Commons Sitting of 30 July 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th July, and agreed to.
Brecon and Merthyr Tydvil Junction Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Southend Gas Bill,
Wadhurst and District Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th July, and agreed to.
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Leighton Buzzard Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means].
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Gas Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 5) Bill,
Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Fifty-second Report of the Inspector for the year ended 31st December, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report of Proceedings at the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 28th July; Mr. Ellis Griffith]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BOY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE.
Copy presented of Fourth Annual Report of Standing Committee on Boy Labour in the Post Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 24th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Consolidated Order (Ireland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 403.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 27th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Subsidiary Employments) Consolidated Order, 1914 by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 404.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Rotterdam (Harbour Construction).
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Dutch Government has granted to the Vulkan Company, which is a large German firm, the right to construct a private harbour near Rotterdam, close to the North Sea; and whether the Vulkan Company works in the closest conjunction with the German Government; whether this action on the part of the Dutch Government constitutes a departure from the principles which hitherto have governed the administration of all harbours, docks, and waterways in Holland, namely, that they should be under public control; and whether he has information which he can give on the subject?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I understand that the concession to the Vulkan Company to dredge and deepen the river beside the land at Vlaardingen already in their possession has been granted in principle, but I have no reason to suppose that this will in any way interfere with the control of the waterway by the Netherlands Government. I am informed that the company acquired the land for the purpose of transhipping ore from sea vessels into Rhine lighters, and I have no doubt that any other foreign company would have the right to obtain a similar concession.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any other company has obtained concessions for the Dutch, notably the Thyssen Company?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. FALLE: Will the First Lord of the Admiralty be consulted?
  Sir E. GREY: It is impossible to consult the First Lord of the Admiralty about a, concession to a private company.

  Haifa (British Vice-Consulate).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the British Vice-Consulate at Haifa is to be raised to the level recently attained by the Consulates of other Powers at that place?
  Sir E. GREY: As at present advised I see no reason for altering the present status of the post.
  Sir J. D. REES: Have not other Powers been differently advised? Have they not raised the status?
  Sir E. GREY: We have not got information that they have appointed a salaried Consul to this post. In any case I understand the fees received at this post were only £30 last year, which does not justify a salaried appointment.

  Imperial Ottoman Docks Company.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the objects and conditions of the Imperial Ottoman Docks, Arsenals, and Naval Construction Company; and whether the British Ambassador in Constantinople has taken any part in furthering the formation of this company?
  Sir E. GREY: As I stated on the 5th of March, I am informed that the Turkish Government have granted a concession to a combination of the firms of Armstrong and Vickers for the organisation and reconstruction of the existing dockyards at Constantinople. This agreement was the result of private negotiations between the Turkish Government and the firms interested in which His Majesty's Government had no participation.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Sir Charles L. Ottley, late secretary of the Imperial Defence Committee, is a director of the Imperial Ottoman Docks, Arsenals, and Naval Construction Company, and that this company has been formed for the building and repair of the warships of a foreign Power; and whether he will take steps to provide that any servant of the Crown holding a position of the character held recently by Sir Charles L. Ottley shall be debarred on relinquishing his post from entering, directly or indirectly, the service of a foreign Power?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the

  1535
  last part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on this subject on 20th March, 1912, and 9th January, 1913.
  Mr. KING: Will the Prime Minister reconsider this matter in view of recent developments on the Continent of Europe?
  The PRIME MINISTER: These questions are always engaging my consideration.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is he an ex-admiral of the Royal Navy drawing pension, and is not his position as a pensioner rather inconsistent?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I require notice of that.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister question No. 47.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question has been answered by my hon. Friend, as arranged through the usual channels.

  Ballinskelligs Pier.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state what progress has been made with the construction of the pier at Ballinskelligs; and when it is expected that the work will be completed?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The greater part of the rock excavation for the pier has been done, and a good deal of the necessary filling-in to join the quay to the mainland has been accomplished. No definite date can be given for the completion of the work, as the rate of progress depends on the state of the weather, but it is not expected that the work will be completed before 31st March next.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary on what ground an old age pension has not been granted to Johanna Fitzpatrick, Dungegan, Ballinskelligs, county Kerry, although the local committee which investigated her case were convinced that she had attained the statutory age; whether the local pension officer has been upheld in his contention that she has no right to the Christian name of Johanna because a family of the same name has been found in the Census Returns in which there happens to be the record of a girl whose Christian name was Julia; and whether he will have further inquiry made into the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Johanna Fitzpatrick's last claim was disallowed in February, 1913, on the ground that there was no evidence that she was seventy years of age. It is not a fact that the pension officer contended that she had no right to the name of Johanna. In the record of her parents' family in the 1851 Census there is shown a child—Julia, aged six years, who, it would appear, is the claimant Johanna, the name Julia having been registered in error. If this is not the case, then the claimant has no evidence whatever of age. As the case has been decided, the Local Government Board have no power to re-open it.
  Mr. BOLAND: What evidence can be forthcoming that this name of Johanna was registered in mistake for Julia?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of course, I do not know. I will look into the matter afresh.

  Dingle Pier and Harbour.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that it is a considerable time since the promise was made that a Grant would be given for the improvement of the Dingle pier and harbour, and that as a result of this delay the fishing industry of the district, which is the largest in Ireland, has suffered very considerably; and whether, in view of those facts, immediate steps will be taken to have this question, which is so essential to this district, dealt with at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Negotiations with the various bodies concerned in the preparation of the plans and the provision of the funds for the proposed improvements in the pier and harbour accommodation at Dingle are being conducted with as much expedition as possible.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman twelve months ago give practically the same reply?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that the matter has been constantly before me and the Board and very great difficulties have arisen. It is one of those questions which cannot be settled offhand however desirable it, may be that we should do so.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the continuing loss sustained, through no fault of theirs, by payers of interest in lieu of rent for

  1537
  land for which many of them signed purchase agreements eight or nine years ago; whether he is aware that all their payments are in addition to the prices they agreed to pay and in excess of the annuities they agreed to pay, and that they are now neither becoming owners, nor secure in their position, nor diminishing the debt they have contracted to the State; whether they are being dealt with impartially in the order of date of signature; whether he will state the order of progress in the respective registers now kept; what the cause of the delay is; and whether he will expedite the completion of the sales?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In their purchase agreements the tenants contracted to pay interest in lieu of rent on the purchase money until the date of their holdings being vested in them, and this interest is less than the rent they would have to pay if they had not agreed to purchase. Estates pending for sale before the Estates Commissioners are dealt with in their Order on the Registers in accordance with the Regulations made under Section 23 (8) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and Section 4 of the Act of 1909. The sales are being dealt with by the Commissioners as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that eight years is an unexpected and an entirely unreasonable period?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a long period, but it really does not arise from want of money. It arises from the difficulty in getting work through having regard to the enormous details which have to be carried out.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it not due to the killing of the Wyndham Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, certainly not.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Clements estate, Derry, county Mayo, has yet been acquired by the Congested Districts Board; and whether he is aware that the agent of this estate has declared to the tenants that the delay in purchase is due to the dilatory policy of the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has not yet been purchased by the Congested Districts Board. An offer for purchase was issued in December, 1913, which was not accepted. Negotiations have since been proceeding, and the matter is at
  1538
  present under consideration. The Board have no information as to the statement alleged to have been made by the agent to the tenants.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any of the gratuities awarded in the year 1913–14 out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund, benefit branch, went to the families of officers; if so, will he state their number, rank, and amount; the number of deceased men to whose families gratuities were awarded, with the amount, and the principle on which the distinction was made, if any?
  Mr. BIRRELL: During the year 1913–14 the following gratuities were paid from the benefit branch of the fund: £606 to the representatives of a deceased Assistant Inspector-General, £613 in the case of a county inspector, and £647 to the representatives of two district inspectors. Sums amounting to £13,772 were also paid to the widows and children of 145 other deceased subscribers. No distinction was made in the mode of calculating the grants to the families of officers and men.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of and will explain the charge of £193 18s. 3d. charged in the last year against the benefit branch of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund for compiling statistics?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that this payment was made to certain members of the staff of the constabulary office for overtime work in preparing extensive statistics of the benefit branch transactions, covering a period of thirty years, required by the National Debt Commissioners. The payment has been charged to the benefit fund with the approval of the Irish Government and the Treasury, and in accordance with a precedent of 1878, supported by legal opinion.
  Mr. GINNELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that payment out of the fund with the statement made in this House that the fund could be administered without expense to the subscribers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, so far as there is a charge of this kind, it has to be paid in some way or other. This expense in connection with the working of the fund is a charge which properly falls on the fund.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the action of Sergeant O'Connor, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Roscommon, in searching a consignment of bottles packed in canvas and straw on the premises of Mr. Beades, licensed vintner, Roscommon; whether he had any warrant to search the premises or to inspect these packages; whether he had any special instructions from the police authorities to act in this manner; if so, at whose instance the warrant was granted or the instructions given; and if instructions will be given in future to the policemen and other members of the constabulary force to discharge their duties in such a manner as will be within the law and inoffensive to the people?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that on the 21st instant Sergeant O'Connor saw five bales of goods lying on the street outside the door of the publican mentioned, and the sergeant, suspecting that the bales contained arms, asked the publican to open them so that he could search them. The publican refused, but told the sergeant that he could come into his yard and search a similar bale. This the sergeant did, and found nothing but empty bottles. No warrant was issued and the sergeant had not received any instructions, but acted on his own initiative.

  National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether any steps have been taken to reinstate Mr. Mansfield in his former position; whether the Commission of Inquiry which followed the charges for which he was dismissed did in effect substantiate almost every one of them; whether one of the principal officials of the Education Office stated at the inquiry that he could not find any rule of the Board which Mr. Mansfield had broken, and that he was therefore unable to explain or to justify his dismissal; and whether, under these circumstances, he proposes to take any action to compel the Board to do justice to this man, even though he has been the means of exposing the misconduct of the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: With regard to the first paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for Mid-Antrim on the 19th February last. The Commissioners of
  1540
  National Education do not admit that the charges made by Mr. Mansfield were substantiated wholly or in part by the Committee of Inquiry. One of the officials of the Education Office stated in reply to a question put to him by a member of the Committee that he could not specify any special rule that was violated by Mr. Mansfield, but he did not say, as is alleged in the question, that he was therefore unable to explain or justify the dismissal of Mr. Mansfield. The Commissioners reserve to themselves the power to deal with teachers, as they may determine, who have conducted themselves improperly, and I have no power to interfere in the matter, although personally, and in the interests of primary education in Ireland, I should be glad if the dispute between the Board and Mr. Mansfield could be amicably arranged.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it a fact that the Committee of Inquiry which recently issued its Report was solely due to the charges brought by Mr. Mansfield against the National Board of Education in Ireland, and is it a fact that most of the charges were substantiated, and that the Committee condemned the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I cannot go into that question, nor can I generally admit that the whole case regarding Mr. Mansfield was before the Committee. It is not a question whether he made direct charges or not. His conduct was condemned for other reasons. The inquiry has resulted in a very useful Report, and I am most anxious that the controversy should be brought to an end.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to convey to the National Board his personal desire that Mr. Mansfield should be reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It would be very easy to make the request that he should be reinstated, but unfortunately this is a matter affecting the discipline of the Board. I am using considerable pressure to bring about a result which it is desirable should be brought about in the interest of education.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask whether the Committee of Inquiry reported that the Board permitted abuses to grow in volume until redress was impossible, and why, under these circumstances, blame should be attached to Mr. Mansfield for telling the truth?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The truth can be told in two different ways—I do not say by the same man. I am sorry that there should be this dispute between an efficient teacher and the Board, but I cannot myself control the Board.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that owing to the unsatisfactory reply I will raise this question on the Appropriation Bill.

  Assaults on Children.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that in the case of Thomas Madden, remanded to the Quarter Sessions on a charge of criminal assault on a child, and on which the Crown entered a nolle prosequi, three doctors, including a specialist, attended Court but were not asked a question, either publicly or privately; whether he is aware that there was only a difference of four months in the age of this child and of the child in another similar case where the prisoner was tried and convicted; and whether he will state why it was decided not to proceed with the case because the medical evidence would not justify that course when it was not known what the medical evidence was?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that two doctors made depositions in the Police Court as to the result of their examination of the child. The prison doctor also examined the prisoner and attended the Court and was interviewed by the Crown Counsel, and in consequence of what he stated it was decided not to proceed with the prosecution. According to the sworn evidence of the parents the age of the child alleged to have been assaulted by Madden was six years and eleven months, and the age of the other child eight and a half years. As I have already stated, in the case of the younger child there was no corroboration of her statement, whereas in the other case there was most conclusive proof of the guilt of the prisoner.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether, as promised, he has communicated with the Macroom Rural District Council as to the desirability of taking immediate steps to build the 120
  1542
  cottages for labourers which, though sanctioned several years ago by the Local Government Board, have not yet been commenced; will he state when the improvement scheme of which these cottages are part was finally promulgated; whether their non-erection is due to the fact that the sum allowed by the district council for the erection of each cottage is insufficient to induce contractors to tender, having regard to the present prices of building materials; whether some pressure will be applied to the district council to compel them to provide cottages for labourers whose present dwellings have been long ago condemned by the medical officer of health as unfit for habitation; is he aware that other district councils have with success employed direct labour for the erection of labourers' cottages where contractors could not be obtained; and is there any reason why the Macroom Rural District Council should not have recourse to this method to relieve the housing necessities of these 120 labourers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have again communicated with the district council. The loan for the improvement scheme in question was sanctioned in September, 1908, and it is probably correct that the sum allowed by the district council for the erection of the cottages is insufficient to induce contractors to tender. The Board have asked the district council to call a special meeting for the purpose of issuing fresh advertisements for tenders without making any limit of expenditure. The tenders received should enable the council to judge whether it would be more satisfactory and economical for them to enter into contracts even at somewhat increased prices, or to inaugurate a scheme of direct labour. Only in very few instances has direct labour been attended with success, and experience has shown that as a general rule it is more satisfactory to have the cottages erected by contract.

  Poaching (King's County).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that, on the 27th instant, at Edenderry (King's County) Sessions, three men were fined £60 each for poaching in the River Boyne and, in default of payment, sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour; if he can state the names of the justices who adjudicated; the exact offence or

  1543
  offences with which the defendants were charged; the names, ages, and conditions of life of the defendants; and whether defendants paid the fine or were committed to gaol?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that at Edenderry Petty Sessions, on the 25th instant, three men were fined £60 each for illegal fishing in the River Boyne, and in default twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. The magistrates who adjudicated were Messrs. Tyrrell, Fay, Hamilton, Potterton, and Colonel Dunne. The exact offence with which the defendants were charged was unlawfully using a net for the taking of trout in the River Boyne without being duly licensed. Under Statute the minimum penalty for the offence is double the amount of the Licence Duty, which is £30. The defendants were Lawrence Bell, aged thirty-five; George Walker, aged thirty-two; and Thomas Hunt, aged thirty, all of no occupation. They have not paid the fines or been committed to prison, as a stay of fourteen days was placed upon the warrants.

  Nigeria.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what portion of the fees, rents, and royalties leviable under the Minerals Ordinance, 1913 (Nigeria), will be handed over to the native owners of the lands on which such fees, rents, and royalties are to be levied?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It is proposed to repeal the Ordinance in question and the draft of an Ordinance to replace it is under consideration. I am not in a position at present to say what the provisions of the law will be in respect to the matters referred to.
  Mr. BARNESasked whether 107 prisoners were found to be detained in the prison in Northern Nigeria without any record being found of any conviction against them and that they had to be released; and, if so, how long these prisoners had been detained?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information as to this alleged illegal detention of prisoners. If the hon. Member can give me any evidence of the occurrence of such cases, I will ask the Nigerian Government for a report upon them.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked what section of the Provincial Courts Ordinance provides for the case of civil suits between the Government and the natives of Nigeria?
  Mr. HARCOURT: This is provided for by a separate Ordinance—Chapter 7 of the Laws of Southern Nigeria.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked whether the Protectorate of Nigeria, with the exception of certain small areas not yet brought under British Government control, is in a state of unbroken peace and tranquility; and, if so, why the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should not be extended to the whole Protectorate with the exception of the disturbed areas?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The satisfactory state of peace and tranquility does not demand the extension to the more backward territories of Nigeria of a system which has been shown to be manifestly unsuited to them, and to cause great delays and many abuses.
  Mr. JOWETTasked if the Nigerian Provincial Courts Ordinance is passed will there be any provision that a native accused of a crime involving a sentence of death or penal servitude will be entitled as of right of demand to be tried by a judge of the Supreme Court with a jury and assessors?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No such provision is contained in the Ordinance. The provisions for transfer of cases to the Supreme Court and those requiring the confirmation of the Governor in the case of the heavier penalties are considered sufficient.
  Mr. JOWETTasked if the Nigerian Provincial Courts Ordinance is passed will there be any provision that actions by or against a native wherein the Government is interested shall, on the request of the native or the Government, be tried by the Supreme Court, and not a Provincial Court presided over by an executive officer?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Suits by or against the Government will remain within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. JOWETTasked whether, considering the Supreme Court of Southern Nigeria has had jurisdiction over the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria for fourteen years, there is any

  1545
  urgency in the proposed legal changes; and whether the matter will be allowed to stand over till the wishes of the suitors and inhabitants could be taken and a Committee publicly inquire into the matter of the proposed changes?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is only of recent years that the administration has been extended to large districts in the interior, to which the machinery of the Supreme Court has been found unsuitable. As I have already explained, the jurisdiction of the Court remains as before in the Colony and the principal centres of trade. There is no reason to delay the proposed legislation, which is advocated by all those who have adequate knowledge and experience.
  Mr. PARKERasked whether the Supreme Court of Northern Nigeria did not try any criminal and only one civil cause during the fourteen years of its existence; and, if not, how many civil and criminal cases have been tried during that period?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not in a position to give this information without reference to the Governor-General of Nigeria. I will ask him for a report.
  Mr. PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the revenue from Court fees in Southern Nigeria for 1912 was £103,000 and the judicial expenditure only £15,000; and whether he will consider the possibility of appointing additional puisne judges to the Supreme Court of Southern Nigeria, if it were necessary to strengthen the judiciary to meet the requirements of the amalgamation?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The figures quoted do not appear to correspond with any at my disposal. But I am advised that no additional puisne judges are required.
  Mr. PARKERasked why African-British subjects in the Protectorate of Nigeria are to be placed under a different jurisdiction from African-British subjects in the Colony of Nigeria, the former under the Provincial and the latter under the Supreme Court; and whether the inhabitants of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the southern province of the Protectorate of Nigeria, who' have up till now had the right to be tried by a judge and jury or assessors, will be deprived of this right by the Provincial Courts Ordinance?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The machinery of the Supreme Court is ill adapted to the needs or the inhabitants in the interior, who are mostly in a somewhat primitive stage of development; but the Court will have jurisdiction in the Colony and also in all the important centres of trade in the Protectorate. Trial by jury has never been in force outside the Colony, and this will remain unchanged. Trials, with assessors, are provided for in the Protectorate under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

  Art Collections (London).
  Major HOPEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the present procedure required to obtain permits to visit the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Collection, and the portions of Windsor Castle formerly opened to the public, and having regard to the number of Scottish and other visitors at present in London, he will arrange that permits for all these places might be obtained under reasonable conditions either at the office of the Commissioner of Works or at any one central office?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The issue of permits in these cases is not a matter under the control of the First Commissioner, and he does not see his way to interfere with the arrangements made.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    VOLUNTEER FORCES.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has information and, if so, will he state for what purpose the Nationalist Volunteers in Ireland are being drilled and armed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have no information as to the purpose for which the Irish National Volunteers are being drilled and armed beyond the statements of the promoters of the movement which have been published in the daily Press, but the existence of this force and its object appear to me to be sufficiently explained by the existence of the Ulster Volunteer Force.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform himself as to why the National Volunteers are being drilled and armed, and does he consider that the matter is of sufficient importance to claim the attention of the Government?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly, they themselves have given full information in many proclamations and documents printed and published verbatim in the Press, which I have seen, and I dare say other Members have seen.
    Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is given as the official answer on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    IMPORTATION OF ARMS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Government have acted upon the view that arms and ammunition imported in contravention of the arms proclamation cannot be seized after they have been landed; and whether any instructions to that effect have been issued to the police?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether it is not the case that ample powers of seizure of prohibited goods are conferred by the Customs Consolidation Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is a question on which there is considerable difference of legal opinion. I have taken opinion as to what the powers of the police are, except so far as they have been constituted under Act of Parliament officers of Customs for the purpose of carrying out the Act.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the opinion of the Law Officers, either in England or Ireland, has been taken upon this point and, if so, on what date?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know about the date, but the opinion of both has been taken.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Within the last week?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say. The subject-matter has been one of constant conversations between myself and the Attorney-General here, and there have also been recent communications with the Law Officers in Ireland.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: May I ask—the matter is one of importance—for a specific answer to this question. Has any Law Officer in England or Ireland given the opinion that these goods cannot be seized the moment they are landed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, but I should like notice of the question.
    Mr. HAYES FISHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government, feeling themselves estopped by their action in Belfast and other parts of Ulster from taking any measures in other parts of Ireland to prevent the landing and conveying of arms and other similar illegalities, communicated this new policy in orders or in written instructions to the chief officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or whether they left these officers without any guidance as to how they should discharge their duties in view of the Government's decision not to enforce the law?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No such decision has been arrived at, and accordingly no such orders or written instructions have been issued.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if, in view of the fact that the Assistant-Commissioner of Police, Dublin, committed an error of judgment in invoking the services of the military in connection with the importation of arms at Howth and showed lack of discretion, he will, without delay, place upon the Table the Reports and other Papers which justify this accusation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Pending the inquiry into this very subject about to be held it is not desirable to lay any Reports or other Papers upon the Table.
    Mr. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair or equitable to adjudicate upon this case without the facts having been known?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I acted on the primâ facie view of the case, and the matter has been referred to an inquiry, at which the very question on the Paper will be investigated.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that pending the inquiry he should suspend himself?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
    Mr. AMERYasked when the inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Harrel will be held; who will conduct the inquiry; an I when the proceedings will be published?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Harrel will be held without

    1549
    delay. It will be conducted by Lord Shaw, of Dunfermline, and the procedure will be in the hands of His Lordship.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Chief Secretary whether any general instructions relative to the importation of arms, in contravention of the Proclamation of December, 1913, were at any time issued to the police in Ireland; and, if so, whether he will publish those instructions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The instructions were confidential, and I am not in a position to depart from the general rule as to non-publication of documents of this character.
    Mr. AMERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 8th July arms were actually passed through the Customs of Londonderry and afterwards seized, and, if so, upon what instructions were the officials in question and the police who assisted them acting?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have told the hon. Member, general instructions were issued.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for the hon. Member for South Tipperary to call the hon. Member for the Abercrombie Division of Liverpool a liar?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which it is hardly necessary to put to me. The word is one which should not be used between gentlemen.
    Mr. CULLINAN: Is it proper for the hon. Gentleman to charge the Irish people with shooting in the dark, and murdering people? Is it proper for him to make those charges here in face of the charges of shooting down defenceless people in Dublin?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that hon. Members will be able to sit on the benches near each other without insulting each other.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the instructions to the police to which he has referred?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No; as I have said, they were of a confidential character.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman lay them on the Table of the House?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Of course that would cover all other kinds of confidential instructions.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, on receiving a telephone message at his residence at 2 p.m. on Sunday from the Assistant Commissioner of Police acquainting him that arms had been landed at Howth, asked the Assistant Commissioner himself on the telephone to meet him at 2.45 p.m. at the Castle; whether the Assistant Commissioner informed him that he could be at the Castle at the hour named; and did he receive any subsequent message before leaving his residence from either the Assistant Commissioner or the Superintendent?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Under-Secretary informs me that he telephoned to Mr. Harrel that he was coming down to the Castle at once, but that no hour was named, nor did the Assistant Commissioner make any engagement to meet the Under-Secretary. No subsequent message was received by the Under-Secretary before he left his house, but shortly after his arrival at the Castle a superintendent informed him that Mr. Harrel was sorry that he was unable to see the Under-Secretary as he had an engagement with General Cuthbert at the Kildare Street Club.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Did Mr. Harrel telephone himself to the Under-Secretary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, he did.
    Mr. NEWMAN: From his office.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No. [AN HON. MEMBER: "From the landlords' club."] He telephoned, as it turned out, from his house in Monkstown direct to the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state the hour on Sunday morning at which the disembarkation of arms was commenced at Howth, the hour at which the intelligence of the disembarkation was received at the office of the Commissioner of Police, and the hour when the Assistant Commissioner left his office to meet the party who were in charge of the convoy of arms; whether he can say if the telephone message to the Under-Secretary from the Assistant Commissioner was taken by the former in person; and, if not, who took it; and what conversation, if any, such person had with the sender.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The disembarkation of the arms took place shortly after one o'clock. Notice of the disembarkation was received in the office of the Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police at 1.30 p.m., and was then telephoned to the Assistant Commissioner who was at his own residence. The Assistant Commissioner motored to the office which he left somewhere about 2.30 p.m. The telephone message from the Assistant Commissioner was taken by the Under-Secretary himself.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Was this telephonic communication made direct by Mr. Harrel to Sir James Dougherty, and did they speak to each other over the telephone?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, they did.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if it will be open to the Imperial Government, under the Government of Ireland Bill, to prohibit the importation of arms into Ireland if and when that Bill comes into operation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The right of prohibition to which the hon. Member refers is not affected by the Government of Ireland Bill.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to advise His Majesty to revoke the proclamation prohibiting the importation of arms into Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question is under consideration, and I can make no statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury by whose order and on what authority sixteen small boxes of sporting cartridges, ordered from Birmingham by a Mullingar merchant in the ordinary course of his business, were examined, disturbed, and delayed on the 13th instant by Customs officials at Holyhead, and again on the 14th instant by Customs officials at North Wall, and a charge of 4s. made for each examination, though the goods were quite in order and carriage paid; and whether he will have the 8s. refunded and an apology tendered forthwith?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am making inquiries in this case, and will in due course communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the charge has been made, and
    1552
    will he refund it and have an apology tendered to the owner of the goods?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am making inquiries and will let the hon. Member know as soon as I have them completed.

