Lords Sitting of 20 March 1906

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Viscount Powers-court to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

SAT FIRST.
Francis James, Lord Bishop of Liverpool, was (in the usual manner) introduced
The Earl of Ilchester sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Duke of Sutherland took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified, and Bill re ported, with Amendments.
Vauclain's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [H.L.]; Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]; Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]; Kidderminster Gas Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  PROCEDURE.
  Leave given to the Viscount Selby to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons (pursuant to message
  178
  of yesterday), if his Lordship think fit, and his Lordship consenting thereto, a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (AMENDING ORDER, No. 2.)
  Order amending Final Order, No. 1130, made under Section 11 (8) of the Education Act, 1902.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant in pursuance of the provisions of Section 23 (8) of the Act, dated March 5th, 1906, and instructions with respect to the inspection of estates issued by the Estates Commissioners in accordance therewith.
  LOAN FUND BOARD OF IRELAND.
  Sixty-eighth Annual Report, 1905.

  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Regulations, etc., made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the administration of the Aliens Act, 1905.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the Council of the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain shops within the borough: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.I.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I am glad to be able to state that it is not, at any rate in its main points, of a controversial character as between the two sides of the House. In fact, I believe I am right in saying that had the late Government remained in office the noble Marquess

  179
  opposite (Lord Londonderry) would in all probability have introduced a similar if not a precisely identical Bill. Since, however, this proposed measure is the outcome of a considerable amount of discussion outside, and since also the subject is one which is of great interest to several classes of people in the country, and in no small degree to the public at large, it will be right, I think, that I should explain as briefly as I can the details of the Bill to your Lordships.
  The first clause deals with the schedule of poisons. At present the sale of poisons is governed by the Pharmacy Act of 1868, which contains a schedule; but as science has advanced, and the lessons of experience have been learned, various additions have been made to that schedule by Order in Council. Those additions are now incorporated in the Bill, and one or two further additions, as your Lordships will see, are proposed.
  Clause 2 deals with a very important matter. There has been for some time past a strong demand on the part of the agricultural and horticultural interests for some extension in facilities for the sale of poisonous substances used by them in their business. Last year, I think, the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Fellowes, received a deputation which urged upon him increased facilities for the sale of poisonous substances of that kind. In October last, at a meeting of the Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland— of course a very important body—a resolution was passed making a similar request; and I have no doubt that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees will bear me out in saying that when he was at the Board of Agriculture similar demands were frequently made. It is proposed, therefore, that local authorities should have power to give licences to traders who are not chemists under certain circumstances to sell these articles. It is not, however, intended in any way to supersede the ordinary business of chemists in this matter, and it is only in districts where there are no chemists' shops that, as a rule, it is proposed that these powers should be given.
  The article which, perhaps, will be more affected than any by this provision is sheep dip, which, as your Lordships
  180
  are aware, is as a rule of a very poisonous character. The most popular and generally-used sheep dip contains a very large amount of arsenic. A large sheep farmer will probably use several hundredweight of arsenic in the course of the year; and it has been found, particularly, for instance, in remote districts in Scotland, that sheep farmers have sustained no small inconvenience through having to send a great distance to secure the raw materials of sheep dip, and it is hoped that by giving licences to tradesmen who are not chemists to sell them, the convenience of sheep farmers will be greatly added to. Then I may also remind your Lordships of the great extension of spraying with various poisons for the destruction of insect and fungus enemies of different crops and plants which has taken place, and horticulturists will no doubt find a similar convenience in this provision.
  I believe some objection has been raised, though I do not know whether it is now pressed, to the inclusion of arsenic in the substances thus to be sold. But arsenic has the dignity of having an Act of Parliament all to itself, by which its sale is regulated, and that Act contains the provision that arsenic sold for horticultural purposes has to be coloured in a different way, so that it can be distinguished from other substances, and that the danger of using it maybe minimised. It is a more or less essential part of this clause that arsenic should be retained among the substances thus to be sold. The draft regulations which it is proposed to make by Order in Council under this clause are already prepared, and it would probably be for the convenience of those interested in this subject—the Pharmaceutical Society and others—if those regulations are promptly laid on the Table, and therefore I propose to do that on an early date.
  The third clause of the Bill deals with an entirely different subject. It deals with a matter which is of interest to the Pharmaceutical Society, and also one in which an alteration is, we think, required for the protection of the public. Its effect is that any person who carries on the business of a chemist in more than one shop shall, on premises which he does not look after himself, he being, of course,

