Lords Sitting of 20 May 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICE) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill called the Law Agents Apprenticeship War Service (Scotland) Bill, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. On that Motion it may be convenient, perhaps, in view of what passed on the former stages, if I make a short statement. I ask your Lordships' permission to do this as it is quite possible that some things might have been obscure in the speech that I made on Second Reading, and I hope to be able to clear them up. Further, the question of the Consultative Councils and the Amend
714
ment to Clause 8 by Lord Down ham gave rise to a certain amount of discussion, and I think it was the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) who said that perhaps we might consider it again at a later stage in the hope of securing a unanimous opinion. At any rate, I hope that what I may say will secure a certain amount of agreement.
The two subjects of Consultative Councils and the particular Order in Council concerned—I understand that the noble Marquess takes charge of the Amendment down in the name of Lord Downham in regard to Clause 8—are to a certain extent inter-dependent, and if I do make a short statement—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount will forgive me. The Amendment that he has indicated as one of which I shall take charge is not that on the Paper, but the Amendment which stood on the Paper at the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I quite agree. The noble Marquess knows that I do not wish to misrepresent him. I thought I might be able to clear the air and save time in the end. Before coming to the Consultative Councils, I should like to refer to what occurred on the last occasion. Noble Lords will remember that the second Under-Secretary was dropped out, as the result of a Division in which there was a very large majority against the Government. I should not ask your Lordships to rescind that decision at once if I had not something additional to say. We have been in communication with the Prime Minister in France, with the result that, while we should not assent to the Amendment which stood in the name of Lord Bledisloe on a former occasion—that only one Under-Secretary should sit in the House of Commons (which is, as I am instructed, a totally unprecedented provision in a Bill of this kind)—I am able to say that the Prime Minister takes the view that one of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries appointed to the Ministry in the first instance should be in the House of Lords; and on Third Reading I should be ready with an Amendment to submit to the consideration of your Lordships which may have the effect of bringing that result about.
There are two matters of special interest—the Consultative Councils and the Amend

715
ment to Clause 8, standing in the name of the noble Marquess. Lord Bledisloe's Amendment in regard to patent medicines is, of course, extremely important. I undertook that the subject should receive further consideration, and I think I can deal more definitely with that when we reach the noble Lord's Amendment. As to the Consultative Councils (by which we set great store), on the last occasion some doubts were expressed as to their desirability and usefulness, and there was also a fear that they might interfere with the responsibility of the Minister. Another and a serious ground of apprehension was that they would be the cause of additional expense. I do not propose to repeat what I said on a former occasion, but I will say a word or two on that subject.
By the Bill the Consultative Councils are to be set up by Orders in Council, which are to lie on the Table of the House for thirty days. The Draft Order in Council has been circulated to acquaint Parliament with the way it should be drawn up. I pointed out on the Second Reading four kinds of Consultative Councils which the Minister thought might be advisable, and I laid stress on the bona fide intention that they should not displace or interfere with local authorities. The names of these Consultative Councils do not find a place in the Bill, or in the Draft Order in Council, which is really nothing more than a sketch or skeleton to indicate the intentions of the Minister, with which he was anxious that Parliament should be acquainted. The Draft Order in Council refers to machinery and procedure, but in the Draft Order there are two things to which most of us, and certainly the Government, attach importance. They are the powers of initiation by the Consultative Councils, and regularity as to meeting—the power of initiation by which the Consultative Council is empowered to make a report on any matters relating to health. That is, the Minister gives a subject to the Consultative Council on which to report and also asks for their advice; the Consultative Council, in their turn, can send up any report they choose to the Minister and he shall receive it and consider it.