    KING'S OWN SCOTTISH BORDEKEKS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether the King's Own Scottish Borderers are to be moved from Ireland, and, if so, when; and by which regiment are they to be replaced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am in communication with the military authorities with regard to this matter.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ARREARS CARDS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East if he is aware that the Scottish Insurance Commission has already issued to approved societies the new arrears cards; and whether the English Insurance Commission will similarly take steps to issue arrears cards to approved societies without delay?
    Mr. BENN: I am informed that the Scottish Commission have issued arrears cards in some cases, but, for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member on the 23rd July, have not proceeded with the issue.

    INSURANCE BENEVOLENT FUND.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it is proposed by the Government to lay their proposals as to the Insurance Benevolent Fund before this House?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether any and which of the proposed additional Grants in aid of National Insurance will require legislation; and whether it is proposed to postpone the Grant in aid of those who will suffer loss of benefits by reason of arrears until the early winter Session; and, if so, how the arrears regulations can be carried out in the meantime?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether and when it is intended to bring in Supplementary Estimates for the proposed Grants to local authorities or insurance committees for the treatment of dependants of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis; which Department will present such Estimates;

    1553
    and whether legislation will be necessary to give effect to the proposals of the Government; and (2) whether and when it is intended to bring in Supplementary-Estimates for the proposed Grants to provide and train an adequate supply of nurses; which Department will present such Estimates; and whether legislation will be necessary to give effect to the proposals of the Government?
    Mr. BENN: The Supplementary Estimate to the National Health Insurance Joint Committee Vote was laid before the House on Tuesday last. This Estimate embodies those proposals of the Government which do not require legislation.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will there be any opportunity for discussing these new proposals?
    Mr. BENN: That is a matter for arrangement between the Whips.
    Mr. CASSEL: As the hon. Member has answered the questions for the Prime Minister, is he not necessarily prevented from dealing with the question of a discussion?
    Mr. BENN: A question as to business is arranged in the usual manner.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: As my question, No 47, is to the Prime Minister, and as the hon. Gentleman obviously cannot answer a question upon the business of the House, may I be allowed to put it to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. BENN: I have answered that it is a matter for arrangement between the Whips.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I shall ask it of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]

    TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP.
    Mr. BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East on what grounds the Insurance Commissioners have decided that a dispute as to the termination of an assured person's membership of an approved society is not a dispute within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, 1911; and what is the object and justification of the exceptional procedure in such cases contemplated by Circular A. S. 92 (revised)?
    Mr. BENN: The question of passing a transfer value on an insured person leaving one approved society and joining another is not a dispute within the meaning of the Act. Section 31 directs the
    1554
    passing of a transfer value with the insured person by the Commissioners unless the society he is leaving proves that the consent of the society was not unreasonably withheld.
    Mr. BATHURST: Has not this impartial and judicial body to decide on their merits these cases of transfer?
    Mr. BENN: This is not one of the disputes covered by Section 67 of the Act.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is it not an impartial and judicial body which has to consider all such cases?
    Mr. BENN: I am speaking of the Act.

    CERTIFICATES OF EXEMPTION.
    Mr. FELLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East how many certificates of exemption have been granted to employed persons mainly dependent on someone else where the employer has still to pay the employer's share of the contribution, but no one receives any benefit from such contribution?
    Mr. BENN: On the 1st July there were 21,827 persons in England holding certicates of exemption granted on the ground of dependence. Approximately two-thirds of these persons were entitled to medical and sanatorium benefits. The remainder, if they continue to hold their certificates, will become entitled to the benefits as soon as the qualifying contributions have been paid.

    COST OF ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East in how many approved societies and branches was there a deficiency on administration account for the period ended 12th January, 1913; to how many permission was given by the Commissioners to carry forward the deficiency to the year ending 11th January, 1914; and in how many a levy was made on the members in accordance with the National Insurance Act, 1911?
    Mr. BENN: I am making inquiry and will communicate the information asked for to the hon. Member so far as it is available.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether, in accordance with the Government Estimates, the total cost of administration of the National Insurance Act for one year is £4,136,340, made up of

    1555
    cost of central administration £876,140, administration by committees and societies, payable by them, £2,579,400, and £680,800 payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, or is the latter figure included in the former figure?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir. The sum of £2,579,400 includes £680,800 payable out of moneys provided by Parliament.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East what, in the absence this Session of a National Insurance Act" Amendment Bill, is to be the fate of the deposit contributors; and whether, in face of the opposition of the approved societies, the Government propose to set up a State approved society to embrace these persons?
    Mr. BENN: It is proposed to continue the existing provisions for deposit contributors for a further period, during which special efforts will be made to encourage and facilitate transfers to approved societies.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: What will be the extent of the period during which the fate of deposit contributors will remain in doubt?
    Mr. BENN: The Section of the principal Act has been put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

    WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (REPORT).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether the Welsh Insurance Report is being separately bound; and whether he proposes to issue a separately-bound copy of the Scottish Report?
    Mr. BENN: I understand that arrangements are being made for the separate issue of each of these sections of the Report.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is it contemplated to issue a Welsh edition of the Welsh Report?
    Mr. BENN: My answer deals with that.

    RABBIT CATCHERS.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked whether it is necessary to procure an insurance card for a rabbit catcher and to stamp it during the weeks when he is engaged catching rabbits; and whether the Insurance Commissioners have decided that mole catchers
    1556
    are not employed persons but are contractors, and, therefore, free from cards and stamps?
    Mr. BENN: The question whether a particular rabbit catcher or mole catcher is required to be insured depends upon the terms of the contract under which the work is done.

    STATE MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government has definitely decided to establish a State medical service in connection with the National Health Insurance scheme?
    Mr. BENN: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: If that is the fact, why did the Secretary to the Treasury state in his speech on the Third Reading of the Home Rule Bill that this was part of the prospective programme of the Government?

    SANATORIA.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the President of the Local Government Board how many of the twenty-two sanatoria built by means of the Grant of £1,500,000 in which work has been completed are new sanatoria built for the purpose of giving treatment under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will circulate with the reply to the hon. Member's non-oral question for to-day a statement relating to each case. [See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those twenty-two sanatoria are new?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I cannot, without reference to each particular case. In many cases they are pavilions or adaptations of existing buildings, strictly speaking.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the list?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, it will be circulated with the Votes in answer to a non-oral question.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make any statement as to what action it is proposed to take in regard to the Report of

    1557
    the Royal Commission on the Civil Service; and whether a Treasury Minute dealing with the subject will be laid upon the Table of the House before the termination of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not yet able to make any statement upon the subject.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will there be an Inquiry by a Royal Commission arising out of the Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: What Inquiry?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The Inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman promised the other day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Inquiry is by Royal Commission.

    Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act Amendment Bill.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he can see his way to giving facilities for the passage through all its stages this Session of the Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act Amendment Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Roxburghhire?
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, is he aware that this is the Bill of the Asylums Workers' Association, which looks after the material and moral welfare of persons who are employed in asylums?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are in favour of the principle of the Bill referred to, but I fear it will not be possible to pass it through all its remaining stages this Session.
    Colonel BURN: Can the Prime Minister not make an exception in favour of this Bill which helps a deserving class, and which is non-contentious?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that there is some opposition to it, and I very much regret that there should be.

    Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that no offer made by him in his attempt to avert civil strife has silenced the dreadful note of preparation, he will now abandon the Government of Ireland (Amendment)
    1558
    Bill and pass through this House a brief measure providing that a petition presented by Ulster electors, after One or more other local parliaments have been set up under the Government's scheme of devolution, will entitle that province to a boundary commission charged with the duty of delimiting an area in Ulster in which a referendum may be taken to determine whether that area shall withdraw its representatives from Dublin and send them to another local parliament willing to accept them or, failing such acceptance, to a local parliament for such area?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter which can more suitably be dealt with in Debate.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War how many vacancies were offered for examination into the Royal Military College at the recent examination, how many gentlemen competed, and how many were discarded at the medical examination; and whether any steps are being taken to increase competition?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. H. J. Tennant): Two hundred and fifteen Royal Military College Cadetships were offered for competition at the recent examination and there were between 350 and 360 candidates for them. About thirty-seven of these were pronounced unfit by the medical board, but they have the option of presenting themselves before the Appeal Board next month. The supply of candidates is at present the subject of inquiry.

    DESERTIONS.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary for War how many desertions of noncommissioned officers have taken place in each of the last three years, ending 31st March, from the Army; and how many desertions of the men in each of the same years?
    Mr. TENNANT: The returns do not give details of desertions by ranks, and it is not possible therefore to give separate statistics for non-commissioned officers, and for men. The figures for non-commissioned officers and men are as follows:—

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,664

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,583

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,552

    KENT ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary for War if he will state why the Kent Royal Garrison Artillery is so reorganised that an officer of that corps can never attain a higher rank and command than major commanding a single company, while an officer of a Kent regiment of infantry (Territorial) may rise to commanding a battalion of 1,000 men; and if he proposes to take any steps in the matter in view of the effect of such difference of opportunity and treatment upon the spirit and welfare of the Kent Royal Garrison Artillery?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reorganisation was carried out on purely military grounds. A group of Royal Garrison Artillery Coast Defence units does not necessarily have a lieutenant-colonel on its establishment, and the Kent Royal Garrison Artillery is not in a special position.
    Sir G. PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to me why he has given two different replies to the same question? On one occasion did he not say that there was no difference between the promotion and status of officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery and of the officers of other branches of the Territorial Force?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the hon. Member is mistaken—at any rate that was not the intention I had in my mind in the answer I gave.
    Sir G. PARKER: I will take the earliest opportunity to call attention to this subject.

    ARMY CANTEENS (WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether, if not already the case, he will consider the advantage of putting at least one non-commissioned officer on the Committee to be appointed on the question of canteens in the Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are already four representatives of the Army on the Committee referred to, and I have received no representation in the sense of the question. I think that the best interests of all ranks are adequately represented.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not the fact that the canteens are for the non-commissioned officers and men, and could not they be given one representative to put forward their views?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That might lead to a great deal—we might have a noncommissioned officer and a private. I believe the Committee is well satisfied as it is to look after the interests of the Army.
    Mr. HUNT: What is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to having a non-commissioned officer or a private, both as respectable and democratic as anybody?
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether a small private trader should not be appointed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is one already.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask who it is?

    Real and Personal Estate (Next-of-Kin).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the official statement that the property of the late Mrs. Blake, née Ellen Sheridan, has not accumulated means that it has been appropriated by the State to the exclusion of the next-of-kin or only that no account of its present value has been made out; whether he will produce a statement of the property, real and personal, showing all the payments made out of it since her death; the date at which the personal estate was found to be £96,778 4s. 11d. and the real estate £48,000; what that personal estate would amount to now at the average current rate of accumulation; and what, approximately, the real estate is estimated to be worth now?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): All the information that can properly be given to the hon. Member was supplied to him by answer and correspondence two years ago. I can, if he wishes it, give him all the relevant references, but I see no useful purpose in repeating the information, or any reason to reverse the decision arrived at then.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the High Court in London, when prescribing newspapers for insertion of advertisements for the next-of-kin of the late Mrs. Blake, née Ellen Sheridan, who are all Irish peasants, had not the assistance of any counsel on behalf of those peasants, and consequently prescribed newspapers which those peasants have never seen,

    1561
    that the firm of solicitors named by him had no interest in finding the next-of-kin in Ireland, and that professional next-of-kin agents are unfit persons to entrust with such a matter; seeing that no advertisement has yet been inserted in any newspaper circulating among Ellen Sheridan's kindred, and that unless this is done while the older of them are living their property must lapse to the State, whether the State, now free from Court control in this matter, will, by publishing in papers circulating amongst the next-of-kin an advertisement of all available identifying information, enable them to prove their kinship and recover their property; and, if not, will he say what law, order, or principle prevents the adoption of this course?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member assumes that there is evidence as to the circumstances and whereabouts of the next-of-kin; this is not the case, and consequently the questions asked do not properly arise.

    Customs and Excise Department.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many Excise officers have been appointed to the surveying grade under the amalgamation scheme in the past two years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Fifteen have actually been appointed, and thirty-nine more have qualified, and are awaiting vacancies.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Customs launchmen forwarded on the 11th June, 1913, a petition dealing with their grievances; whether a reply has been made; if not, what is the reason for the delay in the matter; and (2) whether he is aware that the Committee on the Customs Waterguard Service recommended, in their Report issued in May, 1912, improved pay and pension rights for Customs launchmen; whether those recommendations have been accepted; and, if so, from what date is it intended to put them into force?
    Mr. MONTAGU: A decision on the recommendation of the Committee referred to has been unavoidably delayed, as I explained in answer to the gallant and hon. Baronet the Member for Central Hull on 6th May last, pending the consideration of certain other questions involved. I am now about to deal with the latter questions, and having done so, shall be in a
    1562
    position to decide on the recommendation of the Committee, and the petition referred to.
    Mr. DUNCAN: May I ask whether consideration will be given owing to the delay as to the date for which any advance may be made?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question of the date at which any advance will be granted will be considered and the delay will be taken into account.

    Regent's Park.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the condition of the roads on the east side of Regent's Park, and to the fact that the roads in Regent's Park are kept in a worse condition than in any other park in the metropolis; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: This question should be addressed, I understand, to the Office of Woods.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I addressed a question to the Secretary of the Treasury on a previous occasion?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed it should be addressed to the Office of Woods.

    House of Commons (Attendants and Employés).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether there has been any revision during the last four years of the payments made to the attendants and employés of the House for their attendance during the late sittings; whether some of these receive no additional payment unless the sitting of the House be prolonged after 5.30 a.m.; and whether arrangements can be made for a more adequate system of payment for overtime whenever the House sits after midnight?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative. The salaries which the attendants receive have always been considered as covering the performance of all duties discharged during the Session, but an allowance is given when the sitting of the House is

    1563
    prolonged beyond 5.30 a.m. Any alteration of the existing arrangements must be made by the House of Commons Offices Commission.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Is there any possibility of having any regular machinery for revising these from time to time?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The House of Commons Offices Commission, the composition of which I can inform the hon. Member.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Is it possible for the proceedings of that august Commission to be reviewed in any way in the House?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member without notice.

    Population (United Kingdom).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board the estimated increase or decrease in the population of England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, in the year 1913?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The estimated increase for England and Wales is 257,000; the estimated decrease for Scotland is 7,566; and for Ireland is 5,698.

    Mental Deficiency Act.
    Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the communications which have passed between the guardians of the poor of St. Pancras and the Local Government Board, in which the Board have put forward the contention that defectives within the meaning of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, who have received any care from the guardians before the coming into operation of the Act do not fall within its scope; whether the Board adheres to this contention; and whether, seeing that the usefulness of the Act will be greatly diminished if this be its correct interpretation, he is prepared to consider the introduction of amending legislation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member's question does not correctly state the view held by the Local Government Board. The correspondence to which the hon. Member no doubt refers related to the proposed transfer of a defective person from the care of the guardians to that of the local authority
    1564
    under the Mental Deficiency Act, in pursuance of the Regulations made under proviso (ii.) of Section 30 of the Act. These Regulations apply only in the case of defectives subject to be dealt with under Section 2 (1) (b), and, while the Local Government Board have no authority to determine the question finally, it would appear that a person who has for some time been, and is still, an inmate of one of the guardians' institutions cannot be held to be a person subject to be dealt with under that provision on the ground that he is a person who is found neglected, abandoned. or without visible means of support. The question of amending legislation is one for the Home Secretary.

    Housing (Wales).
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received from the Pontypool Trades and Labour Council an application for an inspection by a representative of the Board of housing conditions in the Abersychan urban area; whether he proposes to comply with this request; and, if not, will he explain why this is not to be done?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have received from the district council a statement of the action now being taken by them, and I have sent this statement to the Trade and Labour Council for their information. The district council have almost completed the erection of 136 houses, and have provisionally agreed to acquire about thirteen acres of land for the erection of additional houses, plans for which are being prepared. In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to have an inspection of the district made at the present time.
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will give a list of local authorities in Wales and Monmouthshire that have not yet adopted codes of street and building by-laws or are known to be about to do so?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will send the hon. Member a list of the local authorities referred to.

    Poor Law Officers and Inmates (Statistics).
    Mr. HILLSasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether the Local Government Board keeps any record of disobedience or neglect of its

    1565
    Regulations by workhouse officials or of suicides by workhouse inmates; if not, will the Local Government Board do so in future; and (2) what sudden or accidental deaths have taken place during the last five years before the recent one at Lambeth, and particularly whether there has been any at Lambeth; and, if the Local Government Board has not noted or recorded them, will he obtain this information by asking boards of guardians, by having the newspapers searched, by application to the Registrar-General and to coroners, or otherwise; and will the Local Government Board in future keep such a record, with the date of the occurrence and the date when the medical officer sends in the information?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Records are kept of all cases of serious misconduct on the part of Poor Law officers. Reports of cases of sudden or accidental death occurring in Poor Law institutions are sent to the Local Government Board, and are filed. I will send the hon. Member a list of all the cases which have occurred in the Lambeth Poor Law institutions during the last five years.

  POST OFFICE.

    DOUGLAS BROTHERS, KINGSWOOD, BRISTOL.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is yet in a position to make any further statement in regard to the intentions of the Department respecting the firm of Douglas Brothers, Kingswood, Bristol?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The investigation which is being made is not yet completed, and I am unable to make any statement at this stage; but I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

    PARCEL POST (PERSIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the bulk of the British export trade with Northern Persia is carried on by parcel post, he will take steps to reduce the cost of postage involved by instituting a cheaper parcel post service by way of Liverpool and Batoum to Northern Persia in place of the present service via Julfa, whence the Persian post office forwards to Tabriz, at a rate of not less than £8 per ton, making the total cost from England to Tabriz about £50 a ton, a rate which effectually strangles British in competition with Russian trade?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the absence of a parcel post agreement between this country and Russia, the parcel post with North Persia can only be conducted through the intermediary of some third administration having agreements both with this country and with Russia. The present service is carried on under the agreement between the United Kingdom and Germany, all parcels being forwarded to Germany for onward transmission by such routes as Germany employs for her own service. Negotiations for an agreement with Russia have been in progress for some time past, and, in the event of their successful issue, it would probably be possible to set up a parcel post by way of Liverpool and Batoum. I fear, however, that such a service would serve no useful purpose. Apart from the consideration that it would necessarily be very slow and infrequent, as compared with the present daily service by the overland route, the postage on a parcel of the maximum weight (11 lbs.) sent by the suggested route would be actually higher than that on a similar parcel sent by the existing service.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the present route is strangling British trade in competition with Russian trade?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If that is so the route suggested would strangle it more.
    Sir J. D. REES: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that, when it would be very much cheaper?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have examined figures, and I think it would be very much dearer.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Postmaster-General whether be can now say when the telephone exchange, promised nearly a year ago, for Staveley, Yorkshire, will be ready for use?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The promise to open an exchange at Staveley, provided that a certain amount of support is forthcoming, was made last January. I am ascertaining if this condition has now been met, and, if it has, the work will be put in hand at once.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office promised the exchange if a certain sum were guaranteed, and that that sum was guaranteed, and that there was a promise that it would be put up within six months?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I state in my answer, "I am ascertaining if this condition has been met, and, if it has, the work will be put in hand at once."

    WEYHILL POSTMISTRESS.
    Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General the result of his inquiry concerning the wages and rent of the postmistress at Weyhill, near Andover; whether the increased wages were swallowed up by the increased rent; and, if so, what he proposes to do in the matter?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The rent paid by sub-postmistress to her landlord has, I understand, been increased, but it is stated that this increase is not connected with the increase of the post office work. The sub-postmistress enjoys a special allowance of between £4 and £5 in aid of rent, which is not warranted by the Regulations generally applied in such cases, but which, nevertheless, it is not proposed to withdraw. She may receive a further increase of remuneration when the recommendations of the recent Parliamentary Committee are applied at her office next November, and the increase, if any, will take effect as from the 2nd February last.
    Captain FABER: Is it any less hard on the postmistress to have the rent raised if it is done by the landlord than if it is done by the Government?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not say it is.

    POSTAL SERVANTS' SOCIETIES RECOGNISED.
    Colonel BURNasked the Postmaster-General if he will give a list of Civil servants' associations and societies recognised by his Department?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As there are over fifty recognised associations and societies of postal servants, it will doubtless be more convenient to the hon. and gallant Member if I send him a list by post.

    UNESTABLISHED STAFF (HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain members of the unestablished staff in the Central Telegraph Office, who for many years enjoyed annual leave of twenty-one working days, have now been informed that they are to have only eighteen working days' leave; whether he is aware
    1568
    that the annual leave of these persons was not dealt with by the Holt Committee; whether the recommendation of that Committee to grant eighteen working days' leave to the unestablished staff had reference only to those members of that staff who hitherto had been receiving fourteen days' annual leave; and whether he will direct that the annual leave of twenty-one days shall be maintained to those who have for so long been entitled to it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The recent Select Committee recommended for unestablished telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office increases of pay amounting at the maximum to 15s. a week for men and 7s. a week for women. They also recommended that the annual leave of these officers should be twelve days for the first five years of service and eighteen days thereafter. In view of the increase in wages granted, I think it is reasonable that all the officers concerned should accept the amount of leave now proper to their class, including those who have been receiving twenty-one days' annual leave. The recommendation of the Committee contained no such limitation as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can this question be dealt with by the Committee which is now sitting?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I think so.

