HC Deb 16 March 1905 vol 143 cc276-307


Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

*CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)

said he had put down the Motion which stood in his name upon the Paper as a protest against the manner in which the London County Council year after year introduced into Bills of this character most contentious matters. Nobody could object to the proposal to construct a bridge in Regent's Park, or to the application from the Borough of Battersea to build over ground now occupied by allotments, but when it came to a question of granting the London County Council power to alter two public Acts or to interfere with the Foods and Drugs Acts, which left the supervision of milk and so forth to the proper sanitary authority, and other contentious matters, it was in his opinion time that a stand was made. He further protested against the repeated attempts of the London County Council to introduce into a Bill of this character legislation which had been defeated either upstairs in Committee or in this House. It was sad to see the way in which ratepayers were obliged to pay on both sides, because on the one hand they were constituents of the opposing borough, and on the other of the London County Council. He ventured to think it would be to the advantage of the good government of London if the Government brought forward legislation which would prevent the introduction of contentious proposals into General Powers Bills, unless the London County Council had received the assent of a majority of three-quarters or two-thirds of the borough councils interested. He should have thought the County Council had quite enough to do. It had already taken upon itself the work of the late School Board.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

No, no! That was imposed upon us by this House. You voted for it.


said the attitude adopted by every candidate for the London County Council at the last election showed that the London County Council were not reluctant to take over the powers placed upon them by Parliament. The amount of money spent by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills since the creation of that distinguished body was simply enormous. The question of expenditure was most material to hon. Gentlemen when they had regard to the constant increase of the rates. It was only the other day that they were informed by a most distinguished authority on the London County Council that the rates for the coming year would be very largely increased.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

Ah! That is the voluntary schools.


said no hon. Member would deny that the rates were constantly increasing. He should have thought it would have paid the London County Council to leave as much detail and power to the borough councils as possible instead of trying to deprive them of what powers they possessed, as they did on every occasion, or to supervise them and treat them like naughty children. He should have thought that that was the policy which would have commended itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who always advocated as wide an extension of powers as possible. By so doing they would educate the people up to their responsibilities. Complaint was made by the advocates of this Bill that the borough councils did not do their work properly. He should imagine that was the case all over the country, but it was not by coercion that they would be made to do their work properly; it would be by educating them up to their responsibilities in connection with a form of local government which had no parallel in any other nation of the world. He was sorry to have detained the House, but he had desired to indicate, and had indicated to the best of his ability, the reasons why he desired to enter a protest against the measures which the London County Council had introduced during the last few years in their General Powers Bills. He had only put his Motion on the Paper i n order that he might have an opportunity of entering his protest, and having done so he did not propose to move his Motion.


said the Instruction which he had upon the Paper was that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Clause 22, Part V. That clause provided The Council may from time to time make representations to the Local Government Board as to the manner in which the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, are administered within the county, and may institute inquiries and make investigations for the purposes of this section. The Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, which was passed in 1875, was the outcome of other Acts and of a Royal Commission which sat from 1869 to 1871. Up to the present time the London County Council had had no jurisdiction in the administration of these Acts. Originally Parliament laid it down that the execution of these Acts should be supervised by a Government Department and should be carried out by the local sanitary authority, and he might remind the House that in the strict sense of the word the London County Council was not the local sanitary authority. This principle had been enforced for many years, and, in 1888, when Parliament conferred on every other county council the power of administering the Food and Drugs Act, owing to the fact that there were other local authorities in London, an exception was made so far as the London County Council was concerned, and that power was not conferred upon them. In 1899, when the London Government Act was passed and the borough councils were created, no Amendment was proposed for the purpose of taking the power in this matter from the borough councils and giving it to the County Council, nor was advantage taken of the opportunity afforded in 1903, when Parliament subsequently enpowered the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture to take such action as was necessary with a view to ascertaining whether local authorities were doing their duty and if necessary to enforce performance, to move such an amendment of the Law. Two governing authorities, the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture, were surely amply sufficient in this matter. The principal objection of the borough councils to the clause was that there would be two sets of officials going over the same ground, and considerable extra expense. There was no reason to suppose that inspectors would discharge their duties more efficiently simply because they were appointed by one authority rather than another. If the London County Council thought there was any slackness it was perfectly open to them to make representations to the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture. Nothing had been alleged against the present administration of the Acts; the clause would lead to duplication of inspection, clashing of authorities, and increased expense; the proposal was against the general trend of London legislation, that as far as possible local duties should be discharged by the borough councils and central duties by the County Council, and therefore he asked the House to instruct the Committee to omit Clause 22, Part V.


seconded the Motion, first, because of the extra expense the clause would involve to London, secondly, because it would certainly lead to friction between the County Council and the borough councils. The clause contained two propositions. The first was that the Council should be empowered from time to time to make representations to the Local Government Board as to the manner in which the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875–99, were administered within the county. That portion was altogether unnecessary, as the County Council already had the power. The second and more important proposition was that the Council should be enabled to institute inquiries and make investigations for the purposes of the section. Those were extraordinarily wide words, and could only mean that the County Council were to appoint inspectors and take samples. They were really to have the same power as borough councils in the matter and there could hardly fail to be friction, while the expense involved was almost unlimited. Already the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture appointed inspectors, so that with those appointed by the borough councils and the County Councils there would be four sets of inspectors doing more or less the same work. Because he considered the provision a wasteful one and regarded it as unnecessary that the County Council should be placed in this position of superiority over the borough councils he begged to second the Instruction to the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Clause 22, Part V.:—(Captain Jessel).