I remember that exception was taken also on the grounds of expense, because the words "reasonable compensation for loss of remunerative time" occur in the Bill. I think it was Lord Downham who said that in effect they would all become
716
salaried people, and that we were creating another vast army of salaried officials to be at the beck and call of the Minister. One observed that point; but my own view is that not only will that not be so, but that precisely the opposite effect will result. It is upon these Consultative Councils that we rely for outside help (acting as a spur, or a critical body, if you like) to aid the Minister; the Minister not to be the creature of the Consultative Councils any more than the Consultative Councils shall be the humble followers of the Minister or the permanent officials. We want to secure the freest co-operation on the widest possible scale. As to payment of compensation for loss of remunerative time, what we want is specially to get the aid and advice of those who cannot afford to lose salaries or wages during the time when they are engaged on such public work. We have acknowledged on many occasions the gratuitous work that has been so well done by leisured people, but the disadvantage was that we did not get in touch with the great mass of those who did not have that leisure, whom we now hope to reach and interest, and whom we also wish to be able to tender their advice and opinion. We cannot get them without compensation.
Of these Councils, two are of the first importance in our view. The first is the Medical Council, because everything that has to do with health depends on the medical profession. We want to secure their interest and the whole-hearted and regular co-operation of the profession as a whole, and some lukewarmness can be imagined if the profession have no place or footing in our organisation and machinery. It is true that you have able medical officers within the walls of the Department, but you want more than that. You want your field to be so wide as to cover the whole ground and to ensure the most efficient aid. While I have heard it said that a more extended bureaucracy is to be set up I think that exactly the opposite will be the result, and that they will be a check on the so-called bureaucracy.
As regards the Insurance Consultative Council, my advocacy rests on a different ground. There are two special reasons for this Council, which will deal with matters affecting the work of approved societies. In the first place the establishment of the new Ministry means that the Insurance Commissioners, some of whom

717
we represent, will disappear, but the Ministry will still need to have at its disposal the fresh knowledge and experience of persons who are actually engaged in the administration of societies, and this Council will, so far as approved societies are concerned, take the place of the Advisory Committee which was set up under Section 58 of the original Act passed in 1911. This statutory body has been in existence since 1912, and experience has shown that by covering too much ground and such a variety of subjects it became too large and unwieldy, and that a Council of limited range and membership would work better.
Assuming for a moment that the House of Lords is supposed not to disagree with the intentions of the Minister in regard to these Consultative Councils—that is, in regard to the Orders in Council, the question of initiation, and also as to the regularity of meeting. I know that there was a certain amount of hesitancy among your Lordships as to these Consultative Councils, and I also saw that your Lordships desired something in the nature of a guarantee for an opportunity of effective criticism. That desire, of course, I am most anxious to respect and recognise. I can assure your Lordships that the Minister has no wish to appear obstinate or to take up a non-possumus attitude in regard to the matter. Assuming that I could find agreement as to the intentions of the Minister, I will agree to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, a copy of which he was good enough to send me, which would ensure that the Orders in Council in regard to the Consultative Councils should be subject to the Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, as are the new matters which are, I think, in Clauses 2 and 3. I do not, of course, ask for a distinct pledge on behalf of the noble Marquess, or of the noble Marquess who is absent and usually sits by his side (Lord Crewe). I well remember Lord Granville saying that it was impossible for ally one to give a pledge in the House of Lords; that he would be glad to give a pledge on behalf of his supporters if he had the faintest idea how they would be likely to vote. What I want is to secure your Lordships' good will in helping us to pass this measure as quickly as we can, so that the progress under it may be rapid, and we may pass the Bill, which as a whole is almost regarded with unanimity. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having taken up a few minutes in making
718
this statement, but my object was to save your Lordships time.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount for the statement he has just made. He began by suggesting that perhaps he himself had not been clear on previous occasions, and that that was the reason this statement was called for. I can assure the noble Viscount, if indeed he needs the assurance, that his statements are always very and that we were not at a loss to understand what the position of the Government was on a former occasion.
