Lords Sitting of 11 May 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 1 Bill) [H. L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proced further with the Bill: The Orders made on 26th March last and the 3rd instant discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill [H.L.]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Kent Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Alexandra (Newport; and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth
2
Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]; Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit on Monday next until Twelve o'clock.
Clacton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill imported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Glamorgan and South Wales Water Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Haslingden Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Millwall Dock Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
(EXPLOSION OF GUNPOWDER AT 9,DAWSON STREET, DUBLIN).
Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion of gunpowder which occurred on the premises of Messrs. Trulock, Harriss, and Richardson, Limited, of 9, Dawson Street, Dublin, on the 22nd March 1906.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st December 1905, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE).
Orders made by the council of the county of Lancashire re-dividing the Eccles and Ormskirk Parliamentary divisions of the county into polling districts.

SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
Orders made by the following councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within their respective boroughs— Borough council of Stockton-on-Tees; Metropolitan borough council of Camberwell.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the One hundred and thirty-seventh Volume of the Journals (5th Edward VII., 1905), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
INTERNATIONAL MEDICALCONGRESS.
Report of Sir Dyce Duckworth, M.D., LL.D., the delegate of His Majesty's Government to the International Medical Congress held at Lisbon, 19th to 26th April 1906.
NATAL (EXECUTION OF NATIVES).
Petition to His Majesty in Council of the twelve natives recently executed in Natal, and the affidavit in support of the petition and the judgment.
NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTI GATIONS.
Reports of the British delegates attending the meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in 1903, 1904, and 1905, and reports and correspondence relating thereto. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1313], 1903).
TREATY SERIES No. 4. 1906.
Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Independent State of the Congo modifying the agreement signed at Brussels, 12th May, 1894. (See "Treaty Series, No. 15, 1894.") Signed at London, 9th May, 1906.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom, during the three months ended

5
31st December, 1905: together with Reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the railway department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into. Part II. Reports on accidents.

EXPLOSIONS.
(Explosion at Abbey Mills Chemical Works, Stratford-by-Bow, Essex)—Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, on the Circumstances attending an explosion of nitro-glycerine in waste acid which occurred at the chemical works of Messrs. F W. Berk and Company, Limited, at Abbey Mills, Stratford-by Bow, Essex, on 15th January, 1906.
SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

MILITARY MOBILISATION.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name on the Paper, to.ask the Under-Secretary for War, within what time, after the receipt of notice that their services would be required to repel an actual or threatened hostile landing on the south or east coast, could the so-called "commands" of those districts be ready to take the field fully equipped in all respects; what would be the total strength of each of these forces, and its composition; and also the number, calibre, and description of up-to-date guns attached to each force. I have no intention at present of making any remarks upon the Question. I simply put it.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF:STATE FOE WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to give the noble Earl the; information he desires. The noble Earl asks that I should publish what our military authorities conceive to be the enemies' possible strategy, and the detailed plans for defeating the same. I am advised by every one of the military
6
advisers of the Army Council that to make such details as are desired by my noble friend would be opposed to the public interest. I regret extremely that we cannot give this information to our friends without communicating it to our potential enemies In adopting this attitude I am following the traditions of former Governments. In a debate on a somewhat similar question which was raised by my noble friend on July 17 of last year, † my predecessor in office, Lord Dououghmore, explained that it was inexpedient to publish the details of mobilisation schemes, whether relating to the field Army or to defences. Questions of armament also, Lord Donoughmore stated, are treated as confidential. This principle is still accepted by the Army Council, and, as a breach of it would be involved by any real Answer to my noble friend's Question, I am very sorry to have to say that I cannot give him the details he desires.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have a Motion down for Monday next upon a cognate question, and as my noble friend has declined to give information which I think not only your Lordships but those who pay £29,000,000 a year in taxation ought to know, I shall venture between this and then—I have already got some of the information—to get, in the rough, the information which my noble friend declines to give us to-day, and I hope to give it to the House on Monday.

POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
LORD EBURY: My Lords, I rise to move that Clause 4 of this Bill be amended by leaving out, in line 16, all words after "business" to the end of the subsection, and by inserting the words contained in my Amendment, namely—
" And any body corporate carrying on such business or use the description of chemist and druggist and failing to comply with the provision of this section shall be guilty of an offence under Section 15 and 17 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and liable to the penalties therein mentioned."
Although I am not accustomed to take part in your Lordships' discussions, I
† See (4)Debates, exlix., 833–4.