explained that the most contentious and controversial clauses in the present Bill had been introduced at the instance of the borough councils themselves. Why the particular clause to which objection was being taken should cause friction between the County Council and the borough councils he was at a loss to understand. It did not disqualify the borough councils in any respect, nor did it take away from or add to the powers they already possessed. It simply enabled the County Council, as the central sanitary authority, to ascertain whether the twenty-nine borough councils were doing their duty. He put it to any impartially-minded legislator, who was not imbued with a fanatical hatred of the London County Council, whether the matter dealt with in the clause did not come within the purview of an authority such as the County Council. If London was sanitarily a single entity the power would be unnecessary, but in this matter of adulteration London was split up into twenty-nine disconnected areas, and in the interests of 6,000,000 people the County Council thought that if they found one of those authorities not doing its duty they should have power to report the fact to the Local Government Board. Was there a case for this clause? In Marylebone 1 per cent. of the samples of milk taken were adulterated; in Chelsea 2 per cent.; and in Hammerssmith, 3 per cent. If all the borough councils were as virtuous as Marylebone, as excellent as Chelsea, and as anxious to do the right thing as Hammersmith, this particular clause would not be necessary, but they were not. The poorer the district, the greater was the adulteration of milk and food. In Stepney, 18 per cent, of the samples were adulterated——


And in Battersea, 13 per cent.


Yes, and in St. Pancras 20, and in Hackney, 21.


That shows how well they take the samples.


said he could not be expected to give the percentage of samples that were not taken. The bulk of the milk in Stepney and Hackney was bought by very poor people in small quantities chiefly for children, who ought to have good milk, whereas they got what was known as "sky-blue," He had recently been told by a physician at St. Thomas's Hospital that from 90 to 95 per cent, of children were at birth organically sound and physically healthy, but that they went to pieces between birth and six months of age because they could not get good milk and food. The result was that they did not develop physique to enable them at the age of twenty-one to enlist in the King's Company of the First Grenadier Guards. This matter had to be looked at from the point of view of the children, and the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee was on the side of the supporters of this clause. In the rich districts where they had good milk the infantile death-rate was from 80 to 90 per 1,000, whereas in the poorer districts it ranged from 140 to 200 per 1,000, and the rates were highest where the samples of milk were most adulterated. Out of a thousand breast-fed infants in Liverpool only twenty died from diarrhœal complaints, while 300 died in the same period because they were fed on milk of the "sky-blue" description. A better illustration was afforded by St. Helens, where industrial conditions and the amenities of life were not ideal. St. Helens, with its sterilised milk depot, had a death-rate of eighty-seven per thousand of "milk-depot-fed" children, whilst the general death-rate was 167 per thousand. In the event of its being proved by an investigation of the London County Council that Hackney could do what Marylebone did, and that Stepney ought to do what Chelsea did, the Local Government Board on the report of the County Council would issue a circular to the defaulting or apathetic authority and compel the worst councils to act up to what the best councils now did. There was no desire to interfere with the borough councils; all the County Council asked was that as the chief sanitary authority they should be empowered to make an investigation, report the result to the Local Government Board, and leave it to the impartiality of an Imperial Department to consider the facts for themselves, and, if necessary, act upon them.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said that he at least could not fairly be accused of showing a fanatical opposition to the County Council. He had the privilege of serving for many years on that body, and on every possible occasion he had expressed his appreciation of the work they had discharged. He did not think, however, that the friends of the County Council were acting in the interests of that body when they attempted to invest it with the power of superintending the administration of councils which from their local knowledge were better able to look after certain aspects of local work. He did not think that the London County Council was pursuing its own interests in trying to acquire these powers. The duties of the Council ought to be administrative and not inquisitorial, and to grant such powers as these would only lead to a further increase in the rates. He hoped the House would pass this Instruction by an overwhelming majority, and prevent the London County Council acquiring powers which it was not better qualified to discharge than the borough councils, and which would only have the effect of causing hostility and friction between the London County Council and the borough councils.

MR. BENN (Devonport)

