Lords Sitting of 25 July 1916

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

E. Ancaster;

L. Lamington;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 23 (1916)—Note addressed to the United States Ambassador regarding the examination of parcels and letter mails (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 20 (1916) [Cd. 8261])":
European War—Papers relating to German atrocities and breaches of the rules of war in Africa:
Local Government Board—Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1915–1916. Part II. Housing and Town Planning:
Navy (1914–1915, Statement of Excess)—Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Army—Report of the Committee on Royal Aircraft Factory and Report to the War Committee by the Air Board on the subject of the Royal Aircraft Factory:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
India (Punjab Legislative Council)—Amendment in the Regulations for the nomination and selection of Members of the Punjab Legislative Council:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the under-mentioned Local Authorities and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

Council of County of Merioneth (Dolgelly);

Council of City of Kingston-upon-Hull:

Lunacy—Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients detained under the provisions of the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, seen by the several Commissioners during the six months ended 30th June 1916:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Board—Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the Upper Medway for the year ended 31st March 1916: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LAND DRAINAGE (FELTWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (LILLESHALL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Wigan (E. Crawford)).

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday next.

PETITION.
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889 (Ordinance of University Courts of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, General No. 4 (Regulations as to Preliminary Examinations))—Petition that this House will present an Address praying His Majesty to withhold His Assent from the above-named Ordinance; of the General Council of the University of Aberdeen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Regulation of street collections.
5.—(1) A police authority may make regulations with respect to the places where and the conditions under which persons may be permitted in any street or public place, within the police area to collect money or sell articles for the benefit of charitable or other purposes, and any person who acts in contravention of any such regulation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings or in the case of a second or subsequent offence not exceeding five pounds.
Provided that—

(a) regulations made under this section shall not come into operation until they have been confirmed by the Secretary of State, and published for such time and in such manner as the Secretary of Stale may direct; and

(b) regulations made under this section shall not apply to the selling of articles in any street or public place when the articles are sold in the ordinary course of trade, and for the purpose of earning a livelihood, and no representation is made by or on behalf of the seller that any part of the proceeds of sale will be devoted to any charitable purpose.

(2) This section shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

(a) references to the Secretary of State shall be construed as references to the Lord Lieutenant; and

(b) references to a police authority shall as respects streets and public places within the Dublin Metropolitan police district be construed as references to the Chief Commissioner of Police for that district; and as respects streets and public places not within that district, be construed as references to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

(3) In this section—
the expression "street" includes any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not.
LORD ROTHERHAM LORD ROTHERHAM moved to omit "police" [the second word of the clause] and to insert "local." The noble Lord said: It is not of my own motion that I move this Amendment. I do so at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which, of course, speaks on a matter of this kind with the highest possible authority. This Association has for many years had the honour of having as its President the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, who therefore knows well the great authority which attaches to the views expressed from time to time by this body on questions relating to local government. I may say that the Association heartily approve of the principle of Clause 5 of this Bill; indeed, they have for some time past urged the Government to legislate on this particular subject. But by the Amendment which I am moving they suggest that the body which should have power to make the regulations in question should be the authority having power to make by-laws for good rule and government. The alteration proposed by this Amendment will make very little difference in those boroughs which maintain their own police; the only alteration would be the substitution of the town

881
council in place of the watch committee. The main object of the Amendment is, in the case of those boroughs which are policed by the county, to substitute the town council for the county authority. In view of the importance of the body from whom this Amendment emanates, I trust your Lordships will recognise that the suggestion is entitled to careful and favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("police") and insert ("local").—(Lord Rotherham.)
LORD SANDHURST: I do not, of course, underrate the importance of the Association on whose behalf the noble Lord has moved this Amendment, but I desire to point out certain inconveniences which would arise from its adoption. Under the Bill as it stands the police authority is, in the metropolitan police district, the Secretary of State; in a county, the standing joint committee; and in a borough maintaining a separate police force, the watch committee. If this Amendment were adopted the authority in counties would be the county council, and in all boroughs the city or town council. As the Bill stands, the regulations will be made in each case by the authority directly controlling the police, but if the Amendment were accepted they would be made by authorities without direct control of the police; and in the case of boroughs which have not a separate police force the regulations would be made by the borough council and enforced by the county police.
The noble Lord has several Amendments on the Paper which are consequential and hang together. The objection which I have stated applies still more strongly to the proposal appearing in my noble friend's Amendment defining the local authority—
"the expression ' local authority ' means in the county of London the police authority and elsewhere the authority who have power to make byelaws for good rule and government under section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, or section 16 of the Local Government Act, 1838."
This definition, if adopted, would break up the metropolitan police district—a matter of extreme inconvenience—and establish separate authorities in the several counties and boroughs which compose it, The Commissioner of Police already possesses power to make regulations as to street collections extending beyond the county of London, and if a separate power were
882
given, as proposed in the Amendment, to the county and borough authorities a conflict of jurisdiction would follow. The metropolitan police district includes all Middlesex, parts of Essex, Surrey, Kent, and Hertfordshire, together with the boroughs of East Ham, West Ham, Croydon, Richmond, Kingston, Ealing, Bromley, Hornsey, and Wimbledon. Therefore while the Commissioner of Police would make one set of regulations it is quite possible that one of these boroughs might make other regulations for their borough, with the result that there would be considerable confusion; and it might also be the case that the street sellers, the people for whom these regulations are to be made, would be in some difficulty to know what the regulations were. Uniformity, which is very desirable in such matters, not only for the protection of the public but for ease of administration, would be imperilled by increasing the number of authorities with power to make regulations. For these reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ROTHERHAM: While I have received instructions to move this Amendment, I have not been instructed to press it to a division; so I must accept, though with great regret, the decision of my noble friend in charge of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, after ("This section") insert ("except subsection (3) thereof").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST: The next Amendment extends to county councils in Scotland a power which was given to burghs in Scotland last year.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(3) The power to make byelaws conferred upon the council of a county in Scotland by section fifty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall include a power to make byelaws regulating the conditions under which persons may be permitted in any street, road, or public place within the comity to collect money or sell articles for the benefit of charitable or other purposes, provided that such byelaws shall not apply to the selling of articles in any street, road, or public place when the articles sold are sold in the ordinary course of trade and for the purpose of earning a livelihood."—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
PART II.
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Provisions for securing welfare of workers in factories and workshops.
7. (1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the processes carried on in any factory or workshop are such as to require special provision to be made at the factory or workshops for securing the welfare of the workers or any class of workers employed therein in relation to the matters to which this section applies, he may by Order require the occupier to make such reasonable provision therefor as may be specified in the order, and if the occupier fails to comply with the requirements of the order or any of them, the factory or workshop shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
(2) The following shall be the matters to which this section applies:—
Arrangements for preparing or heating, and taking, meals; the supply of drinking water; the supply of protective clothing; ambulance and first aid arrangements; the supply and use of seats in workrooms; facilities for washing; accommodation for clothing; arrangements for supervision of workers.
(3) Orders may—

(a) be made for a particular factory or workshop, or for factories or workshops of any class or group or description;

(b) be made contingent in respect of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified number or proportion of the workers concerned, and may prescribe the manner in which the views of the workers are to be ascertained;

(c) provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of the arrangements, accommodation or other facilities for which provision is made, in any case where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers; but no contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone, and unless two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, on their views being ascertained in the prescribed manner, assent.