7
have ventured to put this Amendment forward for your consideration because the matter dealt with in the clause is one of which I have some knowledge, and the clause as it at present stands, even without the Amendment of which notice has been given by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, does not appear to me to be consistent with public advantage. The effect of it will be to debar all future corporate bodies who may establish a chemist's business from using the description chemists and druggists 'which all such bodies doing such business haves hitherto been free to adopt.
The formation of companies for the purpose of selling drugs and poisons, although of much remoter origin, has acquired great development during the last thirty-five years for the reason that ordinary retail chemists have charged prices so high that companies well provided with capital and dealing with material of the highest class have been enabled to undersell them and still to secure a satisfactory result from their capital. This has naturally been un welcome to the retail chemists, of whom what is called the Pharmaceutical Society is composed, and for many years past they have been endeavouring, by promoting Bills in both Houses and by more or less peaceful persuasion in the Lobbies, to induce the Legislature in some way or other to put a spoke in their rival's wheel. Finally, they have had the good fortune, so far, to enlist the sympathy of the noble Earl opposite and to induce him to insert this clause into a Bill which has little else of a contentious nature.
I think the adoption of the first eight lines of this clause is expedient in order once for all to settle by statute the; position of companies in this matter, which has hitherto rested upon a common law basis, and although I have never I heard of any inconvenience arising from the distinction, I think the noble Earl, if he will permit my saying so, is quite right in putting an end to it. But the latter part of the clause does a great deal more than that. The very next sentence after the eight lines which I propose to retain, by invoking certain sections of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and by reversing the legal decision pronounced in your Lordships' House in 1880, deprives all corporate bodies of the right to the designation of,
8
chemists and druggists, and although the last sentence restores that right, it is only in the case of existing companies, and we know that even in their case they are threatened with a time limit. In the public interest I claim a right to the designation for all companies which do I the business and for all time.
It seems to me that if the business of a chemist is conducted in accordance with the first part of this clause, which affords complete guarantee for the public safety, it is a matter of no public importance at all whether the owner is an individual, a partnership, or a joint stock company, and as the designation of chemist and druggist is necessary in order to attract the attention and conciliate the confidence of actual and potential customers—and I infer that fact from the very keen desire which the Pharmaceutical Society have to secure a monopoly of the title—I think the title should be as open to one class of owner as another, having regard to the fact that they all employ adequate skill and knowledge in the conduct of their business. The interest of the public lies in free and open competition, and I submit that what is proposed in the latter part of this clause is not only protection but protection in an injurious form.
I heard it said, I think by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, in Committee on this Bill that individual chemists are entitled to special consideration because they have to pass a qualifying examination before they can exercise their trade. But the chemist who serves a company has to pass the qualifying examination just the same. He brings with him a position which he has acquired thereby, and by this clause he would be compelled to forfeit a part of that position for the benefit of his more fortunate fellow students who happened to I have money enough to set up in business for themselves. Moreover, I may remind your Lordships that although an ordinary chemist manipulates poisons and drugs, I he depends for the great bulk of his trade upon the sale of a variety of preparations, in the compounding of which he has no hand, and of a vast assortment of miscellaneous articles of which, if I were so disposed, I could give your Lordships some diverting examples. Moreover, there are a number of trades in addition to that of a chemist which call for great

9
skill and great nicety in their operation, and if it is perceived that distinctions between various classes of traders can be extracted from the Legislature upon any ground less cogent than public safety and public advantage, what is to prevent others from following the example of the Pharmaceutical Society, and where is the argument to come from for limiting those restrictions to the chemists' trade?
One word, my Lords, upon the addition which I propose to make to the first eight lines of this subsection, an addition which I think affords fair evidence that I do not wish to place corporate bodies in any position of privilege as compared with individuals. The provision in the first eight lines of the clause, while affording ample safety to the public, also affords a safeguard to the corporate bodies which adhere to it, but, by the sentence which I propose to add, in case of the slightest infringement they become subject to the penalties in Clause 15 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, which reinforced by Clause 17, which makes those penalties recoverable by summary proceedings, are such that no corporate body, unless administered by lunatics, would venture to infringe.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 3, line 16, to leave out from the word 'business' to the end of the sub-section and to insert the words," and anybody corporate carrying on such business or use the description of chemist and druggist and failing to comply with the provision of this section shall be guilty of an offence under sections 15 and 17 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and liable to the penalities therein mentioned."—(Lord Ebury.)
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ebury. As the clause stood when this Bill was before the House on Second Heading, companies might call themselves chemists as they had always done before, but in Committee the noble Earl in charge of the Bill altered the clause in such a way that in future it will be impossible for companies or corporate bodies to call themselves by that name. From time immemorial they have been able to use this designation when following this trade, and a case was fought out in the Law Courts in 1880, when the House of Lords decided that it was competent
10
for companies to use the name of chemists under the Pharmacy Act of 1868.
I am, of course, well aware that the Pharmaceutical Society claim that the title should be a personal one, and should only apply to those who have passed the necessary examinations. But, on the other hand, I want your Lordships to bear in mind that under the Act of 1868 and the Bill that is now before you every company is obliged to keep a qualified manager in every shop that it owns, and therefore the safety of the public is as well preserved with companies as it is with individuals. Now, why should it be sought to restrict companies from using the name which they had been accustomed to use? Great sums of money have been invested in these businesses on the strength of the existing law, and I would ask what harm the companies have done in the excercise of the rights they have enjoyed? Has it been injurious to the public interest that they should use the name chemists? I should be glad to hear from my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill whether he thinks that such is the case, because, if not, I cannot understand the object of the clause as it stands? Its effect is to restrict companies from using the title to which they have been accustomed, and it therefore injures them in the public estimation and interferes with the money that they have sunk in their businesses, believing that they were acting under the law.
I must say that I think the Bill as it nows stands is really a vexatious restriction of trade. It is not at all in the public interest that a privileged class should be established, and that the great companies should lie debarred from using the name under which they carry on their trade. I hope your Lordships will agree to support the Amendment, believing as I do that it is in the interests of the public that companies and corporate bodies should not be discredited in this way. As Lord Ebury has stated, it is notorious that the result of the existence of these companies has been to give the public an opportunity of getting drugs and such articles far cheaper and fresher than they were ever able to do before, and healthy competition has been thus promoted in the interests of the public. I may say that if my noble friend's Amendment is not carried I shall