said he desired to say a few words by way of supplementing the excellent speech made by his hon. friend the Member for Battersea. His hon. friend had referred to the fanatical opposition to the London County Council which he found in the House of Commons. Coming back to the House after an absence of nine years, he was delighted to find the London County Council standing so well in the House of Common. He wished to repudiate altogether any notion that there was any spirit antagonism existing in London between the borough councils and the London County Council. He desired to deal with the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Islington. He was pleased that the hon. Member remembered his useful association with the London County Council, for they had very much missed his services on that body. With regard to the impression that the London County Council was endeavouring to seek new powers, he wished to draw attention to the fact that they were merely trying to make the law uniform with regard to the food and the health of the people. Upon this question he claimed that they came to the House of Commons asking for these powers with the full authority of London. Their election addresses were filled with references relating to the food and health of the people. Up to the year 1871 there were seventeen Acts having to do with the public health of London, and they were codified under the Public Health Act of 1891. If the Act of 1891 were examined it would be found to contain precisely the powers they were now asking for, and all they desired was that those powers should be extended to the Food and Drugs Act, so that the London County Council, in default of the local authority, should have power to make representations to the Local Government Board. He desired to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment to the evidence of a clergyman closely associated with the life of the poor—he referred to Canon Horsley. Canon Horsley had said that there ought to be some provision to secure that the Sale of Food and Drugs Act was carried out with uniformity, and he found that in some districts the Act was vigorously carried out, whilst in others it was not. What they were anxious to obtain was that there should be uniformity in the law. The Act of 1899, which set up the borough councils of London, gave them the very powers with regard to certain matter that they were now asking for, and they were given by a beneficent Conservative Government. For reasons of continuity he asked that these additional powers should be granted to the London County Council. They did not desire to deprive the borough councils of any powers, and the London County Council were only too anxious to relieve themselves of any duties which could be properly done in the locality; but there were things which could be done far more efficiently by a central body. It was of the greatest possible importance, in regard to the food of the people, that there should be some authority able to deal with London as a whole, and he hoped hon. Members opposite would assist them in obtaining powers which were necessary for the good administration of the city they were endeavouring to serve.

*MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said that according to the arguments of the hon. Member for Battersea, wherever large numbers of samples were found deficient that implied bad administration in those districts. He confessed that he could not follow that argument. If a large number of the samples were taken and were discovered to be bad he thought that implied very great activity on the part of the sanitary authority. The hon. Member for Battersea had said that because 18 per cent. of the samples taken in Stepney were found to be deficient, that that meant bad administration of the Food and Drugs Acts.


said that his contention was that if the percentage of adulteration in Marylebone was 1 per cent. and in Stepney it was 18 per cent., then Stepney ought to try to bring its milk supply up to the standard of Marylebone.


asked by what process did the hon. Member propose that Stepney should bring their samples up to that standard? The first step to take was to discover that the milk supply was bad, and that was precisely what they were doing in the Borough of Stepney. All he wanted was that justice should be done to the Borough of Stepney in this matter. He did not know what the opinion of the Stepney Borough Council was upon this clause but he believed that the medical office and his staff were second to none in the activity they displayed in discovering cases of adulteration. They went very closely into this question during their inquiries upon the alien question, and they found that the adulteration of food and milk in Stepney was for the most par done by foreigners who undersold English tradesmen, and that the activity of the borough authorities was greater than in any other part of London. If it were true that the Stepney local authorities were doing all they could to discover these bad practices, he would like to ask the Member for Battersea what more could the London County Council do if these additional powers were granted by the House? He did not see that any representations which the London County Council could make to the Local Government Board, or any steps which they could take on their own behalf could be better than a close and constant investigation and examination, followed up by prosecutions before the magistrates by the local authorities. What more could the London County Council do that was already being done? He heartily agreed with what had been said as to the importance of a pure milk supply as affecting the health of children, and he could assure the hon. Member for Battersea that there were numbers of dairymen in Stepney whose milk was as pure as was to be found in any part of the Metropolis. But he could not follow the argument that, because the prosecutions were numerous and the discoveries of adulteration numerous, the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in Stepney was slack. On the contrary, he was inclined to believe that the administration of the Act in Chelsea was much more likely to be slack, because the samples were only two or three per cent. bad, than they were in Hackney and other parts where high percentages of adulteration were known to exist. The percentage of bad samples meant nothing unless they knew the total number of samples taken. How many were taken in Chelsea, for example? The very facts used with such force by the hon. Member for Battersea were facts placed in his possession by the activity of the very authorities whom he condemned so strongly. He was in no way fanatically opposed to the London County Council, but in his opinion they already possessed powers to make representations to the Local Government Board.


said that the reason they asked for these powers was that if they spent any money now under the present law in carrying out these duties they would be surcharged by the auditor.


said he knew that at present the London County Council made representations under the present law upon all sorts of questions to all sorts of authorities, and he could not see any necessity for the further powers which were now being asked for. The hon. Member for Devonport said he was most desirous of avoiding any friction with the borough councils, but if the London County Council set up another set of inspectors to supervise those already in existence that course would be sure to cause friction, and for that reason he should vote for this Instruction.


appealed to the mover to withdraw the Instruction. It was true the Council had powers in many directions, powers of the character now sought, with the object of getting rid of adulteration in the same way as by constant inspection the use of false weights and measures had been stamped out. It was not nice to hear the stories of the poor as to the way they were constantly being imposed upon in regard to their food supply. He agreed that almost every sanitary staff in London at the present time was overworked, but the purity of the food of the people was of far more importance. Why should the London County Council be denied the right to take samples? Tradesmen travelled about with food which was unsound, selling it in those districts where it was known that the administration of the Act was slack. A case had been brought to his notice of a man selling in a very poor neighbourhood what were known as "block ornaments." They were offered for sale upon a travelling butcher's shop, and the salesman said to a poor woman, "Have that lot for 3d.?" She declined to purchase, and then they were offered at 2d., then for 1d., and as she still declined to purchase he said, "I am going to turn my back, please steal 'em' What right had that man to be offering such things for sale at all? He appealed to the House to help them to put a little more courage and stamina into the borough councils in this matter, and not least to strengthen the hands of the medical officers, so that, if the borough councils neglected their duty, they might appeal to the London County Council to put the Act in force.

MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)

said that it was very necessary that the poor people of London should be protected in regard to their food. The people of Battersea had taken steps in good time, and the result was that they had secured a pure milk supply, but other districts had not been so active, with the result that they had got a good many cases of adulteration.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 177. (Division List No. 60.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Duke, Henry Edward Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham
Arkwright, John Stanhope Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Arrol, Sir William Fergusson. Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Finlay Sir R. B. (Inverness B'ghs Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Flower, Sir Ernest Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Baldwin, Alfred Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W. MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Galloway, William Johnson Maconochie, A. W.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Garfit, William M'Calmont, Colonel James
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Majendie, James A. H.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Malcolm, Ian
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets Marks, Harry Hananel
Bignold, Sir Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bill, Charles Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maxwell, Rt, Hn. SirH. E. (Wigt'n
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greene, Sir E W. (B'ryS. Edm'nds Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Milvain, Thomas
Boulnois, Edmund Guthrie, Walter Murray Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Brassey, Albert Hambro, Charles Eric Morrison, James Archibald
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hamilton. Marq. of (L'donderry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bull, William James Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hay, Hon. Claude George Nicholson, William Graham
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW Parkes, Ebenezer
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Helder, Augustus Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Henderson Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Percy, Earl
Chapman, Edward Hickman, Sir Alfred Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hogg, Lindsay Pretyman, Ernest George
Coates, Edward Feetham Hornby, Sir William Henry Purvis, Robert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hoult, Joseph Randles, John S.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Howard, John (Kent, Faversham Rankin, Sir James
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Reid, James (Greenock)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hunt, Rowland Remnant, James Farquharson
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Ridley, S. Forde
Dalkeith, Earl of Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Davenport, W. Bromley Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Kerr, John Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Denny, Colonel Keswick, William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dickson, Charles Scott Kimber, Sir Henry Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. King, Sir Henry Seymour Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Knowles, Sir Lees Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Laurie, Lieut.-General Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Tuff, Charles Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Valentia, Viscount Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) Vincent, Col. Sir. C. EH. (Sheffield Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Stock, James Henry Walker, Col. William Hall Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart
Stone, Sir Benjamin Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Stroyan, John Warde, Colonel C. E. Wylie, Alexander
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Webb, Colonel William George Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Thorburn, Sir Walter Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Thornton, Percy M. Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne Captain Jessel and Mr.
Tollemache, Henry James Whitmore, Charles Algernon Herbert Robertson.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Partington, Oswald
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Grey. Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Griffith, Ellis J. Pemberton, John S. G.
Allen, Charles P. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Perks, Robert William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Hall, Edward Marshall Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Atherley-Jones, L. Hare, Thomas Leigh Rea, Russell
Barlow, John Emmott Harwood, George Reckitt, Harold James
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Renwick, George
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Helme, Norval Watson Rickett, J. Compton
Bell, Richard Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bigwood, James Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bingham, Lord Higham, John Sharpe Robson, William Snowdon
Black, Alexander William Holland, Sir William Henry Roe, Sir Thomas
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bond, Edward Horniman, Frederick John Runciman, Walter
Brigg, John Jacoby, James Alfred Russell, T. W.
Bright, Allan Heywood Johnson, John Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Broadhurst, Henry Joicey, Sir James Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Schwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jones, Leif (Appleby) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Shackleton, David James
Burke, E. Haviland Jordan, Jeremiah Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burns, John Kearley, Hudson E. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Butcher, John George Kitson, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lambert, George Slack, John Bamford
Caldwell, James Lamont, Norman Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cameron, Robert Langley, Batty Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Layland-Barratt, Francis Soares, Ernest J.
Causton, Richard Knight Leigh, Sir Joseph Spear, John Ward
Cawley, Frederick Levy, Maurice Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Channing, Francis Allston Lloyd-George, David Strachey, Sir Edward
Cheetham, John Frederick Lough, Thomas Sullivan, Donal
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Clancy, John Joseph Lowther, RtHnJ. W. (Cum. Penr. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Crean Eugene Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Cremer, William Randal M'Crae, George Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) M'Kean, John Tomkinson, James
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Manners, Lord Cecil Toulmin, George
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doughty, Sir George Mitchell Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Douglas Charles M. (Lanark) Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Duncan, J. Hastings Morrell, George Herbert Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Edwards, Frank Moss, Samuel Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ellice, Capt E C. (S. Andrw'sB'ghs Moulton, John Fletcher Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Murphy, John Wason, john Cathcart (Orkney)
Emmott, Alfred Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Welby, Lt.-Col. A C. E. (Taunton)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Nannetti, Joseph P. White, George (Norfolk)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Newnes, Sir George White, Luke, York, E. R.)
Fenwick, Charles Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whiteley, George (York, WR.)
Findlay Alexander (Lanark, NE Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fison, Frederick William Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Flavin Michael Joseph Nussey, Thomas Willans
Foster, Sir Walter (Delby Co.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams Osmond (Merioneth)
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Mara, James Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Wood, James Young, Samuel TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfield Yoxall, James Henry Benn and Mr. Crooks

MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved the following further Instruction, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to substitute, in Part VI. of the Bill, the medical officer of a borough council for the medical officer of the County Council." He said he had never been one of those who attacked the London County Council, but he held that nothing but evil results would flow from dual control in matters relating to the milk supply in London. The medical officers of the borough councils were doing their best to cope with milk adulteration and milk-borne diseases, and if increased powers were to be given to any authorities it was to these medical officers that they should be given, rather than to a new staff of medical officers to be appointed by the London County Council. The latter could not possibly possess the local knowledge enjoyed by the medical officers of the borough councils, and local knowledge was of the first importance in tracking out the evil-doer when food adulteration and disease were concerned. If, for instance, the medical officer of Shoreditch desired to prevent the sale of milk in Battersea which had been condemned in Shoreditch, and further powers were necessary in order to secure that object, it would be far better that the Shoreditch medical officer should be entrusted with the duty of making representations direct to the Local Government Board rather than the roundabout proposal of this private Bill, which would necessitate the Shoreditch medical officer approaching the London County Council, and the London County Council the Local Government Board. In his judgment the subject of milk-borne diseases and the milk supply of London was far too grave to be dealt with by a Private Bill such as that now before the House. The question was one which could only be adequately dealt with by the Government by a public Statute, and it was wiser to await the Report of the Royal Commission now examining the connection between human and bovine tuberculosis, than to attempt to tinker with a subject concerning the health of infant life by a stray clause in a private Bill. If this clause were adopted friction between the County Council and the borough council must result, and an unnecessary and increased charge cast upon the London ratepayers to provide a redundant staff, and no real remedy would be provided against the insufficient and bad supply of milk in London or against the diseases flowing therefrom.


, in seconding the instruction, expressed the hope that it would be accepted by the hon. Members in charge of the Bill, who represented the London County Council. Part VI. of the Bill dealt with the question of milk supply. While he had no desire to raise any unreasonable objection to the Bill, he wished to say that by conferring the powers which were asked by the County Council they would throw on that body an enormous amount of work over a large area which it was less fitted to perform than the borough councils. The County Council would be obliged to have a staff permeating every one of the boroughs of the Metropolis and covering ground which was already covered by the medical officers of the local authorities, who were obviously better able to deal with these matters. The officials of the borough councils were more accessible to those who had a right to complain than the officials of the County Council. It should be an Instruction to the Committee, which would decide what could conveniently administered by the London County Council.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to substitute, in Part VI. of the Bill, the medical officer of a borough council for the medical officer of the County Council."—(Mr Claude Hay.)

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said that from the farmers' point of view, he objected to having two inspectors—one representing the County Council, and the other representing the borough council. Now, of the two, he preferred the inspector of the London County Council as the better authority. The important thing was that the milk should be brought to London pure and cheap.


said that it was a matter of common knowledge that the London County Council would have been quite content that this Bill should have gone upstairs, and that a proper tribunal should have given a decision on full information presented to it on this contentious subject. It was quite clear that on the smallest matter in which the London County Council desired to promote the good government of London, the hon. Members for Peckham, Wandsworth, and St. Pancras, with, perhaps the hon. Gentlemen who represented the agricultural districts, opposed it. He did not believe that it was in the interest of agriculture that bad milk should be sold anywhere. On the contrary, he believed that the better the milk the more of it would be sold. The London County Council thought that it was not right that the chief sanitary authority in the Metropolis should be deprived of authority when the borough councils their duty. Supposing from St. Albans to Finsbury and the medical officer there decided that it was tuberculous and infectious and would not allow it to be sold; and supposing milk from the same farm was sent to Battersea, and that the medical officer there did not care to condemn it, then they thought that the medical officer of the London County Council should have power to refuse permission for it to be sold in Battersea. That was a reasonable request, and Part VI. of the Bill ought at any rate to be passed. Neither the cowkeepers nor the dairymen had petitioned against the Bill. This part of the Bill was based on the model milk clauses passed by the Police and Sanitary Committee and sanctioned by the Local Government Board. On behalf of the London County Council he was sorry to say that he could not accept the Instruction, and he insisted that the London County Council should have concurrent powers with the borough councils to prohibit the introduction of infectious and tuberculous milk into any part of London.

*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

said that the hon. Member for Battersea had complained that this Instruction was moved on a microscopic detail. The reason for that was that the London County Council had gratuitously made an attempt on this microscopic detail, as it constantly did on larger questions, to assume functions which did not belong to it. This Bill was part of a system by which the London County Council was constantly setting up the theory that the borough councils were inferior and subject to it—[An HON. MEMBER: No.]—whereas everyone who had watched the subject knew that they were separate bodies with separate functions, each responsible to the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for Devonport, who had gained great and well-merited distinction in the municipal arena of London, and whom he welcomed back to this House for everything except his political opinions, had deprecated what he called the hostility between the London County Council and the borough councils, but his contention was that it was just such attempts as these on the part of the London County Council to assume the functions of the borough councils which set up and sustained that hostility. The hon. Member for Battersea claimed that the representative principle was more fully carried out in the County Council than in the borough councils.


said that what he had stated was that there were twenty-nine borough councils, and that something was needed to protect London as a whole, because some of these twenty-nine borough councils did not, or would not, do their duty.


said he was in the recollection of the House as to what the hon. Member had said about the representative principles, and he would put it to the House whether the borough councils were not a more effective authority to deal with questions of this sort than the London County Council. He would put this particular case in a concrete form. Supposing these powers were granted to the County Council, and the control or regulation of the milk supply was in its hands. If a particular district or borough were dissatisfied with the quality of its milk they could turn out their individual county councillor; but that would not affect the policy of the County Council, or improve their administration of the regulations. On the other hand, if the control was left to the borough council, and the borough was dissatisfied, they could turn out the whole borough council and carry the wishes of the electorate into effect. That was the true representative principle. The hon. Member considered that there was every virtue in centralisation, and that was one of the great

grounds on which he had advanced the claims of the London County Council. But he contended that the borough councils were the proper authorities to deal with all those matters of local government to which reference had been made, and which had nothing to do with politics.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes 179. (Division List No. 61).