(4 If, in the case of any order proposed to be made for a particular factory or workshop, the occupier, or, in the case of an order for factories or workshops of a particular class or group or description, the majority of the occupiers of factories or workshops of that class or group or description, dispute the reasonableness of the requirements in the proposed order or any of them, the objection shall be referred for settlement to a referee selected in accordance with rules made under this section, but the Secretary of State may so refer any objection though not made by a majority of the occupiers if he thinks desirable.
(5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the order, the occupier of a factory or workshop shall not make any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by him to any workman or receive any payment from any workman in respect of any provision made in pursuance of an order under this section, and if he makes any such deduction or receives any such payment, he shall be guilty of an offence against the Truck Act, 1831, and shall be liable to the penalties imposed by section nine of that Act as if the offence were an offence mentioned in that section.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules as to the time within which and the manner in which notice of objection to any order may be made, and as to the selection of, and the procedure before, a referee and the cost of the proceedings before a referee (including the remuneration of the referee)
(7) Any order made under this section may be revoked at any time in whole or in part by the Secretary of State, without prejudice to the making of a further order.
(8) This section shall not apply to domestic factories or workshops.
(9) The Secretary of State may by a special order made in accordance with the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-six of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extend the matters to which this section applies to matters other than those mentioned in this section.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after subsection (3), the insertion of the following new subsection—
(4) No contribution shall be required for such purposes from the workers in any factory or workshop whose earnings amount to less than twenty-five shillings a week, or from any worker for arrangements for supervision of the workers.
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I want to make it quite clear that, so far as the main provisions of this clause are concerned, I think it one of the most important in the Bill. In most respects it is quite admirable. It contains provisions which are urgently required in many of the works that were the subject of an Inquiry which I held in the autumn in Scotland, and I am very glad to see the clause in the Bill. But it seems to me that there are one or two points in regard to it to which the attention of the House and of the Home Office should be directed. I hold very strongly that some of the things mentioned in the clause ought not to be charged to the workers; certainly they ought not to be managed at the workers' expense unless those who are to pay for them are going to use them. I think it very improbable that all of the workers in any large factory would use these provisions; certainly that would not be so in the case of some of the poorer workers, those who are paid the smallest wages. I have in my Amendment inserted

885
a limit of 25 s. a week, but that figure is purely arbitrary. It does not concern me whether the wage is fixed at 25 s. or 23 s. or 20 s., as long as the principle is accepted that those getting almost less than a living wage should not have these deductions made from their earnings.
Some of the matters included in the clause are undoubtedly a fair subject of charge. But if the noble Lord will look at the last three lines of subsection (3) he will see there a provision that the charge is not to be made "unless two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, on their views being ascertained in the prescribed manner, assent." Supposing the majority is of the well-paid workers, are they to commit the poorer ones to a payment which they can ill afford and perhaps for benefits of which they do not make use? Again, if one lot of workers assent, and then the workers are changed, is the resolution once taken to be binding for all time? For example, in some of our munition factories work is now being done by women which was formerly done by men, and it will be more largely done by women in the near future, perhaps, than it is at the present time. Supposing a vote is taken in a factory, and the men say "Yes," they are quite willing to pay for these things, is that to bind all subsequent employees in that factory; and, if not, at what intervals is another poll to be taken or opportunity to be given for the determination, on the part of those who are to be charged, whether they will or will not pay? It must be obvious to everybody that it is not fair that workers should pay for such a thing as a canteen if they do not use it, or if they go home to their meals; and I cannot think that compulsion should be used. If they do not use it, the subscription towards it is an undue tax on their wages. If I understand the matter rightly, with regard to some of the other items referred to in the same subsection it is not proposed that the workers should pay anything to their cost unless they do actually use them, but I do not see anything in the clause to confine payment to those who so use them.
There are other matters to which the clause applies, such as arrangements for preparing or heating and taking meals, the supply of drinking water, the supply of protective clothing, ambulance and first aid arrangements, the supply and use of
886
seats in workrooms, facilities for washing, and accommodation for keeping workers' clothing, such as overcoats, hats, and so on, while they are at work. I believe that the Home Secretary has long had power to demand that in all well-equipped factories these things should be provided, and there should be no question of a charge to the workers for providing them. It does not seem to me fair or reasonable that, without some limitation, these charges should suddenly be brought in. Let me call the attention of the House to one other point, that of the supervision of workers. I do not think this a fair charge on the employees. The factory owner should pay for supervision and not the workpeople. My last point is this. The wages of some of the women workers are far too low already; they are largely whittled down by insurance and other payments, and we should not allow an extension of this principle of charges to the poorer classes of the workers without very grave consideration. It seems to me that I have made out a strong prima facie case, at any rate, for not extending the charge in these matters below a certain limit of weekly wage.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 3, insert as a new subsection:
(4) No contribution shall be required for such purposes from the workers in any factory or workshop whose earnings amount to less than twenty-five shillings a week, or from any worker for arrangements for supervision of the workers.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SANDHURST: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, who is so thoroughly acquainted with these matters, speak so well of this clause, and I am rather surprised that the clause has not attracted more attention. The danger is that if a restriction is placed in the clause such as that suggested by the noble Lord, it might end in no Orders being made at all, because it would not be reasonable to expect that the more highly paid workers should contribute the whole cost. It must be borne in mind that these payments would be the exception rather than the rule. The whole object of the clause is to benefit the worker. Payments have to be subject to an Order of the Secretary of State, and where it was a question of the cost falling upon the low-waged workers, that would certainly be carefully considered by the Secretary of State in framing his Order. As to payment for supervision, the danger there is that if

887
it were specifically inserted in the clause that there was to be no payment for supervision, it might lead to a notion that payment was to be exacted for a number of matters mentioned in the clause, whereas, as I have said, these payments would be required in only special cases. There is no intention whatever to require a contribution for supervision or for the majority of the matters referred to in the subsection. The position of these factories and workshops has changed very much lately owing to circumstances which it is fair to say are due to the war. Women have been employed in very large numbers, and other accommodation and so on is now required. What was in the mind of the Secretary of State was simply a desire to bring up all industrial factories and workshops to a high level, and in the Munitions Ministry there is a department which deals with these things. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is one point upon which the noble Lord did not touch, and that is how long a vote amongst the employees in a factory is to be binding upon their successors. This does seem to me an important point. The noble Lord, as I understand, says that there is no intention to make any charge in respect of supervision, but that it is necessary to put all these things into the clause to give power to the Secretary of State to make Orders respecting them. Would it not be possible to make some distinction between those particular services for which a charge may be made and those for which no charge could be made?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I put it to my noble friend whether a distinction of that kind is one which could conveniently find a place in an Act of Parliament, and whether it is not a matter to be dealt with administratively by the responsible Department.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have not received an answer with regard to the vote of the workers affecting succeeding generations of workmen.
LORD SANDHURST: Perhaps my noble friend will be so good as to raise that question again on Report. In the meantime I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Abolition of investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons.
8.—(1) After the expiration of one month from the passing of this Act it shall cease to be the duty of certifying surgeons to investigate the nature and cause of death or injury caused by accidents in factories and workshops or in premises to which the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, relating to accidents, are applied, or to send to the inspector of the district reports thereof:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect subsection (3) of section seventy-three of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the investigation by certifying surgeons of diseases occurring in factories and workshops.
Provided also that it shall continue to be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon cases of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances or due to any other special cause specified in instructions of the Secretary of State as requiring investigation, and the Secretary of State shall issue instructions defining the causes of injury to which this provision is to apply and requiring the inspector of the district to refer to the certifying surgeon all such cases reported to him. It shall also be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon any case of injury which the inspector of the district in pursuance of any general or special instructions of the Secretary of State may refer to him for that purpose. The certifying surgeon shall have, for the purpose of the investigation in any such case, the same powers and shall be entitled to receive the same fee as he would if the case had been a case to which section seventy-three applies.
(2) As from the same date the enactments-mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after the words "or other noxious substances" in the last proviso to subsection (1), to insert "or, in case of children and young persons, by machinery in motion by mechanical power."
The noble Lord said: This is the question of the alteration of the position of the certifying surgeon. The proposal which I venture to put before the House is an alternative one. Personally I am bound to say that I do not like this clause at all, and I see that other noble Lords have given notice to move its exclusion from the Bill. But if it is sought to make any amendment of a clause, the proper time to do it is before the question for the exclusion of the clause is put. Therefore I have drafted the Amendment which stands in my name. I have read with all the care I can bestow upon it all that has been said on these points in another place, and I read with great interest the statement of the Home Secretary.