11
when the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council moves his Amendment to restrict existing companies to the use of the name 'chemist' for seven years, move an Amendment substituting the term twenty-one years for seven years.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I only desire to intervene in this discussion for one moment. As your Lordships know, the Bill was drafted by myself when I had the privilege of occupying the position now filled by the noble Earl opposite, and consequently so far as its principles are concerned I naturally support the Bill as it stands. But there is one point to which I should like to draw attention. Clause 4 is to a very great extent drawn on the same lines as my own Clause 4, but my clause contained the words "or use the description." I notice that that phrase has been left out by my noble friend, and I am consequently at a loss to know how to reconcile the four lines which have been added at the end. I cannot but think that according to the present drafting of the clause, a company may call themselves chemists but they are not allowed to carry on the business. I may be wrong. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I think perhaps it will be convenient if I intervene at this stage, and I will begin by dealing with the point raised by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. The effect of the omission of the words "use the description" from Clause 4 is, of course, to do what my noble friend opposite, Lord Ebury, does not wish to be done. It prevents these companies from employing the title of chemists or chemists and druggists in conducting their business, but I think no question arises on the drafting point raised by the noble Marquess. There is nothing whatever in the last four lines of the clause which prevents companies from carrying on their business —of course, that is the very last thing we should wish to do—although a seven years limit would be placed upon their power of using the description. I think the noble Marquess can be quite satisfied on the point of drafting.
12
The House will have gathered from the speeches of my two noble friends that the Bill as it stands and the Amendment moved by Lord Ebury represent two different attempts to come to a conclusion upon a contention which has been in existence for many years between the Pharmaceutical Society, representing the chemists, and the important companies who deal in poisons and drugs. It seems to your Lordships that this is rather a small matter. You may be disposed to consider it almost a storm in a teacup, or perhaps a storm in a gallipot would be a more appropriate phrase, but I can assure you that by those who are interested in this trade the matter is regarded as one of very great importance. Since this subject was last before the House I have had the advantage of seeing a great many gentlemen who have argued with great ability both sides of the question, and I have also received from all parts of the country a great number of written communications on the subject. Although I fully agree that the matter is not one that primarily concerns the public, it is one which is regarded as exceedingly important by the different parties engaged in the trade.
Perhaps it will be most convenient if, in making these remarks, I also deal with the Amendment which I shall move if the noble Lord's Amendment is not adopted by the House, and which gives seven year's grace to the companies. The effect of Lord Ebury's Amendment will be that all companies may in future employ the terms reserved under the Pharmacy Act to chemists, provided, of course, that they fulfil the conditions of the Act by employing qualified men in conducting their business. The effect of the Bill as it stands, with the addition of my Amendment, will be that those particular terms will be reserved to chemists, although, of course, there wilt be no bar to a company stating in its. advertisement or labels that it employs qualified chemists, or using the name of its qualified manager with the term "chemist" or "pharmaceutical chemist," as the case may be, in its advertisement-It is interesting to know that in the case-to which Lord Ebury alluded, which decided the right of companies to trade in poisons, the society was called the London and Provincial Supply Association,