I quite recognise that in the statement which the noble Viscount has made he has desired to be very conciliatory, as indeed it is his duty to be, to your Lordships. He divided his remarks into two chapters, one a short chapter and the other a long chapter. The short one dealt with the question of the additional Under-Secretary of State who, as the Bill stood when it reached your Lordships, was provided. Upon that head the noble Viscount said that he had a proposal to make which he intended to submit on the Third Reading of the Bill, and that he hoped the proposal would go a long way towards conciliating opposition to the original Government proposal.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Did I go as far as that? I put it for your Lordships' respectful consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise. I went a little further than I ought to have done. At any rate, it was a matter that he was going to speak to us about on the Third Reading, and I suppose, as it is submitted to us, he hopes we shall accept it. I would remind the noble Viscount that the objection which your Lordships felt to the proposal as it reached the House was two-fold. In the first place we are deeply impressed, as indeed is the whole country, with the enormous increase of officials under the policy of the present Government. Minister after Minister and staff after staff are created, and we have some reason to think that a good deal of this additional number of officials is quite unnecessary. Therefore when we saw that

719
in this new Ministry it was proposed to have two Secretaries of State your Lordships felt that the time had come to enter a protest.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Two, Under-Secretaries.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to my noble friend. We have not in this measure two Secretaries of State; that will be in the next Bill, no doubt. At present it is only two Under-Secretaries of State. We were deeply impressed with the necessity, not only of making a protest, but of taking a practical step by striking out the provision. That was the first reason why we objected. The second reason was this. Upon the face of the proposal of the Government as it reached us, it appeared to be the intention that both these Under-Secretaries should sit in the House of Commons. I do not say that it was definitely stated that they both "shall" sit in the House of Commons, but when an Act of Parliament says that both Under-Secretaries "may" sit, it is generally interpreted to mean that it is the intention of the measure that they "shall" sit. That really was the last straw. Your Lordships have suffered very acutely from the absence of proper representation of the Government in this House for many years, and here was presented to us a Bill in which not only in all probability was the Minister himself to sit in the House of Commons, but both his Under-Secretaries were to sit there too. That was a proposal which your Lordships could not accept, and which we showed that we could not accept. There are two objections to the proposal as the Government submitted it to us. The noble Viscount said he had another proposal to make. I do not criticise him for a moment for not doing so, but he did not indicate the nature of this new proposal; therefore it would only be a waste of time if I dwelt any further upon that matter. When we reach the Third Reading we shall see what it is the Government propose and whether it can be accepted.
I turn to the other chapter of the noble Viscount's speech, that which had reference to the proposal in the Bill for the establishment of Consultative Committees. The noble Viscount very accurately stated what had passed on a previous occasion. The House was evidently very uneasy as to this proposal. A great deal of criticism was advanced against it, but on the whole
720
we thought it wiser to wait until the next stage of the Bill before we took any definite action. We hoped that the criticism which various members of your Lordships' House delivered against the proposal would have weight with the Government, and we therefore waited for that to have its effect. I think that policy has been justified by the event, because the noble Viscount, who is himself anxious to meet your Lordships, has gone a long way to meet part of the contention which was put forward. But he has not gone the whole way. The truth is that most of your Lordships distrust this policy of Consultative Committees altogether. But the noble Viscount has gone a considerable way.
Why is it that we distrust the policy of Consultative Committees? The reason is that we are afraid of the expense. Members of these Committees are not indeed to be salaried, but they are going to be next door to salaried. They are to have all their expenses paid, and I understand in certain cases that they are to have compensation for their time lost. That differs only by a very slight distance from a salary. It is a salary in embryo, and it only requires to be developed with that rapidity with which these precedents are developed by His Majesty's Government and we shall have full-blown salaried Committees upon us almost before we can turn round. Our first ground of objection then was on the score of expense. That is more a matter for the House of Commons than for ourselves, but no doubt it entered into the reasons why your Lordships felt reluctant to support the proposal.
But what was most emphatically our business, and what we were afraid of also, was that the Minister would shelter his responsibility behind these Committees. That is a very real danger. The Committees are to be statutory Committees, so that the Minister will be able to say "I have the opinion of the statutory Committees which Parliament itself has set up. You cannot complain if I abide by their decision, even though you may not agree with me." That will have, of course, a very considerable effect, and the House of Commons and your Lordships will feel that they are to some extent debarred from effective criticism because the Minister has sheltered himself behind the responsibility of his advisers. That is one of the main difficulties we have.