889
He founds the abolition of these investigations by certifying surgeons to some extent upon the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1908–11. I have looked at the terms of reference to that Committee, and I do not find in them the slightest reference to the subject. The terms of reference were—
"To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the increase in the number of reported accidents in certain classes of factories and workshops and other premises under the Factory Acts, and to report what additional precautionary measures are, in their opinion, necessary or desirable."
They were to report only as to the additional precautionary measures which in their opinion were necessary or desirable, and not as to the exclusion of those which already existed. That strengthens my opinion, as also does the whole tone of the arguments in another place, that opportunity is really being taken of the emergency in which we are situated, under the plea of economy, to decide in favour of the Home Office a controversy of many years standing between them and the certifying surgeons.
The whole point here is the possible saving of £12,500 a year; but even that will not all be saved, because it is distinctly promised that if this change is made other things will be done which will cause additional expense. Further I say that if the country is so poor that it wants to save this £12,500 a year during the period of the war, why do you not put a limit into the Bill that the saving is to be only during the period of the war? There is nothing of the kind in the Bill. Then there is a rather unworthy insinuation made, that the certifying surgeons were opposing this clause because they would get a certain reduction in fees. That is not worth discussing, because there are, I think, about 2,000 certifying surgeons, and even if they received an equal division of the sum which is to be saved it would not make any material difference to them. If the Report of this Departmental Committee is to be laid stress on, I have to point out that there was no medical man upon it, that the certifying surgeons were not represented, and that there was not a single one called to give evidence. The whole thing was done behind their backs or over their heads.
It does not seem to me that any practical purpose will be served by this clause. I hold very strongly that the visits of these certifying surgeons give them experience,
890
and their certificates are consequently of more value in the special case of boys and young people whom they were certifying to be fit for work. The certifying surgeon has also the opportunity, as a sympathetic outsider, of seeing the workman and hearing his story of how the accident happened. If this clause remains as it is in the Bill, the result will be that the workpeople will have to depend upon the report of the occupier or owner of the factory and on that of the factory inspector. One of them is distinctly interested; the other is a pure official. It seems to me that a sympathetic friend like the certifying surgeon, who is known to the people concerned and who is accustomed to look into these things, would be a much better guarantee for the safety of those involved than if they were left only to the reports of the occupier and of the factory inspector. I do not go so far as to say that an employer's notice is absolutely unreliable, but I do think it would be a safeguard that a man in the position of the certifying surgeon should be called in. Parliament I think I may say, through all the history of factory laws, has always recognised the right of the injured person to throw as much light on the cause of the accident as he can, and I hold very strongly that with the disappearance of the doctor from this inquiry the privilege and advantage hitherto enjoyed by the workman in this respect will become to a large extent a dead letter. At any rate, in the modified form in which the clause would stand were my Amendment agreed to, the change might be made. Of course, other noble Lords will still have the right to move the rejection of this clause, but it would to a large extent modify my view if the Amendment which I am now moving were inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, after ("substances") insert ("or, in case of children and young persons, by machinery in motion by mechanical power)".—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SANDHURST: In replying to my noble friend on this Amendment, it seems to me that I must to some extent anticipate what I shall have to say when the Amendment is moved to delete the clause, because the reasons which apply in the one case apply in the other. With regard to the Departmental Committee of 1908–11, it is not my business to say why they recommended a proposal which, according to my noble friend, would seem to be rather

891
beyond the reference with which they were furnished; but it does strike me as being a point worth making, that in face of the fact that they were directed to inquire into how the increase of accidents could be prevented, and so on, they suggest the withdrawal of a certain class of report which some people think is for the safety of the workers, but which they, many of them experts, considered might be abolished without reducing the standard of safety.
My noble friend mentioned that this was an old controversy between the factory inspectors and the certifying surgeons. Of the history of that I am not cognisant. But perhaps I might remind my noble friend of this, that it is true that the certifying surgeon dates from 1844, and in those days the inspectorate was extremely weak. There were then only fifteen inspectors; now there are, I understand, upwards of 200. With regard to the certifying surgeons themselves, my noble friend may trust me not to make any insinuations of the kind he suggested—namely, that they might be actuated by a desire to retain their fees. I have seen a good deal of doctors in regard to institutions with which I have had to do, and I know that there is no more public-spirited body of men; and, what is more, I know that much of their work is done without fee for their poorer brethren. The doctor is, indeed, as my noble friend described, a sympathetic friend.
The names of the members of the Departmental Committee on whose recommendation this clause is based are well known to people who have had to do with these matters. I may point out that there were two of the regular Labour Party on the Committee, and a third member, Mr. Vivian, who is recognised as a gentleman of a most sympathetic nature towards Labour, and also one with a great knowledge of the bearings of all Labour questions. And in the House of Commons the Leader of the Labour Party, who was one of the Committee, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, spoke strongly in favour of the proposal in this Bill.
The noble Lord said the other day that if these certifying surgeons were able to continue to make these reports it would give them a sort of general knowledge of machinery which would be of great use in determining the aptitude of young persons in connection with certain machinery at
892
which they might be called upon to work. Without troubling your Lordships with many figures, I have two or three which bear on the subject. The number of cases in which any condition such as the noble Lord suggests is made is, in fact, extremely small. I believe it is the fact that only about 1 per cent. of the half million who go through the hands of these certifying surgeons have any condition attached to their certificate. The certifying surgeon, in these examinations, looks to certain main points in regard to the young persons concerned—general physique, sight, and so on; and I may add that out of 15,000 rejections, 4,137 were rejected on account of age or other non-medical grounds; 4,675 for want of cleanliness, 758 for infections, 536 for debility, and 290 for deafness. In none of those cases could it be said that a specialised knowledge of machinery was required; and if there is in particular cases any doubt as to whether a child could be properly employed, the examination takes place in the factory and the inspector is usually available and can be consulted. It is with great reluctance that I am unable to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will not press the Amendment to a Division, but if any noble Lord moves the omission of the clause I shall certainly support him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATYMER: In rising to move that Clause 8 be omitted from the Bill, I must express a little surprise that the noble Lord who has just spoken did not go the length of moving the rejection of the clause altogether, because it seemed to me that the whole of his arguments went in the direction of the deletion of the clause. This clause was brought forward for adoption by Parliament on the strength of a recommendation of the Committee on Retrenchment in Public Expenditure, and it is evident that the recommendation was made for the purpose of economy. I am inclined to think that this is the only thing that can be said in its favour. Well, what is the amount which will be saved annually by the abolition of the investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons? The sum is £12,500 a year. This is a very small retrenchment, and the British Medical Association believe that such a saving, if effected, would be a false economy and a retrograde step.