13
but their labels bore the name of the individual chemist and druggist who conducted their business, who was a small shareholder and a qualified man. It certainly appears to mo that so long as the companies have the right of stating that they employ chemists they are not very greatly damnified by being forbidden to use the term chemists as their own description.
The history of these terms is as follows. The first Act on the subject was passed in 1852, and this confirmed a Charter which had been gived to the Pharmaceutical Society in the year 1843 Under that Charter nobody was allowed to use the title pharmaceutical chemist or pharmaceutist who was not registered. But in 1868 it was made unlawful for anyone to keep open shop for the sale of poisons or assume the title chemist, druggist, pharmaceutist, or dispensing chemist or druggist, unless he was a pharmaceutical chemist or a chemist and druggist under the Act. Since that time no alteration of importance has been made in the law. Practically since 1868 the companies of whom my noble friends opposite are the champions have come into existence. The noble Lord who spoke second said that from time immemorial companies had had this power. My impression is that the companies only came into existence at the time when he and I were together at school, and before that period this particular question did not in practice arise at all. Since that time these companies have gone on and flourished. They have been admirably conducted. I have not a word to contradict in the praises which have been uttered by noble Lords opposite of the manner in which the companies have conducted their businesses. I believe they have been of distinct service in creating a very healthy competition, and I have no doubt to some extent in lowering the price of drugs.
The argument which the Pharmaceutical Society use is this. They say that this Act of 1868 conferred upon them a distinct series of titles which they have gained always at some personal expense to themselves and by undergoing a fairly stiff examination. They regard the title as an absolute appanage of the individual, and they say that although it is quite proper that the title should be used by a company in connection with the name of the people they employ, it ought not
14
to be used in connection with the name of a man who is not a chemist himself, or with the name of a company who are not themselves chemists and have not passed the examination. On the other hand, the companies point to their excellent public record, and they also urge the argument which was used by my noble friend opposite, Lord Lichfield, that if the public safety is secured by the employment of trained chemists in the shops and places of business where the companies conduct their affairs the public has no further interest in the use of the title, and it is purely a sort of domestic matter between the rival interests of tradesmen. Those are the two arguments, and therefore the point at issue is simply this. Is a chemist an ordinary tradesman, like a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker, or is he to some extent in the position of a man who has taken a degree, and therefore alone in the position to use the title which accompanies that degree? That is the sole and perfectly simple point at issue.
I admit there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and it took me some time to arrive at a decision on the subject, but, on the whole, I have arrived at the definite conclusion that these titles under the Act of 1868 are personal, that they are to some extent in the nature of a degree or qualification, and that they ought not, therefore, to be attached to any name except that of the man who has actually earned them. If that conclusion is reached it destroys the two principal arguments of the noble Lords opposite, because, if the title is a personal matter, you clearly are not entitled to use it merely because you employ people who have earned it. For instance, a gentleman who brings up boys for the Army—an Army coach—must not call himself a master of arts in his advertisement merely because he engages gentlemen who are masters of arts to teach the boys. It is a personal title, and he is not empowered to use it.
Then, again, as to the strong argument that the public security is all that matters. All titles of this kind are given for the object of securing the public. The title of solicitor is simply and solely given in order to secure the public. It is not a title of honour or a decoration. Equally, of course, no firm who employs solicitors

15
would speak of themselves as being solicitors even if they had solicitors in their office. People take exceedingly great pride in the possession of these titles. The title of pharmaceutical chemist is on a more humble scale than many other titles earned by examination, but those who earn it do not like to see it coupled with the names of people who have not been through the mill which they have, and have not earned the distinction, for it undoubtedly is a distinction, by examination. There is one other practical consideration, and it is this. We have been told that an enormous injury will be inflicted upon the companies if they are not allowed to use the title of chemist and druggist. I think it was Lord Ebury who said that customers would be guided in the shops which they patronised by the fact that the title of chemist and druggist was used rather than that of drug store or dealer in medicine. I find it very difficult to believe that. I should have thought that actual customers would be guided by the quality of the goods they bought, the civility they received, and by the considerations which make people choose a particular shop to buy goods at; and, as regards prospective customers, I should have thought that anybody intending to deal at what is always likely to be popularly called chemists' shops or stores would be much more attracted by the general appearance of the place, by the obviously businesslike manner in which the shop was carried on, as is the case with many of these companies, than by any name that he saw written up over the door. Personally, if I were going to buy anything in a chemist's shop, I would very much rather go to one of these brilliant stores, where I should be sure to get a fresh article, than to perhaps a frowsy shop with the name chemist over the door. I do think, therefore, that the injury which these companies say they will receive by the loss of these titles is exaggerated out of all possible proportion.
On the other hand, they will no doubt suffer in a different way, and my further Amendment is designed to meet that. They have in many cases, and in one case in particular, adopted the title of chemists on their shop fronts, and if this Bill is passed as it stands those shop fronts would have to be altered. They have also, in some cases, engraved the title on syphons and bottles, and in some cases they have
16
in store a great number of labels containing the title which would then be forbidden. That, to my mind, gives them a clear claim for a considerable time during which they can put together a moderate sinking fund—for it need not be very large in relation to the whole business—which would enable them to meet the cost of changing at the end of the seven years, and they would no doubt see that their stock of labels was printed with a view to their running out at the fixed period. Consequently, it is my intention to propose this seven years limit. I do not wish to anticipate any discussion which may take place on this Amendment if it is moved, but I think it perhaps better to say at this stage that I do consider the term of twenty-one years, which my noble friend Lord Lichfield announced his intention of moving, altogether too long. I cannot think of any precedent for any legislature of the kind, and therefore I should be obliged to oppose him. I have named a period of seven years because it seemed to me a reasonable one. As to the Amendment now before the House, I am afraid I must adhere to the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships in Committee, I ventured to call the attention of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council to the Amendment which he then expressed his intention of moving on Report, to the effect that the use of the name chemist and druggist by companies should be restricted to a period of seven years only. I did so mainly because of the hardship which I felt sure would be inflicted upon existing companies by such a limitation. I have since been informed that there is a company in existence which has as many as 320 shops in different parts of the Kingdom, which employs more than 4,000 people, and which has a capital of £1,300,000, and they estimate that by the alteration in the law which the noble Lord's Amendment would effect they would lose, on account of their expenditure in signs on shop fronts, and in syphons and other materials on which their name has been placed, a sum of between £30,000 and £40,000. That, I venture to submit to your Lordships, is a fine of a very considerable amount to impose upon a body which, as the noble Earl has just told your Lordships, is doing a most

