Hutting Accommodation for South African Permanent Garrison.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if there exists any Parliamentary Paper showing the hutting accommodation being provided for permanent garrisons at various stations in South Africa other than Pretoria, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Simon's Bay, Ladysmith. and Durban; what force is to be kept at Potchefstroom, Standerton, Middleburg, Kroonstadt, and Harrismith respectively; at what number of stations it is intended to keep troops; and whether military advice has been the basis of the decision as to the dispersal of troops.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) (1) No Parliamentary Paper has been issued showing the hutting accommodation which is being provided for the permanent garrison for South Africa. (2) The force to be kept at the stations specified in the second Question is as follows:—Potchefstroom: one regiment cavalry, three batteries, Royal Field Artillery, one field company, Royal Engineers, one battalion infantry, Line. Standerton: one regiment mounted infantry, one battery, Royal Field Artillery (and Brigade Head Quarters), one battalion infantry. Royal Garrison Regiment. Middleburg (Transvaal): one regiment mounted infantry, one battery, Royal Field Artillery, one and a half battalions infantry. Line. Kroonstadt: nil. Middleburg (Cape Colony): one regiment cavalry, three batteries, Royal Field Artillery, one field company, Royal Engineers, one battalion infantry. Line. Harrismith: one regiment mounted infantry, one battery Royal Field Artillery, one battalion infantry, Royal Garrison Regiment. (3) The following stations in addition to the above have been allotted permanent garrisons. Pretoria: one regiment cavalry, two batteries, Royal Horse Artillery, one field troop, one field company, one telegraph section, Royal Engineers, two battalions infantry, Line, one battalion infantry, Royal Garrison Regiment. Bloemfontein: one regiment cavalry, three batteries, Royal Field Artillery, one field company, Royal Engineers, two battalions infantry Line,
  302
  one battalion infantry, Royal Garrison Regiment. Barberton: one half battalion infantry, Line. Naval Base (Capo Colony): two companies, Royal Garrison Artillery, one fortress company, Royal Engineers, two battalions infantry, Line. (4) The above distribution of the troops is based on military advice.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that in moving the Second Reading of the Bill he was bound to confess that the subject matter of it was somewhat dull, and that there was nothing exciting in it. It was, however, a Bill of considerable practical importance—of even urgent practical importance to large classes of the community. Except for the last clause in it, which referred to the metric system, he believed there was no portion of the Bill which would be considered as otherwise than non-contentious. The measure, it was true, touched—though only to a very slight extent—upon very disputatious questions. It touched, for instance, the fiscal question; it also affected the religious question, because the principles embodied in a just system of weights and measures and true balances were the moral foundation, more or less, of our civilisation. He thought he would have the sympathy of the House with him in regard to the general principles of the Bill. The measure was divided up into three parts. There was the last clause to which he had already referred, and which was not a vital part of the Bill; and another portion which referred to certain small details, the object being to supply omissions in the present Act. They were essentially matters of detail which had cropped up in the course of the working of the Weights and Measures Acts, and which certainly deserved careful attention. But this, after all, was a matter for a Committee of the House, it did not involve any question of principle, and he did not think he need take up any time in explaining the details to the House. The broad question with which the Bill had to do was that of securing greater uniformity in the administration

303
of the Acts relating to weights and measures. It was, of course, no use having a uniform system of weights and measures unless, in practice, they could secure such uniformity in the administration of the system as would give, in practice, that which was supposed to be, in theory, secured. For instance, in one district twenty ounces was considered to be the measure of a pint, and in another part of the country twenty-one ounces, and how could they get uniformity of standard in practice unless they had equal measures of capacity in the different parts of the country? Moreover, in one part of the country the balance which was considered to be a true and just and a lawful instrument for measuring weights was in another part considered as an unjust and illegal instrument for ascertaining weights. Here again they had uniformity in theory, but not in practice. The principle of the Bill, so far as it might be said to have any principle, had reference to this question of securing uniformity of procedure. One did not desire to embarrass the local authority in the detailed administration of the system. The system was to have the law administered as far as possible by the local authorities; but, of course, the central Government would like to secure a certain measure of uniformity which was not inconsistent with perfect freedom on the part of the authorities who were to administer the law on the lines laid down by the central authority. The Bill provided for securing some such uniformity, and it would give power to the Board of Trade to make regulations with reference to the administration of the Acts, and it would also supplement those Acts with details which would carry out the principles embodied in the generalities of the existing Acts. That was a system which had been largely adopted for legislative purposes.
Perhaps it would not be out of place if he were to give the House a little sketch of the history of this matter as it stood at the present moment. The matter had been considered to be urgent for some ten years past. The first Weights and Measures Act was passed in 1878; there was a second Act in 1889, and in the early nineties it was felt that so many discrepancies and
304
defects had been developed in practice that further legislation was necessary. The matter was seriously considered at that time by a conference of inspectors of weights and measures and of manufacturers of weighing machines. The inspectors of weights and measures came from all parts of the country, and were a body of men deeply skilled in their particular department. They had to test all balances and to stamp weights and measures, and that was a matter which required a considerable amount of technical skill. The inspectors meeting together were enabled to exchange views so as to get those which obtained in all parts of the United Kingdom. The result of their deliberations was the appointment of a Committee to take into consideration all these matters. That Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division, held no fewer than sixteen meetings, and they issued a very admirable Report. They also sent a deputation to the President of the Board of Trade—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon—who went into the matter very thoroughly and gave it his most careful and sympathetic consideration. It was a good many years ago, but, so far as he remembered, the right hon. Gentleman had no substantial criticisms to offer on the Amendments which were proposed, and he certainly was very sympathetic in regard to the Bill. At the same time a circular was issued by the President of the Local Government Board to a large number of local authorities, asking for their views in regard to the proposed Amendments. He (the speaker) himself asked a Question in the House upon that point, and his impression was that the reply he received was to the effect that something like one-third of the local authorities throughout the country had expressed themselves favourable to the Amendments which were proposed. It was said that the local authorities were apathetic in the matter, but it must be remembered that some of them were to be numbered among the sinners, and it was only natural that they should not agree to have their faults made manifest to the public. As the result of what then occurred, he introduced a Bill, and that Bill had been brought in year after

305
year. The fortune of the ballot, however, had been against him until the present year, and this was the first occasion on which he had had an opportunity of bringing the matter under the direct consideration of the House.
He might also say that the Association of Municipal Corporations had considered this subject. It did so in March of last year, and, on the motion of Sir Homewood Crawford, solicitor to the City of London, seconded by the Lord Mayor of Manchester, the following resolution was passed—
"That the Weights and Measures Acts urgently require amendment, for the protection of the public, and to secure uniformity of administration: and that it is desirable that this Association should approach the Board of Trade and urge upon the President the necessity for the introduction at an early date of a Government Hill dealing with this important subject."
The Executive Council of the same society also subsequently passed another resolution on the lines of that proposed by Sir Homewood Crawford. It was—
"That the Weights and Measures Acts urgently require amendment, for the protection of the public, and to secure uniformity of administration; and that the President of the Board of Trade be urged to introduce at an early date a Government Bill dealing with this important subject."
The municipal corporations were likewise requested to pass a resolution in support of an amendment of the Weights and Measures Acts, and to communicate the same to the President of the Board of Trade. Resolutions in similar terms to that adopted by the Executive Council of the Association of Municipal Corporations were passed by the Corporations of Birmingham, Blackburn, Bournemouth, Bootle, Blackpool, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Clitheroe, Don-caster, Dublin. Dumfermline; Edinburgh, Folkestone, Glasgow, Govan, Grimsby, Hastings, Huddersfield, Hull, Lancaster. Leith, Lincoln City, Liverpool, London City, Manchester, Nottingham, Oldham, Perth, Plymouth, Preston, St. Helens, Smethwick, Sheffield, Southport, Staly-bridge, West Ham, Windsor, Worcester, and Wigan. Airdrie and Forfar also expressed sympathy with the movement. The Executive Council of the County Councils Association, at a meeting on the 25th of last November, also resolved
306
respecting the administration of the Weights and Measures Acts:—
"(1) That the fee charged under the Acts should he uniform. (2) That the powers of the Board of Trade should be increased so as to secure uniformity of administration, but so as not to interfere with the rights of each local authority as to the officers who arc to carry out the administration of the Acts. (3) That short weight and short measure should be made a penal offence."
The county councils were also circularised, and from a good many expressions of approval of the proposal were received.
Now he came to the provisions of the Bill. It was clear that it was important there should be uniformity of administration, otherwise there must necessarily be a certain amount of chaos. What was the principle of the Act of 1878 as applied to the Weights and Measures Act of 1880? No doubt it was intended to apply the same principle in the two cases, but with reference to weighing machines some difficulty had arisen from the wording of the Acts. His opinion was that the intention was in each case the same, and that it was desired that the Acts should apply to weighing instruments. It was not intended, for instance, that a weighing machine stamped by the authorities in Birmingham as being a proper and just weighing instrument should, in the case of the county of Warwick, be treated as being otherwise, and require to be restamped. That was a diversity of practice which accentuated the necessity for giving power to the Board of Trade to secure a more uniform administration. Different local authorities acted differently in the matter, but uniformity of administration was eminently desirable.
The Board of Trade had a series of model regulations in reference to the carrying out of the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, but they had no power of imposing them on local authorities. One of these regulations required the maker's name to be upon every instrument. Makers of reputation would naturally adopt that course, but inferior makers might not be so eager to place their names on the instruments made by them. From the public point of view it was an important matter, because an instrument, though stamped as correct when made, might