    EX-MILITARY TELEGRAPHISTS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Holt Committee recommended in the case of ex-military telegraphists that, after three years' established service and upon passing the efficiency bar test, they should receive the pay appropriate to the sixth point in the scale above the age pay for twenty-one; whether he is aware that his Department has issued instructions that these men must remain at this point on the scale for a number of years, thereby vitiating the spirit of the recommendations of that Committee; whether he is aware that no intimation was given to the ex-military telegraphists to prepare for this efficiency bar test, as is done in the case of the civil telegraphists, with the result that many of them have been denied the benefit of increased pay for some months; and whether he will see that the pledge given to this House that he would interpret the recommendations in a generous spirit be fulfilled?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: After considering the recommendation of the Holt Committee in consultation with the Treasury it was decided that ex-military telegraphists whose pay was specially raised to the sixth point on the scale above the age pay for twenty-one should mark time at that point until they would have been entitled to an increase if they had proceeded by the normal increments of the scale. The general notification to the staff at the time the recommendations of the Committee were adopted made it clear under what conditions the benefit of the increased pay would be given.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair that when these men reach the point stated in the question they should have to wait three years before they get another increment?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The same remark applies to this as to the last question. It can be brought up before the Advisory Committee.

    GAIRLOCH, ROSS-SHIRE, MAILS SERVICE.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Postmaster-General what the income and expenditure on mails to Gairloch, Ross-shire, is, and the same as to Ullapool, Ross-shire; whether a motor mail service has been introduced on the Carve to Ullapool service and a like improvement refused to the Gairloch district; when does the present contract to carry mails from Achnasheen to Gairloch expire; whether it is possible to contract for a motor mail service to Gairloch without any additional expenditure; and whether, in view of the distance that Gairloch parish is from a railway station and of the discontent with the present arrangements, he will reconsider his decision and grant the prayer of the petition sent to him by the ratepayers of Gairloch, Ross-shire?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Workmen's Compensation Act (Wales).
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he will make inquiries into the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act in West Wales generally, and the town of Gorseinon in particular; and whether he will ask for a return of the accidents that have occurred at the Swansea navigation Company's colliery thereat for the last two years, and the number of compensation cases arising
    1570
    therefrom, the amounts claimed, the amounts paid, and the number of cases suspended, the periods of such suspension, and the present number of disabled persons who are not in receipt of compensation who are claiming the same?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have no evidence before me pointing to the need of a special inquiry in West Wales, but as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware a general inquiry into the working of the Act is to be instituted very shortly, and the Committee which will be appointed for the purpose will have full power to go into any questions that may have arisen in this district. I do not think I have any power to call for such a Return as suggested in the question.

    Prisoner's Transfer to Bucks Asylum.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary (1) how long Harry Humphries was in prison before he was removed to Bucks County Lunatic Asylum; how many times he was forcibly fed while in prison; how many other prisoners have recently been sent to lunatic asylums as a result of hunger striking; (2) whether he can state the names of the magistrates and of the two registered medical practitioners who certified Harry Humphries as insane; whether they each personally examined him and, if so, upon what dates; and (3) whether he will state what particular form of insanity Harry Humphries has been certified as suffering from; whether he has been examined by any doctors since his admission to the Bucks County Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, by how many; and whether he can state the nature of their report upon his mental condition?
    Mr. McKENNA: Harry Humphries had been ten months in prison before he was certified insane. He had been forcibly fed from 4th June to 23rd July, 1913, when he resumed taking food naturally, and again from 26th February to 23rd March, 1914, when he was removed to the asylum. I am unable to say how many other cases have recently occurred in which a prisoner has been certified insane when refusal of food has been one of the symptoms. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the publication of the names of the magistrates and medical practitioners who signed the certificate in this case. They had all personally examined the prisoner

    1571
    —the magistrates on the day of certification and the doctors on that day and on many previous occasions. The certificate in the form prescribed under the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, does not give particulars of the form of insanity from which the patient is suffering. Since Humphries' admission to the Bucks County Asylum he has, of course, been under the care of the medical staff. I am now in communication with the superintendent, and as soon as he is in a position to give a certificate that Humphries is sane the question of remitting him to prison will be considered.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has been examined by two doctors in the asylum, one of whom was Sir Victor Horsley, and both state that they have been unable to find a single trace of insanity?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should doubt whether a casual examination would be satisfactory. On the other hand, as I told the Noble Lord, the superintendent, who has full responsibility in the matter, informs me that the question of transferring Humphries to prison will be considered.
    Viscount WOLMER: Has he, as a matter of fact, already done so?
    Mr. HUNT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me that no doctors at all examined him?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I told the hon. Gentleman that two doctors and two magistrates had signed the certificate.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that the medical superintendent in this asylum has already informed the right hon. Gentleman that, in his opinion, this man is not insane?
    Mr. McKENNA: Not so far as I am aware.

    Auchterarder Fruit Farm.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the conditions of life on the Drumtogh fruit farm, Auchterarder; and if he is aware that the firm of Keay and Hodge have discharged Robert Nicholl, one of the employés on the farm, for giving information about them?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Local Government Board for Scotland have made inquiries into this matter and have received a
    1572
    report from the medical officer of health for the Central District of Perthshire which does not bear out the statements in my hon. Friend's question of Monday last. The report is too detailed to quote, but I shall be pleased to show it to my hon. Friend. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    Illegal Trawling.
    Colonel BURNasked whether, in the cases of foreigners convicted of illegal trawling in the Moray Firth, the fines have been paid or the term of imprisonment served?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Appendix K, pages 167 and 168, of the Annual Report of the Fishery Board for the year 1913 (Cd. 7399), from which he will observe that in the case of each such conviction in. 1913 the fine was paid.

    Leaving Certificate Examinations (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can say when the results of the leaving certificate examinations are to be announced; whether he is aware that the holidays have been entered upon without their being announced; and whether in future the date of the examination will be adjusted to enable the result to be announced prior to the holidays?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The results (in whole or in part) of the leaving certificate examination have been issued for upwards of 250 schools and further results are being intimated daily. The Department regret that in many cases it has not been possible, consistently with a proper consideration of the candidates' claims, to determine the results before the commencement of the holidays. But they are satisfied that the suggested alternative of an earlier date for the written portion of the examination is not one that would commend itself to school authorities generally.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that without the information many of the candidates for bursaries cannot make their applications, and will he therefore expedite the remaining results?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is so; but I think my hon. Friend is aware that more than the results of the examination have to be considered.

    Political Posters.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether the fact that a contract entered into by the London General Omnibus Company to display a poster appealing to the public to support law-abiding suffragists by joining the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies is not being executed is due to intervention on the part of the authorities of Scotland Yard; and, if so, will he state the reasons for this intervention, and what authority they possess for taking such action?
    Mr. McKENNA: By an Order made under the Metropolitan Carriage Act, 1869, the display of advertisements in public carriages is subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Police. It has long been the practice of the Commissioner to forbid for public reasons the display of advertisements of a political character, and as the advertisement proposed to be issued by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies came within this category, it did not receive the approval of the Commissioner. I may add that the Commissioner's notice has only recently been called to the fact that an advertisement issued by the Women's Social and Political Union is being displayed in omnibuses, and he is now taking action in the matter.

    Questions to Ministers.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given private notice—
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have not received it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I sent it to the Treasury. I dare say the right bon. Gentleman will be able to answer it, as it is quite a simple question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If he would rather not—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the notice sent by the hon. Member has not reached the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not think he ought to put the question,
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was at the Treasury until half-past one, and I had not received the notice.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was sent down, and a copy went to the Speaker at the same time.

  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND SERVIA.

    INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he has any information which he can communicate to the House?
    Sir E. GREY: There is very little that I can say. I regret I cannot say that the situation is less grave than it was yesterday. The outstanding facts are the same. Austria has begun war against Servia, and Russia has ordered a partial mobilisation, which has not hitherto led to any corresponding steps by other Powers, so far as our information goes. We continue to pursue the one great object, to preserve European peace, and for this purpose are keeping in close touch with other Powers. In thus keeping in touch, we have, I am glad to say, had no difficulty so far, though it has not been possible for the Powers to unite in joint diplomatic action as was proposed on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Irish Estimates;
On Tuesday, which will be the closing day in Committee of Supply, we shall take the Home Office Vote;
On Wednesday, in all probability, when Reports of Supply are finished, we shall take Army Votes;
On Thursday we shall take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is to be taken on Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Irish Estimates.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: But what particular items.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know at the moment.
Lord HUGH CECIL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Amending Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will make a statement later.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Can the Prime Minister tell us the business down for to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-day we shall proceed with Report of Supply No. 6 [Supply, 27th July] Report of Navy Estimates; the remaining stages of the Milk and Dairies Bill; the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; the Committee of the Coal Mines Bill; the Report stage of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [Part II] Amendment Bill; the Second Reading of the Anglo-Persian Oil Bill; and the Committee on Navy and Army Expenditure.

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copies presented of Treasury Minutes, dated 4th and 25th July, 1914, granting Retired Allowances to William Griffiths, Established Shipwright, Portsmouth Dockyard, and Mr. John Harris, Overseer, Post Office, Coventry, respectively, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made, the number of Patients seen, by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on 30th June, 1914 [by Act].

COUNTY TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 405.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 405.]
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 406.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 406.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 347.]

FEUDAL CASUALTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 407.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 407.]
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Porthcawl Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Wimbledon Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Finance Bill,
Government of the Soudan Loan Bill,
Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.
Riddings District Gas Bill,
Northwich Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Swindon Corporation (Wilts and Berks Canal Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  SHARE FISHERMEN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL.
  "To make the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, applicable to share fishermen in certain cases. Presented by Mr. GUY WILSON; supported by Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Ferens, Captain Murray, Mr. Pirie, Sir Mark Sykes, Mr. Stanley Wilson, and Mr. Wing; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 348.]
  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes in relation to those forces. Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 349.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  The PRIME MINISTER had given notice of the following Motion, "That the Proceedings on the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is going to make a statement on this Motion. I think I ought to say that the Standing Orders do not provide for any Amendment or Debate. As this, however, is a very exceptional occasion, I have no doubt the House will be anxious to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, and will waive the Standing Orders.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to make the Motion which stands in my name. By the indulgence of the House I should like to give the reason. We meet to-day under conditions of gravity which are almost unparalleled in the experience of every one of us. The issues of peace and war are hanging in the balance, and with them the risk of a catastrophe of which it is impossible to measure either the dimensions or the effects. In these circumstances it is of vital importance in the interests of the whole world that this country, which has no interests of its own directly at stake, should present a united front, and be able to speak and act with the authority of an undivided nation. If we were to proceed to-day with the first Order on the Paper, we should inevitably, unless the Debate was conducted in an artificial tone, be involved in acute controversy in regard to domestic differences whose importance to ourselves no one in any quarter of the House is disposed to disparage or to belittle. I need not say more than that such a use of our time at such a moment might have injurious, and lastingly injurious, effects on the international situation. I have had the advantage of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, who, I know, shares to the full the view which I have expressed. We therefore propose to put off for the present the consideration of the Second Reading of the Amending Bill—of course without prejudice to its future—in the hope that by a postponement of the discussion the patriotism of all parties will contribute what lies in our power, if not to avert, at least to circumscribe, the calamities which threaten the
  1602
  world. In the meantime, the business which we shall take will be confined to necessary matters and will not be of a controversial character.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The situation is a little complicated by reason of the fact that if this Motion is not put, this will become an allotted day. Supply stands first if the Motion is not taken. Therefore, I think it will be better to take it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary to take the Amending Bill.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the Prime Minister has informed the House, it is with our concurrence that he has made the suggestion which we have just heard. At a moment like the present, when even those of us who do not share diplomatic secrets feel that the statement of the Prime Minister is true, that peace or war may be trembling in the balance, I think it is of the utmost importance that it should be made plain to everyone that, whatever our domestic differences may be, they do not prevent us presenting a united front in the counsels of the world. I am obliged to the Prime Minister for saying that in the meantime party controversial business will not be taken. I am sure it is his intention, as it would be the wish of the whole House, that this postponement will not in any way prejudice the interests of any of the parties to the controversy. I should like to add—and I do so not to give information to the House, the Members of which quite understand the position, but in order that it may be plain outside—that in what I have now said I speak not only, in so far as I am entitled to speak, for the Unionist party, but for Ulster, and in what I have just said I have the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.— [27th July.]
  Resolutions reported.
  SUPPLY.— [27th July.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £483,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty

    1603
    Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,003,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,605,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    4. "That a sum, not exceedng £399,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Resolutions agreed to.

  MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Obligation to Inspect Dairies in Certain Cases.)
    (1) If the medical officer of health of any local authority has reason to suspect that tuberculosis is caused, or is likely to be caused, by the consumption of any milk which is being sold or exposed or kept for sale within the area of the local authority he shall endeavour to ascertain the source or sources of supply, and on ascertaining the facts shall forthwith give notice of them to the medical officer of health of the county or county borough in which the cows from which the milk is obtained are kept, whether the dairy where they are kept is within or without the area of the local authority, unless the local authority are themselves the council of that county or county borough.
    (2) On the receipt of such notice it shall be the duty of the medical officer of health of the county or county borough to cause the cattle in the dairy, and, where the case so requires, the persons employed therein, to be inspected, and to make such other investigations as may be necessary.
    (3) Sufficient notice of the time of the inspection shall be given to the local authority whose medical officer of health
    1604
    gave the notice, and to the dairyman to allow that officer or a veterinary inspector or other veterinary surgeon appointed by the authority, and, if desired, another veterinary surgeon appointed by the dairyman being present at the inspection if either party so desire.
    (4) The council of the county or county borough on whose medical officer of health the notice is served shall send to the medical officer of health of the local authority who gave the notice copies of any reports which may have been made by the medical officer of health making the inspection, and of any veterinary or bacteriological or other reports which may have been furnished to him, and shall give him information as to whether any action has been taken upon those reports and as to the nature of that action.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "has reason to suspect" ["if the medical officer of health of any local authority has reason to suspect"].
    4.0 P.M.
    I am as anxious as anybody to protect the country from infectious milk, but I cannot help thinking that the words which, by my Amendment, I propose to leave out may lead to unnecessary hardship if they are retained. Of course, there are a good many men whose opinions are of the highest importance, and could not be challenged, but we know by sad experience that there are a good many medical officers who are moved by other motives than purely humane or scientific motives. If the President of the Local Government Board cannot accept my Amendment because he thinks it too drastic, perhaps he would suggest some more moderate words, or, at any rate, something which will not give the medical officers of health such immense powers as this Bill gives and will protect to some extent the producers.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "and, where the case so requires, the persons employed therein."
    This Amendment is a repetition of the Amendment which was adopted on Clause 11 the other night and has for its object to enable the medical officer of health whenever he is so minded to make a medical inspection of the persons employed in the dairy, and also the labourers employed in the farm.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: In view of the statement of the President of the Local Government Board that he is prepared to accept this Amendment, and as the whole thing was discussed the other night, I need not say anything further.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words,
    "and such officer or person appointed as aforesaid shall have the same power to require any cow to be milked, and samples of milk to be furnished to him as are vested in the medical officer of health of the authority whose duty it is under this Act to make the inspection."
    Under this Clause where the rural councils of the county boroughs on the requisition of the authority where the milk is consumed carry out the inspection of the dairy, the medical officer of the county or a veterinary inspector or veterinary surgeon appointed by the authority, should they desire another veterinary surgeon, is allowed to be present at the inspection if either party so desire. Obviously the presence of an officer representing the authority where the milk is consumed could be of no value unless he is enabled to get evidence. At at the present time, of course, it is usual to take samples of the milk for use. The London County Council is most anxious to retain these powers. They will, of course, have no independent opportunity of inspection, and they do not ask for it. but they do wish that their inspector who accompanies the officer inspecting should be entitled to take samples. Such provision cannot possibly hurt the local authority responsible if they are doing their work, and the sample by the independent authority will only check the result and the power to take the sample will avoid friction by preventing any dispute as to whether the cow is tuberculous or not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. HILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I certainly hope the House will not accept this Amendment, because it is entirely contrary to the spirit and intention of this Bill. The object of this Bill is to have uniformity of administration throughout the whole country, and the object, moreover, is to enable each authority to carry out the requisite duties within its own area, but not to permit an outside authority to come within the authority of the consuming district or to invade the locality in which the milk is produced. There seems to be no reason, if you are going to have uniformity of administration throughout the whole country, why you should give such power to the London County Council or to any other municipality which happens to have had passed in its favour a General Powers Act which contains certain powers which are now going to be superseded.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: It has nothing to do with that.
    Mr. BATHURST: Let me put it on the footing that the hon. Gentleman is putting it, namely, that there should be in this case dual inspection.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: There is dual inspection already. The London officer can accompany the medical officer, and all that we ask is that he should be allowed to take away some evidence.
    Mr. BATHURST: That is a stronger claim than I thought the hon. Member was putting forward. We now know that the unfortunate producer of the milk is to be subject to a dual analysis, and subject, therefore, to the possible condemnation not of one authority, but of one of two authorities. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: One of the main objections throughout the long controversy which has gone on for years on the Milk and Dairies Orders and on various attempts to pass general legislation by agriculturists and their representatives has been against invasion of any kind whatever. Farmers have accepted the idea of general inspection and legislation governing the production of milk, merely on the ground that it is going to sweep away local legislation with the powers of invasion causing great inconvenience and hardship in many parts of the country. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman if he gives way in the slightest

    1607
    degree at any stage of the Bill to the maintenance of the power of invasion, or the maintenance of the right of one authority to invade the area of another authority, he will never get his Bill. If he gets it through this House, he will not get it through the other House, and as we all want this general legislation to be passed in a reasonable form, he should resist this Amendment which we believe to be absolutely unnecessary.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I base my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Amendment on purely administrative grounds. I quite admit that under this Sub-section the medical officer who represents the consuming authority has got the right to come down and to be present at the inspection in the producing area. I admit invasion to that extent, but I suggest that if you allow the medical officer of the consuming area, not merely to be present as an observer of the inspection but to take an executive part in this inspection, and by taking away a sample he would be taking an executive part in the inspection, it would be opening the door to a great deal of friction between the medical officer and the local authority. The object of allowing the medical officer of the consuming authority to be present at the inspection is in order that he may be convinced that a thorough and proper inspection is being carried out. If you allow him to take away samples and submit them to an independent analysis you are opening the door to a good deal of needless administrative friction. I am much more interested in this question from the point of view of the consuming authority than the producing authority, but I suggest that you have to trust some of them. If your medical officers in the producing area are so incompetent or dishonest that they cannot be trusted with the taking of samples by the authorities in the consuming areas, it is time the right hon. Gentleman took other action to reform those authorities. In a matter of this sort it is necessary for the consuming authority to trust to the discretion and ability of the local authorities and the medical officers of health in the producing area. If we adopt the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) we shall be opening the door to a great deal of friction which will make the administration of the Act very difficult.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I confess that I had not foreseen all these difficulties, although I had formed the opinion that although this Amendment was of little use, it probably also would do little harm. I see now that there are possibilities of friction between the two authorities. If the officer of the authority which first takes action comes down to the rural district from which the milk comes, and if he is allowed to accompany the local medical officer and take a separate sample, he must take it for some purpose to have an independent analysis made. If two authorities have two analyses, the probability is that the second analysis could only be of use to enable one authority to quarrel with the other. The Mover of this Amendment must realise that his proposal is strongly opposed by many of those who are looking at this matter from different points of view, and who have rendered to this Bill loyal and consistent support. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persist in his opposition to this Amendment, because I feel satisfied that it would interfere with efficiency. If we rely upon the vigilance of a duly appointed officer we are much more likely to get the result which we all desire than if there is a division of responsibility. Those interested in this trade will be quite willing to deal with one representative in the administration of the law, but if there is one thing more than another we object to, it is petty interference by two or three representatives of the law. I am satisfied that the acceptance of this Amendment would interfere with efficiency, and it would be extremely annoying to dairymen who are anxious to do all they can to secure a clean milk supply.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: I am very much disappointed with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, because he gave me some ground for hoping that he would accept this Amendment. I think it is only due to the London County Council that I should give a word of explanation. Hon. Members representing rural districts do not quite understand what this Amendment means. It is said that this is a question of maintaining existing legislation, but as a matter of fact it would not give any fresh power of inspection. The London County Council has also been accused of having the intention of harassing local authorities by their inspection, but they cannot do that. They cannot have any

    1609
    controversies in the Court with the local authorities. All they can do, if they find local authorities are not carrying out this work, is to appeal to the Local Government Board, and therefore this is not a question of repeating jurisdiction. At the same time, I quite realise that I have no hope of carrying this Amendment. I relied on the right hon. Gentleman's reasonable frame of mind the other evening to enable this Amendment to go through without any difficulty, and I do not look for any borough Members to support me. Under these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Take Samples of Milk.)
    (1) It shall be lawful for an inspector of the Local Government Board, or the medical officer of health of a local authority, or any person provided with and, if required, exhibiting an authority in writing from such an inspector or from the local authority or medical officer of health, to take for examination samples of milk at any time before it is delivered to the consumer:
    Provided that the powers of a medical officer of health and of a person authorised by him or by the local authority under this Section shall, except so far as the Local Government Board may otherwise direct, be exercisable only within the area of the local authority.
    (2) The result of an analysis or bacteriological or other examination of a sample of milk taken under this Act shall not be admissible as evidence in proceedings under this Act, or in proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, unless the provisions of the lastmentioned Acts which relate to the division of samples into parts are complied with, but if those provisions have been complied with, the result of the analysis shall be available for proceedings under the said Acts (as if it had been procured in accordance with those Acts) as well as for proceedings under this Act.
    (3) The medical officer of health or any other officer authorised for the purpose by a local authority within the area of which milk from any dairy situate outside that area is being sold or exposed or kept for sale, may by notice in writing require the medical officer of health or other authorised officer of any other local authority being an authority for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, to take samples of the milk at that dairy
    1610
    or in the course of transit from that dairy to the area of the first-mentioned local authority.
    (4) Upon receipt of such notice it shall be the duty of the medical officer of health or other authorised officer of the other authority to take samples and to forward, for analysis or bacteriological examination, to the officer who gave the notice a part of any sample so taken, and in taking a sample the officer shall, if so required by the notice, comply with the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, which relate to the division of samples into parts.
    The authority requiring the samples to be taken shall be liable to defray any reasonable expenses incurred, the amount whereof shall in default of agreement be settled by the Local Government Board.
    For the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, the sample shall be deemed to have been taken within the area of the officer who gave the notice, and proceedings under those Acts may be taken either before a Court having jurisdiction within the district for which that officer acts or before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the sample was actually taken.
    (5) In any proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, or this Act, the production of a certificate of the officer who took the sample under this Section that the provisions of this Section, as to the manner in which samples are to be dealt with, were complied with shall be sufficient evidence of compliance, unless the defendant requires that officer to be called as a witness.
    (6) In the exercise at any railway station or upon any railway premises of the powers conferred upon them by this Section, such inspector, medical officer of health, or other person so authorised as aforesaid shall conform to such reasonable requirements of the railway company owning or using such station or premises as are necessary to prevent the working of the traffic thereat being obstructed or interfered with.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "for examination."
    I think it is agreed on all sides that the bacteriological examination of milk, except for tuberculosis, is absolutely unreliable. It is quite certain that if three samples are taken, each sample will show a different bacteriological result when