17
admirable and useful work for the benefit of the public at large.
The noble Earl has said no more than I believe to lie due to these companies as to the work they have done in enabling the public, and especially the poor, to obtain such necessaries as drugs at a far cheaper price than they were able to obtain them at before, and to obtain them in a fresher condition; and therefore I am quite sure your Lordships would not desire for a moment to do anything that would be unfair to existing companies or that would impose such a fine upon them as I have just described. The Amendment now before your Lordships' House raises a larger and wider issue. It raises the whole question, not only whether existing companies should be allowed to maintain their present business, but also whether future companies should be permitted to enter into the same business. The noble Earl who has just sat down has referred to the past history of legislation upon this subject. I have had some concern with it myself, and perhaps I may venture to allude to it. The Act of 1868, which I think was the governing statue in this matter, certainly forbade, in accordance with previous legislation, the use of the title chemist and druggist by anybody who was not qualified by the Pharmaceutical Society's examination. But that Act also forbade, as the noble Earl has stated, any person not so qualified from keeping open a shop. In accordance with what he has admitted to be the public need, the noble Earl does not intend by this Bill to prevent these companies from keeping upon shops in the future.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Quite so. That would not be a proposition which would commend itself either to this House or to His Majesty's Government. What the noble Earl does is to allow them to keep open shop, but to forbid their using after a certain date the title chemists and druggists. In other-words, it is now proposed that a company carrying on a trade lawfully and to the advantage of the public shall not be able to call itself by the proper name applicable to that trade. Could there be a greater absurdity in legislation? It is
18
even more absurd for this reason, that an individual—a single rich man—opening, say twenty or thirty shops and employing a qualified assistant in each shop, would be entitled to call himself a chemist and druggist although a company would not be allowed to use this title.
THE EARL or CREWE: Only if he were a chemist.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am advised that the restriction would only apply to companies and not to individuals.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is not our intention.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: What I object to is that when it has been proved to the satisfaction of everybody, including His Majesty's Government, that these companies have done good work, an attempt should be made to injure them in the public estimation and in the carrying on of their business in the future by refusing to allow them to use their proper name. What is the history of this matter? I know it because, when I was a Member of the other House, I was approached by certain constituents of mine on the subject. It was clear that they desired to prohibit companies altogether from carrying on competition with pharmaceutical chemists. I said I thought that a monstrous proposition. Then they said "Will you compel every director of such company to be a pharmaceutical chemist?" I said I thought that was little less than monstrous. The Pharmaceutical Society has been endeavouring throughout to promote legislation, the effect of which would be to secure a trade monopoly so that they would be able to raise, to their own benefit and to the public injury, the prices of their goods. Can anything of that sort be possibly supported by a Government pledged to free trade, supported by the electors of this country largely because they are pledged to free trade? Is it possible that, being obliged to allow existing companies to carry on this business, they will attempt to stab them as it were in the back by aiding the protectionist designs of the Pharmaceutical Society? I can only say

19
that if Lord Ebury presses his Amendment to a division I shall gladly support him.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, the view I take upon this matter is that the name of a chemist, like that of a firm, is a trade name, and a well-established name must be a great advantage to every firm. There is one well-known firm of chemists which was established in 1688. It is quite possible that, if inquiry were made, it would be found that there is no member now in that firm bearing the name by which it is known. It would be very hard, where a chemist left an only daughter, that she would be deprived of appointing a qualified assistant to carry on the business for her and retain the old-established name, and I understand that this right would not be affected by the Bill. But if a person not being a chemist may own a shop and keep up the name, I do not see why a company should not have the same right. It seems to me that the essence of the matter, so far as the public is concerned, is that the people who dispense drugs and medicines should be properly qualified. I do not therefore see why the benefit of an established trade name should be taken away. We are told that the Bill would not affect a private trader, but only a company. I should like to know why that distinction is drawn.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, this question is one which might very fairly be debated on one side or the other, but I cannot help thinking that my noble friend behind me is right when he treats the title of chemist as a personal and not as a general title. The members of these companies, excellent as is the work which they are doing, are not all chemists in the proper sense of the term, and it seems to me that it is a misuse of the title to allow a body which is not composed of chemists to use that particular designation. That is the whole question before us. Is it right that this should be treated as a title which can be taken up by a body of people who have not passed the examination and who are not in the recognised position of chemists and druggists, or is it not more for the security of the public that it should be confined to persons who are qualified by
20
examination and whom the public know to be entitled, by those means, to its use?
The noble Viscount opposite has quoted a case in which he says the loss to the particular company concerned would be very much indeed. We all know that these estimates are not always to be relied upon. Those who are concerned in matters of this kind very naturally estimate their losses, before they incur them, very high indeed. My noble friend the Lord President recognises this loss to a very considerable extent, and he gives them seven years in which they may make their preparations for the change which he desires to bring into effect. The-number of years is, no doubt, a question, for discussion, but twenty-one years seems to me to be far too long. In my opinion seven years would meet the real claims of these companies in. this respect. It is far better that a name which rests on examination should be confined to those persons who have undergone that examination.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, there is no need for me to add anything to what has been so admirably said by the noble Viscount behind me with regard to the effect of this Bill, but the noble Marquess opposite has reiterated a point which, I think, requires some comment. It is that the title of chemist is a personal title attached to a particular person carrying on the business and to whom the business, belongs, and that it is not, therefore, applicable to a company, even although in every one of their shops there is a regular qualified chemist. Is it the ease that this title is really a purely personal title? Claus 3 of this Bill provides that the provisions of Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, which enable the executor, administrator, or trustee of the estate of a deceased pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist to continue his business so long as such business is bona fide conducted by a duly qualified assistant, shall be construed as enabling such executor, administrator, or trustee to carry on the business if, and so long only as in every promises where the business is carried on, the business is bona fide conducted by a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and

