HC Deb 29 November 1911 vol 32 cc400-1

asked, in the case of a girl whose home is in the country and who is in service in London, and who is ill and is sent home by her mistress, whether she can command the attendance of a doctor in the district where her home is situate; whether if she is unwell, but not definitely ill, she can, as a preventive measure, command the service of a doctor in the district in which her mistress's house is situated; and, if her mistress sends her home when ill, who is responsible for her railway fare and other expenses of her journey, and for any bad results that may be due to her travelling?


The answer to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative; the last has no connection with the Insurance Bill.


asked the Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the action of a London paper in publishing a letter protesting against sickness insurance for domestic servants, and professing to be written on behalf of forty-seven servants employed at Hamblin's Hotel, Old Brompton; whether he is aware that no such hotel exists and that the forty-seven servants are purely imaginary; and whether he proposes to call the attention of the Public Prosecutor to the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

My attention has been called to the letter in question, and, so far as I am aware, there is no such hotel in existence; and the forty-seven servants on whose behalf the protest is said to have been written are the product of some person's imagination. I do not, however, propose to take any steps in the matter.


Is it not the fact that newsboys have frequently been prosecuted for crying false news in the street, and if that is so ought not the noble proprietor of this newspaper to be proceeded against?