    1611
    examined by different people. In this respect I can quote the authority of Mr. Savage, who was appointed by the Local Government Board to examine into these matters, and he investigated this procedure at the request of the Local Government Board. Mr. Savage wrote a very interesting book, in which he confirms the view I have expressed, and surely it is very hard upon the producer and the dairyman that a bacteriological examination should be made which everybody agrees is of no importance whatever. This is one of those harassing conditions which appear in the Bill a number of times, and I hope the House will agree to my proposal.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid I cannot accept this or any of the other Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member on this subject. This Clause simply gives power to local authorities to take samples of milk, and there really is no reason for imposing the limitation which is sought to be imposed by this Amendment. Quite recently there have been two serious outbreaks of illness from Goertner bacillus infection, which comes from the disease of cow, and which can only be detected by a bacteriological examination of the milk. If this Amendment is carried, they could not examine the milk for this bacillus, and they could only do it by extra legal process, which would be contrary to the terms of this Act. I may point out that the typhoid and diphtheria bacillus can sometimes be detected by a bacteriological examination, and, as this science improves, perhaps it may become more useful. In these circumstances it is quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BATHURST: I do not want to support this Amendment, but there is one statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made which has rather surprised me. The list of diseases which appear to be dangerous to human life appears in the first Schedule of the Bill. Presumably, a bacteriological examination would be conducted with a view to discovering those diseases. I may point out that the Goertner bacillus does not appear to be one of those diseases, and, therefore, I would like to ask whether it is intended that this bacteriological examination should rove over a wide field, and include other diseases than those which are mentioned in the first Schedule of this Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sure we are all under a great deal of indebtedness to the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. A. Strauss) for bringing this question forward. I think the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) has raised an important point with regard to the diseases dealt with in the Schedule. If we are limited to the Schedule, then I do not quite see the relevancy of the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first Schedule imposes penalties upon the farmer for selling milk infected with certain diseases. The diseases named in the Schedule are such that the farmer cannot be expected to detect them himself, and consequently it is provided that when such diseases are discovered steps should be taken with regard to them, and the sale of milk should be interfered with, although this is not an offence in regard to which penalties ought to be imposed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), at the end of the first paragraph, to add the words:—
    "Provided that no proceedings under this Act shall be taken against any cowkeeper in respect of any sample of milk supplied by him unless such sample shall have been taken on the premises of such cowkeeper, or in cases where the milk is carried by railway at the railway station from which the milk is dispatched."
    Probably this Amendment may be improved on further consideration, but as this Bill came on somewhat unexpectedly on Tuesday evening, I had to do the best I could in a very short time. I hope, however, that I have made my point clear. This is an important matter from the point of view of the farmer. It has been brought to my notice several times by farmers in my Constituency, and they have asked me to bring it before the notice of Parliament. I cannot find that the point I am raising has been dealt with during the Committee stage. A great number of farmers send their milk by rail to places some considerable distance away, and they have found that samples of the milk are taken after it has left their custody, and adulteration has taken place for which they are in no way responsible. My hon. Friend (Mr. Stanier)

    1613
    gave some remarkable instances on Tuesday of how these things happen. It is not necessary for me to go into any of them in detail. It does seem to me to be only fair, if you are going to take proceedings against a farmer in respect of an impurity which is found in the milk he has supplied, or if you are going to take proceedings because the milk does not contain sufficient fat, you ought to take the sample of the milk while it is in his custody on his premises, or, if he sends it by railway, then let the sample be taken at the railway station from which it is dispatched. The milk cans, as we know, are not locked, because most railway companies do not allow them to be locked, and we have had many instances where milk has been abstracted and water has been put in by somebody during its transit. There would be no practical difficulty about it, for this reason: Supposing a sample were taken at the delivery end and it was found that the milk was not up to standard, or had been adulterated, then the inspectors or the responsible authority, if they wanted to make a case against the farmer, could go to the farm and take a sample of the milk while it was at the farm or at the railway station from which it was dispatched. There are provisions in this Bill which affect this matter. If hon. Members will kindly look at Clause 2, Subsection (1), paragraph (d), they will see that it gives the Local Government Board power to make regulations for—
    "the prohibition of the addition of colouring matter and the prohibition or regulation of the addition of skimmed or separated milk, or water, or any other substance, to milk intended for sale for human consumption, or the abstraction therefrom of butter-fat or any other constituent,"
    and in Sub-section (3)—
    "If any person is guilty of a contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of any Milk and Dairies Order, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    The Local Government Board therefore can make Regulations with regard to this matter, and anyone can be prosecuted for any breach of them. Clause 5 gives the local authority or the proper officer, the medical officer of health, or the person appointed, power to take samples of milk at any time before its delivery to the consumer. It is, therefore, quite possible to prosecute the farmer in respect of his
    1614
    milk based upon a sample taken at the point of delivery when as a matter of fact he may not be responsible in any shape or form for the impurity which has got into the milk. It is said that there are some provisions put in this Bill which give the farmer some protection. With great respect, I do not think that those provisions go anything like far enough. There is in Clause 15, Sub-section (3), this provision:—
    "Where the occupier of a dairy is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon information duly laid by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court."
    How in the world is he going to specify the man who has been guilty of putting impurities into the milk during transit? It is quite impossible for him to do it, and this Section really gives him no protection whatever. Then, again, it is said, in Schedule 3, paragraph (6):—
    "If a sample of milk of cows in any dairy is taken in course of transit or delivery from that dairy, the owner of the cows may, within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured, serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours a sample of milk from a corresponding milking of the cows."
    That has been called the "appeal to the cow," but that does not affect this point. The only effect of it is to give notice to the farmer if a sample of milk is taken during transit, and to give him the right to call upon the officer to take a further sample from the corresponding milking, and it stops there. It simply gives the farmer an opportunity of a second sample being taken. I suppose it can be produced at the proceedings if he wants it, but it is a double-edged weapon, because it might very easily weigh against the farmer instead of in his favour. I am not at all certain that this Clause might not have been better drafted, but I think I have made the point clear, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to it with favour. I have used the word "cowkeeper," because, if I had used the word "dairyman," I should have included not only the farmer but also the retail shopkeeper. The word "dairyman" by the Definition Clause in this Bill includes not only the farmer, the man who supplies the milk in the first instance, but also

    1615
    the purveyor of milk. I hope the Amendment will be favourably received by the House. I think it only fair, if you are going to take proceedings against the farmer in respect of his milk, that you should take samples from that milk while it is in his custody, or at all events at the station from which it is dispatched.
    Colonel WESTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I can confirm every word my hon. and learned Friend has said. The Amendment is one suggested by an agricultural meeting of county councils at which I was present and at which the feeling was generally expressed that there was an injustice to the farmer in connection with the taking of samples. Everybody is aware that under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act great precautions are taken to see fair play is given to the sellers of foods and drugs, but in this matter the farmer feels that he does not receive fair play. Only last Monday I was at a railway station very early in the morning, and I saw the milk churns going away. They were all open. I asked the stationmaster why they were open, and he said that they insisted on them being left open, and did not allow them to be sealed up. Farmers feel that when their goods are consigned to a distance there should at any rate be some protection that they are not adulterated, that water is not added or milk extracted. I therefore support the Amendment, which I hope the Government will see their way to accept.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has said that under Clause 2 there are considerable powers for making regulations to prevent the sale of adulterated milk or milk from which butter fat has been extracted and so forth. It is comparatively easy to make regulations, but it is very hard indeed to enforce them. There is no doubt that now a good deal of adulterated or impoverished milk is sold, not because the law does not prohibit its sale, but because the enforcement of the law is not adequate. Local authorities find it very difficult indeed in many eases to take samples and to detect the adulterators, whom no one in this House, of course, would wish to see escape punishment. If the hon. Member's proposal were accepted, the effect would be that any cowkeeper in the town, and there are very large numbers of them in every town, could send out his milk and could adulterate it
    1616
    as soon as it left his premises, and there would be no power to take samples.
    Mr. SANDERSON: It is for that reason I said that the Clause might be better drafted.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We had to consider the Amendment as the hon. and learned Member moved it. I think he will find it extremely difficult to discover any form of words which will really cover all the proper cases. There is the possibility, no doubt, of a grievance on the part of the farmers on account of the adulteration of the milk at the railway station, or subsequently, but the way to meet that is by dealing with the question of the churns. I am by no means convinced that the farmers, the milk sellers, and the railway companies between them, have at present reached the right conclusion on the question of the churns. There was an elaborate inquiry conducted by the Local Government Board with respect to the type of churns to be used, and, after this Bill is passed, I propose to make a very careful inquiry as to the Regulations that ought to be made with respect to the type of churns to be used. You cannot by a stroke of the pen insist upon modern churns being used in all cases at once, but I do think it is necessary to approach the railway companies with respect to their rule against locked churns being used, and with a view of giving the farmers an opportunity of sending their milk in receptacles which will not render them liable to having it adulterated on the road. I feel certain that the Amendment is not admissible, and would cause the greatest difficulty to local authorities in the administration of the law. We want to strengthen the present law, and not to weaken it. The present law does allow the milk to be sampled on delivery to the customers, but the hon. Member's Amendment would cut short the powers which are at present used by the local authority.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Nobody wants to see the adulteration of milk, and, if the particular words used would leave a loophole for the escape of those whom we do not want to see escape, by all means let us see if we cannot find an alternative form of words. It is important that we should avoid doing anything that savours in the least of injustice to the milk producers, and I am rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not met my hon. and learned Friend's point a little more fully. After all, he cannot want any more

    1617
    than we do to inflict any hardship or injustice upon the milk producers, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this form of words, I hope before the Bill finally passes into law that he will really consider the matter and see if the point cannot be met and dealt with by means of an Amendment in another place. My hon. and learned Friend does not in the least wish to let off the cowkeeper in the town who adulterates his milk, but he wants to prevent hardship in the case of farmers and milk producers in the country on account of samples being taken after the milk has left their custody, and I sympathise with him entirely. The point is plain, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates and understands it. Surely it cannot pass the wit of the Local Government Board or of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords, and of all the officials who might be called in to assist, to find a form of words that would meet an obvious grievance!
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has made an appeal that we should consider the matter further. The hon. and learned Member who has moved the Amendment admits that in form it is not really satisfactory. I shall be very glad to consult with him between now and the Bill reaching another place to see if we can come to a solution of this question. Though I cannot give a definite pledge that we shall be able to do so, I will do my best.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: The President of the Local Government Board rather misunderstood the intention and the effect of the Amendment, because he pointed out that already powers were given to take samples at the place of delivery. This will not interfere in the least with the taking of samples anywhere it is desired, and, as my hon. and learned Friend took great pains to point out, the discovery of polluted milk at a railway station where the milk arrived might be ground for suspecting the milk producer, and lead to the taking of further samples, either on the premises of the producer, or at the railway station where he put it on the rail. It is not intended to interfere in the least with the taking of samples. I would like to point out that in the last line of the paragraph we have just passed, there are the words "at any time." We are not going back on that at all. We are only limiting the prosecution to which the farmer is likely to be liable to samples taken, not at any time, but while the milk
    1618
    is within his reasonable control. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind, and will not think that this Amendment, even in a somewhat modified form, will interfere with the taking of samples.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: We have had one side of the case emphasised, namely, that of the farmer producing the milk. Of course, no one in this House wants legislation which would do anyone an injustice. But there is another side which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind in considering and acting upon this suggestion, and that is the side of the much larger number of people—the consumers of milk—who are entitled to get milk of a definite standard. The difficulty at present is to bring to book anyone of those who handle the milk before the consumer receives it, in case of adulteration. They all escape, and if this Amendment in this form were accepted, it might well mean that, although you had got milk delivered to a house in London which was adulterated badly, you would be able to convict nobody of any offence. That is the position which ought at all costs to be avoided. The existing state of the law is this: That the seller is bound by law to sell milk up to a certain standard, and it is no answer, in any proceedings against him, to say that the adulteration did not take place on his premises. There are cases where it was proved that the milk was abstracted from the cans on the railway journey, and water was added to make up the quantity. The dairyman who was robbed was convicted because the milk he sold was not up to the standard it ought to have been. That may seem hard, but I think it is right. It is obvious that a retailer who undertakes to supply to the public milk of a certain standard should do so. The difficulty might be got over in this way: If the farmer is not prepared to take responsibility for the milk beyond a certain stage—and I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite wants to limit his liability to the time he delivers it at the station—why cannot that be the time of delivery to the customer? In that case, if the retailer takes responsibility for it at the time it is delivered to him at the place whence it is dispatched, then you have got one or the other. My point is that the authorities must be careful that either the farmer who dispatches or the retailer who receives shall be held responsible for the condition of the milk. This

    1619
    Amendment will not secure that. The term "cowkeeper" is used. But that is a term which is not defined in the Bill. It is no doubt included with a number of other terms under the definition of "dairy," but it only shows the difficulty of the matter, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take care that the provisions are such that if the milk is not up to the standard when it is sold to the consumer it shall be possible to make someone responsible, either the farmer or the wholesale dealer, or the retailer, and bring them to book. They must take the responsibility for the milk.
    Mr. STANIER: I very much hope the President of the Local Government Board will be able to find some words that will carry out actually the idea of the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, even if he cannot accept the words as they appear upon the Paper to-day. The reason why I say so is this: The farmer is very often blamed for no fault of his own. The cans are not always sealed, and perhaps for a considerable time they will not be bound to be sealed. We must, therefore, put in some words that will carry on the work in a way that ensures that fair play shall be given to the farmer in the meantime. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) seemed very surprised indeed that I should have said anything against a railway company, inasmuch as I happen to be a director of a company. But that is the very case I want to bring forward. When this Bill was under discussion the night before last I spoke about the extraordinary things that go on at some railway stations in London. It is not the fault of the railway company, because the company has handed over the milk and the cans to the receiver of that milk, and they have also at the same time handed over their power of control. If I may take up the time of the House for a few minutes, I should like to read some evidence that was given at the London Sessions in a case of this kind the other day. Here it is:—
    "Some surprising statements as to how milk arriving at Paddington Station in the early hours of the morning is borrowed from one churn and the shortage replaced by milk from another intended for another dairy company were made by Alfred Ingram, a well-dressed young man, of Thorngate Road. Paddington, who was indicted on a charge of stealing a churn and seventeen gallons of milk belonging to the Great Western and Metropolitan Dairies Company, Limited. In the witness-box the accused said he was allowed by his dealers to buy and sell milk, and
    1620
    it was a practice to lend and borrow it, no record being kept of the transactions. That happened in the present case.
    Mr. Wallace, K.C., remarked that the practice rendered the whole system of guarantees, under which the milk trade was carried on, absolutely worthless. A custom more calculated to lead to dishonest practices it. was impossible to conceive."
    Here is the pith of the whole point:—

    "The jury found Ingram not guilty, but added that the practice at Paddington was most reprehensible, and calculated to lead to fraud."
    There is the whole point of the thing, and this Amendment brought forward by my hon. Friend is to prevent adulteration at railway stations. This is one case showing what has gone on at Paddington. There are any number of similar cases that might be quoted. But here we have, at any rate, sworn evidence given in a Court of Justice, and I suppose, therefore, the statements may be taken to be absolutely correct. On the strength of them we press that some words such as those suggested by my hon. Friend shall be put into the Bill to enable the fraud, when it is committed, to be placed on the shoulders of those who perpetrate it.
    Mr. SANDYS: I regret the rather indefinite assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given us with regard to this Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly realise what enormous importance the dairy community attached to a provision of this kind. I am in close touch with the dairy farmers in my Constituency, and ever since I have been connected with the constituency this is one of the grievances continually brought to my notice. I feel it would be a most unfortunate thing if, now we are dealing with the whole question of the milk supply, we should not put into the Bill some provision of this sort, and give this protection to the farming community. It appears to me to be a mere act of justice. My hon. Friend admits that some alteration is required in the drafting of the Amendment, but the arguments which have been advanced in opposition to it seem to show that the hon. Members putting them forward have not really given full consideration to the question. I could not understand what the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones) really suggested ought to be done. I think he said the farmer ought to be responsible for the milk until it reaches the consumer.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Until he legally delivers it to the customer. If he likes he may legally deliver it to the customer at the station from which it is dispatched.
    Mr. SANDYS: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's proposal. My hon. Friend wants to limit the liability of the farmer to the railway station from which the milk is actually dispatched. I think that is absolutely fair, and it is a proposal to which the farming community attach very great importance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a definite and clear undertaking that this matter shall be dealt with in the Bill when it reaches another place.
    Mr. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman, in opposing this Amendment, raised two objections to its acceptance. He said it was difficult to detect adulteration. I quite agree. But his proposal would not in any way obviate the detection of adulteration so far as it provides means of detection. We ask that in the attempt to detect adulteration, care shall be taken that the wrong person is not incriminated. The first paragraph of this Clause provides for the taking for examination of samples of milk at any time before the milk is delivered to the consumer. My hon. and learned Friend says that in the case of any sample taken with the view of incriminating the cowkeeper, it should be taken while the milk is under the control of the cowkeeper. Surely that is only fair. The other objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that as the Bill is now framed, it will be in the power of the Local Government Board to issue Orders for the sealing of churns. These Orders may or may not be issued, but at any rate the cowkeeper in this respect is subject to the caprice of a Government Department whether or not he receives that added perfection. I do not consider that that is fair. I did not quite understand what the hon. Member for Stepney meant when he suggested that the cowkeeper should be held responsible for the milk until he delivered it to the consumer. The ordinary natural interpretation of that would be a great injustice to the cowkeeper, because he cannot travel with the churn.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: The hon. Gentleman knows that in law some one must own the milk. If the farmer wants to protect himself in this way he can say, "I deliver the milk to you at the station. It is your milk. It is in your possession. You must be responsible for it." My point is that care must be taken that one or other of these people shall be held responsible.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the farmer or the cowkeeper is going to make a contract on those terms? I am certain he will do nothing of the sort. Does the hon. Gentleman realise what is the ordinary owner's risk contract with the railway company? After the milk leaves the control of the producer at the station—
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Who does the hon. Member suggest should take the responsibility, if it is neither the farmer nor the vendor?
    Mr. BATHURST: I say emphatically, although I believe I am surrounded by railway directors, that the railway companies must be made responsible for any impurities that may pass into these churns while in transitu between the producer and the consumer. May I illustrate what I mean by my experience not very long ago at a railway station, where milk churns were being moved from one train to another. I myself saw an emaciated porter, possibly suffering from tuberculosis, sneezing into an open churn full of milk. It is just that sort of milk for which we ought to provide, and against the possibility of that kind of thing we ought to protect innocent producers.
    Mr. BARNSTON: I sincerely trust that before we pass from this Amendment we may have something a little more definite than the right hon. Gentleman has yet given us. Throughout this Bill he has taken up a most sympathetic attitude as regards farmers and agricultural interests, and I hope he will maintain that attitude by giving us something more definite upon this point now. There is a good deal to be said for the Amendment. All it asks is that the farmer should not be made responsible for the milk after it has passed out of his control. I represent a great dairy constituency in Cheshire, and time after time farmers there have mentioned this point to me as being a gross injustice from which they are liable to suffer. The speech of the hon. Member for Stepney seemed to be rather a good speech in favour of the Amendment, because he told us of cases where milk has been taken out of the can and water poured in, yet the farmer is held responsible.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will certainly do my best to. meet this grievance, but I cannot accept the Amendment in