21
druggist. Therefore, as I road the clause, an executor, administrator, or trustee, without being a pharmaceutical chemist at all himself, could carry on the business merely on the ground that it belonged to a pharmaceutical chemist who had since died. The real effect of the Bill, therefore, is to prevent a company or corporate body from calling themselves chemists while it permits an individual who is not a chemist in certain circumstances to do so. These large firms which have been in existence for some years have carried on their business in an admirable manner; so much so that they have attracted the public, who now look upon these large companies as a necessity of the times. It is not only in their interests that we ask the noble Earl to reconsider his suggestion, but in the interest also of the public. A very large number of petitions have been signed by customers using those shops who are satisfied with the way in which they have been carried on and wish them to continuo with the same advantages as to the use of the title. Why should the I intended disabilities be placed on these companies? So long as the public have the security that in every shop there is a
fully qualified chemist, I do not see why a company or association of individuals who are permitted by law to carry on the business of chemists should not also be enabled to use that title in connection with that business.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am, of course, not entitled to any reply, but, as a matter of explanation, in answer to the-noble Lord who has just sat down, I may say that if he thinks this Bill as it stands does not prevent the executors of any particular chemist from using the name of that chemist, with the word "chemist" attached, I shall be perfectly happy to add to the Bill words which will make it perfectly clear that that is intended. The title is intended to be a personal one. I certainly do not propose that executors should be able to carry on the business under a particular name, with the word "chemist" attached, if that chemist does not actually exist.
On Question, "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided. Contents, 32; Not Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L (L. Chancellor.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain)

Haversham, L.

Crewe, L. (L. President.)

Lyveden, L.

Ripon. M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burghclere, L.

Newton, L.

Castletown, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Reay, L.

Manchester, D.

Coleridge, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Davey, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Northampton, M.

Denman, L. [Teller]

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin end Kincardine.)

Tweedmouth, L.

Wands worth, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fairer, L.

Weardale, L.

Carrington, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Winterstoke, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

Russell, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Mayo, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Waldegrave, E.

James, L.

Bath, M.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V.

Mount Stephen, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E, Donoughmore.)

Poltimore, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

Camperdown, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Rosmead, L.

Cathcart, E.

Saltoun, L.

Cawdor, E.

Alverstone, L.

Sanderson, L.

Ducie, E.

Belper, L.

Teynham, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Hardwicke, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Wenlock, L.

Hersey, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Sauderdale, E.

Digby, L.

Richfield, E. [Teller.]

Ebury, L. [Teller.]

On Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Clause," agreed to.
LORD LAWRENCE LORD LAWRENCE moved that the provisions of the Bill should be applied to Ireland. He explained that the object of his Amendment was to restore the Bill to the position in which it stood when it was introduced into their Lordships' House. So far as he could make cut, the principal reason why Ireland was excluded from the scope of the Bill was that the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, at whoso suggestion the clause applying the Bill to Ireland was struck out, contended that there were adequate facilities already for agriculturists to get the necessary poisons. That this was not the fact was obvious when he stated that there were 130 districts in Ireland where no registered trader empowered to sell these poisons existed. Indeed the law had been persistently broken, and unregistered persons had sold these poisons without any penalties being enforced against them. The Cattle Traders and Stock Owners' Association, as well as the Dublin County Council and other bodies, had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill's applying to Ireland, the only opponents to that course being the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who at present had the monopoly. Under the Bill extra facilities were given to farmers and stock raisers in England, Scotland, and Wales for obtaining the compounds required in agricultural pursuits, and there was no justifiable reason why they should be withheld from Ireland
Amendment moved—
" To leave out Clause 7, and to insert the the following clause. 7. This Act, except sections three and four thereof, shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications, (a) For references to the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 and 1868, or either of them, there shall be substituted reference to the Poisons (Ireland) Act, 1870, the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment Act, 1890, and for references to particular provisions of the first mentioned Acts shall be substituted references to the corresponding provisions of the last-mentioned Act, and in particular for the reference to Schedule A. to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, shall be substituted a reference to Schedule A. to the Poisons (Ireland), Act, 1870, and for the reference to section two of the Pharmacy Act, 1852, shall be substituted a reference to section sixteen of the Pharmacy Act, (Ireland), 1875. b. For the reference to the Council of the
24
Pharmaceutical Society, there shall be substituted a reference to the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, c. For references to Orders in Council by His Majesty there shall be substituted references to Orders in Council by the Lord Lieutenant, d. Section seventeen of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875 Amendment Act, 1890, shall apply where the persons keeping open shop are a company.' "— (Lord Lawrence.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREopposed the Amendment on the ground that the circumstances in Ireland left no need for the application of the Bill. He ventured to think that the noble Lord had pursued a rather unusual course in moving this Amendment at the present stage, especially as he offered no opposition to his (Lord Donoughmore's) Amendment in Committee excluding Ireland from the Bill. The Departmental Committee upon whose report the Bill was founded took no evidence in regard to Ireland. He believed this was a case in which Ireland was already very much better governed than England. The English system was quite simple. Under the Act of 1868 no one could sell poisons of any kind in England unless he was a registered chemist. It was felt that this was inconvenient in regard to the sale of poisons for agricultural purposes. But this had been recognised in Ireland fifteen years ago, and an Act was passed in 1890 giving the Pharmaceutical Society power to license persons who were not chemists to sell poisons for agricultural purposes only. There were at the present moment 1,500 of such licensed persons in Ireland, and he held that the requirements of the public were, therefore, quite satisfied. The persons licensed to sell poisons for agricultural purposes averaged 45 per county, which, as their Lordships would realise, was a large number. He claimed that nearly every town and village in Ireland of any importance had a person now living in it empowered to supply the wants of farmers in this direction. There was no machinery in the Bill which would be applicable to Ireland, and he did not see how any machinery could be evolved by which the Pharmaceutical Society in Dublin could work hand in hand with the loca county councils. It was necessary than these poisons should only be handled am sold by trustworthy people, and he was afraid that a power to license in the hands of two bodies would lead to con fusion, and it would be impossible to