893
The British Medical Association met the Home Secretary on May 5 in deputation on the subject, and protested to him, unsuccessfully, against the abolition of these investigations by certifying surgeons. The grounds on which they based their protest were as follows:—(1) It is wrong to abolish any of the safeguards that the factory worker has against accidents. It is especially wrong and short-sighted to do it at the present, time, when there is a great influx of unskilled labour into the factories, and therefore a greater liability to accident. (2) The report of the certifying surgeon is a safeguard to the worker. At present the employer sends a report of each accident; to the factory surgeon and to the factory inspector. The former visits the factory in all cases, interviews the injured person, and reports to the inspector. The latter only investigates the more serious accidents, and he is guided materially by the surgeon's report in deciding which cases require his intervention and which he may safely ignore. If the surgeon's report is abolished, the inspector will be dependent entirely upon the employer's report, which experience shows is often misleading and which cannot be regarded as impartial, Furthermore, the insured person's version of the case will no longer be available. (3) The factory inspector could not possibly investigate all the accidents reported. Even in normal times his staff would be quite insufficient for this work, and at present the staff is seriously depleted. If it is said that it is not necessary to investigate all the accidents on the ground that many of them are trivial, the answer is that without the report of the surgeon, or some impartial person, the inspector is bound to miss many cases that ought to be investigated.
The Home Secretary, in defending the proposal to abolish these reports by certifying surgeons, has relied upon the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1908–11 on Accidents in Factories. But this Committee was appointed in view of the increasing number of such accidents; and the British Medical Association point out that the Committee, while expressing the opinion that much of the work of the certifying surgeons could be dispensed with, had hardly placed itself in a position to form an impartial judgment, inasmuch as it took the evidence of only one of the 2,000 certifying surgeons.
894
I have also in my hand the Memorial of the Incorporated Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons. Doubtless these gentlemen can very well take care of their own reputation. At the same time it must be recognised that they are here representing a grievance, as I believe it to be, on behalf of those who cannot themselves represent it to Parliament. This Memorial points out that the Departmental Committee did not recommend that surgeons' reports should be dispensed with. The finding was limited to "much of this work" and had no reference to poisonings, the actual recommendation being the same as that made by the Departmental Committee responsible for the defunct Accidents (Mines and Factories) Bill, 1905—namely, that the local inspector should decide on the accidents requiring investigation by the surgeon. Clause 8 of this Bill aims at saving the whole £12,500, which, as the Incorporated Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons points out, obviously means the total abolition of every class of accident and poisoning investigation. The Incorporated Association adds—
"It is our firm conviction that if certifying surgeons of large experience had been invited to give evidence before the Departmental Committee, the findings would have been totally different. Only one certifying surgeon attended, and he was not asked for an opinion on any of the points subsequently put forward in favour of the change."
Unless your Lordships can be convinced that there is some real use to workers in our factories in the carrying of this clause, beyond the paltry saving of £12,500 a year, I think I am justified, if I can get supporters enough, in asking your Lordships to decide not to accept the clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Latymer.)
LORD SANDHURST: I cannot help thinking that there is considerable misapprehension abroad as to the fate of the certifying surgeon under Clause 8 of this Bill. I think it arises in some measure from the marginal note to the clause, which runs "Abolition of investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons." The word "abolition" seems to have impressed a good many people with the idea that the certifying surgeon is going to be abolished altogether. I can assure the noble Lord who has moved the omission of this clause that this is not at all the case. The sole object of the provision in the Bill is that there should

895
cease to be a series of reports which, in the opinion of the Departmental Committee, may be considered as duplicates, as unnecessary, and as almost identical in many cases with those furnished by the occupier. That is all that is proposed. I have referred to the Departmental Committee and its composition, and to the great increase that has taken place in the inspectorate. It is now considered that the investigation by certifying surgeons is in most cases superfluous; and I may add that, even as it is, the certifying surgeon deals with only one-third of the accidents that occur. He is not really an expert in machinery, whereas the inspector and his staff have passed their lives in the study of machinery accidents and the steps that should be taken with a view to their prevention. Moreover, the certifying surgeon has no power to give any instruction to an occupier. The only duty that is withdrawn from the certifying surgeon is that of making these reports, which, in the opinion of a great many people well qualified to judge, represent a repetition of work which is well done by other people. Every other duty except this will still remain with the certifying surgeon. Except in this respect, he will stand exactly where he did.
The certifying surgeon will still have within his responsibility (1) the certification of children and young persons, (2), cases of industrial poisoning, and (3) the periodical examination of workers; and a good deal comes within the last-named heading with regard to lead poisoning. A further proviso was inserted in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State to the effect that the certifying surgeon should investigate and report upon outlying eases, or cases of injury when, pursuant to the direction of the Secretary of State, the inspector shall ask him to do so. So that as a matter of fact, with the exception of the reports to which I have alluded and which, as I have said, are done by the occupiers, the duties of the certifying surgeons remain the same. I do not think there is likely to be any risk of these certifying surgeons being put to inconvenience if this clause is carried. As we all know, doctors are at a great premium just now, and I am sure that the services of these gentlemen will be most acceptable in other directions. I hope that the House, if the noble Lord goes to a Division, will see fit to support the clause as it stands.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps my noble friend would explain how it is proposed that this clause can be carried out without reducing the standard of safety. He told your Lordships that this clause would not reduce that standard in any way, but it seems obvious that if you take away one of the safeguards to the worker in case of accident you necessarily reduce the standard of safety. Then my noble friend informed us that originally there were only 15 inspectors, and that the number had grown to 200. But he did not tell us that out of the 52,000 accidents that were inquired into by the certifying surgeons, only 10,000 come to the hands of the inspectors to be investigated—that is to say, the large number of 42,000 cases never come before the inspectors at all. In other words, the cases are passed through a sieve, with the effect that the inspectors were saved the trouble of investigating 42,000 eases. It is obvious that if, by abolishing the certifying surgeon, you throw upon these inspectors an additional 42,000 cases in the future it will be necessary considerably to increase the number of inspectors. I cannot help thinking that as this is a Home Office clause it is the object of the Home Office to increase their patronage, and to have more inspectors. Therefore instead of a saving of £12,500, there will probably be a large increase. We know very well that the late Government were very fond of appointing a large number of inspectors, and no doubt the present Government have inherited their love of doing that. It has been said in the past that there have been too many factory inspectors and too little work to do. I do not believe that. I believe that they are very hard working indeed, and it is clear that if you throw on them an additional 42,000 cases the result will be that you will have to increase the number of inspectors. Therefore instead of a saving in the future this clause will involve a heavy increase in expenditure.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I shall not repeat what I have already said, but there were two points mentioned by the noble Lord to which I want to call the attention of the House. The proposal in this clause is put forward as a matter of retrenchment. The Retrenchment Committee were to recommend only economies which could be brought into force without detriment to the interests of the State. I submit that this particular clause is to the detriment of the interests of the