    1623
    its present form, for it really needs somewhat careful consideration. Suppose, for example, we make Regulations later on that all churns should be sealed, and a farmer does send up his milk in a sealed churn, and it leaves the farmer's custody and goes to London, where it is unsealed in the presence of a sampling officer, and is found to be adulterated. It would be very absurd if we should not be able to prosecute the farmer in that case, and similarly in regard to the middleman. The case is not so simple as hon. Members seem to think. I will consider it carefully, and consult hon. Members opposite as to a possible form of Amendment.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I desire to support the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. We fully appreciate the ability he has shown in this particular matter, but the feeling is intense that while farmers are prepared to take the responsibility for any breach of the law while the milk is in their possession, it is very unfair that they should be held responsible for the milk after it has left their possession. Any branch of British subjects would feel it is only fair that farmers should be held responsible only while the milk is in their possession.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I understand that he accepts the principle of this Amendment, although I quite agree it does require alteration. Upon that understanding I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "except so far as the Local Government Board may otherwise direct."
    I do not know why these words are inserted in the Bill. It seems that they give the Local Government Board power to go behind and beyond the main principle of the Bill, which is that there should be no interference between the officials of local authorities, and that the officials of one local authority should not act in the area of another local authority. I do not know what cases the Local Government Board contemplate in which their direction otherwise may be necessary. As the words appear to give too large powers to the Local Government Board and contravene the whole principle of the Bill, I thought it well to move their
    1624
    omission in order to get some explanation of their purpose from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I admit that these words are put in in contemplation of what would be exceedingly rare cases. Very likely the power will never be used at all, but there is a possibility that it may be required to be used in a case where some local authority is very obstructive, and will not take samples at the request of another authority. The Clause does not allow inspection of cows or any invasion of any sort or kind; it deals only with the question of sample. It might occur that some authority is obstructive and will not take samples at the request of another, and, instead of proceeding by way of mandamus or declaring them in default, the Local Government Board may say to them: "If you will not do this, we shall have to get somebody else to do it." That might bring them to reason, and they would proceed to carry out the Bill. These words have never been questioned before by any of the authorities who have carefully scrutinised the Bill. They were not objected to in Committee, and there is no harm in them The Local Government Board would not exercise the power except in exceptional circumstances, in order to avoid other proceedings.
    Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman knows how very jealous one local authority is of the invasion of its territory by officers of another authority. I think these are very rare cases, and it would have been better for the Local Government Board to send their own officers to deal with the matter.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The default may be continuous.
    Mr. FORSTER: Then surely you could proceed against the local authority by means of inandamus or otherwise. It should be the duty of the Local Government Board to bring home to the local authority its default, and it should not be a question of handing over that business to the officer of some other local authority. I do not want to press the point unduly, but I am anxious that we should give as little power as possible to the officers of one local authority to invade the territory of another.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We shall be very chary in using this power.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to enforce one point in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Local Government Board may find themselves subjected to a good deal of pressure on this point. A very powerful body like the London County Council might like to get this power for their officials. We know that some large municipalities have endeavoured to get it in private Bills. The Local Government Board may find themselves subjected to pressure, and, these words being in the Bill, they will find it difficult to resist it. I quite appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says as to a local authority being in default, In that case would it not be better to leave out the words and meet the case at default by some special proviso, so that where there is default the Local Government Board may send people to take samples or make arrangements with the Board of Agriculture for that purpose? That would be far more satisfactory. Perhaps on further consideration the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to take these words out.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: These words would be extremely useful. They would allow, provided the Local Government Board are satisfied, of a proper arrangement being made. Apart from these words there is nothing in the Bill which would enable a local authority to say, "Please, London, come and do it. We prefer you to do it."
    Mr. BATHURST: These words may be interpreted as giving a very large power to the Local Government Board, which the right hon. Gentleman himself does not contemplate. For instance, I should like to know whether these words can be interpreted to apply only to the specific cases in which the Local Government Board may deem it absolutely necessary to interfere in order to get the purport and the intention of this Bill carried out. It is quite possible that if the words "may otherwise direct" are construed in their widest possible sense, they might conceivably authorise the Local Government Board to issue general Orders sanctioning the intervention in one district by the official of the local authority in another district. In fact, these words might possibly enable the Local Government Board in every case, through the medium of a general Order, to authorise that very invasion against which we have stood out from the time the Bill was introduced into this House.
    Question, "That the words, 'except so far as the Local Government Board may otherwise direct' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "an analysis or," and to insert instead thereof the word "a."
    The words I propose to leave out—there are three Amendments standing in my name which hang together, their chief object being to leave out the words "or other"—gives any medical officer the power to make any kind of examination he likes. I understand that the President of the Board interprets the word "bacteriological" in its widest sense. That examination will give quite sufficient trouble and cause quite sufficient confusion to lead to misunderstandings. There are dozens of methods of testing milk scientifically, but I am informed by those who deal largely in milk that when it conies to a commercial test they have all proved useless, and especially is that so in the case of mixed milk, where you cannot possibly trace any infection by the various methods that have been introduced. I have here a list of a large number of these tests which might possibly be used by a medical officer just as the fancy takes him. That is very unfair to the milk vendor, because the medical officer is sure to use one or other of these tests. They can be carried out in five minutes. They do not give him any trouble, and are no expense to him. He will probably use a test which is commercially unreliable. The vendor is already sufficiently hindered by bacteriological examination, and I do not see why a medical officer should have the power to use any other test, which may be a test he has invented himself, and unknown to anybody else.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the hon. Member's speech was mainly devoted to the words "or other," which is not the Amendment which has been put from the Chair. I do not know whether he intended to move to leave out "analysis." Surely he does not want to prevent analytical examination!
    Mr. A. STRAUSS: The object of the Amendment is to leave out the words "or other."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member began by saying all his Amendments came together.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We ought to have heard some argument in support of the Amendment. The hon. Member wants to leave out on this Clause the admissibility of the result of an analysis of the milk. Surely, if this Clause has any purpose at all, it is to enable milk to be analysed with a view to seeing whether it is adulterated or whether the fats have been extracted from it! The words in question say that evidence may be adduced in Court with reference to the result of an analysis or bacteriological examination. That, surely, is right if you wish to detect whether certain diseases are present in the milk, and the words "or other" are put in simply in order to cover microscopical examination, which might not be, strictly speaking, becteriological. It is a small point—no more than a drafting point. It is necessary to have wide words.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to move to leave out the words "or in proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907."
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent the mixing up of the Food and Drugs Act with this Act, and if my Amendments are accepted the Clause will read, after the word "examination," "shall not be admissible as evidence in proceedings under this Act unless the provisions of the sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 to 1907, which relate to the division of samples into parts are complied with, but if those provisions have been complied with, the result of the examination shall be available for proceedings under this Act." The object is to prevent samples which are meant for the Food and Drugs Act to be sent on under this Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Clause carefully he will see that what will probably happen is that samples may be sent to the public analyst for Food and Drugs Act purposes, and may be sent to the veterinary inspector for bacteriological examination. The veterinary surgeon does not want any bacteriological examination nor does the public analyst want any kind of analysis to be made by the veterinary inspector. The wording of the Act certainly would entail these consequences. I wish to make
    1628
    it clear that these two Acts should not be mixed up together, but that the samples should be sent, either according to one Act or according to the other, to the right person.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The effect of the Amendment would be to make all procedure under Clause 5 unavailable for the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. It is essential that the samples taken should be available for proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, which is the Act which deals with the adulteration of milk and all other food products and drugs. I cannot conceive why the hon. Member should wish to deprive the community of the protection which may be given by the sampling Clause of this Bill for the prevention of adulteration in milk.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part' of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "shall" ["it shall be the duty"], to insert the words "subject to the provisions of Subsection (1) of this Section."
    The object of this is to ensure that there shall be no invasion on the part of any medical officer in taking samples under the Clause. The proviso in Sub-section (1) should, in my opinion, have come at the end of the Clause so as to cover the whole procedure contemplated in the Clause, but failing that, I ask by this Amendment that it shall be subject to the terms of that proviso, which prevents the medical officer of health exercising his powers outside his own area, so as to prevent any invasion taking place in respect of such sampling and forwarding as is contemplated by that Sub-section.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I bog to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Amendment makes clearer what is the purpose of the Clause, and I shall be glad to accept it.
    Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to,
    Further Amendment made: After the word "authority" ["authorised officer of the other authority"], insert the words "as soon as practicable."
    Mr. SANDERS: I beg to move to leave out the word "and" ["and proceedings under those Acts"] and to insert instead thereof the word "but."
    I want to make the rest of the Clause read, "but the proceedings under those Acts shall be taken before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the sample was actually taken." Under the Clause as it stands the procedure seems to be that an authority in London may object to milk which is sent from Wiltshire, and may apply to the medical authorities in Wiltshire to take samples of that milk. When the milk turns out badly, proceedings may either be taken in London or in Wiltshire. I think the spirit of the Act is to put the administration into the hands of the county authorities and not of the London authority, and it seems to me a wrong thing that, if that is the purpose of the Act, the farmer or his witnesses should be put to the trouble and expense of coming up to London for a case which could be perfectly well tried, and I think very much better tried, in a local Court.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This matter was discussed in Committee and the right hon. Gentleman, though he did not make a definite promise, said he would consider whether some alteration could be made. The point is this: A large quantity of milk is sent to London from Yeovil and Salisbury, and we think it would be reasonable that if a prosecution is found to be necessary it should take place where the milk was produced. It would be extremely burdensome for a farmer, and perhaps half a dozen milkers and other witnesses, to have to come to London to give evidence, and surely it would be only fair that where a man has had the misfortune to break the law he should be dealt with there, rather than a hundred miles off. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us in that respect.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The purpose which the hon. Member has in view will not really be effected by this Amendment because the sample in such a case might be taken in London. Suppose the sample was taken at the railway station. The proceedings then could only be taken in that district. Further, under the provisions of the Bill there are many cases in which the person proceeded against will be the retailer in London who has been found selling adulterated milk. He claims that he is not the guilty party, but
    1630
    that if the milk was adulterated it was adulterated when sent to him by the person in the country who consigned it to him. Under the procedure of the Bill we have to have a process which is called sampling back, and the milk is sampled back to the middleman and from the middleman to the farmer, and it is found where the supply of milk is adulterated on its way. It would be extremely inconvenient if separate proceedings had to be taken in a case of that kind, first in the town district, where the dealer is involved, and then in the country district, where the farmer may be involved. Surely, one Court ought to have cognisance of the whole case. I am afraid the Amendment would introduce considerable confusion into the administration of this part of the law. I have no doubt that the Court, if the case was one in which all the witnesses were in an outlying district, would require that it should be taken there instead of in London where non" of the parties were resident or were concerned, and naturally that would be the ordinary course of procedure as is, I think, the case now.
    Question, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.
    Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "railway" ["at any railway station"], to insert the words "or other."
    The Clause provides that an inspector shall not go to any railway station at any time when his presence might obstruct or interfere with the working of the traffic. I really do not see why the same courtesy should not be extended to the dairyman, to large business men and small shopmen, and even to the farmers. It is most inconvenient that the inspector should arrive at the time when the cows are being milked or the carts are being filled or the dairyman is very busy. The same courtesy which is volunteered to the railway companies ought to be accorded to business men, and these three Amendments will accomplish that.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am still very unfortunate with the hon. Member's Amendments. I should be glad if I could come across one which I was able to accept from his hands, but he would bring into the privileges of this proviso the very wholesale and other dairymen whom it is specially necessary to inspect by putting

    1631
    in the words "or business." Of course you are not dealing merely with businesses analogous to railway companies, such as canal companies or dock companies. You bring in every dairyman, and it would give an excuse for dairymen and wholesale providers who may be guilty of adulteration. There are certainly such cases, and if you want to catch them you would give them an opportunity of escaping the inspectors. For that reason I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. GRETTON: My hon. Friend desires to put these people in the same position as other carriers. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment it would accomplish the object of my hon. Friend, and I do not think it would be in any way contrary to the argument which he has used. It is quite reasonable that they should have facilities equal to those given to railway companies, and, therefore, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider the point. I do not know at present whether it is one of very great substance.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.)
    The provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, in reference to the taking of samples of milk, and any proceedings in connection therewith, shall be amended in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act.
    Amendment made: Leave out "Second" and insert "Third."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "So much of any contract, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, as requires a purveyor of milk on a sample of his milk being taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, to send to the person from whom he procured the milk any part of such sample or to give such person notice that a sample has been so taken, shall be null and void."
    This Amendment is rendered necessary by some other provisions of the Bill which have been referred to in the Debate by the right hon. Gentleman as the "following-up process." What is to happen under the
    1632
    Bill if it becomes law? When the authorities at present take a sample from a retail dairyman in London it is sometimes found that he has a warranty for the milk. In a Schedule of this Bill it is provided that in future the authorities may take samples from subsequent deliveries of milk from the same supply in order that some check may in that way be afforded as to the character of the milk which is being delivered at that time. As hon. Members know, in cases under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act where milk is involved there is often great controversy in Court as to whether the wholesale dealer supplied adulterated milk and whether the retailer sold it as he received it. A warranty is pleaded, and if the retailer proves that he sold the milk as he received it he escapes. The difficulty at present is that you cannot convict anybody, because if you have to proceed against the wholesaler it is almost impossible to prove that he supplied adulterated milk. The later provisions in this Bill provide some means for checking the truth of the statement of the wholesaler. For the first time when the authorities take a sample from a London retailer on Monday morning he will be able to say, "I have the milk from a certain wholesaler, and the next delivery will be to-night or to-morrow morning." The authorities will take a sample from the supply when it comes in the later deliveries. That will be same guidance to the Court as to whether the wholesale people are really tampering with the milk.
    When that provision appeared in the Bill a number of London dairymen called attention to a practice which would make this "following-up process" worthless. A large number of small dairymen get their supplies from large wholesale suppliers in London, and I am told that the same remark applies to other large towns. They get it under contract. Part of the contract is that the milk is warranted, but there is also a clause in the contract that a retailer, immediately the authorities take a sample from him, shall communicate with the wholesaler and send to him the sample which has been left with the retailer. The House will see that if this is to go on there is no possible use of following up the sample, for if the authorities take a sample on Monday morning the retailer under his contract will immediately communicate with the wholesaler and send him the sample which has been left with him. The wholesalers will know that the authorities are sampling the milk,

    1633
    and when they send milk for subsequent deliveries during the next few days the supplies are certain to be all right, and instead of being of any value this provision in the Schedule will be a serious danger to the retailers. Therefore, I move the insertion of these words which would make the condition in the contract void. There is no need at all why the wholesaler should have the sample unless proceedings are subsequently taken. Then there would be the evidence of the third analysis. The object of the Amendment is to prevent the wholesaler from getting the sample which has been taken and given to the retailer. There would be no possible use in taking samples if the part left with the retailer is to be sent to the wholesaler.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have had an opportunity of consulting my hon. Friend on this proposal. I certainly think that some such provision is necessary in order to prevent the purpose of this Act being defeated. I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment unless we have an explanation of its effect from the right hon. Gentleman. At first sight it appears that this Amendment is an ordinary precaution required in the interest of justice, but I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman who moved it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House the official version as to how this Clause, if amended in the way proposed, would work in practice.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I might have made a fuller statement in regard to the Amendment, but I did not anticipate that it would give rise to any criticism. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, a certain number of wholesalers do make it a condition in their contracts that when a retail tradesman has a sample taken he shall immediately inform them of the fact. Whenever samples of milk are taken they are divided into three parts. One is taken for analysis by the officer, one is handed over to the person from whom the sample is taken, and the third is kept in reserve for later analysis if there is any dispute as to the first analysis. The provisions of this Bill contemplate that when a sample has been taken from a retailer and it is found to be wrong in some way, he should have
    1634
    the right of telling the local authority to take a sample of milk on the way to him from the wholesaler, and that sample may be used as evidence in Court for what it is worth, if it is found that the first sample taken from the retailer's stock in course of delivery is adulterated. If it is found that milk subsequently supplied to him is delivered in the same condition, then, if the retailer is a person of honest character, and if he swears that he has not adulterated it, the presumption will be that the milk has been adulterated on the way to him. In Manchester, where there is no such provision in the contracts, this course has been followed with considerable success. I believe that all parties in Manchester are satisfied with the system. Justice is done, and the person who is really responsible for the adulteration is punished. It has been suggested by persons connected with the working of the milk trade that our purpose will be defeated entirely by the provision in the contract that when a sample is taken the retailer shall communicate with the wholesaler, because the wholesaler would be alarmed, and he would stop the adulteration of the milk, so that when it came to the retailer it would be found to be all right, and the probability is that the retailer would be convicted for selling adulterated milk. The wholesaler will not be prejudiced by this, because there is always the third sample of milk, and if the wholesaler disputes the accuracy of the analysis, he can always recur to the third sample and have that analysed, and so justice will be done as regards him. It appears to me that the proposal of my hon. Friend, which is drawn from the Manchester system, imposes no hardship or disability on the wholesale dealer.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The only thing I object to in the Amendment is that it is retrospective, and I do not see any object in that. If we can avoid it, I do not think that we should void contracts and I would ask the hon. Member if he would leave out the words "before or," so that the Amendment would read
    "So much of any contract, whether made before or after the passing of this Act …."
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: The only difficulty about that is that contracts are made for long periods—sometimes six months, or even twelve months. If this Act came into force at once, the Clause would not apply to milk supplied until the expiration of current contracts.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We all know that that would not apply in the case of milk contracts made with farmers in this country.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: In view of what has been said, I accept the suggestion.
    Amendments made in proposed Amendments: Leave out the word "whether." Leave out the words "before or."
    Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Appointment of Veterinary Inspectors.)
    (1) A local authority may, and when required by the Local Government Board shall, appoint or combine with another local authority in appointing one or more veterinary inspectors or employ for the purposes of this Act and the Milk and Dairies Orders any veterinary inspector appointed under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and any local authority may, and when required by the Local Government Board shall, provide or arrange for the provision of such facilities for bacteriological or other examinations of milk, as may be approved by the Board.
    (2) Any Order requiring a combination of local authorities for the purposes of this Section may provide for all matters incidental to such combination, and in particular how the expenses incurred are to be apportioned.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "dairymen being entitled to avail themselves of such facilities at a nominal charge."
    The object of the Bill is to have clean, pure milk, but cases may arise when farmers may suddenly have a suspicion that one of his cows is giving tuberculous milk. In such a case he ought to be able to test quickly whether there are any grounds for his apprehension, and he could do so if he had this facility for a bacteriological examination of the milk, and if his apprehensions were well grounded he could at once stop disposing of the milk. On the principle that prevention is better than cure, I cannot help thinking that the acceptance of this Amendment would often be the means of preventing the pollution of the milk, and thereby enabling a farmer to avoid prosecution for an offence committed quite unwittingly. If dairymen had access to this bacteriological examination
    1636
    it would often be the means of preventing a breach of the law, and of producing a state of things which we should all prefer to see brought about by mutual arrangement rather than by prosecution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this proposal.
    Mr. MILDMAY: I beg to second the Amendment. We are all very anxious that the milk supply should be pure, and it is most desirable that farmers should have an opportunity of detecting whether milk is tuberculous before putting it on the market, and before they are proceeded against. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give favourable consideration to the matter.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is a Clause which provides that the local authorities may, and when required by the Local Government Board shall, provide certain facilities for bacteriological and other examinations. The hon. Member-proposes that local authorities shall be obliged to give facilities to dairymen to have their milk examined at a nominal charge. It is not a duty imposed on the Government but on the local authorities, and it applies not only in the case of farmers, but to dairymen within the meaning of the Bill—that is to say, every milk seller in London, and every wholesale man in any of our big towns could require the local authority to give facilities to have his milk examined, at whatever intervals he might himself choose, at a nominal charge. It is very desirable that farmers and others should be encouraged to have examinations made of their milk, but I am not sure that it is right to require the local authorities to provide facilities, at the cost of the rates, for the milk trade of England to have bacteriological examinations made whenever they wish. I am sure that the local authorities, especially in rural districts, would give facilities to farmers where possible, and would have these considerations well in mind. But I seem to have a recollection of having heard protests in this House more than once against Bills being passed which cast onerous duties on local authorities that have to be paid for not at the expense of the taxes, but at the expense of the local rates, and I seem to recollect hearing the hon. Member who moved this Amendment occasionally in this House, and on deputations, giving expression to those sentiments. I hope that the House on this occasion will not require local authorities

    1637
    to assume this new and heavy burden. I feel sure that they will voluntarily give such facilities as the case requires.
    Mr. STANIER: I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said. With all respect to the hon. Member, I think that the facilities given by the county council in most counties of England are sufficient. For that reason I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. On the question of expense I am hoping that he will accept an Amendment which I have further down on the Paper that three-fourths of the expense should come from the Treasury. The provision of pure milk for the people is of national importance, and if this Amendment would conduce to that result, the Treasury ought to bear the cost.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I quite see the point of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The expense might be very heavy if every dairyman in every city were entitled to have a free bacteriological examination. What you want to ensure is that the milk shall be pure at its source, and the real object of the Amendment would be ensured if this were done. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendment and accept it so far as it relates to farmers who are the source from which the milk is obtained.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether without this it would be legal for a local authority if it chose to allow these facilities to farmers, leaving it of course, optional to them, the arrangement about the charge being made by themselves? I see a great objection to placing the burden on them if they do not. want to undertake it, of doing the work at a nominal charge. But it would be an obvious advantage if farmers were interested, and if they are so interested that they would wish themselves to have their milk tested in this way, and the local authority is willing to do the work, and the farmers are willing to pay a fixed price, then unless there is some provision which enables the local authority to do this, a power of this kind might be useful.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. This Amendment if carried would impose a charge on the rates. Is it in Order on the Report stage?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: That would not be so if the cost of doing the work were nominal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not open to impose a charge on the rates on the Report stage.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: There are public analysts and so on to whom farmers have access if they care to avail themselves of it, at very reasonable charges, and in some cases for no charge at all. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend is the first instance of any farmer asking for this. If there was a demand by the agricultural bodies generally, I think that I should have heard of it. I do not think that there is any demand for the Amendment at all.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I have had very pressing demands. My hon. Friend as a member of the Central Chamber of Agriculture has great experience, but his experience is not of this type of farming. However, in view of the discussion which has taken place, I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Regulations as to Imported Milk.)
    The Local Government Board shall make regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, for the prevention of danger arising to public health from the importation of milk and milk products intended for sale, for human consumption, or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption.
    Mr. C. BATHURSThad given notice of an Amendment, after the word "importation" to insert the words "into Great Britain."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. BATHURST: May I point out that the whole object of this Amendment is to prevent milk or milk products being imported from Ireland. I suggest that it would be in order, as intended by this Clause, to check any milk products being imported from outside the United Kingdom, as it stands at present, which may result in disease to human beings, or unfair competition with the home producer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment says "Great Britain." This Bill does not apply to Scotland, and the powers of the Local Government Board do not apply to Scotland.
    Mr. BATHURST: That is the whole point.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the point.
    Mr. BATHURST: May I be allowed, if it is not strictly in order, to move it in the form of "England and Wales"? It comes to exactly the same thing so far as I am concerned. The only difficulty is that you cannot impose restrictions very easily on the border between England and Scotland. I am quite prepared to move it in this form.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill does not apply to Scotland. Therefore the importation must be an importation into England and Wales.
    Mr. HUNT: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause, the words "and this shall apply to milk imported from Ireland unless similar regulations to those contained in this Act are also made and enforced in Ireland."
    6.0 P.M.
    The object of this Amendment is to secure in England and Wales that the farmers, as far as possible, may have the same chances as those in Ireland. As I understand the Clause, the milk may be imported from Ireland, and it need not necessarily be under the same regulations in Ireland as in this country. But, unless there are the same regulations in Ireland as there are in this country, the milk from Ireland ought to be subject to the same examination as the milk coming from other countries. If Ireland has Home Rule and makes her own regulations, the right hon. Gentleman will not, I think, have any power to make the same regulations for Ireland as for England and Wales. If that be so, the Irish farmer would have a considerable advantage over the farmers of England and Wales, because he would not be subject to any of the restrictions contained in this Bill.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that this Amendment is already covered by what is in the Bill. Still, I will allow it, with that explanation.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the word "importation" implies importation from foreign countries, and that consequently the Clause as drafted will not apply to imported goods that come from any part of the United Kingdom. The hon.
    1640
    Member is making a proposal setting up a separate system as between England and Ireland, a thing very much objected to on the other side in another connection. All goods which come into England and Wales from Ireland are examined at the port of entry in the same way as we propose that milk from Normandy or abroad is to be examined.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it examined in Ireland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sorry to hear this disruptive tendency from that quarter. Milk from Ireland will be subject to the Regulations here. Ireland has already her own code of laws dealing with the purity of the milk supply, and always has had her own code of laws, and they will remain. As a matter of fact, under the provisions of the Bill, the Regulations made under Clause 2, milk sold in this country would be sampled from time to time, with a view to detecting diseased or dirty milk, and they would apply as much to milk from Ireland as to milk which reached us from Kent, Northumberland, or any county in this country. The milk which is consumed in this country will be subjected to the Regulations that apply in this country, and I do not think that the hon. Member's Amendment is really at all needed, while it contains the rather bad principle of discriminating between goods from Ireland and goods from England and Wales.
    Mr. FORSTER: The question I want to put to the President of the Local Government Board is this: He says that milk which comes from Ireland or from Kent, Northumberland, and other parts of the United Kingdom, is going to be treated equally, and is to be subjected to the same Regulations. But in the case of milk sold in England which is produced in Kent or Northumberland, you are able to get a producer. How are you going to get at the Irish producer? The jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman does not extend to Ireland.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Nor to Scotland.
    Mr. FORSTER: Suppose there should be sold in this country some milk that is inferior you might take proceedings, if the seller is able to show that the impurity in the milk arose in Ireland. But how are you going to get at the Irish producer? That is the point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I should be very glad of an answer.
    Mr. BATHURST: There are two objects which this Bill seeks to fulfil. One is to prevent the English and Welsh consumer from being poisoned or injured by diseased or dirty milk; and the other, which is particularly provided for in this Clause, is to prevent the British milk producer from being damnified by unfair competition with the dirty or diseased products of other countries. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it has a disruptive tendency to move such Amendments as this. It has not a disruptive tendency. If there be a disruptive tendency at all it really lies in our having three separate Local Government Boards set up in the three different parts of the United Kingdom, and not only three separate Departments, but we shall have now three different Acts relating to the milk supply of the three different countries. It depends entirely upon the relative drastic character of the legislation and the relative drastic administration of the three countries as to whether one of the countries will suffer injustice in the competition between the milk supplied by the three. If it is unfair that the English consumer should be poisoned with Dutch milk or Dutch cheese, so it is equally unfair that the English consumer should be poisoned with Irish milk or Irish cheese. If it be unfair that the English producer should be damnified in competition with impure products from Denmark or from Holland, surely it is equally unfair that he should be damnified by competition with impure products from Ireland! They are under totally different Acts of Parliament, and under totally different local administration. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the time is coining, though we hope not, when Ireland will be entirely under its own legislative control, and nothing that we can say in this House will affect the administration of the. particular Department in Ireland which has to deal with these matters. Surely it is only fair, both in the interests of the consumer and the British milk producer, that we should make this law which prevents the importation of impure milk from abroad apply equally to Ireland as to any other country across the sea!
    Mr. BOOTH: I cannot understand the Amendment being put on the ground which the last speaker stated, unless he contemplates that the Irish Legislature shall deal with the whole of Ireland without any reservation as regards the North-East corner. The Amendment clearly
    1642
    shows a bias against Ireland. Why is not Scotland mentioned or the Channel Islands, and why is Ireland picked out alone? The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said there would probably be a Legislature in Dublin. What is the meaning of that? If we are to have a Home Rule Debate to-day, I could understand it; otherwise I cannot see why Ireland should be singled out and no other country in Europe.
    Mr. BATHURST: We are dealing with milk and milk products in this country.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: When I first saw the Amendment I did not think there was very much in it, because I was of opinion that the Regulations for dealing with imported milk and imported milk products brought into the country to which this Bill applies, namely, England and Wales, from wherever they came, would be subject to those Regulations. But the right hon. Gentleman has put an entirely different complexion upon it, and I think he has made a convincing speech in favour of the principle of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend beside me, because he told us that the word "importation," in his opinion, implies importation from foreign countries. We have to look at the effect of this Bill from the point of view of the consumer of milk and milk products. It has been thought necessary to make special Regulations dealing with milk and milk products brought to this country, and surely those necessary Regulations apply to all parts of the world. I think the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is right, that the Amendment should apply to more than Ireland. He knows as well as I do that it is not intended that the wording of the Amendment should be directed to Ireland alone. Though, I think, it might be necessary to put it in a different form, yet I think the principle is good, unless the right hon. Gentleman can see fit to assure us that the word "importation" shall have only its ordinary and common-sense meaning, and shall not apply merely to milk from foreign countries.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If the milk sent from Ireland into this country is impure, is it the wholesale dealer in Ireland who can be punished?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, the person who sells the milk.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Cannot proceedings be taken against the wholesale dealer