25
prevent the powers falling into improper hands to the danger of the public.
THE EARL OF MAYOhoped that the Amendment would be accepted. Ireland was an agricultural country, and it was essential that farmers and stock raisers should have proper facilities for obtaining drugs and compounds required for the cure of sheep scab and other diseases among cattle. The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland had their own particular monopoly at heart in this matter; and he thought some weight should be given to the opinions of the Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners' Association, the Dublin Society, and the Board of Agriculture, all of which bodies were in favour of the provisions of the Bill applying to Ireland. The noble Karl had said that there were 1,500 people in Ireland empowered to sell poisons required for agricultural purposes, but what was that number among a population of 4,000,000 mostly engaged in agriculture? It was indispensible to modern sheep-farming that there should be ample facilities for obtaining these poisons. It could not be said that these facilities existed to anything like the requisite extent in Ireland. There were many stretches of country in which there was neither a pharmaceutical chemist nor a registered druggist to be found. He therefore hoped His Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I must ask leave to explain the position in which I find myself in relation to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lawrence As your Lordships are aware, in the Committee stage I agreed to omit the clause including Ireland within the, operation of this Bill. I did so at the request of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore, and I endeavoured to make it clear that T took that course not at all on the merits of the case, but because I did not consider we had sufficient information at our disposal as to the needs of Ireland in this particular matter. As the noble Lord had said, Irish witnesses were not examined before the Departmental Committee appointed by the late Government, and that, no doubt, gave fair grounds for suspending judgment for a time on this particular point.
Since then I have been in communication with a good many gentlemen taking
26
both views in Ireland, and the Irish Department have also collected information on the subject and have arrived at the conclusion that Ireland ought to be included. The number of people qualified to sell these poisons in different parts of Ireland is about 1,300, but of these 543 reside in the six county boroughs—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Londonderry—and not much sheep dipping goes on in those cities. It is obvious that the number really available to meet the needs of the farmers is less than appears. I am told that in the whole province of Connaught there are only sixty-two persons authorised to sell agricultural poisons, and that, I think, must involve a shortage in the case of articles which are often wanted at very short notice. The Agricultural Department, therefore, have arrived at the conclusion that Ireland ought to come within the operation of the Bill.
The reason which I confess weighs with me more than any other is one of a different kind. It is notorious that these agricultural poisons are sold by hundreds of people who are not registered at all. It has not been the practice to prosecute these unauthorised sellers, and in the few cases where they have been prosecuted it has been the custom of the Lord-Lieutenant of the day to remit the fines which have been imposed. Any one can see that that is an unsatisfactory state of things. It does not add to popular respect for the law to know that an unauthorised trade of this kind is going on, winked at by the police and not strongly discouraged by the authorities at Dublin Castle.
I confess that I did not contemplate that this matter would come up again in this House, and therefore I should have felt in any case debarred, in spite of the information which has carried conviction to my mind, from reintroducing it hero, but I have not the least doubt that it would have been introduced in another place. Therefore I do not consider myself called upon to offer any opposition, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to the Amendment before the House. Though, as I say, I did not feel justified in bringing the matter forward myself, yet if the noble Lord goes to a division I shall certainly support him by my vote in the Lobby.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that Ireland was included in the Bill which he drafted, but he received information afterwards to the effect that it was considered advisable to exclude Ireland. After what had been said by his noble friend, Lord Mayo, who spoke with great knowledge of the agricultural needs of Ireland, he thought it would be wise that the Bill should extend to that country. There seemed to be a difference of opinion on this point among noble Lords who represented Ireland, but as the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, after carefully considering the whole matter, had came to the con-conclusion that the Bill should apply to Ireland, he would advise his noble friends who opposed the Amendment not to go to a division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 82.)