897
State, because it takes away a safeguard, in my opinion, from the workers. If your Lordships will look at the paragraph in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Accidents in Factories I can give you a very good illustration of what I mean. The recommendation in the Report of the Committee, which, as I have already said, had no charter to go into this matter at all, is in these words—
"An inspector can judge from the occupiers report whether the accident should be investigated by him, and the report which ho receives from the Certifying surgeon seldom adds anything which it is necessary for him to know."
And in the last sentence of the same paragraph—
"It is only occasionally that the certifying surgeon's report contains details not given by the occupier of such a kind as to save the inspector a visit."
That is all very well, as far as it goes. But the occupier knows that the certifying surgeon is going to make a report, and the fact that he has that knowledge is a cheek upon him to go fully into matters and make sure nothing is omitted. It is not that necessarily every occupier is going to omit anything from his report. I do not charge that. But I do say that the fact that there is an additional report is a security to the worker, and one which ought not lightly to be got rid of. If my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am sorry Lord Midleton is not in the House, because, as Lord Balfour has told us, this was one of the economies which the noble Viscount's Retrenchment Committee recommended, and I certainly would not brush a recommendation of that sort on one side merely because the sum to be saved was a comparatively modest one. But I say most emphatically that if it could be shown that this economy, or indeed, any economy which might be suggested, could only be accomplished by increasing the extent of risk to life and limb of the people employed in these factories and workshops, were it £120,000 instead of £12,500, I should not raise my voice in support of the retrenchment of that sum. But I think there is a great consensus of authority to show that these reports are really not worth the money which they cost.
Let me here insist upon what was said just now by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst when he told your Lordships that this was
898
not part of a proposal for ousting these certifying surgeons altogether from their activities. On the contrary, they will continue to discharge the greater part, and the more important part, of the duties which now belong to them. So far as those duties require them to concern themselves with the health of the workers, they will continue to perform those duties. Let me again point out that they will continue to examine young children and persons whom it is proposed to employ in factories to certify their fitness; they will still deal with the important question of industrial poisoning; they will still deal with the question of dangerous trades. It is only in regard to accidents, and only to a comparatively small part of the total number of accidents, that they will cease to be called upon to perform their present duties.
It has been suggested that this change would lead to what was called a reduction in the standard of safety. I do not think there will be any such reduction, because it is not the case that the accidents which are reported upon by these certifying surgeons are a different category of accidents from those which are reported upon by the inspectors. All the accidents are reported upon by the inspectors, and we are advised that the report of the certifying surgeon involves something very like duplication of the inspector's report. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, dwelling upon the importance which he attached to the certifying surgeon's report, used these words. He said, "These reports give us the certifying surgeon's story as to how the accident happened." I think my noble friend is under a misapprehension. I do not think that this is what the certifying surgeon has to report. What he has to report upon is not how the accident happened, the cause of the injury, but as to the extent of the injury from the surgical point of view.
This question, as my noble friend told the House, was very thoroughly dealt with by two Committees, and I think we have a right to be influenced in our judgment by those Reports, and more especially by the striking expression of opinion uttered in the House of Commons by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who was then, I believe, Chairman of the Labour Party, which went to show that these reports of the certifying surgeons were not only useless, but, if anything, worse than useless. I cannot pretend to any expert knowledge of this

899
subject; but so far as I have been able to study the documents which have been produced in connection with this case, it does seem to me that it has been adequately proved that your Lordships may safely authorise this change without running any risk so far as the workers in these factories are concerned.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I understand that my noble friend referred, in my temporary absence, to the Committee on which I sat with regard to retrenchment, and I might, perhaps, say a word. The palace which was built up by that Committee has, under the influence of the Departments and the operations of the Cabinet, crumbled to a very exiguous hovel. The point under discussion is one on which, like the noble Marquess opposite, I do not profess to be an expert, although I have a clear recollection
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment negatived accordingly.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment of 4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58. s. 3.
12. Section three of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the reduction of imprisonment imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of non-payment of sums of money), shall apply in all cases, whether or not the sum of money is adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction, and accordingly in that section the words "adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction" shall be repealed, and for the words "the sum adjudged to be paid" there shall be substituted the words "the sum in respect of non-payment of which the imprisonment is imposed."
of these facts—first, that this was one of the rare points on which the Department concerned was convinced that an economy was desirable and could be carried out without the slightest detriment to the service; secondly, that it was one of the rare points on which, so far as my recollection goes, the whole Committee were at one; and thirdly, which is a still rarer thing, that it was an economy in which the Radical members of the Committee were willing to assist. Therefore it would ill become me not to say a word in support of this clause, in the hope that your Lordships will retain it in the Bill.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS.

Buckmaster, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Leicester, E.

Glenconner, L.

Crewe, M. (L. President.)

Lichfield, E.

Harris, L.

Carzon of Kedleston, E. (L. Priry Seal.)

Mayo, E.

Hylton, L.

Islington, L.

Allendale, V.

Joicey, L.

Devonshire, D.

Falmouth, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Knollys, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lansilowne, M.

Revelstoke, L.

Salislrary, M.

Rotherham, L.

Farquhar, L. (L. Steward.)

Sanderson, L.

Sandhurst, (L. Chamberlain)

Saye and Sele, L.

Camperdown, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Southwark, L.

Cramer, E.

Chaming of Wellingborough, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Derby, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Eldon, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Sumner, L.

Fortescue, E.

Digby, L.

Weardale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lauderdale, E.

Templetown, V.

Latymer, L. [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

LORD SANDHURST: The Amendment to this clause is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("a") and insert ("that or any other").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 77.)

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Heading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Standard barrelage.
2.—(1) The maximum barrelage shall be determined by the Commissioners in the case of each brewery and shall be, as respects any quarter, the standard barrelage as denned in this section with the addition as respects any quarter after the first quarter of the surplus barrelage as so defined.
(2) The standard barrelage for the purposes of this section shall be—

(a) in the case of a brewery which was working during the corresponding quarter in the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixteen, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to have been brewed at the brewery in that quarter; and

(b) in the case of a brewery which was not working in the corresponding quarter of that year, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to be reasonable having regard to the average number of barrels brewed at the brewery during the time the brewery has been working; and