    1643
    who has sent the milk from Ireland to this country? The object of the Bill is a very laudable one, namely, to secure a supply of pure milk, and surely there should be some means by which to prevent impure milk being sent over!
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Samples of the milk are taken in this country on its way from the person in Ireland to the retailer in this country, and if the milk be found impure the Irish sender could be prosecuted, if he is the person who sent the impure milk to this country.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: How are you going to prosecute him? If Home Rule is established, how are you going to bring him into the jurisdiction?
    Sir J. SPEAR: In reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), I would point out that for Scotland there is a Milk and Dairies Bill which is intended to fulfil the same end as this Bill, namely, that milk should be clean and pure. There is nothing of the kind in Ireland. English dairymen are called on to make special efforts and special outlay to see that cattle sheds and everything connected with the production of milk are kept in good order. If Ireland is excluded, no such conditions will apply to the Irish dairies. Ireland sends large quantities of milk and milk products to this country, and there is danger of those being impure and no means of getting at the producer in order to correct that state of things. That is a special protection to the Irish producer of milk as against the English, and when English producers are prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure pure milk, we say that the Irishmen ought to be put on the same level.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: We ought to do one of two things. We ought to make this apply to England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, or put Irish products under the same Regulations as products from abroad. I understand that the provisions of the Bill for Scotland are practically the same as those of this Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I do not know that much milk comes from them, but we do know that a very large quantity of milk and milk products comes from Ireland, and therefore Ireland ought to be brought under this Bill, or under the Regulations applied to milk from abroad. I would
    1644
    like to know what kind of Regulations the right hon. Gentleman proposes with regard to milk from abroad, and I think those Regulations ought to apply to Ireland.
    Mr. SANDYS: I desire to support this Amendment if it is really necessary, but it does appear to me that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Clause is open to some doubt. We find in Clause 18 it is distinctly stated that this Act shall not apply to Scotland or to Ireland, and consequently I should have thought that any milk coming from countries outside the scope of the Act would be milk imported, and consequently subjected to Clause 8. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has some other idea in his mind, but this Bill will be strictly interpreted, and a proper legal definition will, of course, be given to the word "imported" apart from anything he may say. I would remind him that we have had a great deal of discussion with regard to the Importation of Arms Proclamation in Ireland. There the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman puts is not in the least degree accepted, as to arms imported from Great Britain to Ireland, and not from a foreign country. It seems to me that his interpretation is not correct, or that, at any rate, it is entirely exceptional. If that is so, this Amendment is not necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman is correct, that certainly urges me very strongly to support the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I think it is most desirable that Irish milk should be under the same supervision and care as milk produced in this country. Otherwise it is giving a very unfair advantage to the Irish producer, to the disadvantage of the English producer. In view of all the changes which are supposed to be going to take place with regard to the Government of Ireland, I think it is very essential that we should take this very necessary precaution, if the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Clause is correct, though I doubt it, and under those circumstances I shall certainly support the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: By leave of the House, may I say as to the points raised I am advised that importation, certainly under the Customs Act, means importation from a foreign country. That is the interpretation usually applied to it. It may be a point of doubt, and a nice

    1645
    legal point, whether in this Act it would bear the same interpretation. If it does not bear the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member, well and good, then this Amendment is obviously unnecessary, and I am sure hon. Members need not press it if they hold that view. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) says how can we get at the Irish producer. He must be dealt with by the Irish law as the Scottish producer is dealt with by the Scottish law. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) asked if under Home Rule we should be able to summon a person from Ireland to answer a charge of selling contaminated milk or infected milk in this country. I am advised we can, and that Home Rule makes no difference at all, and that the summons would be by the same procedure as is now available. Hon. Members opposite have asked as to the character of the regulations with regard to foreign imports with respect to milk requiring certificates. There is one Government which sends us milk, that is France, requiring certain certificates with regard to inspection and the condition of the dairies from which the milk comes, and only about £2,000 worth comes from there. In Ireland there is already a very elaborate code of laws dealing with milk, and now that the Irish milk trade is highly organised through co-operative creameries, there really seems to be very little necessity for a specific provision of this kind. As a matter of fact, the whole of this Clause is really quite unnecessary. It was only put in to meet the. pressure of hon. Members opposite. We have got powers now, the amplest powers, under other Acts to make regulations with regard to food products which are imported into this country or come from Ireland or Scotland, or the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands. This is merely put in in order to meet certain representations that were made to us, and it really seems quite unnecessary in the United Kingdom to require provisions such as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a point of doubtful legal interpretation as to whether this Clause does or does not extend to the bringing of milk into this country from Ireland. If it is doubtful, it is not fair that the House, knowing it to be so, should intentionally leave it for the Courts to say hereafter what they intended. When
    1646
    the Minister in charge of the Bill says he does not know, and that the meaning of the Clause is doubtful, how can the Court possibly say what the Legislature intended if the Legislature itself sends the Bill out to the world knowing that it is an uncertain point.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This will not be a matter for the Courts at all; this is a Clause which imposes an obligation on the Local Government Board and the Local Government Board does not propose to make any Regulations with regard to Ireland.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman can only speak for the Board so long as he is President. A question may arise as to whether the Local Government Board has exceeded its jurisdiction. I do submit, if it is a doubtful point, it ought to be cleared up. Some Members are in favour of extending it to Ireland, and others are opposed, but whichever view we take the matter ought to be made clear.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider whether any drafting Amendment is needed before the Bill goes to another place.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has really now put himself in a position in which he should tell the House clearly what will be done, because if I understood him rightly it is not a question of what the Courts will decide, but of what the Local Government Board will do. Surely the House has the right to ask him to tell us what the Local Government Board are going to do, and what interpretation they are going to put upon the word "imported."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have said we shall not apply it to Ireland.
    Mr. WATSON: May I ask whether in his view, assuming that Ireland is out of the Section, the Local Government Board is entitled to differentiate as between different countries which send milk and milk products into this country, or whether it is intended that these Regulations should apply to all milk imported, because there is a suggestion of differentiation in the case of Ireland which suggests possible differentiation in other cases.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is a point I will consider in connection with the other point raised by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras.
    Mr. GRETTON: Even now we are not quite clear as to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he will consider the Clause as it stands and the power as to making Regulations. He says the Clause is not necessary, but what is he going to do? Is he going to make those Regulations extend to Ireland or not?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
    Mr. GRETTON: Our point is, if you are going to have certain regulations to protect the supply of milk, those regulations should protect the supply all round. Scotland is to have those regulations. The hon. Member opposite complains that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not included, and also mentions Scotland, but Scotland has a Bill of its own.
    Mr. BOOTH: So has Ireland.
    Mr. GRETTON: Nothing of this kind.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes, it has.
    Mr. GRETTON: It has no regulations corresponding with these. They are much less searching in character. If the hon.
    Member for Pontefract wants this to apply-to the Channel Islands and to the Isle of Man, as well as to foreign countries, let him move to that effect, and the details can easily be amended. What we want to get from the right hon. Gentleman is an assurance that he will take care that all milk brought into this country, including milk brought in from Ireland, is in a pure condition. That is our position. That is our point, but apparently the right hon. Gentleman is not going to meet it. In these circumstances our only course is to divide on the Amendment, and test the opinion of the House as to whether the people of this country are to be liable to have improperly supervised milk which may be sent from Ireland. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment, unless he has some motive which he has not explained to the House.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 25–2.

    Division No. 208.]

    AYES.

    6.32 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goldman, C. S.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Grant, J. A.

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Barnston, Harry

    Gretton, John

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Harris, Leverton (Worcester, East)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Sandys, G. J.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bird, Alfred

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hills, John Waller

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Touche, George Alexander

    Butcher, John George

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cassel, Felix

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Cautley, H. S.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut-Colonel A. R.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Currie, George W.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Nield, Herbert

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Fell, Arthur

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Perkins, Walter F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Hunt and Mr. Stanier.

    Forster, Henry William

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Flnsbury, E.)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Alden, Percy

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Armitage, Robert

    Barnes, George N.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hinds, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shee, James John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hodge, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, G. H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs, Heywood)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clynes, John R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    King, Joseph

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crooks, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Culinan, John

    Leach, Charles

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Delany, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Dillon, John

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Shortt, Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Doris, William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duffy, William J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Micking. Major Gilbert

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basll

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutherland, John E.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutton, John E.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclitfe)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Falconer, James

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godtrey

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Ftrench, Peter

    Mooney, John J.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., lnce)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Fiavin, Michael Joseph

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Morison, Hector

    Webb, H.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Muldoon, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hackett, John

    Neilson, Francis

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Dowd, John

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Malley, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Bonn.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Establishment of Milk Depots.)
    (1) The sanitary authority of any district may, with the approval of the Local
    1650
    Government Board, establish and thereafter maintain depots for the sale of milk specially prepared for consumption by

    1651
    infants under two years of age, and purchase and prepare milk and provide such laboratories, plant, and other things, and exercise and perform such other powers and duties, as may be necessary for the purposes of this Section.
    (2) The Local Government Board may attach such conditions to their approval as they may deem necessary.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS(who was indistinctly heard): I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This is the most contentious Clause in the Bill. It introduces the thin edge of the wedge of municipal trading, and I should like to know why the Clause has been produced at all. We know that municipal trading is supported by many hon. Members on the other side, but we on this side decidedly object to it. We do not know where, if once commenced, it is going to stop. In a subsequent Bill you may allow borough councils to open butchers' or bakers' shops, or to do other things which may be to the detriment of the ratepayers. Those ratepayers have heavy rates to pay on their own businesses, and it is suggested that their rates should be used to produce competition against their business. It is most unfair that the dairymen and farmers, who pay heavy rates, should have those rates used to encourage competition in their trade, and possibly to ruin their business. I trust the House will reject the Clause and not allow municipal trading either in lymph or any other commodity. There have already been several lymph depots, and not one has paid its way. Some of them charged a fairly good price for the lymph, but they have all left a charge on the ratepayer. There were depots at Dundee, Woolwich, Finsbury, and Glasgow, but they have all shut up. There are depots still open at Battersea, Liverpool, and Leicester. Why did the Woolwich depot shut up? It cost about £500, and the whole of the fittings were sold in a practically new condition for £25. That is what the Member for Woolwich encourages, and hopes will be established all over the country. At Glasgow the depot was fitted up at a cost of £2,000, and was eventually sold for a trifling sum. There are, as I have said, only three of the depots that were established left.
    With such an experience before us, surely it is folly to encourage borough councils, or even to give them permission, to open these depots in order to compete with ratepayers who are milk sellers, and to
    1652
    make losses for the general body of ratepayers! But even the consumer suffers. I have the report of the medical officer for Glasgow, who says that "by far the worst results were in the case of those fed on municipal milk." That is the official result of the Glasgow depot. It may be urged that this Clause is in order to benefit the poor. I think the original idea was that these depots for milk should be able to give free milk to the poorest portion of the community. That is hardly necessary now, because under the Insurance Act the doctors are allowed to order milk free, and it is most extensively done. There are certain milk depots which deliver milk free on the order of the doctor under the Insurance Act, I know from experience, and from the observations of myself and a good many other people who take an interest in these matters, that the people who benefit are really not the poor, but those people who can well afford to buy their own milk, and who like to get something for nothing. They consider that here is an opportunity for them to get it. The poorest people really do not benefit. I therefore object altogether to the Clause. It is unfair to the ratepayers by reason of the competition and by reason of the expense, and it is unfair to the consumers.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to second the Amendment. I feel that the distribution of milk must be subject to the price which has been fixed by free competition. I do think it would be unjust that municipal authorities should be able to trade in milk and thereby and unfairly interfere with the legitimate duty of the milk producer. The hon. Gentleman who moved the omission of the Clause said that it was supposed to be in the interests of the poor. I venture to say that it will have exactly the opposite effect. I know that the production of milk at the present price scarcely pays the producer. If competition by local authorities is set up against them in disposing of this article I am very much afraid it will mean a great curtailment of production. In that case the price will rise, and poorer persons will suffer most in the diminished volume of milk for general use. I believe that this Bill will protect the quality of milk produced. Therefore no one can have any lack of confidence in purchasing milk under this Bill, for they will know that it is as clean and pure as milk can possibly be. There can be no reason for the setting up of these laboratories, for the

    1653
    general body of milk will be pure, and such as can be used without danger by the community, whether they be adults or infants. To meet the requirements and regulations of this Bill will undoubtedly need considerable experience, and occasion some anxiety on the part of the milk producer. Those concerned have done their best to secure pure milk, but as it is found desirable that there should be increased restrictions and requirements the milk producers are willing to submit to them, but they feel that they ought to have free competition, and they do not think that municipal authorities ought to trade in opposition to them.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Objection has been taken to this Clause because, it is said, it will allow the introduction of the thin end of the wedge. That thin end of the wedge has already been introduced. There are a certain number of milk depots at present in operation, though only one has been set up during the last eight years. Previously there were several established. Some of those have been closed. Those that now remain are rather more numerous than the hon. Member stated. There is one at St. Helens which was established in 1899, one at Liverpool; Battersea, Ashton-under-Lyne, Blackburn, Burnley, Lambeth, Leicester, and Sheffield. Except in respect of one or two established under local Acts, the legal position of these milk depots is at present uncertain. The expenses in some cases have been allowed by the Local Government Board under the Local Authorities (Allowance of Expenses) Act, which is a temporary permission given under exceptional circumstances, because of legislation which was before Parliament. It was anticipated that a Clause might be passed into law. Meantime, the Local Government Board used their powers to permit the financing of these establishments. If this Clause is struck out the effect will probably be—I do not say certainly—that several of the existing establishments already carrying on their work would have straightway to be closed. It is not the case cither that all these milk depots make losses or sell their products at the expense of the ratepayers. At Leicester and Sheffield, which provide a supply of milk. It is sold, so I am advised, without any loss to the ratepayer. The effect of these institutions is excellent on the health of the infants. At Liverpool, for example, where there is a milk depot of
    1654
    the Corporation conducted on a somewhat large scale, it has been found that the infants, although they are usually of a poorer physical health than the average, and for that reason have to go to the milk depot, have a much lower death rate than the towns as a whole. The town of Liverpool has a general infantile death-rate of 144 per 1,000; the infants fed at the milk depots have a death-rate of 93 per 1,000, about one-third less. The matter was discussed in Committee at some length; the Committee divided upon the subject, and decided to retain this Clause by 22 votes to 7. I trust that on a general review of the circumstances the House will permit this Clause to remain.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The House knows that I have a very strong objection to municipal trading. I will not go into that at the present moment, but I myself think it is unfair to the ordinary trader, and that it is disadvantageous to the public. However that may be, it is evident from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be able to carry the omission of this Clause if we went to a Division. Under those circumstances I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if we do not divide, whether he would be inclined to accept an Amendment which would provide shortly and simply that milk should not be sold at less than cost price at these depots? I do not mean to say that that is my view of the case. I strongly object to municipal trading, as I have said, but it is evident that we cannot carry our point. Therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would accept such an Amendment as I have suggested.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am inclined to think that that is not an unreasonable compromise. There is a strong feeling in the House against this Clause, and although the hon. Member does not command large battalions here at the moment, I am afraid he will have some in reserve over the way, and that perhaps will lead me to accept the suggested compromise.
    Mr. DAWES: I understood the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to say that Municipal depots were not necessary now because under the Insurance Act doctors are able to prescribe large quantities of milk. This Clause, as I understand it, is restricted to infants under two years of age, and it is news to me that insured

    1655
    persons are of that age. Therefore, it seems to me that that argument falls to the ground. May I also point out to the hon. Member that a committee which orders milk for insured persons orders it as an auxiliary; and may I further add that the consumption mentioned in this Clause is not tuberculosis, but another kind of consumption.
    Mr. BARNSTON: It appears to me in the first place that the Clause has nothing to do with the main idea of the Bill which is to get a pure supply of milk. I opposed the Clause in Committee, and I shall certainly do so now. I dislike municipal trading, and I dislike it the more becouse as originally introduced by this Clause, I thought it was exceedingly unfair to the farmer. The farmer might not only be undersold, but in a town might actually be paving rates so that he might be undersold in the business! I admit that the Amendment which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept takes away my last and chief reason. Therefore, personally, I shall not offer any opposition.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has informed us of the action of the Local Government Board in relation to municipal authorities who have established depots. Some of these have done so by virtue of powers under special Acts of Parliament. But for the Local Government Board to act as they have done, because they believed that in the future some Bill would pass, appears to me to be going entirely outside their duty. It seems to me that they have anticipated an Act of Parliament being passed—
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. Local authorities have, in fact, established these depots. They did not ask our permission. The question came up when the auditor came to deal with their accounts. It was found in some cases the power to establish these was doubtful, and under the powers specifically conferred upon the Local Government Board to meet such cases by the Local Authorities (Allowance of Expenses) Act, we allowed them to continue. We did not disallow the charges, because the matter was before Parliament.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I should have thought in these circumstances the charge ought not to have been allowed, and it seems to me that the Local Government Board were rather slack. Whatever may
    1656
    be the actual merits of this Clause, I think it will be agreed that in its present form it by no means prevents the local authority or corporation incurring such expenses again, and there is also no limit put upon the money that it to be spent, and thirdly, as far as I can read it, there is nothing to prevent the corporation starting dairy farming itself. I think if that is the intention of the Local Government Board the House could hardly agree to it. It may be desirable for municipalities to secure an entirely pure milk supply and to sell specially treated milk, but I hardly think the House would be prepared to give sanction to a corporation to start dairy farming which would compete with the local farmers. I hope if this Clause is finally passed, the right hon. Gentleman will see whether some limit of that kind is not inserted to prevent them starting a dairy farm, and also to put restrictions upon the money that may be spent in the first instance upon procuring plant.
    Mr. SANDYS: I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friends who have spoken on this side. I disapprove as much as anybody—generally speaking—of municipal trading, and I admit this Clause does seem to me to go outside the general purposes of the Bill. At the same time, I think there is a good deal to be said for exceptional treatment in regard to the provision of milk for infants under two years of age. I think it would be a great, pity if this Clause was struck out of the Bill, because I know that the shortage of milk for infants of this age does produce a very unfortunate effect upon the children of the poorer classes. I do not think it would in any way affect the position of the producers of the milk. If I thought so, I certainly would support the Amendment to strike out this Clause, but I do not think so, and I think it will have a very valuable result amongst the poorer classes, and that the expenditure involved would be very good from the economic point of view, and I am glad that an arrangement has been arrived at by which this Clause should remain part of the Bill.
    Mr. FORSTER: The promise of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me has removed a portion of the objections which I entertained to this Clause.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: Before we pass from this question I should like to make

    1657
    sure what is meant by the concession to be introduced limiting the sale of milk by the restriction as to cost price. I hope there will not be read into the words "cost price," the price also of the necessary plant for distribution of sterilised milk. When I have seen sterilised milk passing through the streets of Batter-sea, I felt what a splendid investment it is for the health of the people. Whether it be competition with retailing or competition with farming, it is useless to belittle the magnificent work which has been done and which has saved thousands of young lives and which I should be very glad to see spreading in crowded districts.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not know whether we all agree with people who talk about the advantages of sterilised milk. I thought the latest view was that it was rather injurious.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Treated milk.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It is different when the hon. Member says "treated milk." I think the Clause is open to the construction that corporations might run dairy farms. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, when considering the Amendment to be put in, that the Clause should be no longer open to that construction. I do not think it would be at all satisfactory if corporations, instead of buying their milk in the ordinary way from private producers, were themselves able to enter upon dairy farming.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think it is possible that the word "depots" for the sale of milk could be held to bear that meaning. No local authority has yet attempted dairy farming.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the words "and other things" in the Clause might be open to that construction.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: If I thought there was the least danger of any kind of farming being started by the local bodies, I should be the first to offer opposition to this Clause, but I am bound to say that reading the Clause as a whole, such fears are not founded on facts. I think it appears clear that under this Clause milk would have to be purchased from the farmers, and therefore I do not think that municipal trading is in danger of being introduced in that way. I hope that as the right hon. Gentleman has offered protection that milk should not be sold under
    1658
    cost price, the hon. Member may accept that and withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, after the word "sale" ["maintain depots for the sale of milk"], to insert the words "at not less than cost price."
    Sir W. ESSEX: I should like to know what is the meaning of "cost price." Does it mean the net cost of the milk, and not the cost inclusive of the cost of the whole paraphernalia introduced for treating it?