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 22nd February last "—(The Earl of Portsmouth)—agreed to, and ordered accordingly. The said address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMEND MENTS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, this is a Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 and 1866, by extending the powers of the court in relation to maintenance and alimony and leave to intervene. It deals with minor matters connected with Divorce Court practice. In Committee I shall move to strike out the third section,
28
which deals with the giving of evidence by parties in the Divorce Court. I think this is not a provision which should proceed until it has been further considered. The last clause is to allow persons charged with adultery to be able to intervene for the purpose of protecting their character, which they cannot do now. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EXTRADITION BILL, [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Bill is fully explained in the preamble, which recites that a Convention has been concluded between His Majesty and the President of the United States for including in the list of crimes on account of which extradition may be granted certain offences, and amongst others bribery. The law in this country does not enable us to include bribery among extradition crimes, and this Bill is introduced to give effect to the Convention.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNE: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is quite correct in saying that this Bill is necessary in order to give effect to the Convention entered into between the late Government and the Government of the United States. The latter Government very greatly desired that bribery should become an extraditable offence, and after much negotiation the terms of an arrangement for that purpose were settled.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I think the Bill will require some consideration in

29
Committee. I doubt whether the mere inclusion of the word bribery would effect the purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Under the terms of the Agreement it is made quite clear that the extradition of a fugitive may not be claimed unless the offence which he has committed is an extraditable offence in both countries. Therefore, a person could not be extradited unless the offence committed in the United States was one for which he was liable to criminal punishment under the law of this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Bill was very carefully prepared by the late Lord Chancellor, and I think he is the last person to go wrong on a matter of drafting. But if the noble and learned Lord thinks that an Amendment is required to make the Bill effect its purpose, we will certainly consider it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: It has come to my knowledge that some offence has been given by the Amendment which I moved to Clause 5 in Committee, providing that the public trustee should be appointed as additional trustee on the application of any trustee or beneficiary in any trust in which a solicitor is acting, or has acted, in the double capacity of solicitor and trustee. I wish to say that I had not the slightest intention of reflecting on the whole body of solicitors. I did, in fact, say that I felt sincerely grateful to some of them for good advice given to me in times of difficulty, and that several of those solicitors to whom I
30
felt grateful are still alive. But the papers, in reporting what I said, did not put in that qualification. I now move to alter the words inserted in the clause to "any trust in which any person is acting in the capacity of trustee, and also in any professional capacity."
Amendment moved—
In Clause 5, page 6, line 24, to leave out the words 'a solicitor is acting, or has acted in the double capacity of solicitor and trustee', and to insert the words 'any person is acting in the capacity of trustee, and also in any professional capacity.' ")—(Lord Ellenborough.)
LORD DAVEY: I would venture to ask your Lordships to consider whether this clause is necessary at all. There is ample opportunity in other clauses of the Bill for the appointment of the public trustee as an additional trustee whenever that may be necessary, and on application being made to the court for the purpose. The circumstance to which the noble Lord has drawn attention might very well be brought forward as a reason for exercising the power of appointing the public trustee as an additional trustee, but it appears to mo that the clause as it stands, even with the Amendment, is far too drastic, because it puts it in the power of any single beneficiary, however small his interest may be, to call upon the court to appoint the public trustee as an additional trustee, and to throw upon someone, very likely the solicitor trustee, the onus of showing why the appointment 'should not be made. It would not be enough to say that the creator of the trust—the testator—had desired that his own family solicitor should be on the trust to guide his inexperienced sons in the management of the trust property. It would not be enough to show that the solicitor trustee was a gentleman of undoubted reputation and integrity. I take it that under this clause you must show something more than that. The onus is thrown on those who support the arrangement which the testator himself has made for the execution of his trust. I sympathise to a large extent with the feeling which has dictated the noble Lord's Amendment, but I venture to think that, while meeting one possible evil, ho has introduced a clause of such stringency as possibly to lead to great inconvenience, and to the disturbance of arrangements made by testators

31
for the management of their business. It is, moreover, a clause which will be understood to cast some imputation on that body of gentleman to whom reference has been made. I should like, therefore, to move that Clause 5 be omitted altogether.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the clause as it was amended in Committee was understood to give offence to a body of men on whom no one wishes in any way to reflect, but as it is proposed to be amended now it comes to this, that if one of the trustees is acting not only in his capacity as trustee but in his professional capacity—that is to say, is discharging the duty of a trustee, and also that of a professional man—then in those circumstances any person who is beneficially interested in the trust may apply that the public trustee shall be added as security, and unless the court thinks that in the interest of the beneficiaries it is undesirable he should be added, he is, by his consent, added. I am satisfied that the clause is simply designed as a precaution and safeguard for persons in a peculiarly helpless position. I therefore agree to the Amendment now before the House. As to the comission of the clause altogether, as suggested by Lord Davey, I would prefer that the clause should remain as it is proposed to be amended. There is, it is true, power under the other clauses of the Bill for the court to appoint the public trustee as additional trustee, but this clause has a point in it inasmuch as it indicates the rules which the court ought to pursue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 5"—(Lord Davey.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass"—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.