(c) in the case of any special brewery where the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the transfer of a brewing business or any other change in the circumstances of the brewery taking place after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and fifteen, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provisions does not afford a proper standard of comparison or affords no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just having regard to the special circumstances of the case

reduced in each case by fifteen per cent.:
Provided that if a brewer gives notice to the Commissioners before the first day of August nineteen hundred and sixteen that he desires that the foregoing provisions of this section should be applied to his brewery with the substitution of the year ending the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and fourteen for the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixteen and of thirty per cent. for fifteen per cent., those provisions shall be applied to his brewery with those substitutions, subject to the power of His Majesty by Order in Council to withdraw this privilege as from a subsequent date to be fixed by the Order in Council or to substitute any higher percentages pro rata if, at any time after the expiration of six months from the first day of April nineteen hundred and sixteen, it appears that the rate of the total Output of beer in the United Kingdom is not reduced to below a rate of twenty-six million barrels a year.
(3) If any licensed premises shall after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and I fourteen, have been or be sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased to any brewer, the brewer shall be entitled thereafter to supply to the licensed premises the same quantity (less fifteen per cent.) of beer as has previously been supplied to those premises, and if the beer has previously been supplied by another brewer the maximum barrelage of that other brewer shall be reduced by the amount of such supply, and the maximum barrelage of the brewer to whom the premises shall be so sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased, shall be similarly increased. The transfer of a mortgage on any licensed premises shall be deemed to be a transfer of licensed premises within this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section the surplus barrelage shall be, as respects any quarter, the number (if any) of barrels by which the aggregate number of barrels brewed during the previous quarters to which the Act applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from paragraph (c) of subsection (2) the words "thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and fifteen," and to insert" thirtieth day of September one thousand nine hundred and fourteen."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment applies to only a small number of cases, but I think in those cases it does remove an injustice. I may remind your Lordships that to attain the object of the Bill—the restriction of the output of beer—a certain year is taken, namely, 1915–1916. The number of barrels brewed by different breweries is ascertained, and the brewers are allowed to brew up to 15 per cent. less than the amount then brewed; but they have a choice of taking the year 1913–1914 as their standard in certain cases of hardship, but in that case they are only allowed to brew up to within 30 per cent. of the standard of that year. In order to meet hard cases there is a provision in the Bill that certain adjustments may be considered as regards those who take the standard of 1915–1916 The effect of this Amendment is to give an opportunity for the Commissioners to take these matters into consideration and effect these adjustments in the case of those breweries which take the year 1913–1914. It would work injustice in certain cases were this liberty only given to the Commissioners in the case of the year 1915–1916 and not in the case of the year 1913–1914. It may be said, Why not take the year 1915–1910 and then the matter can be looked into. But there are a certain number of brewers—I do not pretend that, there are a great many—in whose case for various reasons that is not possible, and they are bound to take the

903
year 1913–1914 as their standard. If the labour involved is small, and if, as I say, the number of breweries affected is also small, surely there can be no objection on the part of the noble Lord to accepting my Amendment. The object of this clause is to make this very drastic Bill inflict as little hardship as possible, and there seems no reason why in these few cases this act of justice should not be done. There is not much risk of a great number of breweries taking 1913–1914 as the standard, because, the reduction in that case being 30 per cent. on the total, it is less favourable, in spite of more brewing being done in that year, than the year 1915–1916. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will do his best to remedy what might be an injustice in a certain number of cases, and accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and fifteen") and insert ("thirtieth day of September one thousand nine hundred and fourteen")—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD STANMORE: I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. The intention of the Bill is to regard the year 1915–1916 as a standard for all ordinary purposes, and only to give brewers the right of choice of an earlier year if they like to take it with all the attendant disadvantages. I would also point out to the noble Viscount that any concession made under this Bill will reduce the amount of tonnage which it is intended that the Bill should set free to help in the importation of articles that are absolutely necessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Viscount withdraw his Amendment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: If I cannot persuade the noble Lord to amend the Bill. I do not wish to press the Amendment further. I only desire to state that his argument as to the amount of tonnage which would be affected by accepting my Amendment has not much weight in it. The Amendment would give a little more trouble to the officials concerned, and that is, I dare say, the reason why it is opposed, but it would have practically no effect on the question of tonnage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Supply of beer to free licensed house.
5.—(1) Any licence-holder in so far as he is not bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, and who has at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any brewer or brewers, shall be entitled on giving not less than fourteen days' notice in writing to obtain from such brewer or brewers particulars of the number of bulk barrels of each description of beer supplied and also a certificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels represented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter period as the supply has continued.
(2) The licence-holder shall after forwarding any such certificate to the Commissioners be entitled to obtain during any corresponding quarter to which this Act applies the same number of standard barrels (reduced by fifteen per cent.) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer ceasing to supply the licence-holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in the certificate (less fifteen per cent.), and that amount shall be transferred to the brewer who has undertaken to supply: Provided that where the licence-holder is himself a brewer for sale the certificate shall not be used to obtain a transfer of barrelage to himself, and that where a certificate forwarded under this section relates to any quarter in which the licence-holder is supplied with beer by the brewer from whom he obtained the certificate, the number of barrels which he is entitled to obtain from another brewer, and which are transferred accordingly, shall be reduced by the quantity with which he is so supplied.
(3) In this section the expression "licence-holder" means the holder of an Excise licence authorising the sale of beer whether wholesale or by retail; and includes, where any licensed premises have changed hands the licence-Holder for the time being; and where any premises on which beer is sold are under the management of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), the Central Control Board, and where the holder of the licence is a manager managing the licensed premises on behalf of any other person or a tenant of any other person who controls the ordering of beer for the premises, the person who so controls the ordering of the beer.
(4) This section shall apply to registered clubs as it applies to licensed premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club for the licence-holder.
LORD STANMORE: Since this Bill was in Committee the matter has been further considered by the military authorities, and they have now come to the conclusion that there would be some advantage if they were able to transfer from one brewer to another the right to brew beer for the purpose of military supply. It is not administratively convenient to put individual canteens on the same basis as licence-holders, as was proposed by the

905
Bill in the shape in which it came up from the Commons. The new subsection which I now move to add to Clause 5 will practically treat military canteens as a whole and give them as a whole the same privileges which are accorded by the Bill to individual licence-holders. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 4, line 38, at end insert as a new subsection:
(5) Where during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, beer has been supplied by any brewer to a canteen held under the authority of the Secretary of State or the Admiralty, the same rights as are conferred under this section upon a licence-holder shall be exercisable in respect of that beer by the Secretary of State or the Admiralty, as the case may be.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RATIONS OF THE TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at as to the additional ration allowance to the troops in Mesopotamia.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this question as to rations was referred to in the discussion which we had the other night on the Mesopotamian Expedition. The noble Lord was then unable to go into this matter, and agreed to a Question being put down for to-day. The first point is whether the rations which are now being provided for the troops in Mesopotamia are the equivalent—the actual money is entirely unimportant—of the rations supplied in France. The second point is whether the scale laid down is one which at this moment it is possible to adhere to; in other words, whether the supplies get up country and reach the troops. But the third point—and it was on this that I endeavoured on Thursday last to draw some; information from my noble friend the Under-Secretary—is as to the extraordinary statement, made to me on high authority, that a correspondence has been going on for many weeks between the authorities at Simla and Force D in Mesopotamia regarding the rations for British troops there. I asked the noble
906
Lord to explain that. It appears that, even if the supplies are there, the General Officer Commanding Force D is unable to do anything in the way of rations or clothing without the consent of the authorities at Simla. As the case was put to me, the authorities at Simla were quite aware that in the very severe climate of Mesopotamia, with the great divergence of heat and cold, the ordinary ration was insufficient; they were prepared to increase it; but Departmental correspondence had apparently been going on for a long period, and in the meantime the troops were suffering. We have had some ground for thinking that, with regard to this campaign, there is not the smooth working in the departments in India which we have always been accustomed to associate with the conduct of affairs in which India has been concerned. I would venture to ask my noble friend, first, whether he can reassure us as to the present conditions. If he is unable to do so, I would ask whether he would undertake to obtain from India and lay upon the Table the correspondence which has gone on between the authorities at Simla and the General Officer Commanding Force D with regard to this question, in order that your Lordships and the country may have an opportunity of considering whether these delays, in a matter on which apparently all authorities were agreed, could not have been obviated in this very severe campaign.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, the question raised by the noble Viscount has only lately become the duty of the War Office at home to deal with, and I am afraid I cannot give any thoroughly satisfactory answer even at the present moment. My best course is, I think, to read to the House the various telegrams that have passed, and they will show that we are endeavouring to get as much information as will allow us to do what we all wish to do—namely, to give the equivalent (as the noble Viscount says, not in money but in value) of the rations provided in France This telegram was sent to Expeditionary Force D—
"Question in House of Lords asks whether decision has been arrived at as to additional allowance to troops in Mesopotamia. This is intended to mean either that the ration—not any allowance—is not up to standard in France, or that it is below some other desirable standard. Is the ration equivalent to that given in France? In any case do you want more, and, if so, what?"