  181
  a registered chemist, appoint in each case a registered chemist to look after the business. That is a provision which we consider is required for the protection of the public. I daresay your Lordships may remember that in the famous case of Bardell and Pickwick there was a juryman who, having unsuccessfully pleaded to be released from performing his duty, explained that he had left behind in charge of his shop an errand boy who, although a very nice boy, was thoroughly unacquainted with drugs, and the prevailing impression on his mind was that Epsom salts was oxalic acid, and syrup of senna was laudanum. That is, no doubt, an extreme instance, but I mention it to show how important it is that all dispensing of drugs, and the general management of the business of a chemist in every shop, should be conducted by a thoroughly qualified person.
  Clause 4 deals with a question which has given rise to a certain amount of controversy. As I daresay your Lordships know, in the poorer districts of the great towns particularly, chemists' shops are very largely carried on by companies. A demand at one time was made—and I think it is hardly possible that that demand could be seriously pressed, because it is one which it would be quite impossible to meet—that everybody having an interest in a company of that kind should of necessity be a qualified chemist. That demand, as I say, is an entirely impossible one to meet. It is of no interest to the public to know how a chemist's shop is financed; but it is of the greatest importance to? know how it is managed; and this clause provides that in any case where chemists' shops are carried on by a company there must be bona fide management by a qualified person, whose name shall be conspicuously placed in the shop, and in order to prevent any infraction of this provieion, further words propose to enact that any breach of that regulation shall not merely be visited on the unqualified person who may be managing the shop, but on the company itself. That, it appears to me, is an exceedingly important provision. It is one to which, in fairness, no objection can be taken, and it is one which I hope will be carried without difficulty.
  182
  I may say, at the same time, that it is not at all the intention of His Majesty's Government to interfere in any way with the carrying on of these companies' shops. I have no doubt they do supply a want. Pears have been expressed that if these companies and their shops are interfered with the poor will not be able to obtain a proper supply of cheap drugs. How far cheap drugs are an unmixed benefit to the poor, or to any one else, may be a matter of opinion. I remember it used to he said a few years ago of the two principal consulting doctors then in London that they differed only in this that one had lost all faith in every drug, whereas the other retained some slight glimmering belief in two or three drugs. Consequently I do not know that access to very cheap drugs need be regarded as an unmixed blessing to the poor. But still, if they want them it is perfectly right that they should be able to have them without any interference. We do not intend to interfere with the provision of cheap drugs of this class.
  The next clause—Clause 5, gives certain powers to the Pharmaceutical Society: in the first place, by making it more easy for them to carry out their examination; and secondly,—and I think this is a useful provision—by enabling them to recognise colonial diplomas without further examination in this country. The sixth clause makes a certain change with regard to the sale of the more important and best known mineral acids which, as your Lordships know, are very largely used in many branches of commerce and manufacture. It proposes to enact, not that their sale should be restricted so far as concerns persons by whom they are to be sold, but that precautions of the well-known kind with regard to the marking and nature of the bottle or vessel in which they are contained should be carried out, as though they were poisons included in the schedule.
  The seventh, which is the last operative clause, deals with the application of the Bill to Ireland. I do not know that at this stage of the measure it is necessary to explain the rather complicated manner in which this Bill is to be applied to Ireland. I fancy one or two points are raised upon it, but probably it would