307
soon develop defects, and it could then be traced back to its maker. Consequently, it was very desirable that that regulation should be enforced, but the practice varied in different areas, some authorities adopting the regulation and others declining to do so. Another of the model regulations, with reference to the stamping of pint pots, provided that an excess of 2½ per cent, might be allowed. Here, again, there was no uniformity of practice, the pint in some districts being twenty fluid ounces, in others twenty-one, and so on. There was also a great lack of uniformity in the mode of testing. For instance, the ordinary scales, such as those used in post offices for weighing letters, could easily be so manufactured as to weigh truly wherever in the pan the weight was placed. In the testing of these instruments in some localities the regulation was that the weight should be placed within a certain circle of the pan; in others, that the instrument should weigh truly wherever in the pan the weight was placed. Another matter in which uniformity of practice was much to be desired was the approval of new designs. Invention was constantly at work on new designs of weighing machines, but the new designs could not be introduced into practice without being approved. Some defects could be ascertained only by practice, others could be at once detected by experts, but the practice actually adopted varied considerably. In some cases there was an appeal to the Board of Trade, and he contended that the Board ought to have power to make and enforce general regulations so that uniformity of practice might be secured. He had not the slightest desire to interfere with the discretion of the local authorities in the carrying out of the Act, but these were matters which could be more conveniently dealt with by the general regulations made by the Board of Trade in accordance with the up-to-date knowledge now available.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 9 dealt with a difficulty which had arisen in some districts with reference to the weighing of bread. Although the weighing instruments had passed the inspectors and been stamped, yet it was possible for the users to be convicted under the Bread Act. That was not a
308
satisfactory state of things. Clause 10 embodied the general principle of the Act, viz., that of giving the Board of Trade power to make general regulations. Clause Hi provided for a periodical re-verification of weights, measures, and weighing instruments. That was an eminently desirable provision in the interests of the public, because the wear and tear of the weight was always to the advantage of the tradesman, and it was strange that compulsory verification had not been provided for before. Clause 22 dealt with the officers. At present there was only the one class of inspectors who had to prove, by passing an examination, their competency to discharge all the duties of the office. But in districts where there were large numbers of weights and instruments to be tested as a matter of routine, it was possible to employ somebody with much lower qualifications. The proposal in the Bill was that this practice should be modified so as to have two classes of officers, namely, inspectors and verification officers. The latter class would be required to pass a less stringent examination and have a smaller salary. This was a proposal put forward by the officers themselves, and he thought it would tend very much to the improvement of the service throughout the country. Section 28, Sub-section 6, read—
"In Section 13 of the Act of 1889, for the words 'no discount shall be allowed,' there shall be substituted the words, 'no discount or rebate of any kind shall be given, nor any allowance made by such inspector for the use of tools supplied to him or assistance rendered him in such verification and stamping.'"
When weights and measures were brought to the inspector to be stamped he could charge certain fees. The Act of 1889 said that "no discount shall be allowed" but he had to charge the fees. Some ingenious local bodies had evaded this provision by allowing a rebate which was obviously the same thing. There were certain districts where imported goods were stamped in large quantities, and other districts where they were manufactured, and where it was the practice to give a rebate which practically meant that they were stamped free. That was nothing more or less than a bounty to the trade in those districts, and those manufacturers got an advantage which other manufacturers did not enjoy. They

309
were all opposed to bounties and they were agreed that any interference with free competition was wrong in regard to nations. He thought the House would agree that the giving of bounties was also wrong between different districts as well as foreign countries. There were only two or three local authorities who were sinners in this matter, and no doubt they would like the law left as it was because it would leave them free to go on giving these bounties. The matter had been under consideration by the Board of Trade who had expressed their views on the matter, but the answer of the manufacturers was that they would go on doing this until they were stopped.
As regarded the fourth part of the Bill, which dealt with the metric system, he did not regard it as a vital part of the Bill. He was, however, an advocate of the metric system and he should think that quite 90 per cent, of the Members of the House of Commons were also in favour of it. There was a Bill dealing with this question in the other House which would probably be sent down for the consideration of this House, and it proposed the adoption of the metric system en bloc. He should support that Bill because he felt that the country was somewhat in the position of a man who had a bad habit and who realised that he ought to break it off. The remedy proposed in the Bill was that they should change their habits and adopt the metric system. He thought, however, that this was a case in which they might alter their habits gradually. After the 1st of January, 1908, it was proposed, in this Bill, that they should make certain small changes and abolish troy weight and apothecaries' weight in favour of the metric system. Those weights did not enter into the daily life of large multitudes of the people. Actual practical use of the metric system for even those two small systems would help to familiarise them with the metric system and would not produce any great disorganisation or dislocation of trade. It would, on the other hand, simplify the system and abolish two abnormal systems, troy weight and and apothecaries' weight. He would leave Part IV. to the judgment of the House and he did not wish to treat it as a vital part of the Bill. But, if the
310
House thought this small instalment of the metric system ought not to be adopted, he would give way because the other parts of the Bill were of great importance, and he should not like to injure the chances of the measure passing to get a small instalment of the metric system. He begged to move.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid this Bill was one dependent very largely for its administration upon the local authorities and in seconding it he desired to say that so far as the Municipal Corporations Association was concerned they had considered the principle and provisions of the Bill, and although exception might be taken to some details they were in favour of the principle of the Bill and believed it to be an important reform in matters of local administration. His hon. and learned friend had stated that some corporations desired to retain the system of rebate in lieu of discounts, but he was satisfied that there was no general desire to evade the present provisions of the law in that respect. He heartily agreed with his hon. and learned friend in reference to the last part of the Bill dealing with the metric system. Many of them believed that the want of such a system had been a great obstacle to the development of international trade, and, as this proposal would familiarise the public with the system, it would be. an important reform.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid his hon. and learned friend had said that Part IV. was not a vital part, but he did not say that he would abandon it. He also said that nine-tenths of the Members of the House were in favour of the metric system and therefore he thought the House would not be likely to strike it out. He might be told that he could move an Instruction to omit Part IV., but they all knew the pitfalls encountered by those who moved Instructions, and he should not like to rely upon that course while he felt such a very strong objection to the introduction of the metric system, especially in regard

311
to this particular matter. His hon. and learned friend who moved the Second Reading was a strong believer in that system, and he desired naturally to press his proposal as an instalment of the metric system. He would then feel, having got a footing, that a Bill ought to be passed adopting the metric system in its entirety. The metric system was nothing at all unless it was applied all round to all weights and measures, and to apply it to only these two systems would be absolutely illogical. He wished to refer to Parts I II., and III. of the Bill. In the first three parts of the Bill there were very valuable provisions which he should personally like to see passed into law. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading had pointed out that, under certain circumstances, buyers might, at the present time, get short weight, but while he desired to remove that risk there was nothing in the Bill dealing with the matter. The hon. Member also desired that no authority should be allowed to stamp a measure of capacity if it was in excess of what it purported to be. That was a proposal with which he had considerable sympathy. He did not see how the marking of the names of makers of instruments could be made compulsory. There was nothing in Clause 10 which would authorise the Board of Trade to make such a declaration as that. Provision was made for dealing with excess in measures of capacity in Clause 10, Sub-section (1). That was a provision to which nobody could have the slightest objection. But Clause 12 was a very different one. It defined the power of the Board of Trade to grant certificates of suitability for the use of appliances, and it empowered the Board to decline to certify if, upon examination, a particular pattern was not considered "suitable for use for trade." It appeared to him that placed too large a power in the hands of the Board of Trade. It was right that the Board of Trade should be empowered to prevent any instrument being used which would facilitate the commission of fraud, but under the proposal in the Bill they would be able to prohibit the use of a new invention, although they were unable to show that it was likely to
312
facilitate fraud. He thought that was too great a power to give the Board.
MR. BOUSFIELD: Inspectors now have the power.
MR.HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid inspectors had power to decide on the particular instruments brought before them for verification. That was a very different provision from giving the Board of Trade power to act under a general law. New inventions might be brought out which would materially benefit the community when used for the purposes of trade, but at first sight the Board of Trade might object to the use of the instruments. Were they to be stopped once and for all in this way, and were the Board of Trade to be authorised to lay down a general hard and fast rule that a now principle of construction must not be adopted? It seemed to him the clause would require a certain amount of consideration, but he had no doubt that it could be made workable. In connection with Clause 10. which referred to the powers and duties of the Board of Trade as to the making of general regulations, the more or less technical question arose as to whether the word "shall" or "may" should be used, but that was a matter of detail which could be considered afterwards if the Bill passed the Second Reading. He thoroughly approved of the system provided for by Clause 15 with respect to "verification and stamping by local inspectors of weights and measures." It was desirable that some general principle should be adopted all over the country, and the proposal made by his hon. and learned friend might be a very useful one. Clause 16, which provided for "periodical re-verification," appeared to be too drastic. It was proposed that re-verification should fake place '"not less often than once in every three years, as the local authority may decide." There were some weights and measures which might deteriorate in the course of three years, but he did not think that applied by any means to all. The proposal if carried out would add very much to the duties of the inspectors and the Board of Trade generally. Clause 28 contained