    CLAUSE 12.—(Supplemental Provisions.)
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "or" [" of any milk or dairies"], and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

    CLAUSE 13.—(Compensation to Existing Officers or Servants.)
    If in consequence of the passing of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof any officer or servant of any locality who held office at the passing of this Act suffers any direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office, or by' diminution or loss of fees or salary, he shall be entitled to have compensation paid to him for such pecuniary loss by the local authority, and such compensation shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "pursuant to the provisions of" ["shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of"], and insert instead thereof the words "in accordance with and subject to the conditions prescribed by."
    At end of the Clause insert the words "and that Section, with the necessary adaptations, shall apply accordingly."—[Mr. Dawes.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Provisions as to Offences.)
    (1) If any person commits an offence against this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first offence five pounds and in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds, and if the offence is a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues.
    (2) Proceedings against a dairyman for failure to comply with an Order made under the Second Schedule to this Act requiring the dairyman not to supply milk from a dairy may be taken before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction either in the place where the offence was committed or in the place where the dairy is situated, and shall be taken only by the authority by which the Order was made.
    (3) Where the occupier of a dairy is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon information duly laid by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge; and, if after the commission of the offence has been proved, the occupier of the dairy-proves to the satisfaction of the Court—

    (a) that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act and the Milk and Dairies Orders; and

    (b) that the said other person had committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent, or connivance;

    that other person shall be summarily convicted of the offence, and the occupier shall be exempt from any fine, and the person so convicted shall, in the discretion of the Court, be also liable to pay any costs incidental to the proceedings.
    (4) When it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the authority by or on whose behalf proceedings are about to be taken—

    (a) that the actual occupier of the dairy has used all due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act and the Milk and Dairies Orders; and

    (b) by what person the offence has been committed; and

    (c) that it has been committed without the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the occupier of the dairy and in contravention of his orders;

    proceedings shall be taken against the person who is believed to be the actual offender without first proceeding against the occupier of the dairy.
    (5) The duty of taking proceedings for enforcing the provisions of Section 1 of this Act shall rest on the county council or county borough council, without prejudice, however, to the power of a sanitary authority in a county to take such proceedings, and the duty of taking
    1660
    proceedings for enforcing the provisions of any Milk and Dairies Order shall rest on the local authority prescribed in the Order, and the clerk of the local authority or other officer whom the local authority may appoint, shall have power, if so authorised by the local authority, to institute and carry on such proceedings.
    (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act to the contrary all fines imposed in any proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the local authority in the exercise of their powers and duties under this Act shall be paid to the authority and carried to the credit of the fund out of which the expenses incurred by the authority under this Act are defrayed.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert the words "Provided that in cases where the Local Government Board direct that the council of a non-county borough shall exercise and perform within the borough the powers and duties of a county council under Sections 3 and 4 of this Act, the duty of taking proceedings for enforcing the provisions of Section 1 of this Act in such borough shall rest on the council thereof and not on the county council?
    Under Clause 1 the county council or borough council, without any prejudice to the local sanitary authority, impose the duty of preventing the sale of tuberculous milk. Clause 3 imposes the duty of stopping the supply in that case, and it is possible under Sub-section (4) for this duty to be specifically imposed upon the local authorities for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Act, that is to say, on a non-county borough. Clause 15 and these three Clauses make it the statutory duty in the non-county borough for the county councils to enforce the provisions of Clause 1, and it may well be that this over-lapping may induce the county councils in many cases to oppose the transfer under Clause 3, to the non-county borough councils, because they would feel there would be a great deal of over-lapping, and that it would be extremely difficult for them to carry out their statutory duties and to apportion the expenses if the same duties are partly performed by the non-county boroughs. In a matter of this kind there is a great danger of what is everybody's job becoming nobody's job, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, by accepting the Amendment, would make the Act far more effective.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This proviso deals with exceptional cases of certain non-county boroughs who have power under the Diseases of Animals Act. They also will have power of inspection of the cattle under Clauses 3 and 4 of this Act dealing with tuberculosis, because it is obviously undesirable that two authorities in the same town should be doing the same work. That being so, it will, I think, devolve upon them also to enforce the provisions of Clause 1, and it would bring confusion to the authorities if the county council should have this small fraction of a piece of work in a town, and that a borough council should do the rest. Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman is justified in suggesting that the whole should be treated as one, and the duties performed by one authority.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: Will he make it clear in the Bill that this is only to apply to those councils which have the power already?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This proviso relates to those cases—
    "where the Local Government Board direct that the council of a non-county borough shall exercise and perform within the borough the powers and duties of a county council under Sections 3 and 4 of this Act."
    Sub-section (4) of Clause 3 provides that:
    "The Local Government Board may by order direct that the council of any non-county borough within the county, which is a local authority for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894–1911, shall exercise and perform within the borough the powers and duties of the county council under this and the next succeeding Section."
    Therefore that limitation is imported into this proviso by the fact that it is in the Section referred to.
    Mr. BATHURST: I cannot admit the legal interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman puts upon the words of this Clause as embodying the words in Clause 3. If this is read by itself it is clear that it will be at the discretion of the Local Government Board to direct that a council of a non-county borough, which is not an authority for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts, shall exercise and perform these duties, which otherwise would fall on the county council. It is at the discretion and possibly the caprice of the Local Govern-
    1662
    ment Board, under considerable pressure from some non-county borough, to allow them to exercise these powers, and so constitute a little island in a large county council area, which may involve overlapping and less drastic treatment on the part of this non-county borough as compared with that exercised by the county of which it forms a part.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: These exceptions are in themselves undesirable, because you are giving to the authority with comparatively small interests. powers as to which all kinds of local pressure may be used, whereas in the case of a larger area it is not likely that the whole county is going to be effected by the local considerations of that particular area. I understand my right hon. Friend intends to limit this power to those non-county boroughs which have powers as defined in Clause 3. I agree with hon. Members opposite that if this proviso is passed as it stands it is doubtful whether it is limited to that. My right hon. Friend knows very well the different views held by local authorities on this matter, and I desire to take this opportunity of thanking him for going such a long way to meet us in having the provisions put into the Bill, and not being left to the discretion of any Government Department. I think it would be in accordance with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us if he makes it clear now, or undertakes to do it in another place, that this is directly limited to non-county boroughs, which already have the powers referred to.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say that I feel any doubt whatever on the matter, but after the views which have just been expressed there seems to be some ambiguity in the words. It is only a drafting point, and before the Bill reaches another place I will suggest a drafting Amendment to make the point quite clear.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Application to London.)
    (7) Where the authority in default is a Metropolitan borough council the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act. 1891, shall apply in all respects as if such default had been made under the said Act.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (7). after the word "of," insert the words "Section one hundred and one of."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

    CLAUSE 18.—(Short Title, Commencement, Extent, and Repeal.)
    (3) The enactments specified in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule, and there shall also be repealed, as from the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act, so much of any local Act as deals with any of the matters dealt with by any of the provisions of this Act.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "Third," and insert instead thereof the word "Fourth."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Diseases of Cows for the Purposes of Section One.
    Acute mastitis.
    Actinomycosis of the udder.
    Anthrax.
    Foot-and-mouth disease.
    Suppuration of the udder.
    Any other disease affecting cows which by a Milk and Dairies Order is declared to be a disease for the purpose of Section 1 of this Act.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "for the Purposes of Section One," and insert the words "in addition to tuberculosis to which Section One applies."—[Mr. C. Bathurst.]

    SECOND SCHEDULE.
    Procedure for Stopping Supply of Milk Under Section Three.
    (5) The responsible authority if, in their opinion, the dairyman has failed to show cause why an order should not be made, may make an order prohibiting him, either absolutely or unless such conditions as maybe prescribed in the order are complied with, from supplying for human consumption, or using or supplying for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption, any milk from the dairy until the order has been withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule.
    (14) If an order prohibiting the supply or use of milk is made under this Schedule without due cause, or if a responsible authority or medical officer of health unreasonably neglect or refuse to withdraw any such order, any dairyman, if not himself in default, shall be entitled to recover from the responsible authority full compensation for any damage or loss which
    1664
    he may have sustained by reason of the making of the order or of the neglect or refusal to withdraw the order.
    Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "dairy," to insert the words "or from any particular cow therein."
    The House will notice that this Schedule sets out the machinery by which milk may be tracked down to the particular dairyman and to the particular cattle in his dairy that are alleged to be producing impure milk. It may be a large dairy which is supplying a considerable amount of milk from animals that are entirely sound, and yet it may be from one particular cow that the trouble is traced. In that case there is no reason why the whole of this unfortunate man's business should be interfered with, and I think he should be allowed to continue his supply, and only the particular incriminated cow should be dealt with, and not the whole of the cattle in his dairy.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to second this Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The object which the hon. Member has in view is obviously a proper one, but we intended to cover that point by the words "an order prohibiting him, either absolutely or unless such conditions as may be prescribed in the order are complied with." One of those conditions might be that the milk from a certain cow which is suspected should not, for the time being, be sold. I would suggest to the hon. Member a slight alteration in his Amendment. It may be a case where two cows are suspected, and therefore I think I would suggest that his Amendment should read "or from any particular cow or cows therein."
    Mr. BATHURST: I accept that Amendment, and I will move it in that form.
    Words "or from any particular cow or cows therein," there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (14), to leave out the words "under this Schedule without due cause, or if a responsible authority or medical officer of health unreasonably neglect or refuse to withdraw any such Order, any dairyman, if not himself in default, shall," and to insert instead thereof the words "against a dairyman he shall, unless the Order has been made in consequence of his own default or neglect."

    1665
    The only compensation given to a farmer is in the event of his farm being closed and being wrongfully convicted, and on appeal he can recover compensation. A farmer may have his business entirely stopped from selling milk at all if one particular cow is found to be giving tuberculous milk, because the county council have the power to make an Order and completely stop the farmer's business. In those circumstances, it seems only reasonable and right, as in all other cases where in the interests of the public cattle are slaughtered and measures of that character are taken, that the same principle should be applied to a farmer and he should be given fair compensation. That seems to me to be a fair way of administering this Act. We all want to secure a pure milk supply, but everyone knows if this Bill is going to cost the dairy farmer money, and I suggest that it is not fair that the whole of the loss should fall upon the dairly farmer alone. If it is not his own default or neglect, I suggest that the dairy farmer should have full compensation, and I am simply extending the scope of the Clause.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I submit that this is not so serious a matter as the hon. Member supposes, and it is very little different from the Bill, because the Bill as it stands gives the right to compensation in the words of Sub-section (14) which roads, "if a responsible authority or medical officer of health unreasonably neglect or refuse to withdraw any such Order, any dairyman, if not himself in default, shall be entitled to recover from the responsible authority full compensation." The hon. Member's proposal alters the words rather than the substance of the Clause. I could not candidly say that in no circumstances would compensation be obtained under the hon. Member's Amendment which could have been obtained under the Bill, but the difference is extremely slight.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether this Amendment would mean a large or a small extension of the Bill.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Clause in the Bill contains the words "or if a responsible authority or medical officer of health unreasonably neglect or refuse to withdraw any such Order." My hon. Friend proposes to leave those words out, but I do not think he really wishes to do "that. It is conceivable that a farmer might be put to serious loss by a refusal
    1666
    to withdraw the Order. If these words are left out, I am not at all ceratin that he would get compensation under the words proposed to be put in.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that point, and, if it is so, I will put it right in another place. It is not intended to restrict the Schedule in any way.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Does not the Amendment mean in every case where an Order is made, unless the dairyman is in default, that he is to receive compensation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, but the cases are exceedingly rare in which any Order will be made at all. The power to make the Order is given really to bring pressure to bear on the farmer to induce him to allow his cows to be examined with a view to detecting the cow which is tuberculous. As soon as it is discovered the cow is slaughtered under the Tuberculosis Order, and consequently most effective measures are taken to prevent her giving any more tuberculous milk. The whole of this elaborate procedure is put in so as to bring pressure to bear on the recalcitrant farmers who will not allow their cows to be examined.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Words, "against a dairyman he shall unless the Order has been made in consequence of his own default or neglect," there inserted.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (14) leave out the words "or of the neglect or refusal to withdraw the Order."

    THIRD SCHEDULE.
    Amendment of Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
    (2) The local authority in whose district the sample was taken may take or cause to be taken one or more samples of milk in course of transit or delivery from the seller or consignor.
    Within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured from the purveyor he may serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours a sample of milk from the seller or consignor in the course of transit or delivery

    1667
    to the purveyor, unless a sample has been so taken since the sample was procured from the purveyor, or within twenty-four hours prior to the sample being procured from the purveyor, and where a purveyor has not served such notice as aforesaid, he shall not be entitled to plead a warranty as a defence in any such proceedings:
    Provided that the purveyor shall not have any such right to require that such a sample shall be taken in cases where the milk from which the sample procured from the purveyor was taken was a mixture of milk obtained by the purveyor from more than one seller or consignor.
    If a purveyor has served on the local authority such a notice as aforesaid, and the local authority have not procured a sample of milk from the seller or consignor in accordance with the foregoing provisions, no proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1G07, shall be taken against the purveyor in respect of the sample of milk procured from him.
    (5) The local authority of the district in which the first-mentioned sample was taken may, instead of, or in addition to taking proceedings against the purveyor of milk, take proceedings against the seller or consignor.
    (6) If a sample of milk of cows in any dairy is taken in course of transit or delivery from that dairy, the owner of the cows may, within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured, serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours a sample of milk from a corresponding milking of the cows, and the foregoing provisions shall apply accordingly:
    Provided that the person taking the sample shall be empowered to take any such steps at the dairy as may be necessary to satisfy him that the sample is a fair sample of the milk of the cows when properly and fully milked.
    Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the word "the" ["the seller or consigner"], and to insert instead thereof the word "such."
    This is not only a verbal Amendment. There is some substance in it. I move it in order to make quite certain that the seller or consignor is the seller or consignor to whom reference is made in the preceding paragraph, and from whom the purveyor actually receives the milk. That
    1668
    is my object, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELindicated assent.
    Question, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Word "such" there inserted.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (2), after the word "notice" ["he-may serve on the local authority a notice "], insert the words

    "stating the name and address of the seller from whom he received the milk and the time and place of delivery to the purveyor by the seller or consignor of milk from a corresponding milking and."
    Leave out the words "procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours," and insert instead thereof the words "take immediate steps to procure as soon as practicable."
    Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "from the seller or consignor" ["from the seller or consignor in the course of transit or delivery to the purveyor"].
    This is merely a drafting Amendment in order to make the meaning perfectly clear. I propose to leave out these words at this point, and to insert them later so that the paragraph will read, "Within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured from the purveyor he may serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure a sample of milk in the course of transit or delivery from the seller or consignor to the purveyor." If that is the intention, I would suggest that is the proper way to express it.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I agree that it is the better way.
    Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (2), after the word "delivery" ["in the course of transit or delivery to the purveyor"], insert the words "from the seller or consignor."
    Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (5), to insert the words
    "(b) If the seller or consignor is not himself the owner of the cows he shall

    1669
    have the same rights as against such owner and be subject to the same obligations and disabilities as are hereinbefore contained as respects the purveyor of milk."
    These words, not the words of my Amendment, but the words "seller or consignor," are rather ambiguous, and until one actually comes to paragraph (6) it is not quite clear whether the expression is intended to apply at all to the owner of cattle. So far as I understand the machinery, it appears to contemplate the purveyor of milk—that is, the shopkeeper—being impeached for selling impure milk, and this is calling upon the local authority, in fairness to him, to intercept milk passing from the seller or consignor, which, in most cases, will mean the wholesale dealer, to himself. It may be that the seller or consignor is not the wholesale dealer or middleman, but is himself the owner of the cows. If that is so, surely the machinery, in order to be perfect, ought to enable a sample to be taken, not only between the middleman and the actual shopkeeper in the town, but also in transitu between the producer of the milk and the middleman! Take the other case which may conceivably occur, where milk is provided straight from the cattle owner to the salesman in the town. The machinery should apply in that case also. I want really to supply a link which appears to be lacking in the machinery of this Clause, so that no injustice may be done to the farmer, if he happens to be the seller or consignor, in tracing back the impurities of the milk to his own premises, and, if necessary, to his cattle, and not leaving him in the position to be charged possibly with milk impurities for which he is not responsible, but for which the middleman or the wholesale dealer is responsible when dealing, possibly unfairly or even fraudulently, with various milks in his possession and on his premises.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member's object, of course, is an excellent one, but I submit that it is already provided for in the Bill. He contemplates three persons, A, B, and C, through whose hands the milk passes. Somebody takes a sample from C, who is a purveyor of milk, and C says, "I want you to take a sample from B." The purpose of the
    1670
    Amendment is to secure that B shall be entitled to say, "I want a sample of milk taken from A." That is done. B is also a purveyor of milk within the meaning of the Bill, and the whole Schedule applies to B just as much as it does to C. If you were to add all the letters of the alphabet to the chain, the whole Schedule would apply to each one as a purveyor of milk, so that I am advised the Amendment is really quite unnecessary. The Schedule as it stands applies in the manner desired.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is it not a fact that the ordinary interpretation of the word "purveyor" is a retailer?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Is it not a fact that in the Definition Clause the expression "purveyor of milk" is said to include "a seller of milk, whether wholesale or by retail"?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELindicated assent.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (6), to leave out the words "procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours," and to insert instead thereof the words "take immediate steps to procure as soon as practicable."
    Sir J. SPEAR: I think this a very desirable alteration, but should it not also apply to the dairyman? He is expected within forty-eight hours to give notice, but it might be some time before he had noticed himself that a sample had been taken. Could the right hon. Gentleman alter the previous forty-eight hours in the same way. It might occur that a dairyman would not himself receive notice in time to give notice that he wanted another sample taken. Surely the same argument applies in the case of the cowkeeper as it does in the case of the local authority.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He might delay giving notice until the occasion had really passed. He might extend it almost indefinitely. When you are dealing with local authorities you have some reliance that they will do the thing as speedily as may be, but, if you have an individual who is being proceeded against for adulteration, he may use every device the law allows him in order to put difficulties in

    1671
    the way of the procedure. I will consider the point again. I confess that my attention had not specially been drawn to it before, but I will consider it carefully, and, if there is any danger of a grievance and no danger of evasion of the law, I will do it.
    Sir J. SPEAR: A deputation from the Essex Farmers' Union urged me particularly to press this on the right hon. Gentleman. Could he meet it by extending it to sixty hours instead of forty-eight hours?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that point.
    Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Words, "take immediate steps to procure as soon as practicable," there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in paragraph (6), after the word "simple" ["a sample of milk from a corresponding milking of the cows"], to insert the words "or samples." I move this Amendment formally.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is much more than a formal Amendment, although it is only formally used. It is a very serious Amendment indeed. This is a provision which gives the owner of the cows the right to require the local authority to take a sample of milk from the cows, and the suggestion is that he should have the right of requiring—and the requirement must be obeyed—the local authority to take samples instead of a sample. That would give him the right of requiring them to take a sample from each cow. An obstructive farmer with a herd of 200 cows could make himself such a nuisance that no local authority would venture to take any action against him, no matter how great the suspicion, or how great the certainty might be, that he was really adulterating his milk. It really is not necessary. I do not think that it has ever been previously asked for, and I should be disposed to resist this Amendment.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I think there may be reasonable grounds for requiring that samples, rather than a sample, should be taken in the interest of the person liable to be accused.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then it would be necessary to alter the words "from the corresponding milking."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in the last line of the Schedule, to leave out the words "and fully."
    This is a case where a person, taking samples on behalf of the local authority, is given power to take any steps that he may deem to be necessary to satisfy himself that he has "a fair sample of the milk of the cows when properly and fully milked." He may decide that the cow is not fully milked unless the Strippings of the cow have been taken. On the other hand a cowkeeper may be in the habit of so milking his cows that the Strippings are not taken, and the result may be that the cow may be milked out to a greater extent on the occasion when the sampler visits the premises to the detriment of the milking on the following day. In other words, the standard may be either raised or lowered, because a particular sampler of the local authority may adopt a different system of milking to that usually practised on the farm. I am moving this on behalf of the Cheshire Dairy Farmers' Association, some of the leading members of which have expressed themselves strongly in favour of it.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this proposal. Although I generally agree with my hon. Friend, I should say that apparently he has never been used to milking cows himself, because if you do not take out the Strippings the animal soon goes dry, and it is well understood that the last milk is by far the best and richest. To leave out the word "fully" would, it seems to me, be very much against the cowkeeper.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) did not give us his experiences in the methods of milking cows. I am advised by the Board of Agriculture that these words are really necessary and that a sample cannot be properly obtained unless the Strippings are taken, because they are the richest part of the milk. In such a case the cowkeeper might have a right to complain that the cows were not fully milked. The Amendment

    1673
    might also provide a loophole which would enable a farmer who desired to defeat the purposes of the Bill to escape from its meshes.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. WORTH1NGTON EVANS: I do not want to discuss the merits of the Bill, because there are many old friends dealt with in it. Protests have always been made in the past that this is a wrong method of continuing legislation, and I want to say a word or two about the extension of the practice which the Government have been guilty of in including in this measure two portions of the National Insurance Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The reply to the hon. Gentleman is that he should raise that in Committee. The principle of the Bill is that certain laws shall be continued. If the hon. Gentleman objects to that principle as applied to all Bills, this is the time to discuss it; but if he objects to the principle so far as only one or two Bills are concerned, then he must raise the question on the Schedule.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I do object, of course, to the principle, because it includes a Bill which has never been subject to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill before. I submit I should be in order in referring to what the Government themselves have said with regard to this measure.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is objecting to one measure, and therefore his proper course is to take it on the Schedule.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  COAL MINES BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE—(Restriction with Respect to Shot-firing.)
    (1) No shot-hole shall be charged in any mine and no detonator inserted except by means of an appliance provided by the owner of the mine and of a type approved for the time being by the Secretary of State.
    (2) The Secretary of State, before approving any appliance under this Section, shall satisfy himself, as far as practicable, that it is of a type which allows the detonator—

    (a) to be inserted safely after the shot-hole has been rammed; and

    (b) to be withdrawn rapidly and safely from the hole.

    (3) The powers conferred on the Secretary of State by this Section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers for the regulation of the use of electricity or explosives in mines.
    (4) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and shall have effect as though it were included in Part II. of the Coal Mines Act, 1911.—[Viscount Wolmer.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Before I proceed to discuss it, I think I am justified in making a complaint against the Government for the manner in which they are rushing this Bill through. I have no possible objection to the Bill, but I think it is rather hard on the House that the Second Reading should be passed at two o'clock this morning, and that we should be asked to immediately proceed with it in Committee.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the Motion.
    Viscount WOLMER: I merely said it to account for certain difficulties which confront me in presenting this Clause to the House at such short notice. It is entirely the fault of the Government, and not my fault. This Clause is designed to make some attempt to minimise the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, that take place in our coal mines every year. I am

    1675
    sure this is a question which interests the House very much indeed—not only those Members that happen to sit for mining constituencies, but also the whole House, which I am certain would be willing and ready to do anything it could that would tend to reduce the terrible loss of life and limb which annually occur in our coal mines. This Clause only attempts to deal with one particular branch of the question—with what are known as shot-firing accidents—accidents which are due to some mistake or unlooked-for occurrence in shot-firing. In order to show to the House what a serious matter this is, I will quote some figures that have been courteously supplied to me by the Home Secretary. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, on the 16th June, for figures relating to shot-firing accidents that had taken place during the last ten years, and in his reply, which Will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date, he gives the figures for every year. I only propose to give the totals to the House. During that period there were 220 fatal shot-firing accidents, in which 517 men lost their lives.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Does this include misfires?
    Viscount WOLMER: I will come to that presently. With regard to non-fatal accidents, there were, in the same period, 1,634 in which 1,997 persons were injured. These figures relate to coal mines. In quarries, there were 89 fatal accidents in which 98 persons were killed, and 716 nonfatal accidents in which 888 persons were injured. It will be agreed that that is an appalling loss of life. It may be but a small proportion of the total death roll in that period, but still it is a considerable figure, and if we can do anything to reduce the number I am sure the House will be glad and ready to do it. In reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr, I have to say these figures of course include all shot-firing accidents. I asked the Home Secretary for a further analysis, but he was not able to supply it. It is very difficult indeed to analyse the exact cause of many accidents, but on that point I should like to remark that these figures do not really include the total loss of life that may have occurred through shot-firing accidents. There have been great accidents, like the Maypole Colliery Disaster, which have always remained a bit of a mystery, and it is conceivable that—
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the Noble Lord entitled to go into this general question? His proposed Clause has to do with the misfiring of shots, and I submit he is not entitled to go into the general question.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am dealing with shot-firing, and I am endeavouring to show to the House that a great number of lives are lost every year through shot-firing accidents, and that therefore it is necessary to make some regulation of this kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that the Clause does not seek to restrict the use of explosives, the Noble Lord is entitled to deal with the whole question of explosives in mines?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am merely giving figures, showing the number of deaths from shot-firing accidents.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a highly technical subject of which I do not claim to have much knowledge, and I shall be very glad if the Noble Lord will come to the immediate object of his Clause. I think he has stated sufficiently his general grounds, and I will now ask him to keep to the Clause.
    8.0 P.M.
    Viscount WOLMER: It is not my intention to take up the time of the House, and I do not understand why the hon. Member does not desire a full discussion of the subject. These accidents occur when a shot-hole has been rammed. In some cases the wires connecting the detonator with the electric battery are injured in the ramming, and when it is sought to explode the detonator there is a short circuit, the detonator does not explode, and there is a misfire. That is caused by the fact that the wires connecting the detonator to the battery are inserted before the hole is rammed. My Clause is designed to provide that the detonator shall be inserted only after the shot-hole has been rammed. The fact that the wires are sometimes broken, or that the insulation is knocked off, is a comparatively frequent cause of misfiring. There are a great number of misfires, but only a comparatively small proportion result in serious explosions. It should always be remembered that every misfire is to a certain extent a potential accident. Many of these shot-firing accidents have occurred through there having been in the first instance a misfire, then a second shot-hole has been drilled, and, an explosion having taken