  183
  be more convenient if they were dealt with in Committee than at the present stage of the Bill. I will consequently, therefore, merely ask your Lordships at this stage to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I entirely associate myself with what fell from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council when he expressed his belief that there would be no objection in your Lordships' House to the principle of this Bill. I, on my part, certainly have no reason to object to it in principle. I really only rise to follow on the last words spoken by the noble Earl with reference to Clause 7 of the Bill; and, as he has expressed the opinion that it would be better to defer the discussion of the application of this Bill to Ireland until a later stage, I will postpone what I have to say. But I should like to remind the House that we in Ireland already have a system which we believe carries out the objects which prompted the Government to bring forward this Bill for England and Scotland. I am speaking after consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, and I can inform your Lordships that we do not think it necessary that this Bill should apply to Ireland at all, and therefore I formally give notice that in Committee I shall move an Amendment omitting the application of the Bill to Ireland. I am authorised to say, on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who were not called upon to give evidence before the Departmental Committee on whose Report this Bill is founded, that they would be very glad if they might be allowed to state their views to His Majesty's Government.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords: I have been asked by the President of the Pharmaceutical Society to say one or two words on this Bill. The Pharmaceutical Society is the authority to administer the Pharmacy Act of 1868, and what I have to say is this. The Pharmaceutical Society welcome many of the provisions of this Bill, and on the whole think it a
  184
  good Bill. As your Lordships, I daresay, know, there is another Bill before the other House of Parliament which was brought in by the Pharmaceutical Society, and that Bill is, to some extent, on all fours with this one. But the Pharmaceutical Society would desire that an Amendment should be introduced in clause 4 making it a little more stringent than it is. I venture, on behalf of the society, to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will consult their President, before the Bill goes into Committee, with regard to any Amendments that may be proposed or set down.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords; I should not have trespassed on your Lordships' indulgence had I not been personally alluded to by my successor, the present Lord President of the Council. When I occupied that position this question was very carefully considered, and after consultation with the Board of Agriculture we placed on the stocks, if I may use that expression, a Bill somewhat similar to the one which the noble Earl has now introduced. I entirely agree with him that this is a non-controversial matter. We are all anxious that poisonous drugs should be sold with a maximum of convenience and the minimum of danger. Having studied this Bill while Lord President of the Council, together with the Board of Agriculture, I endorse what has fallen from my noble friend behind me (Lord Donoughmore), and I hope the noble Earl the Lord President will consult the various bodies interested before the Bill enters on its later stages. My noble friend Lord Donoughmore has stated with great truth that there is a feeling on the part of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland that this Bill should not extend to that country. The noble Earl, when we go into Committee, will explain how Ireland is differently legislated for by the Act of 1890, which enables people in the poorer parts of Ireland, by passing a slight examination, to sell drugs. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consult the Pharmaceutical Society in Dublin, and I think he will find that, while they agree that such a measure is necessary

  185
  for the United Kingdom, they regard it as unnecessary and even dangerous to extend it to Ireland. So far as I am concerned, I shall certainly do all in my power to assist in the carrying of the measure as applied to the United Kingdom.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am certainly not disposed to say anything against the Bill as it stands. I take no part in the question raised by my noble friend behind me (Lord Donoughmore), for I do not know exactly what the state of things is. But I must point out that it is a mis-description to describe the Bill as reversing a decision of the courts.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is only so described in the Memorandum attached to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That is so. No court, I think, has entertained any doubt that the decision there referred to was right. I tried to put it right in the sense that this Bill does, by calling upon persons who sold drugs of that sort to be properly qualified, and I think the court justly held that a company could not be examined for a certificate, and therefore could not be within the Act. I thought that was a mistake that ought to be remedied, and I brought in a Bill for the purpose. A great cry was raised at the time—so much so that I had to withdraw the clause in order that the Bill might be sent to the other House. The cry was raised on the ground that the noble Lord himself has suggested—namely, the difficulty of poor people obtaining drugs as they desired.
  I only wish to make one further observation. I think the whole question is much more difficult and complex than appears on the face of this Bill. It is perfectly certain that a very large number of poisons can be sold; you cannot get them at a chemist's without a proper prescription from a medical man, but if you go next door, it may be to a dry-salter, you can get any amount of deadly poisons, and the law at present has left it absolutely without any kind of protection, because the poisons are not sold in the character of medicines and
  186
  medical preparations, but under popular names. I cannot help thinking that one of these days the question must be dealt with at greater length and with more precision than is the case in this Bill. I do not say that by way of criticising this Bill, but merely as a caution that when we have passed this measure we shall not have completed all that is desired. At the same time I give my support to this Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I certainly have no complaint to make of the manner in which this Bill has been received on both sides of your Lordships' House. As regards the question raised by the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Londonderry), I can assure him that I shall be very happy indeed to consult the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, and to give weight to any representations they may make. I can assure my noble friend Lord Monkswell equally that I shall have pleasure in talking over the provisions of the Bill with the representative of the Pharmaceutical Society of England, and with other gentlemen, who I believe, wish to see me on the subject. As regards what fell just now from the noble and learned Earl, the late Lord Chancellor, I confess that personally I am in very general agreement with him in the belief that all measures of this kind are only of a distinctly partial character as regards the possibility of danger to the public from the sale of deleterious articles. But, as he, I understand, agrees, that is a very large question indeed, and hardly comes under the head of a Poisons and Pharmacy Bill in the technical sense. And therefore, although I think it is well worthy of consideration whether some larger measure might not be brought in, I am afraid it is hardly possible to attempt to include provisions of that kind in the present measure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  THE CARRYING OF DECK-LOADS.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have acted on opinions