313
miscellaneous Amendments of the existing law. It was required at present that every measure of capacity must have its denomination marked upon it. His hon. friend now wanted that every measure of length should have its denomination marked upon it. He did not know what advantage would be gained by that Amendment. A measure of capacity was for one quantity only. It did not measure fractions of the quantity, but a measure of length—a two-foot rule for example—was marked at intervals for the purpose of indicating different lengths.
He thought the first three parts could be worked into a very useful measure, but he objected altogether to Part IV. with respect to the metric system. It would upset the business of an enormous number of persons in this country for no practical purpose whatever. One particular reason why this part of the Bill should not be passed was that a Bill dealing with the subject was being considered in another place. He strongly objected to the Bill to which he referred. With regard to the Bill now before the House he did not know whether it proposed to abolish the apothecaries' fluid measure. The fluid measure was just as much a measure as a weight measure, and if the existing fluid measure were abolished it-would he good for the glass trade, because the number of new glass bottles and glass measures demanded by the trade would be exceedingly great. It would be a most inconvenient thing for a great number of people if these measures were changed. Then he did not know how the Bill would affect the coinage. At present the coinage was regulated by the troy weight. It was impossible to make a gramme fit in exactly with troy weight; and it might lead to inconvenience, unless there was some provision in the Bill that it should not apply to the weights of gold and silver, for the smallest fraction of the change might be a very serious matter indeed. He was perfectly certain that the metric system could not fit in exactly with our coinage. Those who had been in the habit of buying gold and silver by troy weight would be placed in considerable difficulty if they were suddenly told that they were not able to use the old troy weight. Again,
314
he objected to the metric system because it had never been introduced for practical purposes, even on the Continent. Nominally it existed there, but practically it did not. They had never in France been able to introduce anything between a unit and a thousand. He had never heard of a centi-gramme. One would naturally think that there should be something to represent an English penny. Before the time of Napoleon the French wrote on their coins "Un Decime;" but the genius of the French people was strongly against it, as they had always counted in sous. His hon. and learned friend said that the change should come into operation in 1908, which would give the people plenty of time to become accustomed to the new weights and measures; and that the change might be made at any time during that period. But as a matter of fact, up to the last moment the people would continue to use the present system; and then there would be a regular convulsion of trade. They would have to encounter an entirely new unit—rhe kilogramme—which would be most inconvenient as being either too large or too small.
MR. GRETTONsaid he rose to second the Motion of his hon. friend for the rejection of the Bill on very much the same grounds as those he had advanced. He thought it would be quite impossible under the Bill, however careful they might be. to arrive at an absolute uniformity of weights and measures. Of course what they had to aim at was to have practical uniformity. As to the liquid weights and measures, the nearest metric equivalent to the pint was slightly less than that measure, and though perhaps the actual measuring vessel, allowing for a small margin, might hold exactly a pint in theory, it was well known that in practice a full pint could not be served in it. Thus it would be quite impossible for anyone who ordered a pint to get what he paid for. Liquid weights and measures were especially subject to variation according to varying temperatures. He took objection to the Bill chiefly on the ground that it seemed to him that the inconsequential fourth part, which provided that four years hence the existing troy and apothecaries weights should

315
be abolished and that metric weights should be substituted, was an attempt to introduce the thin edge of the wedge of the metric system. He did not see quite eye to eye with his hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill as to the grounds of his opposition to the introduction of the metric system, but he agreed that if this system was to be introduced at all it must be introduced in its entirety, and it would require the very careful consideration of the House. He objected most strongly to any attempt to introduce that system in one part of our weights and measures and to leave it out in other parts. Unless the mover of the Second Reading of the Bill dropped the fourth part of it, or the President of the Board of Trade gave an assurance that the Government opposed the Bill he hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion for its rejection.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
Question proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he wished to congratulate his hon. friend on having introduced this Bill which would, he thought, accomplish a very necessary reform, far too long delayed. The first part of the Bill was not new legislation in the sense of altering the instruments of weights and measures. It simply dealt with the reform of the administration of the methods of dealing with these instruments; but the fourth part of the Bill was new legislation altogether, and altered the system of measurements and the instruments to be used. The fourth part of the Bill was therefore scarcely germane to the purpose of the first parts, and whatever might be the opinion of hon. Members in favour of reform, he thought that they would prefer to have further opportunity to consider the subjects therein dealt with. The hon. Gentleman opposite objected very strongly to verification of weights and measures for not more than three years. Now, he thought that was one of the most valuable parts of the Bill, for weights and measures
316
must have, in three years, a certain amount of wear and tear. Machines were continually subject to repair; and he thought it was of the greatest importance that no longer period than three years should elapse before they were verified as to their correctness. As to the proposal to give the Board of Trade the right to decide what machins or measures should be introduced, he thought it was a very important part of the Bill and should be retained. Inventors certainly desired it because they might take out a patent which might be accepted by one local authority and rejected by another. He could assure his hon. friend that that was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill. The measure would, of course, throw very great additional responsibility on the Board of Trade, especially as it would require expert knowledge which the officials of the Department did not now possess. He hoped, therefore, that if the Board of Trade accepted the responsibility that they would provide themselves with such expert assistance.
The Bill would destroy most of the difficulties which now existed. His hon. friend seemed to speak lightly of the desirability of uniformity; but if his hon. friend knew the chaos which existed at the present moment, and the great annoyance to which manufacturers of weights and measures were subjected, he would know that one of the greatest desiderata was uniformity. A manufacturer might send a large consignment of weights and measures to an ironmonger, for instance, in the South of England; they would all be stamped but the inspector in the locality to which they were consigned might decline to recognise the marks. He himself had known, over and over again, manufacturers who received back consignments because dealers could not be bothered in getting the weights and measures stamped in the different districts. That was one, but by no means the only advantage of uniformity. Weights and measures had been all through the history of the country one of the most important questions: and he was afraid that the Board of Trade had not given it that attention which the trading community demanded. He did not know whether his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade was

317
in possession of the Report of the Conference which sat with reference to this question about three years ago. He thought the Department was singularly fortunate in having the assistance of such a body and of all the knowledge and experience it possessed. It was one of the finest bodies of men that could be gathered together for any purpose, and he was in a position to speak as to their character, because he had presided over every one of their meetings. He had never met a more businesslike body or one with a greater knowledge of the subject with which it had to deal. It not only drew up the outlines of a scheme, but filled it in with all the reforms which were needed to bring about what the trading community required. If its recommendations were carried out generally, they would put an end to all the friction which existed and all the diversity of practice which occurred in different localities and which was a source of the greatest annoyance, especially to shopkeepers. He would only add that the matter was one to which the Board of Trade should give immediate attention, and he could assure his right hon. friend it was impossible to over-estimate the anxiety of the trading community to have the matter settled. The Bill would end the annoyance which now existed; and he, therefore, hoped that the Board of Trade would accept it.
SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid he gladly and cordially supported the Second Reading of the Bill. It did not go as far as he would desire, but he looked upon it as the first instalment towards uniformity in the system of weights and measures. For many years the Corporation of the City of London, in conjunction with the London County Council and other municipalities, had agreed on uniformity, and many deputations had waited on different Presidents of the Board of Trade on the subject. The City of London had for years been urging that postal scales should be put under inspection. In thousands of post offices throughout the Kingdom on one side of the shop the scales used for trading purposes were subject to inspection, but on the post office side they were exempt. He believed that there were many instances in which
318
it was proved that the postal scales were incorrect. That was obviously unfair. He should like to see uniformity carried still further; but, at any rate, the Bill was the first instalment in what he hoped would be a universally adopted principle. The absolute chaos which now existed was referred to by his right hon. friend who had just spoken; and, inasmuch as the object of the Bill was to remove that chaos, and to bring about uniformity, he felt confident the House would pass the Second Reading, and send the Bill to a Committee, where it would receive that consideration and attention which a matter of such importance deserved.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid theoretically they were all agreed with reference to the desirability of uniformity in weights and measures. They were also agreed as to the necessity for some change; but he would ask the House whether it was reasonable that they should revolutionise the system of weights and measures throughout the country by means of a private Bill. That ought only to be done in a comprehensive measure by the Government of the day, and not by piecemeal legislation such as the Bill proposed. The principle of uniformity was a good principle, but it could not be obtained under such a Bill as this, and he pointed out that if there was a real demand for it that demand would be made by the whole country, and not by means of petitions from ten or a dozen towns. He had great respect for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the officers under him were competent to undertake the, responsibilities thrust upon them by Clause 12 of the Bill. They were not competent to say whether these instruments were" suitable for trade; "they were only competent to say whether they were just and accurate and did what they professed to do. The persons who were competent to say whether they were suitable for trade were the traders themselves, and the officers of the Board of Trade were not competent to settle that question. This Bill inflicted a very heavy burden on the small tradesmen. It was a matter of insignificance to the great trade houses whether they