We went a little further, and asked how the Government were going to apply

721
this proposal of Consultative Committees, and the noble Viscount (Lord Sandhurst) has just told us that they propose to have four Committees, and they propose to have them subject to certain conditions which were set out in a White Paper which, I will venture to say, most of your Lordships have never seen, and a good many of your Lordships have never even heard of. I do not suggest that it would be wise for us under all the circumstances to take an intransigent attitude about these Consultative Committees. The House of Commons sets great store by them, and it does not appear to me to be wise, notwithstanding our misgivings, to throw out the proposal of Consultative Committees altogether.
But when it comes to giving a blank cheque to the Minister to appoint as many Consultative Committees as he likes, under whatever conditions he likes, that is really going rather too far. The noble Viscount has told us that there were to be four. One was to be a Medical Committee, another an Insurance Committee, a third a Local Government Committee, and a fourth a General Committee. What the General Committee was to do, Heaven only knows. It is like the end of an agenda, where the last item is a sort of general heading to include any little odd crumbs which may be left. I think that is a very strong proposal. However, I am not even now going to ask your Lordships to refuse this.
What I do say is that there ought to be some effective power retained for Parliament, both as to the particular Committees which ought to be permitted, and as to the conditions under which they ought to be permitted. If you are to have Consultative Committees at all, I am bound to say I think you ought to have an Insurance Consultative Committee, and I am inclined to think that there is a good deal to be said for a Medical Consultative Committee; but as to the other two I should like, as far as I am personally concerned, to retain complete liberty of action. As to the first two, I do not suppose my opinion is of very great value to your Lordships, but I think if you are going to have Consultative Committees at all you might very properly have those two particular subjects—first an Insurance Committee, because there has always been an Insurance Committee, or Insurance Commissioners, under the old state of things; and second, a Medical Con
722
saltative Committee, which is obviously the most material kind of Consultative Committee under a Ministry of Health Bill. So that those two really stand upon a rather special footing.
The noble Viscount said that he hoped that if he consented, as he did most generously consent, subject to what he had to say to this particular Amendment, he might be assured that the right of initiative would be left to the Consultative Committees, and also the practice of regular meetings. As far as I am concerned I bare no difficulty whatever in giving him those assurances; I think certainly if you have a council at all it should have the power of initiative, and it should certainly meet at regular times. As far as that is concerned I do not doubt that your Lordships would take the view that the Government have put forward. I thought it right, as the noble Viscount had taken the opportunity at this particular stage in order to state the policy of the Government, to make what reply I could so far as I and my friend were concerned.
On Question, Report of Amendments received.
Clause 6:
Staff and remuneration.
(4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry the persons employed under the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and such of the persons employed under any other Government department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister, as the Minister and Government department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4), after "Minister," to insert "such of." The noble Lord said: With this Amendment goes the next one on the Paper, which is consequential. I hope that the noble Viscount will regard this as a mere drafting Amendment, because it is almost inconceivable that it is intended, while amalgamating these two Departments—and indeed part of other Departments—that the whole of the officials of the Departments so amalgamated shall necessarily and as a matter of course be retained, as will appear to be the case under the mandatory words of this clause. Sub-clause (4) runs thus—
"There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry the persons—"

723
meaning, of course, all the persons—
"employed under the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners."
If that were really carried out literally it would surely mean that, even if where, let us say, one legal adviser was quite sufficient, all the legal advisers of this Department would be retained. It would be the same with establishment officers, messengers, and the like. We all know that if two businesses are combined the standing overhead charges are necessarily reduced by getting rid of a large number of persons who at once become redundant and superfluous. I suggest that the Government might accept this Amendment, as showing their intention that they do not mean in any case to retain after the amalgamation of the Ministries more officials than are absolutely necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, after ("Ministry") insert ("such of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, which is much more than a drafting Amendment. The object of the new Ministry is to take over the whole work of the Local Government Board and the whole of its staff. All this staff goes over, the Civil servants and the temporary personnel. the existing tenure being maintained. By this I mean that temporary people who are subject to one month's notice will not become permanent people. As the duties are transferred to other Departments, so will the personnel be transferred with those duties. The disadvantage about this Amendment would be that, if these words were put in, none of these officials would know where they were—whether some were to be taken and others left. And really I do not think the noble Lord need fear about occupation for the staff. We want to develop as rapidly as we can, and not only so, but we are being urged every day to go faster. For instance, if in the course of time the question of patent medicines is dealt with, that will be no mean addition to the work of the Department, which will find plenty to do.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I fully sympathise with the object which my noble friend above the gangway has in moving this Amendment, but I think the answer of the noble Viscount is conclusive. It is a fact that the Ministry of Health is going to
724
take over all the functions of the Local Government Board, and afterwards shed such as are not appropriate to its position and duties as a Ministry of Health. It is therefore a necessary incident in that process that a number of people must be taken over in the service of the Ministry who, from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, are redundant. But unless some such provision is made, the consequence which the noble Viscount has mentioned would follow—namely, those people would be left suspended between heaven and earth with no position and no duties. As I said on the Second Reading, it is the obvious duty of His Majesty's Government to carry out this process of reconstructing the Ministry without the smallest delay, but pending that reconstruction it appears to me that some such provision as this is absolutely necessary.