  187
  expressed in this House that negotiations should be opened up with foreign maritime Powers with a view to the general prevention of merchant vessels carrying deck-loads in the winter time, and, if so, whether these negotiations have been of any avail in checking further loss of life at sea through deck-loads.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this subject has been before your Lordships' House for the last two years. In March, 1905, the late President of the Board of Trade, Lord Salisbury, promised to send a circular letter to the different maritime Powers asking them whether they would be disposed to consider some international arrangement by which the rules as to carrying deck-loads might be brought into line for all countries. This circular was sent out on April 18th last year, but I am sorry to say that the replies received have not been very satisfactory. The various maritime Powers were asked to co-operate, and three Powers—France, Germany, and Sweden—have not as yet answered the circular at all. The other Powers do not at present see their way to fall in with the suggestions contained in the note. I am afraid that from this it will be seen that the noble Lord can look forward to very little help from foreign Powers.
  LORD MUSKERRYthen put to His Majesty's Government the second Question standing in his name on the Paper, viz., whether it is a fact that the British steamer "Petunia" has lately crossed the Atlantic with a large deck-cargo of timber between the time limits when the carriage of such deck-loads to the United Kingdom is expressly forbidden by the Merchant Shipping Act; whether the "Petunia" was evading or intending to evade the law by carrying the deck-load to the Continent and returning to the United Kingdom to discharge the remainder of her cargo; whether the voyage of the "Petunia" was of a very protracted character, during which the deck-cargo broke adrift, and the ship sustained serious damage thereby; and what action, if any, was taken by the Board of Trade when the "Petunia" put into a port in the United Kingdom in distress.
  188
  The noble Lord said: The "Petunia," it appears, adopted the usual custom of evading the law by carrying to the Continent a dangerous deck-load of timber which she would not be allowed to bring to the United Kingdom. The "Petunia" met with injuries, I strongly suspect through carrying this dangerous deck-load, and was compelled to put into Falmouth. I am only going by the account which appeared in the Press at the time. I am hoping that my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade will be able to give us fuller information on the subject. When the "Petunia" got into Falmouth it was found necessary to shift the cargo in order to remedy the injury. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade, according to the Press, would not allow this, and eventually the "Petunia" with a dangerous deck-load and her injury unrepaired, had to proceed on her voyage. Last year, if I remember aright, a vessel not damaged but with a dangerous deck-load, called at Glasgow. She discharged one log of the deck cargo, and the captain was heavily fined. Now, my Lords, I think that in the case of the "Petunia" the Board of Trade should have allowed the cargo to have been shifted and discharged, and then have fined the owner, not the captain It is always the case that the unfortunate captain gets fined for what he cannot help. The captain must take a dangerous deck-load or be dismissed from his ship. I think that the action of the Board of Trade in allowing this vessel to proceed to sea in a disabled condition was very wrong indeed. I beg to put the Question.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I feel that it is necessary to give your Lordships a short history of the subject under discussion before I actually deal with the special case of the steamship "Petunia." In 1903 the noble Lord called attention in this House to the carriage of deck cargoes to ports on the Continent during winter, and pro-posed that the provisions of Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which prohibits such a practice in the case of: vessels coming to a port in the United. Kingdom should be extended to those trading to Continental ports. The noble Lord had already previously