319
had to bear the cost of verifying the accuracy of these instruments or not every three years, but it was a very different thing to the small tradesmen he had the honour to represent. It was quite true that weights and measures did vary, but he thought a man or two travelling about and calling accidentally on people, and verifying their weights and measures, would be infinitely more use than the army of men it was proposed to employ under this Bill. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the fallacy of the metric system. Theoretically it had many advantages, but as a mathematician he preferred the duodecimal system. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench would, he was sure, agree with him that the duodecimal system was far better than the metric system. Both in France and America where that system was in vogue it was completely ignored when it came to small purchases, and to revolutionise the whole system of our weights and measures for the small advantage that would be derived from the adoption of the metric system would, in his opinion, be a mistake. The onus of proving that this change was necessary lay upon those who wished to make it. He thought the game was not worth the candle, and that the system, if adopted, would not only prove a great mistake but a great misfortune to this country. The country, and especially the small traders, who were especially suffering now-a-days, were not prepared for this change in the law. If the Bill went to a division he should vote against it, believing that there would be no practical advantage by the adoption of the proposed changes.
MR. SPEARsaid that, while recognising that there were good points in the Bill, he considered that the increased expense and irritation which the measure would occasion would not be justified by results so limited and incomplete. A uniform system he admitted to be desirable in the interests of trade, but little would be accomplished in that direction by this Bill. The prevision requiring the reverification of weights and measures every three years would cause unnecessary trouble to agriculturists, who used their weights and measures only three
320
or four times a year. The wear and tear in their case was so small that he urged, if the Bill were passed, some exception from the provision should be' made in favour of agriculturists and small tradesmen. A Bill for the establishment of a uniform system of weights and measures throughout the country would have his cordial support, as the present inequalities were extremely inconvenient. For instance, in agriculture in some parts the bushel was two pecks, in others six, and a stone of meat in some places meant eight pounds and in others fourteen. But the present measure did not deal with that question, and, as it would cause considerable irritation, involve extensive alterations, and do very little towards finally settling the matter, he did not feel justified in supporting the Bill.
MR. J. F. HOPEdid not think the criticisms of the Bill had been such as to warrant the House in refusing to give the measure a Second Reading. Most of the points to which objection had been taken could be amended in Committee. The portion of the Bill against which the strongest opposition had been directed was that dealing with the metric system, but every one knew that private Bills of this kind had no chance of passing if strongly opposed in Committee, and hence the promoters would probably be willing to drop Part IV. to secure the passage of the remainder of the Bill. There were considerable disadvantages and inconveniences in the present system, and he hoped that even Members who were opposed to Part IV. would support the Second Reading, and then secure the elimination of Part IV. in Committee.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that, having regard to what had fallen from different speakers, and to what he understood to be the attitude of the Government, he would undertake to withdraw Part IV. of the Bill.
MR. JORDANapproved of the hon. and learned Member's decision to drop Part IV. of the Bill, but he strongly supported the rest of the measure, and urged that it should be passed in the interests of trade.

321
Nothing was so confusing in business as the want of uniformity in weights and measures. He had heard no statement, however, as to the cost of the proposed alterations. The stamping of weights and measures was a costly business, and if a second inspector was to be appointed it would mean increased expenditure. He suggested that there should be a minimum fixed amount for adjusting and stamping, and that it should be collected in one sum by the official inspector.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said that he was very glad to hear from his hon. and learned friend that he was prepared to withdraw Clause 32 of the Bill. He believed that that decision was a wise one, and he ventured to think that the provision ought never to have been introduced into the measure at all. It only touched the fringe of the subject and it raised questions of very great difficulty without solving them. It certainly would have raised against the Bill the opposition of those trades which were more directly concerned with the troy and apothesaries' weight, and if his hon. friend had insisted on regarding it as a vital part of the Bill he would have felt bound to oppose the measure on behalf of the Government. Apart from this excrescence the Bill was the outcome of a conference held some years ago between inspectors of weights and measures and manufacturers of weighing machines, and to some extent it bore the impress of its origin, for its general tendency undoubtedly was to increase the independence of the inspectors by withdrawing them to some extent from the control of the local authorities and substituting the control of the central authority, the Board of Trade. In so far as the Bill tended to greater uniformity of administration he quite agreed with his hon. friend that that result would be fraught with very considerable advantage, but, in so far as it went beyond that, its effect was to reverse the principle laid down in the Act of 1889 that the administration of weights and measures should be in the hands of the local authorities and not of the central authority, and his inclination would be to exclude from the measure all those pro-
322
visions tending in the direction of the centralising authority which were not absolutely necessary to secure uniformity in the discharge of the technical duties of the inspectors. For instance, Clause 10 went considerably beyond the necessities of the case, for it extended the control of, the Board of Trade to the appointment and the control of the inspectors. Clause 24 proposed that the Board of Trade should determine whether any business occupation in which an inspector might engage was incompatible with the due performance of his duties, and that appeared to him to be a matter which the local authority should decide. He objected also to Clause 13, which provided that the Board of Trade should decide questions of the meaning of the Acts in case of a dispute between an inspector and a manufacturer or any other person. Furthermore, Clause 16, which provided that weights and measures should be reverified not less often than once in every three years, imposed on traders a serious obligation to which he thought the House ought not to assent. After the report of the conference to which he had alluded was issued, the Board of Trade sent a circular to the various local authorities concerned asking for their observations upon it. Out of the 289 authorities only 102 replied, the London County Council being one of the number that did not answer; forty-four, including some important places like Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, expressed general approval of the recommendations, and twenty-one were actively opposed to them. Nearly two-thirds of the local authorities never replied at all, which certainly appeared to show that there was no very great keenness on their part either in favour of, or in opposition to, the proposals of the present Bill. He had, however, no doubt that the Bill contained important and useful provisions which would conduce to greater uniformity in the administration of the Weights and Measures Act, and he was therefore in favour of its being read a second time. As his hon. friend had intimated that he would be disposed to accept such Amendments at the Committee stage as the Government proposed, he would not insist on the Bill being sent to a Select Committee, but at the same time he felt

323
bound to warn his hon. friend that there were a good many clauses in the measure to which the Government would have to object on their merits.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLdid not believe the time had yet come for the application of the metric system, and he should be strongly opposed to the fragmentary application of a system which the highest authorities declared to be, for the present at least, unsuitable to our trade. The Bill would require careful consideration in many particulars, but as Part IV. was to be withdrawn he should support the Second Reading.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he came down to the House to support the Bill mainly because Part IV. was included in it, so that he was place 1 in a position of some difficulty by the announcement that that portion of the Bill was to be withdrawn. He had received a large number of letters in favour of the Bill, and he believed the time had come when all nations should adopt one system of weights and measures, one coinage, and one method of measuring distances. Anything which tended in the direction of such a system was for the good of international commerce. The great majority of traders in Sheffield were in favour of the adoption of the metric system. He was sorry, therefore, that Part IV. of the Bill was to be withdrawn, but, having regard to the other portions of the measure, he should support the Second Reading.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that he was responsible for the Weights and Measures Act of 1889, and at that time, with every desire to secure uniformity in the law relating to weights and measures, the Board of Trade was debarred from going as far as they wished by fear of opposition from the local authorities. He supported this Bill as far as it proposed to deal with the machinery of the law as to weights and measures, subject to any alterations that might be found necessary when fully considered; but he was of opinion that Part IV. ought never to have found a place in such a Bill. Though there might be some theorists who wished to establish the metric system in this
324
country, when they came to apply their theories they would find such a mass of opposition as would make their scheme impracticable. As Part IV. was to be withdrawn he should support the Bill.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON, in view of the statements made on behalf of the Board of Trade and of the promoters of the Bill, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main (Question put. and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONmoved as an Amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The President of the Board of Trade had stated that many alterations would be required before the Bill could be allowed to pass, and the measure was much more likely to receive the detailed attention it required from a Select Committee than from the Standing Committee on Law. They would then have the power of calling in any evidence as to the opinion of local bodies and others as to how the Bill was likely to work. He did not think that under the circumstances the Standing Committee on Law would be in as good a position to deal effectively with this matter as a Select Committee. This measure ought to be considered in all its details, because it was almost entirely a machinery Bill. He did not see that by sending the measure to a Select Committee the passing of the Bill would be delayed. He begged to move as an Amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. GRETTONsaid he desired to second this Amendment, and he hoped the House would decide to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He was aware that it had been the custom to refer Bills to the Standing Committee, and on several occasions he had had the honour of serving on that Committee; but this was a Bill in regard