LORD BLEDISLOE: After the explanation of the noble Viscount I do not desire to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after Clause 7, the insertion of a new clause (Enforcement of law as to patent remedies). The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat more important matter, and one to which the noble Viscount promised to give his full consideration before the Report stage of this Bill. I may remind your Lordships that this was one of the many strong recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Patent Medicines which reported on the eve of the outbreak of war. As the result of the evidence they took—of a very comprehensive character, including that of the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions—it transpired that the law to a very large extent provided for the protection of these many unfortunate people who were purchasing, on the strength of fraudulent advertisements, all sorts of quack and sometimes poisonous drugs and suffering in health thereby, but that no Department considered it to be its special duty to institute a prosecution. The result is that, although a remedy exists at law, no one in any Government Department seems to care to put the law in force. I believe there is a legal maxim, Ubi jus, ibi remedium—Where there is a right there is a remedy. But surely this is a case where that maxim does not apply, and it is with the object of

725
rendering it applicable that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
"Enforcement of law as to patent remedies.
"8. The minister shall have power to institute such proceedings as may be necessary to enforce compliance with the law relating to the sale and advertisement of any patent, secret, or proprietary remedy or appliance."—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I sympathise with the object which the noble Lord has in view, and, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave, further consideration has been given to this very important branch of the subject. The worst of it is that the more the matter is considered the more difficult and complicated we find it to be. In regard to these matters there are concerned the Local Government Board, the Customs and Excise, the Privy Council, the Post Office, and the Home Office.
The Amendment proposes that the Minister shall have power to institute such prosecutions as may be necessary to enforce compliance with the law relating to the sale and advertisement of any patent medicines, and so on. That is the law as it stands. My noble friend does not propose any new power. So far as the Local Government Board is concerned, the new Minister will take over powers and duties which will include the Food and Drugs Act of 1875, but proprietary medicines are specifically excluded from that Act. As regards the Customs and Excise, they prosecute for breaches of the law in connection with Stamp Duty, including vendors of patent medicines. But that is a revenue matter and, I am advised, must be left in the hands of the Revenue authorities. Then the Privy Council is indirectly concerned in connection with the Pharmaceutical Society, which society prosecutes for the sale of illegal poisons, and not the Privy Council. The Post Office prosecutes in matters including the vendors of patent medicines, and also for the sending of indecent matter through the post. That is a matter of Post Office administration, and I am advised, cannot be transferred to another Department. The Home Office may receive complaints, but it is the business of the aggrieved person or the local police to prosecute, and for those purposes the local police are not under the Home Office.