907
The answer to that was—
"Sanctioned scale of rations only differs from that in Franco as regards following items. Issue of sugar here is
½ oz. less, jam 1oz. less, meat 4ozs. loss; but 4ozs. oatmeal and 2ozs. condensed milk are authorised twice a week, but not in France."
They then referred to a certain telegram which they had sent with regard to supplies they had in stock, in which it appeared there was a shortage in oatmeal and condensed milk; but we were not able to make out from that telegram whether there was a shortage in reserve or an actual shortage at the present moment. So another telegram was sent, which I hope will clear up the situation. It ran—
"Please telegraph fully the scale of rations which is now in force, and state whether the troops are receiving to-day the actual full scale; and if this is not the case, state in what particulars the issues are short."
I hope that when we get an answer to this telegram we shall be able to deal satisfactorily and immediately with the question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, in reply to the request addressed to me by the noble Viscount, I can only say at the present moment that I will represent his desire to the Secretary of State. If my right, hon. friend considers that he can do so with propriety, I have no doubt he will take what steps he can to furnish the information asked for by Lord Midleton. I understand that the main subject of that information is to be the correspondence that took place, during the time that the India Office was responsible for the campaign, between the Government of India and the General Officer Commanding in Mesopotamia with regard to the requisitions which it is alleged that the General Officer Commanding in Mesopotamia made for adequate rations, and which became the subject of question and correspondence on the part of the Government of India.

DOMINIONS AND ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government why no representatives of the Dominions are included in the Committee appointed to consider the commercial and industrial policy to be adopted after the war, with especial reference to the conclusions reached by the Economic Conference of the Allies.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I do not know whether there are many people who take the view which has apparently inspired the Question of the noble Viscount opposite—namely, that an omission has occurred in not asking representatives of the Dominions to sit on this particular Committee; but if that is so, I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining how the matter really stands. This Committee was preluded by a telegram which was sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the different Dominions on May 8, in the following terms—
"His Majesty's Government desire as soon as practicable to convene a Conference representative of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, and India to consider the commercial policy to be adopted after the war. In view of past fiscal controversies ill this country, we consider it of essential importance as a prior step, in order that the Conference may have a practical result, to set up a Committee here with a view to discovering how far agreement among ourselves may be possible under the changed conditions brought about by the war; but we wish to make it clear that in our judgment the appointment of this Committee, whatever may be its result, will not, as we hope, unduly delay the holding of the larger Conference, or interfere in any way with the free and unprejudiced discussion of the problems with the Dominions' representatives. I trust that this method of procedure will meet with the assent of your Ministers."
Assent was received from the Dominions to this plan of proceeding; and a similar intimation was sent to the Viceroy of India at the same time. It will therefore be clear that the Committee which is being set up here, and the members of which were announced in the newspapers on July 19, is of a purely preliminary nature. Its purpose is set out in the telegram which I have just read; and I think the noble Viscount and the House will see that there really would be no object for this particular purpose, as the main Conference is to be held later, in including representatives of other parts of the Empire in this Committee.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am glad to have given the noble Marquess the opportunity of making this explanation. I think it is a great pity it was not made at the time of the announcement of the appointment of this Committee.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES AND VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is necessary for men to elect to serve either

909
the Special Constabulary or the Volunteer Training Corps.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Question, which I admit I had some difficulty in knowing how to frame, is to bring before your Lordships an important point with reference to the Special Constabulary and the Volunteer Training Corps. What happened about those two bodies seemed to be this. First it was understood that if there was any clash in the duties, the Constabulary took precedence. Then it was announced that men could belong to both, it being understood that if military law was proclaimed military duties would have first place. Now it has been announced that men must choose to which they wish to belong, but must not belong to both. The result of this will be, so it is pointed out to me, that a number of the keenest men who now belong to both forces will give up the police, reducing that force in many districts to dimensions too small to provide proper patrol; and on days when there is no Volunteer Training Corps drill many of them will have nothing to do, although they are willing and anxious to be at the service of the country.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the question whether a special constable might enrol in the Volunteer Force was discussed at a Conference on June 28, at which the Home and Scottish Offices, as well as the G.H.Q. Home Forces, were represented. There was a general consensus of opinion that special constables should be not only permitted but encouraged to enrol in Volunteer Corps, and this view has been officially accepted by the Army Council and notified to the Home Office, from which Department we now await official confirmation of the view expressed by their representative (Sir Edward Troup) at the Conference. As soon as the Home and Scottish Offices inform us of their acceptance of this policy, an announcement will be made. The question of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary was expressly reserved by the Conference for further consideration, and this is now proceeding. It is understood that Sir Edward Ward has informed special constables in the metropolitan areas that they must choose between the two forces, but we do not quite know what led him so to decide, and will take the matter up with him. It is contrary to the general view, which is that a man can perform very useful duties in both capacities, and that, provided there is some clear inter-Departmental
910
arrangement designed to prevent clashing of duties and to obviate the counting twice over of persons available for duty on emergency, no difficulty should occur.

MR. HUGHES AND THE INNER WAR COUNCIL.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would consider the advisability of immediately inviting the Right Hon. W. M. Hughes to return to this country that he may take his share in the management of the war as a member of the Inner War Council of the Empire. My excuse for asking this—if any were needed—would be found in the great feeling which exists in this country that Mr. Hughes ought to be invited to return. There is evidence from all parts of the country indicating that the one man people are asking for is Mr. Hughes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it will be remembered that in the first instance Mr. Hughes came over here from Australia to discuss certain questions which particularly concerned both countries, principally questions of shipping, and some relating to the supply of metals and of grain. We all know how numerous and important the activities of Mr. Hughes were while he was in this country; and having been a fellow member with him of the British representation on the Economic Conference at Paris, I am, of course, specially qualified to bear witness to the importance and value of his services. On the other hand, it must, of course, be remembered that Mr. Hughes has his duty to his own people. I understand that in sections of the Australian Press some resentment was expressed even at the postponement of Mr. Hughes's return, which took place in order to enable him to attend the Conference at Paris. There were points connected with recruiting and a number of financial questions in Australia on which it was held that his presence there was required. I am afraid, in those circumstances, that it would not be possible or desirable for us to attempt to put fresh pressure upon Mr. Hughes in order to induce him to return once more to this country.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am disappointed, I must say, at the noble Marquess's answer; and I will draw attention to the matter again on some future occasion.