325
to which the Committee ought to have power to call witnesses on technical points, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Law, &c. and insert the words 'a Select Committee' instead there of."— (Sir William Tomlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that all the matters raised by the Bill were thoroughly familiar to the Board of Trade. The acceptance of the Amendment would mean the postponement for another ten years of a question which had been waiting for legislation for the past ton years.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment, for it meant delaying for a long time a reform which affected almost every shopkeeper in the kingdom. Shopkeepers were often brought into Court and fined when they were quite innocent of any intention to evade the Act. In the interests of the measure unless his hon. friend was opposed to the Bill altogether, he hoped he would allow it to be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, because after the extreme willingness which had been shown by the promoters of the Bill to meet every objection, and especially after the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, whose objections were very reasonable, it was evident that, if they wanted the Bill to pass this session, they must send it to the Standing Committee.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had dealt with all the defects in the Bill, and had practically killed the suggestion to send the measure to a Select Committee. The necessity for referring it to a Select. Committee had now practically disappeared. Under these circumstances it would be a pity to delay those reforms which were dealt with by the Bill in order to have a more tedious method,
326
which would probably end in no reform being carried for some years to come. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had some sympathy with the proposal of the hon. Member for Preston, but there were two considerations which weighed with him. In the first place, if the Measure was sent to a Select Committee there was no chance of it being passed this session. The other consideration was that the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Bill had stated that he was prepared to accept any Amendment which was proposed by the Government Department principally concerned. That statement he welcomed, for it did away to a very large extent with the necessity of referring this Bill to a Select Committee. He did not agree with the hon. Member opposite when he stated that he had stated all the objections of the Board of Trade to all the clauses in the Bill, because that was not so. All he, as the representative of the Board of Trade, had done was to state some of his principal objections, but there would be others. On the understanding that his hon. and learned friend would be prepared to amend his Bill in accordance with the views of the Board of Trade, he did not think there was any necessity to send the Bill to a Select Committee.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid that after what had been stated he would not press his Amendment. He hoped, however, that the President of the Board of Trade would be able to put his Amendments on the Paper in good time in order that those who were most affected by this Bill would have ample time to consider them.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would put down his Amendments as early as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Reading read.
MR. PRICE, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it dealt with a grievance which was strongly felt directly by the great butcher trade and, indirectly, by the agricultural interest. The butchers had taken collective action in the matter, and the various chambers of agriculture had at any rate expressed their strong sympathy with the principles of the Bill if not with all its details. The grievance was shortly set out in the preamble in the following words—
"Whereas it frequently happens that it is impossible to detect the presence of tuberculosis in a living animal from its outward appearance, and yet such disease may exist to an extent which may justify the condemnation of the carcase after slaughter as unfit for human food, and it is expedient to make provision for compensating the owner of such condemned carcase."
The principle usually adopted in such cases was that compensation should be given to the people whose property was destroyed in the public interest, and this was one of the very few exceptions to that rule. Two reasons had caused the public to give compensation in such cases. In the first place, because it was only fair that individuals whose property was destroyed for the public good, and who were innocent in the matter, should receive compensation; and the second reason was that, if they did not receive full compensation, there was a chance that the law would be evaded. Both those considerations applied in this case. He did not intend to go into the scientific question which was discussed before the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, but the opinion of that Commission and of most of the people who had considered the question was that the dangers of tuberculosis were very much exaggerated. In some districts there was a most severe application of the law, and slaughter of animals took place in cases where there was an extremely slight manifestation of tuberculosis, and it was with the view of remedying as much as anything else the inequalities of the present system that the Bill was introduced. He knew that objection was taken to some of the provisions of the
328
measure, such as the provision for compensation out of the rates, but that was a point which could be dealt with in Committee. It was impossible to propose in the Bill that compensation should come out of Imperial funds, but that was a matter for consideration. There were regulations in the measure which provided that the Board of Agriculture should fix the maximum and minimum compensation. He agreed that it might turn out to be extremely difficult for the person claiming compensation to prove his case, but he was afraid that was inseparable from the nature of the case, and it certainly would not do to allow any attempt at fraud He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the promoters of this Bill had two objects in view. In the first place they desired to protect the public health; and, in the second place, to remove what was undoubtedly a very deep grievance affecting an important section of the trading community. It was essential in the interests of public health that wherever diseased meat was found which might be sold for public consumption, there should be no hesitation whatever on the part of local authorities in condemning it. It was necessary that there should be nothing in the administration of the law to lead a local authority to relax its efforts in the protection of public health. As the law now stood many local authorities must feel a very keen sympathy with the individuals who would have to bear the burden of the loss, and feeling that sympathy they would hesitate to condemn when they ought to condemn. The first object of this Bill was to secure full freedom for the local authority in the condemnation of every carcase found to be affected with tuberculosis, and that could only be secured by the knowledge on the part of the local authority that the loss should not fall upon the unlucky individual who owned the carcase, but that such loss would be borne by the community who would be benefited by the destruction of the carcase in question. Those who profited by such destruction ought to bear the loss, and wherever the property of a private individual was destroyed for the public benefit the loss should be borne by the public. It was

329
most unfortunate that there was no systematic notification of tuberculosis. The possessor of a herd of cattle who found some of the cattle were suffering from tuberculosis was allowed to send them for sale, and they could not be seized and condemned. It was only after the animals had been slaughtered that the local authority could seize the carcases and destroy them. The owner of the live animal was quite free from any liability in the matter, and as a matter of fact he was often advised by veterinary surgeons to send cattle affected with tuberculosis into the market. He thought pressure ought to be brought to bear upon the Board of Agriculture to take up this question seriously in order to stamp out this disease. Those who were opposing this measure he was quite aware did not lack sympathy with the butchers upon whom the loss fell, but they opposed the measure because they felt that it was a subject which should be taken up by the Board of Agriculture, and they were of opinion that this disease could only be stamped out by dealing with the live animal instead of waiting to deal with the dead carcases. They had, however, to deal with the facts as they were, and at the present time there was no notification of tuberculosis.
The House would readily realise that a great trade was being carried on in the face of very serious difficulties. Men who desired to carry on their trade perfectly honestly might at any moment be placed in the police Court and treated as criminals and be prosecuted and sentenced, although they had not been knowingly guilty of any fault whatever. A butcher might go to the market and purchase a number of live cows. It was impossible for any man as the living cattle stood in the market to detect the presence of tuberculosis. A reliable test could only be applied when the animal existed in its normal condition free from excitement and free from those ordinary worries which were inevitable from sale in the open market. Therefore a reliable test could not be applied to cattle under market conditions. The farmer or the breeder might have discovered the presence of this disease in the cattle before they were brought to market but, in the open market, butchers had no sufficient
330
means of protecting themselves. They might buy an animal which while alive had passed even experts, but which when slaughtered might be found to be suffering from tuberculosis. Every encouragement should be given to butchers, when they found that a slaughtered animal was suffering from tuberculosis, to notify the fact to the local authorities and to invite the destruction of the carcase. Under the existing law they could not take such a course without losing the whole of the money which they had paid for the animal. Another difficulty was that the practice of different authorities varied. The Royal Commission reported that where animals were suffering from purely localised tuberculosis, as, for example, where the disease was limited to the thoracic, lymphatic, or the pharyngeal glands, in such instances only the portion of the carcase affected should be cut away and destroyed. In some towns, if the disease existed in the thoracic glands only, the whole carcase was ordered to be destroyed. He thought it was necessary that whatever principle was adopted it ought to be applied throughout the whole country, and traders should not bo liable to prosecution in one town without being subject to the same liability in another place.
The whole of the members of the Royal Commission recommended a system under which localised tuberculosis might be dealt with. There was also a Minority Report which recommended that compensation should be paid in cases where the animal, when alive, appeared to be well nourished and exhibited no evidence of tuberculosis. The Bill before the House followed that recommendation not only in the spirit but in the letter, for it provided that wherever a carcase was found to be diseased the local authority condemning it should be empowered to pay out of the local rates compensation to the full value of the animal destroyed. The pro- motors of the Bill did not desire to take any action whatever which would facilitate unfair trade. This Bill would not protect the butcher who knowingly purchased a diseased animal at a low price. Before compensation could be claimed the butcher would have to prove that he had paid a fair market price, and that he had no reason to suspect