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Doxford, Sir William Theodore Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Duke, Henry Edward Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lowe, Francis William
Arrol, Sir William Finch, Rt, Hon. George H. Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.
Atkinson, Rt Hon. John Finlay, Sir R. B. (Invern'ssB'ghs) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H. Fison, Frederick William Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Maconochie, A. W.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Flower, Sir Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William M'Calmont, Colonel James
Baldwin, Alfred Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Majendie, James A. H.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Galloway, William Johnson Malcolm, Ian
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gardner, Ernest Marks, Harry Hananel
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Garfit, William Martin, Richard Biddulph
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Godson, Sir A. Frederick Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets Milvain, Thomas
Bill, Charles Goschen, Hon. G. Joachim Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow).
Blundell, Colonel Henry Goulding, Edward Alfred Morrell, George Herbert
Bond, Edward Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morrison, James Archibald
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Boulnois, Edmund Guthrie, Walter Murray Mount, William Arthur
Brassey, Albert Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Bull, William James Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Nicholson, William Graham
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) Pease, H. Pike (Darlington
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Heath, Sir J. (Staffords, N. W.) Percy, Earl
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Helder, Augustus Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chapman, Edward Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Pretyman, Ernest George
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hickman, Sir Alfred Purvis, Robert
Coates, Edward Feetham Hoare, Sir Samuel Randles, John S.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hogg, Lindsay Rankin, Sir James
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hornby, Sir William Henry Reid, James (Greenock)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hoult, Joseph Remnant, James Farquharson
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil Ridley, S. Forde
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hunt, Rowland Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Jebb, Sir R. Claverhouse Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cust, Henry John C. Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Davenport, William Bromley- Kerr, John Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Keswick, William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dickson, Charles Scott Knowles, Sir Lees Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)
Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C. Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Tuff, Charles Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) Valentia, Viscount Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Stanley, Rt Hn. Lord (Lancs.) Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Stock, James Henry Walker, Col. William Hall Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.
Stone, Sir Benjamin Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Strachey, Sir Edward Warde, Colonel C. E. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Stroyan, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wylie, Alexander
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Webb, Colonel William George Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Thorburn, Sir Walter Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Thornton, Percy M. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Claude Hay and Sir Henry
Tollemache, Henry James Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne Kimber.
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Moss, Samuel
Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Murphy, John
Ainsworth, John Stirling Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nannetti, Joseph P.
Allen, Charles P. Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Fuller, J. M. F. Norman, Henry
Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Nussey, Thomas Willans
Banner, John S. Harmood- Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Barran, Rowland Hirst Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bell, Richard Grey, Rt Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bigwood, James Griffith, Ellis J. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Bingham, Lord Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Mara, James
Black, Alexander William Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B. Parker, Sir Gilbert
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hall, Edward Marshall Partington Oswald
Brigg, John Hare, Thomas Leigh Paulton, James Mellor
Bright, Allan Heywood Harmsworth, R. Leicester Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Broadhurst, Henry Harwood, George Pemberton, John S. G.
Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh) Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Rea, Russell
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Heaton, John Henniker Reckitt, Harold James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Helme, Norval Watson Renwick, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rickett, J. Compton
Burke, E. Haviland Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Burns, John Higham, John Sharpe Roberts John H. (Denbighs.)
Butcher, John George Holland, Sir Wm. Henry Robson, William Snowdon
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Roe, Sir Thomas
Caldwell, James Horniman, Frederick John Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cameron, Robert Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Runciman, Walter
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jacoby, James Alfred Russell T. W.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Johnson John Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Causton, Richard Knight Joicey, Sir James Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Cawley, Frederick Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Schwann, Charles E.
Channing, Francis Allston Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Cheetham, John Frederick Jordan, Jeremiah Shackleton, David James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Kearley, Hudson, E. Shaw Thomas (Hawick B.)
Clancy, John Joseph Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Crean, Eugene Kitson, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cremer, William Randal Labouchere, Henry Slack, John Bamford
Crombie, John William Lambert, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lamont, Norman Soares, Ernest J.
Dalziel, James Henry Langley, Batty Spear Jhon Ward
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd) Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Denny, Colonel Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Stevenson, Francis S.
Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis Sullivan, Donal
Doughty, Sir George Leigh, Sir Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Levy, Maurice Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Duncan, J. Hastings Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Edwards, Frank Lough, Thomas Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Elibank, Master of Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Tomkinson, James
Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andr'wsB'ghs Lyell, Charles Henry Toulmin, George
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Emmott, Alfred M'Crae, George Tritton, Charles Ernest
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Manners, Lord Cecil Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Fenwick, Charles Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.) Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. White, George (Norfolk)
Fisher, William Hayes Morpeth, Viscount
White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) Yoxall, James Henry
Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Wilson, J W. (Worcestershire, N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Wood, James Benn and Mr. Crooks.
Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset Young, Samuel