726
We cannot effect anything as long as the law remains unchanged. But, of course, as I think the noble Lord indicated, the Public Prosecutor in grave cases is at the service of any Department. With these complications and intermingling of Departments it really is not the will of the new Minister so much as the possibility of effecting anything with the law in its present state, while acceptance of the Amendment might suggest hopes and intentions which it would be impossible to materalise. The first thing is to get the law into order. Meantime, as I said on a former occasion, the Minister is placed, in the light of the very valuable Report of the Select Committee of which the noble Lord was a member, in the position of considering and taking in hand the whole question and, as soon as he can, suggesting Amendments in the law. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with this explanation. The difficulties are very great, and I honestly do not think that the noble Lord's Amendment would bring about the effect he desires.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I confess that I am not at all satisfied with the answer the noble Viscount has given. It is true, as he has said, that if this Amendment passes it leaves the law very much as it stands. A private person in this country is looked upon to prosecute, but in Scotland the case is different. Here we have a state of the law about patent medicines which is in many respects very unsatisfactory. As the noble Viscount has said, that law will have to be put into order and extended. But still there is a great deal already on the Statute Book which could be enforced and which ought to be enforced; but which is not enforced because no one has sufficient interest to do it. The public is not sufficiently interested. The poor people who buy the pills and other things believe in them, but the police know nothing and care nothing. The Home Office does not take these things up. The Post Office will take them up if the packets are improperly put together, or if the Regulations are not complied with; but in no other respect are they concerned.
As I take it, the object of the noble Lord is to get some Department interested in enforcing the law. The Public Prosecutor, who has plenty to do without taking up things that do not concern him, does not move. What more natural than to leave it to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry

727
concerned in enforcing the law, to put it into motion? If these words are added it will be the duty of somebody in the Ministry of Health—not, I hope, of a new official but a duty added to those of an existing official—to watch these things and take proceedings; and more than that, it will stir up great interest in the Ministry of Health in getting the law amended, so as to get it into that state which the noble Viscount desires. I see no reason why this Amendment should not be added, and I can see great advantage in adding it.
THE EARL OF DESART: As I understand, the noble Viscount's principal objection to accepting the Amendment is that the power of prosecuting in various classes of offences, in various circumstances, rests with a number of Departments which act independently of one another, and that there would be practical inconvenience in endeavouring by words in this Bill to concentrate the power in the Ministry of Health. I believe everybody agrees that something is extremely desirable. I feel this very strongly myself, and I happen to know that the present Director of Public Prosecutions feels as strongly as I did as to the evils flowing from these offences. Surely if something of this kind were put in the Bill it would be possible for the Minister, on a complaint being made to him, to distinguish what class the offence was in and to set the proper Department in motion. I am rather chary myself of saying that all these things should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, because I know that from the nature of things his work is increasing and will increase, and I am not sure that in Customs or Post Office cases he is the right person to prosecute. I think if you concentrate the starting of prosecutions in the Ministry there would be no difficulty in continuing them under the proper Departments. The question having been raised, I should be sorry if it went by the hoard altogether and nothing was done until the law was amended. That is a very uncertain time, and I rather agree that if the thing is placed in the hands of the Health Minister he would have a direct interest in getting the law placed on a satisfactory footing, which in my judgment it is far from being on at the present moment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: The answer of the noble Viscount to my noble
728
friend's Amendment would have been admirable if the Amendment had proposed to confer exclusive power of prosecuting on the new Minister—if it had proposed, for instance, to take away from the Customs or the Postmaster-General or the Home Office their present powers. Indeed, I am not sure that the noble Viscount's answer was not what may be called the Swan Song of laissez faire—the final defence in the last ditch of the system under which nothing on earth gets done.
I am reminded of an experience which I had when I was at the Home Office. I remember a wave of public opinion that impelled the Minister of that day to see whether he could not do something in the matter of pistols, which, as your Lordships know, are things dangerous to those who discharge them sometimes not less than to those who are within range when they are discharged; and, among other things, before proposing legislation we at the Home Office put a question to the Inland Revenue. We said to them "You have the power of recovering a penal sum from anybody found using a pistol (which in the language of the statute law is a gun) without a licence. Cannot you be more active in instituting prosecutions for using fire-arms without a licence, as you are the only people who can do so?" The answer was, "That is all very well, but we are not concerned with the safety of people's bodies, but only with their bank balances and purses, and in fact we are not going to institute any prosecution except when there is money in it"—which, of course, in a very large number of cases meant that they were not going to prosecute at all.
So, failing to get powers from Parliament, we were not able to do more than our existing powers enabled us to do, which was very little; and I am afraid that unless this Amendment is accepted we shall have the same conflict of authority, the same Departmental jealousy and exclusiveness, and the same want of weight behind any proposal which is made to Parliament to put the matter right. I think the Government might accept this Amendment.