331
that the animal was diseased. Therefore there was no protection whatever for the man who purchased be low the market rate. The Royal Commission suggested that the market rate should be fixed by the Board of Agriculture. If a butcher paid a fancy price for an animal which was found to be diseased, he would only get the value of the carcase. He could not see what objection could be raised to the principle of this Bill, although there might be some objection to its details. He hoped the House would not occupy much time in dealing with details because the promoters were prepared to have the measure referred to a Select Committee. The subject dealt with was a technical one, but he thought they would get a favourable Report from the Select Committee.
His hon. friend had stated that this was not merely a butchers' question, but also an agricultural question. The risk that existed was driving the meat trade of this country into the hands of foreigners. Butchers were buying imported dead meat, and would not buy live cattle on account of the risk. That was a very serious thing not only for Ireland hut also for the agricultural counties of this country. A herd of cattle might be sent into a town and the butchers might discover that one or two of the animals were diseased, and they would have to bear the loss in case they were destroyed. The result would be that they would not deal with those farmers or dealers again who had sold them the cattle, and they would be boycotted and the butchers would turn their attention to the dead meat market. Therefore he suggested that this was not merely a trade affair but it was a question which affected a much wider range of interest. A good illustration of this was afforded in the Anthrax Order. In Cheshire it had been arranged that animals slaughtered on account of anthrax should be paid for out of the local rates. If the Government could be induced to take up this question and to devise some means by which one half of the costs would fall on the Imperial funds instead of on local funds, he would gladly welcome such an Amendment. It was not altogether fair that the district where the slaughter took place should pay the
332
whole amount of the compensation. It would be logically fair if it were possible to trace back to the farmer who had the opportunity of discovering the disease, but it was absolutely impossible to do that because the animals passed through many hands, and it was impossible to tell at what stage they became unsound, It was, therefore, impossible to fix responsibility. He believed this House, as the jealous guardian of the public health, would be glad to facilitate the performance of an irksome duty by the local authorities, and to protect those engaged in an important industry against the unfair conditions to which they were at present subjected.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
GENERAL LAURIEsaid he approved of the object of the Bill, but not of the methods proposed. It was all very well to say that the agricultural interest and butchers were strongly in favour of it, but the ratepayers had a right to be considered. The Bill provided that a magistrate should satisfy himself that the animal had a good appearance before slaughter, but supposing the animal was killed in Aberdeenshire, how could a magistrate in London satisfy himself on such a point. It was absolutely impossible, and that part of the Bill was unworkable. The Bill really told the ratepayer that he should pay the compensation because the animal happened to be in the district in which he lived. For two years in another House of Commons he was chairman of a Committee that investigated the whole question as to the communicability of tuberculosis, but this Bill had nothing to do with that question. On behalf of ratepayers who lived in large populous communities he contended that the Bill should be recast, and as the whole community would benefit by the destruction of this meat they should be prepared to pay for it. On this ground he felt bound to move the rejection of the Bill.
There being no seconder, the Amendment fell to the ground.
MR. FIELDsaid the hon. and gallant Member who moved

333
the rejection of the Bill apparently took the greatest possible objection to the ratepayers paying the cost, but he had altogether overlooked the fact that the unfortunate owner had to bear the whole of the loss individually. He was quite certain that the hon. and gallant Member, with that sense of fair play which he possessed, would not wish to place responsibility on a single individual which ought to be borne by the whole community. Those connected with the meat trade in the three kingdoms were anxious to protect the public health, but they had always strenuously maintained that what was confiscated for the public good ought to be paid for out of the public purse. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of the Bill but could not obtain a seconder, seemed to lose sight of the fact that it was not competent under a private Bill to charge the Imperial funds with any cost, and that, therefore, no course was open to the promoters of this measure except that which had been adopted. If the Government chose to adopt this suggestion it would be competent for them to take steps for providing a remedy in accordance with the views of those who held that the public purse ought to pay. If anything was confiscated for the public good the public must pay, and he should be very much obliged if any hon. Member could tell him why the meat trade should be the only exception to the wholesome rule applied to others. He took it that the House was satisfied with the principle of the Bill, and that what they had to consider was how they were to get a practical solution of the question. The principle of compensation had been adopted by every one of the bodies interested in the animal industry. The Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Irish Cattle Traders "and Stockowners' Associations—representing the organised opinions of that country—the important National Federation of Meat Traders, consisting of 130 affiliated associations from the principal cities and towns of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man, and the Dublin Victuallers' Association, had all unanimously passed resolutions in favour of compensation. Various farmers' clubs in England, Ireland, and
334
Scotland, strongly supported this principle.
The hon. Member who seconded the Second Reading of the Bill had very properly drawn attention to the fact that an Order had been granted by the Board of Agriculture under which the County Council of Cheshire should pay full compensation in cases of anthrax. In the case of animals suffering from tuberculosis, unless by the application of a tubercular test, it was impossible to detect the presence of the disease until the animal was slaughtered, and in that way the difficulty came in, as the authorities could not give compensation by reason of the fact that they were not owners of the animal at the time it was killed. He had attended as a delegate at the Great Tuberculosis Congress held in London where all the leading scientists and medical authorities, as well as trade and local authorities' representatives, were present. He heard Dr. Koch the greatest living bacteriologist declare that bovine tuberculosis was not communicable to man by the ingestion of moat. He was not discussing the scientific question except to say that that declaration was entitled to respect. In this country we lost sight of what was done by more scientific nations than ourselves. in Germany and other countries tuberculous meat was sterilised and sold at a lower price, whereas in this country it was destroyed, and the meat trader who had possession, through no fault of his own. was prosecuted, and frequently efforts were made to sead him to prison. It appeared to him that common sense should be applied to this matter, and that effect should be given by medical officers of health to the recommendations of the Local Government Board in 1899 drawn on the lines of the Tuberculosis Minority Report Second Commission, 1898, which stated—
"We consider, therefore, that for the present compensation should be paid for carcases confiscated for the presence of tuberculosis, subject to the magistrate who orders the confiscation being satisfied that the animal while in life had a good appearance, was well nourished, and exhibited no clinical evidence of tuberculosis; subject also to a maximum and minimum limit of price. We feel that it would not be possible to fix such prices permanently, having regard to the fluctuations of the cattle and meat market. We would suggest, therefore, that the minimum price, below which no compensation shall be

335
paid, as well as the maximum sum to be paid in compensation, even if less than the price paid for the animal confiscated, should be fixed in each year by the Board of Agriculture."
The Bill was practically a repetition of this recommendation. But according to the law, as it at present stood and was administered, a meat trader might be fined £50, or sent to prison, for an offence of which he had absolutely no knowledge. That was a condition of the law which needed amendment, and the sooner the House of Commons set about it the better.
He had brought under the notice of the President of the Local Government Board many cases of extreme hardship which had occurred. It was wrong to penalise an honest trade in this fashion. At Liverpool some time ago, under the existing law, a poor woman was sent to prison, although possessing no guilty knowledge. There was such a disturbance raised about it that the magistrate allowed her out on payment of a fine. If pigs were killed in Denmark and the carcases were found to be diseased, the pork would be sterilised, made into finished bacon, and imported into this country for consumption by Englishmen who prosecuted and persecuted the home producer, as they were at present doing in the Central Meat Market, London. Another extraordinary case occurred at Lynn, where a man in the trade slaughtered some cattle to oblige a railway company; yet he was subjected to prosecution, legal costs, and annoyance. Besides it must be remembered always that the unfortunate meat trader who was prosecuted was generally, as a consequence, ruined in his business, because his customers did not understand the technical difficulty of his position in being held liable for an occurrence for which he was not justly responsible. But the House should be informed and give due consideration to the fact that the present ill-advised system was diverting a large volume of the meat trade to the importer, who, under existing conditions, escaped obloquy, fine, or imprisonment because there were few, if any, tuberculous animals imported, and those were mainly sold in carcases after inspection. But the seller of home produce bought the animal alive and was open to all those
336
risky and penal disadvantages. When he suffered, he took of necessity to buying foreign meat.
This was a very serious issue for landowners, farmers, graziers, and in fact everyone connected with the animal industry in the three kingdoms. He had visited Continental countries, the cities of Paris, Vienna, Dresden, Leipzig, and Budapest; the authorities there did not persecute their own citizens dealing in home meat, on the contrary they protected them by a reasonable uniform method of inspection; they did not confiscate and destroy tons of good meat, simple localised tuberculosis was sensibly treated by cutting away the affected portions. More serious cases were sterilised and the meat marked and sold at a lower price, and only in bad cases destroyed. But in this country, owing to the absence of qualifications in many meat inspectors, the over zealousness of certain medical officers of health, and the want of uniformity as to standard inspection—the result all round had been most injurious to the producers and retailers of native meat. The main reasons why he took so much interest in this matter was because he was President of the Irish Cattle and Stock-owners' Association, and knew about the difficulties raised in connection with the buying of Irish cattle in the English market. There was not so much tuberculosis in Ireland as in England, that being due, he believed, to the fact that now cattle were kept more in the open air, and they had less in-breeding and delicate pampered pedigree stock in Ireland. But this whole subject as to the eliminations of tuberculosis from the herds of the United Kingdom and the treatment to be adopted with regard to confiscation, inspections and sanitation needed most careful and prudent consideration. He therefore, appealed to the House to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee in order that the whole subject might be investigated and a solution arrived at which would satisfy and safeguard the wants of the community.
SIR. HERBERT MAXWELLsaid he could only support the Bill on the condition that had been suggested, namely, that it should be