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham) moved:— "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Part XV." He said the clause which he desired to omit empowered the local authorities to supply wires, fittings, and apparatus to the premises of their consumers, and to borrow money for the purpose. The object of that clause was to introduce municipal trading and to interfere with the legitimate work of private shopkeepers, contractors, and engineers.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Part XV."— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)


said the County Council was acting in this matter on behalf of the borough councils. There were in London thirteen electric lighting companies who had power to supply electric light and to sell to the consumers the necessary fittings and appliances. Parliament had given to sixteen borough councils the power to supply electric light in London, but they could not do so effectively or cheaply if the fittings and appliances had to be bought from middlemen who frequently made large profits out of the consumers. The borough councils, without exception, had asked the County Council to apply for powers in their Bill to enable them to sell fittings to consumers who took their electric light. It was ridiculous to call

that a glaring instance of municipal trading. Let Members be logical and consistent. Why should they refuse this power to the borough councils and at the same time allow the South Metropolitan Gas Company to supply burners and cooking stoves?


said the proposal was one which might be very reasonably objected to. The London County Council was doing very good work; but in his opinion power should not be given to local authorities to enter into competition with traders by means of capital provided by the ratepayers.


said that the London County Council did not want to sell the fittings themselves; they were merely voicing the opinion of the borough councils. At present, two borough councils—Woolwich and Marylebone—possessed this power, and the other borough councils desired to have it in one Act instead of having to promote separate Acts.


said he was convinced that it was reasonable those powers should be given to the borough councils, and he should vote against the Instruction.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 62.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Brassey, Albert
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Bull, William James
Anson, Sir William Reynell Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Burdett-Coutts, W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Butcher, John George
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O. Bignold, Sir Arthur Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.
Arrol Sir William Bigwood, James Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bill, Charles Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H. Bingham, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Blundell, Colonel Henry Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Wore.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bond, Edward Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton
Balcarres, Lord Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Chapman, Edward
Baldwin, Alfred Boulnois, Edward Clive, Captain, Percy A.
Coates, Edward Feetham Joicey, Sir James Reid, James (Greenock)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Remnant, James Farquharson
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Kenyon, Hn. George T. (Denbigh Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kerr, John Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Keswick, William Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Dalkeith, Earl of Kimber, Sir Henry Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Davenport, William Bromley Knowles, Sir Lees Round, Rt. Hon. James
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickson, Charles Scott Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sharpe, William Edward T.
Duke, Henry Edward Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sinclair, Louis Romford
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Spear, John Ward
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Fisher, William Hayes Lowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)
Fison, Frederick William Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Stock, James Henry
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Stone, Sir Benjamin
Flower, Sir Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Strachey, Sir Edward
Forster, Henry William MacIver, David (Liverpool) Stroyan, John
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Maconochie, A. W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Galloway, William Johnson M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Gardner, Ernest M'Calmont, Colonel James Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Garfit, William Majendie, James A. H. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Malcolm, Ian Tuff, Charles
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Manners, Lord Cecil Tuke, Sir John Batty
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Marks, Harry Hananel Valentia, Viscount
Grey, Ernest (West Ham) Martin, Richard Biddulph Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield
Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n) Walker, Col. William Hall
Guthrie, Walter Murray Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hall, Edward Marshall Milvain, Thomas Warde, Colonel C. E.
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Webb, Colonel William George
Hambro, Charles Eric Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mount, William Arthur Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Helder, Augustus Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Nicholson, William Graham Wilson, John(Glasgow)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Hogg, Lindsay Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside Parkes, Ebenezer Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Hornby, Sir William Henry Percy, Earl Wylie, Alexander
Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsham Plummer, Sir Walter R. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hozier, Hon, James Henry Cecil Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Hunt, Rowland Pretyman, Ernest George TELLERSFOR THE AYES—Sir
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Purvis, Robert Frederick Banbury and Mr.
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Randles, John S. Frederick Smith.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Rankin, Sir James
Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.) Bright, Allan Heywood Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Broadhurst, Henry Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Crean, Eugene
Allen, Charles P. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Cremer, William Randal
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Crombie, John William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Burke, E. Haviland Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry Burns, John Cust, Henry John C.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Buxton, Sydney Charles Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Banner, John S. Harmood- Caldwell, James Dalziel, James Henry
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cameron, Robert Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)
Beckett, Ernest William Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Denny, Colonel
Bell, Richard Causton, Richard Knight Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Benn, John Williams Cawley, Frederick Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Channing, Francis Allston Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Black, Alexander William Cheetham, John Frederick Duncan, J. Hastings
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Churchill, Winston Spencer Edwards, Frank
Brigg, John Clancy, John Joseph Elibank, Master of
Ellice, Capt EC (SAndr'ws B'ghs Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E.
Emmott, Alfred Layland (Barratt, Francis Seely. Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Shackleton, David James
Eve, Harry Trelawney Leigh, Sir Joseph Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Fenwick, Charles Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Levy, Maurice Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E Lewis, John Herbert Slack, John Bamford
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lough, Thomas Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Flavin, Michael Joseph Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Soares, Ernest J.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lyell, Charles Henry Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macdona, John Cumming Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fuller, J. M. F. M'Crae, George Sullivan, Donal
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Markham, Arthur Basil Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tennant, Harold John
Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Morpeth, Viscount Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Grey, Rt. Hon Sir E. (Berwick) Morrell, George Herbert Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Griffith, Ellis J. Moss, Samuel Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Moulton, John Fletcher Thornton, Percy M.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Murphy, John Tollemache, Henry James
Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Nannetti, Joseph P. Tomkinson, James
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Newnes, Sir George Toulmin, George
Harwood, George Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hay, Hon. Claude George Norman, Henry Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Heaton, John Henniker O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Helme, Norval Watson O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Mara, James White, George (Norfolk)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Parker, Sir Gilbert White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Higham, John Sharpe Partington, Oswald Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Hoare, Sir Samuel Paulton, James Mellor Whitley. J. H. (Halifax)
Holland, Sir William Henry Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Horniman, Frederick John Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Hoult, Joseph Priestley, Arthur Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset)
Jacoby, James Alfred Rea, Russell Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Reckitt, Harold James Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Johnson, John Renwick, George Wilson, J W. (Worcest'rshire, N.
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Rickett, J. Compton Wood, James
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Ridley, S. Forde Woodhouse, Sir. J T. (Huddersf'd
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Jordan, Jeremiah Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Young, Samuel
Kearley, Hudson E. Robson, William Snowdon Yoxall, James Henry
Kitson, Sir James Roe, Sir Thomas
Labouchere, Henry Runciman, Walter TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lambert, George Russell, T. W. Major Evans-Gordon and
Lamont, Norman Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Mr. Crooks.
Langley, Batty Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.) rose on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture to move as an instruction to the Committee to omit Clause 34. He said they had successfully opposed it already in the Borough of Ealing. They were perfectly ready to assent to legislation, and all they asked was that they might know exactly their position, and the conditions under which they might supply milk. The London County Council already had very great powers in the matter of regulations relating to dairymen, water supply, dairies, cow sheds, and disease. They also had ample powers under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to inspect dairies and to prohibit milk coming into London, and yet they wanted still greater powers. It was not right to do by piecemeal legislation and by means of a private Bill what ought to be done by a public Bill. Either the London County Council should have the power or the borough councils should have it, but it was not right that the farmers should be brought into conflict with two authorities. Another point was that the medical officers of health had passed various dairies and cow sheds, and farmers had already been put to heavy expenditure. In spite of that fact, the London County Council would have power to over-rride them and to say that unless other things were done the farmers would have their milk stopped. They were perfectly ready to be supervised by one authority, but it was not fair to have two authorities to deal with and to have to meet conflicting ideas and interests. He begged to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Clause 34."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)