  189
  raised the question in 1901, and in 1904 he introduced a Bill to give effect to his views. A similar measure which was introduced in 1905 was also not proceeded with.
  The number of lives lost in timber-laden vessels belonging to the United Kingdom which foundered or were missing, or suffered deck damage or loss of deck load, during the thirty-three years and ten weeks ended March 12th, 1906, was 1,747, of which 1,291 were lost in the sixteen years ended 1888, and only 456 were lost in the seventeen years and ten weeks ended March 12th, 1906. The annual average loss in the first period of sixteen years was eighty, in the second period of seventeen years it was twenty-seven, and in the whole period of thirty-three years it was fifty-three. No loss of life in timber-laden vessels has been reported in the first ten weeks of 1906. Of the 1,747 lives lost, 1,482 were lost in sailing ships and only 265 in steamers. During the year 1905 only three casualties to vessels carrying timber were attended with loss of life, viz., s.s. "Freshfield," which left Norfolk, Virginia, for Hamburg on February 7th, 1905, with twenty-five crew and a cargo of timber, and has not since been heard of; s.s. "Castano," which lost one of her crew and part of her deck-load on April 11th, 1905, on a voyage from Newport News to Bordeaux; and s.s. "Pydna," which lost one of her crew and part of her deck-load on June 1st, 1905, on a voyage from Miramichi to Manchester. Neither of these three vessels came under the Act. The casualty to the "Pydna" is the only fatal one that has occurred to a vessel carrying timber since May, 1905, when the question of deck-loads was last debated in the House. Omitting missing vessels, the causes of whose loss are unknown, the total number of lives lost from timber-laden vessels by casualties to which deck-loads could contribute since 1899 was eight or 1–3 per annum.
  I will now deal with the case of the "Petunia." It is the fact that this steamer recently crossed the Atlantic with a deck-cargo of timber between the time limits mentioned in Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act, when the carriage of such loads is prohibited.
  190
  She was on a voyage from America to Bordeaux, where the deck-cargo was landed, and she then made for Dublin, where the remainder of her cargo was discharged. As no deck-cargo was brought to this country there was no infringement or even evasion of the law prohibiting deck-cargoes. It is also true that the voyage was a protracted one and that the deck cargo broke away, the ship losing her propeller. She then put into Falmouth for repairs, where she was at once visited by a Board of Trade surveyor. Some of the cargo was discharged in order to get at the spare propeller. This cargo was re-shipped after a new propeller had been fitted, in the presence and to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade surveyor.
  The noble Lord appears to wish to penalise a British ship carrying a deck-cargo to a foreign port. If this were done we could not equally penalise the foreigner, and therefore we should be forcing our own people to carry on the keen competition in which they are engaged at a severe disadvantage as compared with the foreigner. British and foreign ships coming to this country are, of course, on equal terms, and at the present moment they trade to foreign ports also on equal terms. The Board of Trade have received from the owners of the "Petunia" a full and satisfactory account of the whole voyage of this vessel, and are perfectly satisfied that no contravention or evasion of the law occurred. The Board are further satisfied that the whole question of deck-loads is receiving the careful attention of shipowners in this country and abroad. The loss of life shows a distinct tendency to diminish, and His Majesty's Government have no intention of imposing upon British shipowners without very strong reasons, which do not at present exist, any further restrictions in this matter, especially as they would have no power to impose these restrictions on their foreign competitors.

  BRITISH TRADE AND METHODS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask His Majesty's Government if they would lay on the Table of the House Sir Alfred Bateman's deductions from 171 Consular Reports as to our trade and methods.