337
referred to a Select Committee. He was very glad that the Bill had been fortunate in the ballot, as the matter was one of importance to the community. It was to be regretted that the promoters in framing the measure appeared to have been ignorant of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, over which he had had the honour to preside. It was now proposed to provide a remedy by the easy process of putting an additional burden on the rates, but the ratepayer's burden was becoming almost more than he could bear. The meat trade was by no means the only trade in which confiscation for the public good was not followed by compensation; cargoes of rotten fruit or bad fish were destroyed without compensation. He thought that if the question of tubercular disease in cattle had been properly grappled with in this country, as it had been in certain Continental States, any grievance would have been removed and the question of compensation would not have arisen. It did not arise in Germany simply because a more rational manner of administration and regulation of slaughterhouses prevailed. It did not arise in Denmark because there they had undertaken a systematic and most successful method of eliminating this most destructive disease. Since the Royal Commission reported some years ago no steps whatever had been taken to improve the chaos which characterised the administration of slaughterhouses and meat inspection in this country.
The grievance which had been dealt with by hon. Members on both sides of the House was a real one which deserved consideration. The question was, how were they to remove the grievance? Merely to compensate the trader for what, under present conditions, was an ordinary trade risk would be most unfair to the ratepayers. The first thing that was required was the adoption of some uniform system throughout the country for dealing with carcases tainted with tuberculosis. In Edinburgh the inspection was searching and complete, and the inspecting staff resembled, more than any other in this country, that of Continental towns. In that town the slightest indication of tubercular disease caused the destruction of the
338
carcase, and a great deal of hardship was occasioned thereby no doubt. On the other hand, in Manchester they had a discriminating system of inspection resembling that which had been adopted in German and Danish towns. In cases of localised disease, the organs affected were removed and destroyed, and the rest of the carcase, being perfectly sound, was allowed to be sold as meat. The Royal Commission paid great attention to this, and in their Report there would be found a specific scheme of what ought to constitute bad meat, and what was meat which might be sold with perfect safety to the community. That suggestion had been absolutely neglected. There was no uniformity in that respect, no standard of soundness. There was also no uniformity in the qualifications of the men on whose report the condemnation of carcases took place. For instance, the Royal Commission found six years ago that in Battersea, of the seven meat inspectors four were plumbers and three carpenters; in Hackney the duty of inspecting carcases was entrusted to a plumber, a compositor, a florist, and a stonemason; and in Portsmouth the inspectors included one solitary butcher, who might be expected to know something of the business, two school teachers, a medical dispenser, and a tram conductor. It was on the report of men like these that butchers, farmers, and graziers had their meat passed or condemned.
A further injustice was imposed by the present system on farmers, graziers, and butchers. The enormous importation of foreign and colonial meat practically escaped inspection altogether. During a visit to the slaughterhouse at Deptford, where 2,700 beasts were slaughtered every week, he found that a single inspector had to examine 2,700 carcases in three days. He believed that the inspecting staff at Deptford had since been reinforced. Was not such a system of inspection a farce? He could not conceive that the animals received the same amount of inspection which was given in well-regulated slaughterhouses. In Saxony, in the year 1895, tuberculosis was found to exist in 22,758 carcases; if every one of these carcases had been destroyed, a vast deal of

339
valuable meat would have been wasted. But 92½ per cent. of these carcases were passed by the inspectors as fit for food, 5½ per cent. were disposed of at the price of inferior meat, and the whole of the rest were destroyed, but without compensation. There was no question that this particular disease was found almost exclusively among cows. In Glasgow, during two years, 1,287 carcases were condemned for tuberculosis, and of these, thirteen were bulls, four bullocks, two calves, seven pigs, and 1,260 were cows. Cows kept in a dairy were peculiarly liable to this particular disease. Every man acquainted with the trade knew that there was less hardship involved in the confiscation of a cow's carcase, because the presumption was that the owner had got his profit out of the animal as a milker. Nothing had been done since the Report of the Royal Commission six years ago to substitute some order for the chaos which characterised the administration of slaughterhouses and meat inspection in this country. He would value much some assurance from his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board that action would shortly be taken on that Report. If it was not to be, he would like to know the reason why. He did not know whether the responsibility rested with the right hon. Gentleman's Department or with the Board of Agriculture. But, at all events, it was with a feeling somewhat akin to shame that they must contemplate what had been done in coping with tuberculosis successfully, practically, and with the concurrence of the people, in a small State like Denmark, while no serious attempt had been made in this country to stamp out this most destructive disease from our herds.
DR. FARQUHARSONsaid that the effect produced on his mind by the discussion was, that a true Bill had been found for further inquiry, in the interests both of farmer and consumer. He supported this Bill partly because he represented what was the leading feeding county in Scotland, but mainly in the general public interest. The Bill should be read a second time, and sent to a Select Committee for further consideration. It was hard lines
340
on the farmer and the butcher that they could not diagnose tuberculosis. The tuberculin test, which was the only real test, would not operate at all after the animal had been knocked about in markets or had came off from a long journey. The beasts were then in a state of unstable equilibrium. Why, then, should not the farmer or butcher get compensation for his animal if it was killed without his knowledge that it was tuberculous. The analogy of the man who sold rotten fruit, or rotten meat, was no analogy at all, because he did it with his eyes and nose open, whereas the whole case for this Bill was that the farmer did not, and could not, know what the condition of the animal was before it was slaughtered. It was a very serious fact that while consumption amongst grown persons had decreased, the sane disease among children was largely increasing, and the problem was, whether this was not in consequence of tuberculous milk being given to the young persons. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was unfortunate we had not taken steps to stamp out tuberculosis in this country as had been done in Denmark. Sir Thomas Gibson Carmichael had proved by long experiment that this disease could be stamped out. Surely provention was better than cure. Nearly every locality was now providing an institution for the treatment of consumption by the open air method, but it would be much better to attack the disease at the outset. Every opportunity should be taken of nipping the disease at the outset, and testing the milk to discover whether it was tuberculous. He supported the Bill, both in the agricultural and the public interest. Something had been said about insurance, but they knew that the farmers were fighting an uphill battle, and had not much money to spare. So long as insurance was not compulsory, that would provide at least a partial solution of the problem.
SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid he supported the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill on the ground of justice, and because he believed it would afford a protection to the public against the sale of diseased meat. There could be no