seconded the Instruction. He objected to the London County Council having power to interfere with the work of other county councils in their own area. There was no justification for the claim of the London County Council to be able to go, for instance, into the county of Cornwall and to interfere with the administration of the health laws in that county by the Cornwall County Council. What would be said by the London County Council if the medical officers of the County Council of Hertfordshire were to be allowed to interfere with the administration of the health laws in London by the medical officers of the London County Council? The whole subject was one of the first importance to the health of the children of London, and by reason of its gravity should not be trifled with by private Bill legislation, but on the responsibility of the Government of the day. A measure should be brought forward which would cope with the milk supply, not only of London, but of the whole country, and this when the scientific Commission now sitting had made its recommendations.


pointed out that it was only asked for the London County Council to have the power, in the event of milk being sent from a tuberculous district, to take its proper place in dealing with it. A farmer in Hertford-shire might send milk to Kensington. Kensington might refuse to have it and send it on to Clapham, which in turn might refuse to have it. The milk might be sent to Stepney, and from thence to St. Pancras. It was only right that St. Pancras should have the right to say that infectious milk should not be sent into its district. It might be urged that this matter could be left to the county council of the district, but they were more or less interested, and would take a biassed view. They would not be quite so vigilant as an outside authority. The consumer in London held a different view, and surely the 5,000,000 there had a right to be protected against a diseased cow. If it were contended that the county councils were a sufficient safeguard he would point out that out of sixty-two county councils only thirty-five had appointed medical officers for this purpose, and only fifteen of the number gave the whole of their time to the work. Some councils had no medical officer at all, and he thought that for the effective protection of the consumer the London County Council ought to have the power to intervene. He appealed to the agricultural Members of the House to popularise the sale of milk in London. If they gave colour to a suggestion that bad milk could be sent into London they would decrease the consumption and there act against their own interests.

*COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

agreed that it was quite right that the 5,000,000 people in London should be protected against bad milk, but, on the other hand, the farmers wanted to be protected against the London County Council which, under this Bill, would be able to go into the remotest corners of the country and override the rules of the local councils. Each locality must provide its own regulations, and they did not want to be overridden by the London County Council.

MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)

thought that it would be a most extraordinary thing to set up the sanitary authority of London as a sanitary authority for a district 100 miles from the Metropolis. They in Buckinghamshire would not tolerate such a proposal, and he should vote against it.

*MR. LLEWELLYN (Somersetshire, N.)

also supported the Instruction. They already had suitable regulations under the Contagious Diseases Notification Act in force in the country, and on behalf of agriculturists he submitted that the proposal of the Bill was absolutely unjust and altogether unnecessary.


did not wish to unduly trouble the House, and would accept the Instruction.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Clause 34.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, in Clause 35, Sub-clause (4), line 18, after the word 'man,' to insert the words 'provided that such a condition is due to the wilful neglect of.'"—(Mr. Gardner.)

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, in Clause 35, Sub-clause 4, line 18, after the word "man," to insert the words "provided that such a condition is due to the wilful neglect of."—(Mr. Gardner.)