  191
  Blue-books 1898 and 1902. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall trouble your Lordships with very few words in support of the Notice which stands in my name. I have been asked whether I intended to raise a fiscal debate. On the contrary, I hope I shall say nothing which can by any possibility raise such a discussion. When the Duke of Devonshire brought the fiscal question before your Lordships and moved for a Return of trade during the last three years, I asked him to move also for this document, but I received an answer to the effect that, though the noble Duke thought it would be very useful to have Sir Alfred Bateman's deductions, he would rather not mix the two things together.
  What I want is that you should know what was, up to a certain time before the fiscal controversy arose, the opinion of the experts at the Board of Trade as to the state of our trade, as to how far it was prospering, and the reasons why it did not progress as it ought to. Sir Alfred Bateman's Report would not occupy more than half a sheet of letter paper. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading the six reasons given by Sir Alfred Bateman for British trade not progressing as it ought to do, but I would lay special emphasis on one of those reasons. The sixth reason given by Sir Alfred Bateman is as follows—
  "The development of technical education in Germany and the greater attention paid in schools to modern languages, added to the system of sending young Germans all over the world to acquire a practical knowledge of the languages, business habits, etc., of other countries, by means of which they are afterwards able to compete with those countries with a greater chance of success."
  This, my Lords, is confirmed by my own recent experience. My house was under repair, and I had to go to a London hotel. There was a very nice young German waiter there, and I entered into conversation with him. He spoke English perfectly. I said, "Do you speak French"? and he replied that he did. I then asked him if he spoke Italian, and he replied, "A little," adding that he was leaving London in a few months to go to Milan to learn Italian. I asked him how many waiters there were in the hotel, and he replied, "Eight." I then asked how
  192
  many of them were Germans, and his answer was "alle," "everyone." I said, although I knew better, that I assumed, of course, that in Berlin there was no end of Englishmen who were waiters, and he replied, "keine," "not one." To a further question, as to whether that was the case all over the world, his reply was, "Yes." That, my Lords, is an instance of the way our trade suffers. Young men in this country play football with their heads; they do not take the trouble to educate themselves properly.
  I hold in my hand a little book, a reprint from an article that appeared in June in the National Review, which has vitriolic truth in every line of it. It is by a German resident in England, who is a great employer of labour. He confirms what I have just said as regards the action of Germany. As an employer of labour he found that in this country men he employed had not heard of Nelson, and when they were asked where Hong Kong was they replied that it was in the Mediterranean. I venture to think that is a state of things which it would be well to look into, and it is in that sense that I ask His Majesty's Government to lay this Report on the Table. Sir Alfred Bateman's Report contains deductions from 171 Consular Reports which he had to analyse and "boil down." The Report is one of great importance, and I hope His Majesty's Government will consent to lay it on the Table.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to publish as a separate Paper the Memorandum contained in Blue-book Cd. 9078 of 1898. I regret that it will not be in our power to do so. The Blue-book is still in circulation and can be obtained for the sum of 10½d.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Think of its weight!
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: I cannot think that any useful purpose would be served by reprinting a part of it. The Blue-book referred to is now six years old, and the experience of the Department which I represent in this House is against publishing literature of the kind broadcast. It has been decided by the Department not to publish in

  193
  future Reports of the kind, as the suggestions contained therein become available for foreign competitors as well as for British traders, and may possibly damage the reputation of British goods. Instructions have consequently been issued to His Majesty's Consular officers to embody suggestions as to possible improvements in British trading methods in separate despatches, the contents of which are brought confidentially to the notice of large firms, and Chambers of Commerce, or published at the discretion of the Board of Trade.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I may, perhaps, just say that the defects in our methods of trading are much better known abroad than in this country. As His Majesty's Government decline to publish the Paper I have asked for, I shall print and circulate it at my own expense, as I did in the case of the Duke of Wellington's letter, and I hope to have it in your Lordships' hands by the end of the week.

  SUNDAY TRADING.
  Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the subject of Sunday Trading—(The Lord Privy Seal)(M. Ripon);agreed to. The Lords following were named of the Committee—

  D. Northumberland;

  L. Avebury.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Weardale.

  L. Bp. Wakefield.

  Ordered that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a chairman.
  Then a message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 9th instant, and to the Message of the House of Commons of yesterday, signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.