341
possible question that at certain stages it was impossible to discover disease when the animal was alive; but he was told that immediately an animal was killed it was possible for any butcher to say whether it was diseased or not. What he suggested was that in some subsequent clause of the Bill it should be stipulated that a butcher should at once notify to the authorities when he had killed a beast and discovered that it was in a diseased state. That would be a great protection to the public. With that addition he thought the Bill would be an eminently fair one, and he sincerely hoped it would pass.
DR. HUTCHINSONsaid that this was not only a butchers' and a graziers' question, it was one which affected the public at large. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would continue his efforts to stop the progress of the awful disease of consumption; and he appealed with perfect confidence to the right hon. Gentleman to assist private Members in securing the Second Reading of the Bill, and its consideration by a Select Committee. He protested against attempts to stop a measure for the benefit of the public health, because Gentlemen were squabbling among themselves as to whether the taxpayer or the ratepayer should provide the compensation.
MR. ASHTONsaid it appeared to him that the Bill was ill-drawn, and ill thought out. It in no way carried out the recommendations or intentions of the Royal Commission. If the Bill was in the interests of the butcher, and of the public, it did not go far enough; if it was in the interests of agriculture, there were others who had equal claims upon the public purse. Why should the butcher be selected, in preference to other traders, for compensation? The dealer in tinned meats and fruits was in exactly the same position, and he maintained that they ought to be fair to all industries. It was said that it was in the interest of public health that tuberculosis should be struck at, but the Bill was not approaching the question from the right point of view, nor was it dealing with it according to the
342
recommendations of the Royal Commission. He had made experiments himself in the treatment of tuberculosis, and he held that if they were going to deal with the matter it should begin at the farmyard, and not in the butcher's shop. The hon. Member for West Ham had pointed out very rightly that in the Minority Report it was suggested that compensation should be given for the slaughter of animals. True; but it was only to be given under certain conditions. Compensation was only to be allowed for a limited period, dating from the time when means were adopted for the elimination of tuberculosis from our herds. The Majority Report did not suggest any compensation whatever. Therefore he contended that before a Bill of this kind was adopted there should be legislation to deal first of all with the elimination of tuberculosis from the country. He thought that no good purpose would be served by sending the Bill to a Select Committee.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,said that perhaps it would be convenient if he stated now what his view of the Bill was. He had great sympathy with the view of the hon. Gentleman who had pointed out that this measure did not carry out the recommendations of either the Majority or the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. But the hon. Gentleman had failed to appreciate the object and intention of the Bill. The extinction of tuberculosis was being aimed at, through the destruction of the animal, because the disease was injurious to public health; and the sole object of the measure was the payment of compensation to the trader who suffered heavy loss in consequence of a law imposed upon him in the general interests of the community. He thought that the Bill was badly drawn, and he very much doubted whether, if passed in its present form, it would carry out the object of the promoters. On the other hand, the Bill gave the House an opportunity of expressing its views on a question with regard to which there was considerable agreement. What they had to consider was not only the feasibility of the machinery of the Bill, or the

343
quality of its drafting, but the principle involved in the measure. There was a great deal to be said in support of the case of those in whose interest the Bill was promoted, and he agreed with much which had been said by the hon. Baronet who spoke with so much authority on this subject, and who had presided over the Royal Commission. It was said that if this Bill passed in its present form it would not be effective; but he nevertheless thought there was a good deal to be said in the interest of those who were liable to have their property seized, and in whose interest the Bill was promoted. It was an undoubted fact that the results of the tuberculin test were very often misleading and could not be relied on, and in some cases it was impossible to apply the test at all. The butcher, therefore, was exposed to risks that did not affect any other trader. He bought a beast, to all intents and purposes sound, and it was only when that beast had been slaughtered and the inspector had paid his visit that the butcher learnt for the first time that the article for which he had given perhaps £25 or £26 was unfit for human food and only worth a few shillings. When the animal was purchased it was almost impossible to tell whether it was likely to be diseased or not. The man who possessed the animal in the first instance possibly found indication of this disease in one animal, and the "vet." called in had the animal destroyed. The owner of the herd having then some knowledge of the disease asked what he was to do with the other animals to fatten them and put them on the market as soon as possible. It was obvious that in such a case the butcher was exposed to an enormous risk. The House ought to deal with this question in such a way, by compensation, as to ensure that these animals should not be put upon the market and sold for human food. The Government were charged with having done nothing to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. One of the most important recommendations was that there must be a central slaughterhouse where the animals could be slaughtered, inspected, and properly dealt with. It was a difficult question even to hurry on, and far more
344
to force on, local authorities in this country.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: We have done it in Scotland.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid whatever success might have attended the introduction of the reform in Scotland, it was a fact not to be questioned that an attempt to force upon local authorities in England an obligation to set up public slaughterhouses would excite a feeling of hostility that would retard good work now being done. It was, no doubt, true that local inspectors were not always well qualified for their duties, but under our system of decentralisation the Government could not be blamed for this. The difference between the law of Germany and Denmark and that of England in this regard was that the system in those countries was centralised whereas here it was the reverse. Here we were told to trust to the local authority to see that this reform was effected. They had done their best to impress upon local authorities that they should appoint inspectors of knowledge and experience, and clauses in a Bill he hoped to introduce would tend to secure that result, but it was a matter that could only be done by degrees, and any attempt to set up public slaughter houses or to generalise in order to universally stamp out tuberculosis by the tuberculin test, would, in his opinion, instead of doing good, result in a good deal more hostility being shown than was shown at present. This matter touched the whole question of local government, and no doubt it would be very difficult for some of the smaller local authorities, on the ground of expense, to appoint proper men. All that could be done was to lead the local authorities along the path of permanent progress in this regard. But if they could not get all the reforms which were asked for there was some justification for the claim put forward by the promoters of the present measure in that the present condition of things inflicted injustice on one class of traders, and a reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, with power to take evidence, would offer the opportunity for inquiry in which traders and ratepayers could

345
present their case, and in that inquiry a remedy might be found and a system of compensation devised. This was as far as he would be prepared to go, and although he admitted the truth of the criticisms which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who just sat down, he did not think that even the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to divide the House upon this question. The already heavily burdened ratepayers must be considered, and certainly he must be understood as giving no promise to support a proposal that compensation should come from the Imperial Exchequer. He was informed that at Newcastle an admirable insurance fund had been established by contributions from traders, and this, with other matters in relation to the subject, might come within the scope of the reference to the Committee. With the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he assented to the Second Reading.
SIR LEES KNOWLESsaid that in the interests of his constituents he called the attention of the House of Commons to this subject as far back as 1889. It was then recognised that a great hardship was inflicted on the meat-trade and the agitation then commenced had after sixteen years resulted in the introduction of this Bill. They recognised the great risk which butchers had to incur and all that the promoters of this Bill asked was uniformity of inspection, condemnation, and compensation. It had been difficult in the past to discover which was the proper Department to deal with this question. When he brought the subject to the attention of the House in 1889 he was told that the Board of Agriculture dealt only with live animals and that he must apply to the Local Government Board, but when he went to the Local Government Board he was told that they dealt only with dead animals, and he must go to the Department which dealt with live animals. He now congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his speech and the reception he had given to the Bill on behalf of the Government, and also he congratulated him that it
346
was recognised that the subject was closely concerned with public health.
MR. CHANNINGentirely concurred with what had fallen from the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire and took it that the President of the Local Government Board was in agreement with them as to the effect of this Bill. He did not wish to be considered hostile to the principle of compensation, and, in fact, he had always advocated in the strongest way compensation for farmers and others, where there was compulsory slaughter of their cattle, and who were not guilty of any fraud. But in this case compensation was pro-vided on a wholly different principle, where carcases of animals slaughtered were afterwards condemned as unfit for human food. That was applying the principle of compensation in an entirely wrong way. He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Wigtonshire that the principle of compensation could only be introduced as part of a general system adopted to deal with this disease. The duty of the State and the interest of agriculturists was to adopt a system of elimination of the disease. The ground upon which he took special exception was that he thought the Bill was likely to encourage fraud. He suggested that if there was to be a Select Committee the whole question of compensation for slaughter of cattle in connection with the stamping out of disease should be referred to it, after careful consideration of the terms of reference.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid it would not be possible for the Select Committee to enter into the much wider inquiry suggested by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire; and he imagined

347
that the promoters would not be willing to accept a Motion for such an inquiry in substitution for their Bill.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he would on the proper occasion invite the Government to appoint a Select Committee to deal on a wider reference, with the question of compensation in the case of slaughter for tuberculosis in all cases.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Select Committee.

SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING].
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, with which hon. Members were familiar as embodying the recommendations of a Royal Commission for making the working of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales more effective. He had himself brought forward this Bill on ten occasions, and for fourteen years this amending Bill had been introduced into the House, and under those circumstances he submitted the overwhelming opinion of Wales was in its favour. No Bill could have a greater support from public opinion in the Principality, and the treatment of the measure by the House was of much political importance to Wales, where it was thought right that questions affecting the Principality alone should be decided in accordance with the overwhelming sentiment of the country. It was undoubtedly a farce that the people of Wales, feeling so strongly as they did upon this question, should not be allowed
348
to work out, in the sphere of temperance, their own salvation.
MR. WILLIAM JONESseconded the Motion, and urged the Government to give facilities for the Second Reading. He pointed out that when the Commission, presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, inquired into this matter they found that the operation of the Act of 1881, so far as it went, was satisfactory to the vast majority of the Welsh people, and that the extension of its scope was urgently needed with more stringent provisions. The present Bill solely adopted the recommendations of that Commission, which was appointed by a Conservative Government. It had the voice of practically the whole Welsh nation behind it, and for those reasons he strongly supported the Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. GROVESmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, objecting to the inclusion of Monmouthshire in its provisions, and maintaining that the Sunday Closing Act had not decreased drunkenness, but had increased it. On that ground alone, and in the interests of true temperance, he opposed the extension of the Act to Monmouthshire.
And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 13th May.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.