DEATH OF TERRITORIALS IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information as to the loss of life caused by the restricted accommodation and want of preparation in a troop train recently despatched from Karachi, and whether any official has been made responsible for the neglect of duty which resulted in this disaster.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the incident referred to in my Question has been the subject of statements in the Press, and has aroused a certain amount of public indignation. I should hardly have ventured to put down the Question but for the fact that I have heard personal corroboration from an officer who was present when this particular train started. As your Lordships know, the sending of young soldiers about India at this time of the year—especially from Karachi, one of the hottest parts of India—is an operation which is always attended with some risk. I do not gather, as no doubt is the ease on active service, that there was here any special reason why better precautions could not have been taken. If the account given is correct, it does seem inconceivable that a body of young soldiers should have been sent for a three days' and three nights' journey at the worst moment of the summer in a train which was insufficient in accommodation, which was unsuitable for European troops, which had on board practically very little ice (though I was informed that a large amount of ice was got at the last moment and put on board by somebody), and no medical comforts. And on top of all that, the train was so insufficiently equipped with engines that the pace was slower than that of the ordinary slowest train used for natives. If these facts are correct, I am sure the India Office will feel as much as anybody that somebody has blundered. These questions are not brought forward in the slightest degree with the intention of trying to prove that the India Government makes a mess of what it undertakes. But to whatever this is due—whether to the fact that India has been too much stripped of responsible officials, or to anything else—it is incumbent on the India Office and the India Government to see that mistakes of this kind are dealt with in a manner which will prevent their
912
recurrence. And that can only be by discovering what officer is in fault, and, if necessary, removing him. I see sitting by my noble friend two ex-Viceroys and an ex-Secretary of State for India, and I am certain that if the facts as stated are correct I shall have from all of them full sympathy in the course which I have ventured to suggest.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I say a few words in strong support of what has fallen from the noble Viscount? It must sometimes happen that a too-rigid adherence to regulations with insufficient intelligence and discrimination may lead to trouble, but this case was quite different. The disaster occurred from a breach of well understood routine based upon long experience of climatic conditions in India. In peace time, as we all know, drafts are never sent out so as to arrive in June, nor is it usual to move British troops about the plains of India by railway until the monsoon has completely established itself. To meet military emergency, as the noble Viscount has said, one must take risks with the lives of men, but, so far as I know, there was no emergency which called for those men to be sent up by that route and at that time. Assuming it was necessary that a ship with drafts should arrive in India at that time—in June—surely it should have been sent at once to Bombay instead of Karachi. When the ship arrived the monsoon had broken in the Bombay Deccan, and the drafts might safely have been sent there. At Deolali, Poona, Belgaum, or Ahmednagar, the climate, when once the monsoon has broken, is, as everybody knows who has been there, quite pleasant; and besides, there was ample barrack accommodation in those places which had been left by the troops who are now at the Front. It is amazing to think that that step was not thought of by somebody. When the drafts arrived at Karachi surely there ought to have been somebody in authority there with a knowledge of the conditions of Sind at that time and able to say, "This train shall not proceed." Again, when the train arrived at Rohri and discharged some of its stricken freight, surely there ought to have been some doctor to say, "These men must be taken out; they cannot go further in the state they are in." I know what the plains of India are like before the monsoon has broken.

913
It is trying to travel even with a great block of ice at one's side and every appliance of science to keep one cool. But what must have been the condition of these men packed close in their third-class carriages, without any sufficiency of ice, and subject to the scorching heat and suffocating dust of the Indian plains? I am sure my noble friend the Under-Secretary will say that a most searching inquiry will be made into these matters. It is not safe to leave those whose neglect has brought about this terrible tragedy with any responsibility for the lives and welfare of our soldiers.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, the deplorable episode which forms the subject of the noble Viscount's Question has been under long and continuous correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India since this occurrence on June 15. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India was asked a Question last week in another place, and in reply he read out the telegrams that had been received up to then from the Government of India. I do not know that it is necessary for me to read all of them, but perhaps it might be of interest to noble Lords who did not follow the answer given in another place if I give one or two of the most important.
The first telegram from the Viceroy on June 15, in which he informed the Secretary of State of this unfortunate episode, was as follows—
"We regret to report fifty cases with twelve deaths from heat strokes occurred amongst drafts ex hired transport ' Ballarat ' on the railway journey between Karachi and Lahore. Troop train left Karachi 5th June with thirteen officers and 1,013 men. On reaching Rohri thirty-two men were removed to Civil Hospital, Sukkur, suffering from heat stroke, of whom twelve died, and eighteen more eases occurred before train reached Lahore. Train carried three medical officers, had two second class carriages fitted up as hospitals with fans and was provided with coffee shop and good supply of ice; no overcrowding, thirty men in four-wheelers and sixty in bogies—
I would explain that 30 men in a four wheeler would mean that there would be five men in a compartment, three on one side and two on the other. There would thus be one man in the centre on one side who would not be near the window and it would prevent the men on his side from lying down.
"normal carrying capacity for troops is thirty-six, and seventy-two respectively. Arrangements
914
have been made to send to hill depôts all men who have been suffering from the rail journey. Orders have been issued stopping all further movement of troops by rail from Karachi to Northern India. A complete report of the occurrence will be furnished at an early date."
Then a further telegram, on June 19, gave the total number of deaths as 15, and those suffering from heat stroke as 136, and all sick were reported as doing well. Then on July 20, the day on which my right hon. friend made his reply in another place, he received this telegram—
"With reference to the inquiries in your telegram dated 14th July, the case is being investigated by a Senior Officer from Army Headquarters and a specially selected medical officer. They left for Karachi on the 7th instant with instructions to visit all stations along the line where fatalities occurred, collecting evidence and submitting a full report as soon as possible after their return to Simla about the 28th instant."
That was in reply to a telegram from the Secretary of State instructing the Government of India to prosecute a most drastic inquiry into the whole conditions surrounding this catastrophe.
Since then further telegrams have been sent. A telegram was despatched asking for replies to and explanations of the various allegations that have been made outside—allegations such as that the officer in command had no Indian experience, that the ice supply was limited to 1 lb. per man. and that men were placed in the commonest form of third-class carriage with corrugated iron roof; all those kind of questions and others have been put for categorical answers. In addition, a telegram has been sent by the Secretary of State asking why the "Ballarat" could not have gone direct to Bombay, the draffs being detained in Deccan stations until the monsoon broke in Northern India, and whether there was any urgent necessity for going to Karachi at this season of the year, when it is well known that a journey across the Sind desert is fraught with the gravest possible danger, especially in the case of new troops unseasoned to Indian conditions. We are awaiting a reply to all these questions. We hope, that in the next few days the two officers who have been sent to report on the route will have formulated their Report, and that in addition there will be answers to the questions that have been subsequently put by the Secretary of State which I have outlined.
I may say, in conclusion, that I desire to express the deepest sympathy—a sympathy

915
which I am sure is shared by all noble Lords in this House—for the families who have suffered this sad loss, through what, on the information that is available to us at present, would seem to be a lamentable instance of the most culpable negligence and utter want of consideration. I will only add that the Secretary of State for India—and he has asked me to impress this on the House—takes the most serious view of this matter, and is determined to probe it in every quarter and with complete thoroughness. He desires me also to repeat here what he said in another place—that when the responsibility has been assigned to the officer or officers concerned, he will
916
hold them, or see that the Government of India at any rate holds them, to strict account.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his statement. Perhaps he will confer with me, and I will put another question on the Paper when he is in a position to give a full reply.
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.