    1677
    place, the old live detonator lies among the débris and somebody either knocks or hits it, or there is some pressure of weight upon it which explodes it and causes disaster. It is to remedy that particular form of accident that this new Clause is proposed. There is another sort of accident the Clause is intended to provide against, namely, cases where the detonator occasionally explodes in the actual ramming of the hole. If the detonator is inserted after the hole has been rammed, then the chance of its being exploded in that manner is very much lessened. The Clause gives the Secretary of State the fullest authority to exercise his discretion within the limits laid down.
    I must inform the House that I know of only one appliance that comes within the description of this Clause, the appliance with which everyone in the coal business is familiar, known as the "P.P." appliance. I have no sort of interest, direct or indirect, in that appliance or in the company. I am exceedingly unwilling to confer a monopoly by Act of Parliament upon a particular company or syndicate, or upon a particular form of invention. Therefore, I have tried to draft the Clause in such a way that the essential points of safety which are claimed by this particular invention are safeguarded, while it does not preclude competition with other inventions which fulfil these conditions. If the drafting of the Clause can be improved, I should, of course, welcome any assistance hon. Members can give in that direction. Although if this Clause were adopted it might possibly have the effect of bringing a large profit to those interested in this particular invention, yet when it is a case of saving human life that is not a reason which ought to deter this House from insisting upon anything which it thinks is essential to the greatest safety. If it is a case of the saving of the lives of men and boys we ought not to be deterred from passing this Clause by the fact that there is an invention in which a company is interested who would perhaps make a profit if the Clause were carried into operation.
    No doubt various objections will be raised to the Clause. In the first place, some hon. Members may say that if this invention is satisfactory and affords all that is claimed for it, why not leave it to be voluntarily adopted by coal-owners? That is a very legitimate criticism, but in these days of keen competition there is
    1678
    always a difficulty in introducing a new system of this sort. I believe the system has been tried in several collieries and, generally, with great success. It undoubtedly increases the cost of production to the extent of about one-fifth of a penny per ton. That is not a very large sum, but when you are dealing with thousands of tons it may come to a considerable amount. I do not think it is the cost which prevents colliery owners from taking up an invention of this sort, because I am perfectly certain that if colliery owners were convinced that any invention would increase the safety of life they would adopt it, no matter what the cost might be. The real difficulty in this matter is that there is an innate conservatism, which I should be very glad to see exercised on other subjects, among colliery managers and miners. Those who have had experience of these matters will agree that it is very often the case that a new invention which is subsequently universally adopted at first meets with considerable opposition, especially from masters and men, merely on account of their conservatism and dislike to adopting a new system. I believe that is a real difficulty. That is why I desire to make the use of this particular form of appliance compulsory, because it would overcome the difficulty and tend to increase safety in the mines.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: Will the Noble Lord say whether he desires this particular form of appliance to be adopted?
    Viscount WOLMER: Certainly not. All I desire is what is put down in the new Clause.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There is only the P.P. Shot Company.
    Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Member can show me any way in which the drafting of the Clause can be improved so as to make it wider, I shall only be too glad. I particularly do not want to confer a monopoly on the P.P. people. All I desire is that these provisions, which will make for greater safety in mines, should be made compulsory, and that there should be free competition amongst all firms who can supply appliances of the sort. I may be asked what argument have you to show that this system of shot-firing will make for greater, safety in mines. One of the strongest arguments that can possibly be brought forward is that we have a very strong expression of opinion from miners

    1679
    themselves on the subject. A few days ago I asked the Home Secretary:—
    "Whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by miners or their trade union representatives. calling upon the Government to make compulsory the use of some safety shot-firing appliance in coal mines; and, if so, whether he can state which of them were miners' trade unions, and how many men were represented in each case?"
    The right hon. Gentleman's reply was:—
    "I have received copies of resolutions from various associations or branches, including the chief firemen's associations, the South Wales Miners' Federation, and branch committees of the Derby. Durham, and Nottinghamshire Miners' Federations, but I am unable to say how many men were represented in each case."
    I can give the right hon. Gentleman a much longer list of important trade unions that have passed resolutions on this subject. Among them will be found the South Wales and Monmouthshire Colliery Examiners' Association, the General Federation of Colliery Firemen's Examiners' and Deputies' Associations of Great Britain, Derbyshire, Under-Managers' and Deputies' Institute, Durham Deputy Overmen's Mutual Aid Association, the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association, the South Wales Miners' Federation, and many others. I have scores of resolutions which have been forwarded to me on this subject. These are the men who work in the mines, and whose lives are in jeopardy. If there is a body of opinion which I trust on questions of this sort, it is that of the men whose lives and the fortunes of whose families are involved. It is a strong thing for this House to set at nought the strong expressions of opinion which have been conveyed in the numerous resolutions which I have here, and which I shall be happy to show to any hon. Member, although I will not detain the Committee by reading them. I have also been shown a letter from a colliery manager who has tried this particular invention, and who stated that prior to its use they had an average of two misfires per week, but since using it they have had no misfires at all. It is true they have only been using it for six months.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Where was this?
    Viscount WOLMER: It is a private letter, and I can show it to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no authority to make it public. I have another letter from a colliery manager which I think I can read. It is from Mr. John Barker, of the Bishop Middleman Quarry.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Written to whom?
    Viscount WOLMER: The inventor of this appliance.
    Mr. E. JONES: Hear, hear!
    Viscount WOLMER: Have hon. Members any objection to a company getting hold of an invention of this sort and promoting it? They are perfectly entitled to do so, and their recommendations should be taken by this House at their face value, knowing where they come from. The expression of opinion by a colliery manager written to this firm is a testimony that ought to be taken into account. It says:—
    "Every misfire has been successfully dealt with during this period without the necessity of wasting a single charge or the labour of boring for holes. In my opinion with the aid of this method the terror of misfires and hang-fires should entirely disappear, while the risk which has always existed under the old method is entirely obviated."
    Mr. McKENNA: Is this apparatus in general use in that quarry?
    Viscount WOLMER: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that. Then there is another opinion which I should like to quote, and which I know will carry great weight in this House, the opinion of the hon. Member (Mr. Brace). He has stated that in his opinion it is a great pity that this appliance is not in use in every colliery in the county. I think that is a very important declaration. This particular invention was the work of a practical collier who was acquainted with the conditions, and who personally had personal reason to know the danger of shot-firing accidents. Then there is another point which might be urged by the Government, and that is that this Clause, extends to all mines, whereas the arguments I have been using only apply where electrical shot-firing is carried out. That is perfectly true. This form of safety appliance only applies, I think, to electrical shot-firing. The reason why I have made it applicable to all mines is that if it is going to make for greater safety, it ought to be extended everywhere. Cost ought not really to enter into the consideration at all, and if we are considering safety and believe that a certain system will make for greater safety, it ought to be applied in every direction. As a matter of fact, the cost of installing electricity for shot-firing I do-not believe will be very much greater than the additional cost that is necessitated by this invention in other directions.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Viscount WOLMER: That obviously could not be applied there. If the hon. Member has any Amendment to propose on that score, I should be only too glad to co-operate with him, but he knows perfectly well that in the more dangerous mines where there is a high percentage of dangerous gas, electricity is compulsory, and therefore I do not see why it should not be made compulsory in other directions as well. I offer this new Clause to the House and I hope they will give it very sympathetic consideration. I think I have been able to show that there is a great weight of expert opinion behind it. There is the expert opinion of the men themselves, and I should like to know how we can discountenance that, and can afford rot to pay great respect to it. I think I have been able to show that the increased cost would not be very great, and that in any case it ought not to count where the safety of our fellow citizens working underground is involved, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will give this proposal a sympathetic hearing. If anything can be done to increase the safety of our mines I am sure this House will do it, and, therefore, I commend it to the House with great confidence.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord desires to increase safety in mines. So do we all. The Noble Lord desires to avoid the creation of a monopoly. So do we all. The Noble Lord is anxious that what he describes as a handsome profit should not be stolen from a private company by Act of Parliament. So are we all. We all have a common object. Strangely enough this Amendment, more or less, defeats every object which he has in view. I am sanguine enough to hope that before this Debate is concluded the Noble Lord will not proceed with this new Clause. He is asking this Committee to convert itself into an expert Committee in order to determine the safety of a particular appliance. He may accept it from me, on the best expert advice of the country, that this Clause means one particular apparatus and no other. There is no other apparatus except the P.P. which would satisfy the language of this Clause. It is a patent apparatus. He may accept it as an absolute fact that there is no other apparatus at present in the market, and no amendment of the Clause which we could accept would take away that character from it unless it excluded the P.P. apparatus. So he must accept it that in this Clause he is proposing that we should
    1682
    convert ourselves into an expert Committee in order to impose upon the whole colliery industry a particular apparatus which is the monopoly of a private company.
    The Noble Lord will agree that at the Home Office we have expert advisers of as great experience as any persons in the country. This apparatus has been examined, tested, and reported upon. There is no animus against it. It was considered so favourably that in September of last year it was permitted, and from that moment it became open for the whole colliery industry of this country to adopt the P.P. in every case in which it was desired to adopt it. There is a friendly feeling for this invention, but my experts who advised me in the use of the P.P. apparatus have also advised me, and have repeated that advice to-day, that the use of this apparatus is not one whit safer than conformity with the ordinary Regulations which govern shot-firing. Will the Noble Lord really ask the House to give a judgment upon an expert matter of this kind contrary to the expert advice of the responsible Department, who tell him that while they have nothing to say against this device, its use does not render shot-firing any safer than conformity with the ordinary Regulations? Will he still ask the House to give a monopoly to a company which is not going to confer upon it, as he says, perhaps a profit, but is going to give them a monopoly in the firing of millions, even scores of millions, of shots, every year? If the Noble Lord had considered what he was doing, I am sure he would not have lent himself to this proposal for a single instant. Since September this apparatus has been allowed. I have not the figures as to the number of shots fired for the last year, but in 1912 there were upwards of 40,000,000 shots fired underground. In the ten months since the apparatus has been available there have been over 30,000,000 shots fired. What experience has the Noble Lord got of this apparatus? Has it been fired in hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands? How has its use resulted? What does the Noble Lord know about it?
    Viscount WOLMER: You have got the information with respect to a number of experiments.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will come to that in a moment. How much has the apparatus been used? Has it been in general use in a commercial sense in any colliery in

    1683
    the country? He cannot say that it has, and yet he would ask this House to give a monopoly of this magnitude and enormous value to a particular company that own the patent rights in the apparatus. I do not blame the company. They have done their best with me. I have had letters on the subject. I have been approached a great many times from every quarter of the country by people who have strongly recommended this apparatus to my consideration, and I have replied that it is a new apparatus. Let people who are concerned, and who, the Noble Lord says, would adopt it in mines for safety, independent of the cost, take it up if it really effects the object which he has in view. Can he give the name of a single colliery where it has been adopted and is in general use? This company is a very clever advertising concern, and it has had demonstrations of the use of this particular apparatus before meetings of representatives of collieries, who have been much impressed with the. advantages and excellence of the invention. I am not denying the excellence of the invention. I am not disputing its value, and I have no doubt that if the representatives of a number of collieries are brought to see a friendly demonstration of that kind, they may be induced to go away enthusiastic from the friendly entertainment, and to pass resolutions in favour of this particular apparatus. Is. that a reason for asking Parliament to give a monopoly to the company? The Noble Lord does not know what he is asking. It is a monopoly which is intended to abolish the use of firing by squibs and fuses. He is going to abolish all that, and insist on the uniform use of electricity in all the mines of the country where it does not exist now, and, while making that proposal, his experience is founded on a few demonstrations of the use of the apparatus. I would ask the Noble Lord really to consider what is the position. When he can come to the House and say that this apparatus has been tested and approved by prolonged commercial use in collieries A, B, C and D, and that the employers have generally found it to be more safe than the ordinary methods of shot-firing, he may then be in a position to offer advice. With great respect, I should hesitate to recommend the apparatus for which this company has the monopoly. I would hesitate to make such a recommendation to this House on such limited
    1684
    experience as we have at present. I hope the Noble Lord will not insist on this Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think 670 telegrams have been sent out by the Noble Lord.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am not responsible for that.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The telegram is marked "Victoria Street," and says:—
    "Viscount Wolmer invites your support of the Coal Mines Bill, Which is expected to come on on 7th May."
    Viscount WOLMER: I was only informed of the telegram after it was sent. It was sent after I had informed the syndicate that I was going to move this Amendment. They asked me whether they might use my name to say that I was bringing this matter forward, and I said "Yes." I was only informed of the telegram afterwards. I would not have sent it in my name, for I have no desire to move Members of the House on a particular proposal of that sort. That telegram was sent out owing to a misunderstanding on the part of those who did send it out.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have no complaint to make of this company. It is one of the best organised from the commercial standpoint that has ever come within my experience. The Noble Lord sent the questions which he has asked to every Member of the House. The company have sent all the statistics to every Member of the House, they have also sent every conceivable Government Return published on the subject, and they have taken every possible means they can to point out the evils of shot-firing. I have some sympathy with this invention. I think it is an invention which can be used with advantage; probably it will be a useful invention for preventing shots in pits, and I may tell the Noble Lord—I think he will be surprised to hear it—that I have done my best to make the Home Office give it a test in mines. It was not possible for this apparatus to be used in coal mines without a Special Order from the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman very carefully considered the matter and gave a special permit for one of these appliances to be used in a mine of which I am the owner. The appliance was tried, and on the whole it was favourably reported on, with the exception that the shot-firers were not able to go round the mine carrying this with them, because they had

    1685
    to crawl on their knees and hands. Apart from that, it worked well, and the cost of the apparatus is only a few shillings. The number that would be required in a colliery in any case would not exceed ten or a dozen or twenty.
    Therefore the cost of providing the apparatus is absolutely nothing worth considering. It would, of course, be profitable for the company if its use was spread over the whole of the mines of the country. It would be a very profitable transaction if they could get its use made compulsory. It has been said that colliery owners are conservative in regard to the adopting of new methods. The Noble Lord might give us credit for having gone into this question, and tried the apparatus. In the colliery where this appliance was tried the manager is a young and energetic man who is desirous of doing everything possible in adopting methods to secure safety. He states that he has not adopted it on account of its structural weakness. The company approached the Miners' Federation and asked them to make the use of the appliance compulsory. I understand that the Miners' Federation refused to do so. They said that they were in favour of an appliance of this kind if it would prevent accidents in mines. I think still with the Noble Lord there is something to be said for the apparatus. If the Noble Lord put down an Amendment to the Bill providing that the Home Secretary, if satisfied that an appliance of this character not of a patent form would reduce shot-firing, should have power to prescribe it, I should be in favour of it. On the merits of the question I do not think that this Committee, which is not composed of experts, having regard to the fact that this apparatus has not been reported on by any Commission or any practical people, should order it to be used. I am sure that the Noble Lord must see that it is not right to ask the House of Commons, without much fuller information, to come to a decision such as he proposes in a matter which affects the life and safety of men in mines. If the Noble Lord had moved his Amendment in the form that I have indicated, I should have supported him. I had a similar Amendment to put down to this Bill, and the Home Secretary came to me and said, "This is an agreed Bill. We are responsible for it. We are responsible if we do not carry out our promise. It is a very proper Bill." That being so, on no side of the House
    1686
    have any Amendments been put down, either by the Liberal party, the Labour party, or the Conservative party. The Bill having been agreed upon, I hope that the Noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I think that a few words from these benches might not be out of place. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Baronet says, that this Bill is really an agreed Bill. It may be remembered that at the beginning of the Session very strong representations were made from these benches as to the terrible mortality from accidents taking place in the mines, and as to what we held to be the inadequacy of the Government's proposals in dealing with those accidents. The whole matter was very well ventilated in this House, and the Amendments proposed from these benches were subsequently withdrawn. After that the Miners' Federation was still hopeful that the Government would take effective measures. Of course, it is not for us now to indulge in any reproaches. I think that it is very probable that Government Departments find themselves quite unable, even with the best of intentions, to carry out their desires, and everybody knows the immense pressure of public business, and especially the immense pressure on the Home Office. After all we are inclined to blame Government Departments a great deal too much, and I say quite openly that the work of the Home Office is one that reflects the greatest possible credit upon it. When we know the multifarious objects with which that Department is concerned, and the immense output of work that passes through its hands, I for one wonder how it can get through all its work. But, apart from the merits or the demerits of a particular Department, I do know that the work of the Session has been tremendously heavy. The Miners' Federation did meet the Home Secretary with a view to pressing on him the desirability of strengthening this Bill, which he promised at the back-end of the Session of 1912. The terrible accident, on which I need not dwell, happened, and it was felt that there were certain deficiencies in the law, and it was thought desirable that those deficiencies should be removed. This Bill really meets those particular deficiencies, and when the Federation saw the Home Secretary he pointed out that he was quite unable to do more than redeem his promise, and that if we did really desire

    1687
    to press forward Amendments of a controversial character, he could not carry out the promise which he desired in every sense to redeem.
    I think that the Noble Lord ought not to be taunted in any way with the object of this Clause. It is a Clause with which we should all agree if it did not confer a monopoly. I think that everybody who listened to the Noble Lord must admit, at least, that he is endeavouring to make himself thoroughly well informed on this subject, and everybody agrees as to the perfect sincerity of his motives. He represents a mining constituency near my own. But I do not think that because a man sits on the Conservative Benches we ought to impute his motives in a matter concerning the safety of workers in mines. I am very glad to feel that he is associating himself so particularly with the question of safety in mines. But this is a Clause which really would not carry out the objects intended. It is absolutely impossible for it to do so. I speak from close personal knowledge. At the present moment it is impossible to say "there is a detonator which can be either safely withdrawn or safely inserted." Accidents have happened under conditions under which one would have thought that it would be almost impossible for such accidents to happen. I do not wish to ramble into reminiscences, but only the other week I attended an inquest upon a person who was ramming with a wooden rammer. With a detonator of this kind everybody thought that there would be no possible accident, yet the poor fellow was blown to pieces. In such circumstances it is quite impossible to say, until this kind of thing is investigated in a far more ample manner than has yet been the case, that these conditions can be complied with.
    This House is sincerely desirous of doing all that it can to lessen detonating accidents. But if we had introduced an individual Clause of this kind, the colliery owners themselves and all interested in collieries might very well say, "You are imposing on us obligations for the usefulness of which no prima facie case has been established. You cannot prove to us that the object which you are endeavouring to attain will be secured by this Clause." In such circumstances I hope that the Noble Lord will withdraw the Clause for the time being, hoping that
    1688
    when a new Session gives him a better opportunity, and his information is of a larger kind than at present exists, he may proceed to carry out his object, with which we are all in unison. This is really an agreed Bill. We are all desirous to narrow the margin of controversy, and I sincerely hope that the Noble Lord will withdraw the Clause and let the Bill pass as an agreed Bill.
    Mr. WATSON: I think that everyone is agreed that this question of shot-firing is one of the most important questions connected with the safety of mines and coal miners. Undoubtedly it is a matter to which the Home Office, as well as all the other experts who are familiar with this question, would be well advised to give the closest attention. I quite agree with what has been suggested that the time is not quite right for the application of a. Clause such as this. I thoroughly appreciate and accept the situation of this particular Bill with which we are dealing. It is vital to get it passed in view of the sad accident to which reference has been made. It will be a great improvement on the existing law, and as such I welcome-it. I, myself, represent a constituency which to a very large extent is very deeply interested in the mining industry, and I am sure, in common with other hon. Gentlemen, we are all, at any rate, anxious to do the best we can, and not only as well as possible, but as speedily as possible, to promote the safety of life in mines, although we equally wish not to hurry too fast, or to adopt too speedily any new remedy which at first sight may appear to be good. I am in full sympathy with the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I agree also with the suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    Viscount WOLMER: Before we go on with the Amendment I should like to say one word in reply to what was said by the Home Secretary in regard to monopoly. I feel that it is a real difficulty that if somebody makes a good invention it confers a monopoly, but if it is going to make for greater safety in the mines, I think it ought to be granted by this House. Personally, I would confer it even upon the Home Secretary, if it made him a millionaire ten times over, if I felt that the effect of it would be to produce greater safety in the dangerous calling of the miner. I feel the full force of what has been said by hon. Members on the

    1689
    other side, representing both the colliery owners' point of view and the miners' point of view, and, in the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the

  SCHUDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1912–13. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

  —

  33,885

  17

  3

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  —

  159,848

  19

  6

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services

  —

  9,110

  12

  5

  4

  Martial Law

  40

  16

  8

  —

  5

  Educational Services

  5,854

  2

  7

  —

  6

  Scientific Services

  —

  204

  11

  11

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  20,615

  11

  11

  —

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

  I. Personnel

  —

  224,539

  9

  6

  II Matériel

  —

  768,252

  6

  3

  III. Contract Work

  1,046,500

  3

  1

  —

  9

  Naval Armaments

  —

  246,953

  7

  2

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

  554,161

  7

  4

  —

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  24,199

  7

  8

  12

  Admiralty Office

  —

  2,836

  2

  5

  13

  Half Pay and Retired Pay

  —

  15,952

  8

  0

  14

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  —

  1,435

  17

  7

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities

  6,038

  3

  10

  —

  —

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  —

  3,760

  2

  9

  Total

  1,633,210

  5

  5

  1,490,979

  2

  5

  Net Surplus

  £142,231 3 0

  31st day of March, 1913, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  1,633,210

  5

  5

  Total Deficits

  …

  1,490,979

  2

  5

  Net Surplus

  …

  142,231

  3

  0

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1913, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Army Services, 1912–13. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  16,949

  16

  11

  —

  2

  Medical Establishment: Pay, etc.

  —

  363

  0

  11

  3

  Special Reserve

  18,243

  12

  10

  —

  4

  Territorial Forces

  71,474

  3

  6

  —

  5

  Establishments for Military Education

  1,845

  11

  9

  —

  6

  Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  —

  4,935

  17

  3

  7

  Supplies and Clothing

  —

  44,109

  5

  3

  8

  Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

  1,420

  4

  5

  —

  9

  Armaments, Aviation, and Engineer Stores

  —

  84,664

  14

  1

  10

  Works and Buildings

  82,045

  10

  6

  —

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  4,095

  13

  6

  —

  12

  War Office

  4,037

  8

  5

  —

  13

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

  24,190

  6

  7

  —

  14

  Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

  —

  1,809

  7

  3

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

  2,463

  16

  10

  —

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

  —

  6,022

  8

  0

  Total

  226,766

  5

  3

  141,904

  12

  9

  Net Surplus

  £84,861 12 6

  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Friday).

  MOTOR OMNIBUS AND TROLLEY VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
  Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [20th July], as communicated the Resolution, "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire and report as to the present Law relating to the running of Motor Omnibuses and Trolley Vehicles under statutory powers and otherwise;

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  226,766

  5

  3

  Total Deficits

  …

  141,904

  12

  9

  Net Surplus

  …

  £84,861

  12

  6

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  whether any amendment is necessary with respect to the control to be exercised by local authorities; and what contribution, if any, should be payable towards the cost of road maintenance by the proprietors of such vehicles," be now considered.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That one additional day be allotted to the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. GULLAND: I have to announce that the first business to be taken tomorrow will be the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II, Amendment) Bill, and then the Housing Bill, in Committee.

  SPECIAL RESERVE AND TERRI- TORIAL FORCE.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. McCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to ask whether there is anyone now on the Front Bench who can give us information in reference to the announcement of calling out the Special Reserve and the Territorial Force? I observe in the printed announcement mention is made of Section 13 (2) and (8) of the Territorial Reserve Forces Act. I have referred to the Act, and I can find no such provision in it.
  1694
  There is Section 13, Sub-section (2), and there are two further Sub-sections (a) and (b). I presume 8 is a misprint for a. That Sub-section provides that the special section of the Territorials may be called out for service either in any place outside the United Kingdom or for military service for purposes of defence at such places in the United Kingdom as may be specified in their agreement whether the Territorial Force is embodied or not. I would be glad if we can be correctly informed as to whether those have been called out in any place outside the United Kingdom; whether it has been limited to that, or whether they are called out under the Section in general which provides for both.
  Mr. GULLAND: I can say nothing at all, and I do not think the hon. Member has given notice to anybody.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There has not been any time to give notice. I have just seen it on the tape. It is very important that we should have accurate information.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes before Nine o'clock.