LORD SYDENHAM: I think one argument has not been used in favour of the Amendment, and it is this—that the vendor of quack medicines, when successful, goes very far to defeat the object of the Health Minister. People who dose themselves with

729
Dr. Williams's Pink Pills for Pale People are not likely to take the remedy which will cure them, and while the Committee showed that such things may do no harm to anybody it is certain that they do not do any good. In these cases "there is money in it," because very large profits are made by fraudulent advertisements, and the time has come to put an end to that state of things. Nobody is so suitable for instituting prosecutions if they ought to be instituted as the Minister of Health, and I cannot see that any valid objection has been offered to this Amendment.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give way and accept this Amendment. I have seen tragedies happen from the scandalous results of the sale of patent medicines. It is quite impossible for women who have gone to a certain class of quack to take upon themselves the duty of prosecuting the man who has injured them. One is surprised to hear the noble Viscount say that one reason for not accepting the Amendment is that there are so many Departments with whom he would interfere. That is the whole justification for this Bill—that there are so many Departments to look after health that the country feels it ought at last to be under one Department; and the Report to which Lord Bledisloe referred showed that, it being nobody's duty to prosecute, nobody did prosecute. Even if this Amendment is not very definite that the Minister is to prosecute, it will give him the power to do so, and having the power to do so I think public opinion is likely to make him do so. It is perfectly useless to propose the Public Prosecutor. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever been within the claws of the Public Prosecutor, but I have, and nothing would persuade him to prosecute me. I wanted the advertisement, but he would not do it. He is timid generally, though there have been some brilliant exceptions, and nothing will wake him up. Therefore we must put this duty of defending harmless and helpless people upon the Minister of Health.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): It would, of course, be unreasonable and incredible that the Government should not pay most careful attention to the representations made from so many quarters of the House concerning this semi-legal matter, but I am satisfied
730
that the difficulties of dealing with it by means of this particular Amendment have been imperfectly appreciated. One of your Lordships said that the argument of the noble Viscount would have been a good one if it had been proposed to deprive existing Departments of their right to prosecute in the same matters, and the noble Lord pointed out, by way of reassurance, that it would be possible for the new Ministry, concurrently with the other Departments, to undertake prosecution. I had for nearly four years great responsibility for undertaking and directing prosecutions, and the censures of the noble Lord who has just sat down affect me very closely, because by Statute the Director of Public Prosecutions is a subordinate of the Attorney-General, whose directions he is compelled to take. I regret that during the period in which I was responsible my noble friend did not urge upon me personally and with detailed information the grounds which led him to suppose that he would be a happy subject for the activities which it was my duty to direct. I should at least have been prepared to give great consideration to such arguments as my noble friend was able to place before me.
The seriousness of the matter is this. It is by no means an advantage that you should duplicate the instruments of prosecution. On the contrary, it is an extraordinary waste of energy and it is an extraordinary violation of those rules, to which I know your Lordships are so sincerely devoted, in the direction of enforcing greater economy. The machinery of prosecution in this country is extraordinarily complicated and extraordinarily costly. I do not for a moment believe that it is so inefficient as has been suggested by one or two speakers, and I beg leave, with some intimate knowledge of it, to doubt whether its relation to what has taken place is the same as noble Lords seem to imagine. I should like some of your Lordships to study in detail a number of prosecutions, many of them dealing with these matters, which were undertaken by the Home Office by direction of the Public Prosecutor in the course of the last twelve months or two years.
The real truth is this. If the Minister of Health is directed at this moment (that is, the very first moment in which he comes into existence) to undertake responsibility for these prosecutions, one of two things will happen. Either the new Minister will

731
come to the Attorney-General, as new Ministers always came to me as Attorney-General, and say, "We want a new legal staff; we want counsel and solicitors, who will be members of our staff and will make themselves responsible for these prosecutions." That is the first alternative course. The second course is that they will go to the existing prosecutors and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and say, "Under the policy of this Bill we desire you to prosecute on our behalf." The ultimate judge of any prosecutions of the slightest importance must be the Attorney-General. You cannot have two people in this country responsible for decisions as to whether or not there shall be a prosecution. I am unaware of any civilised country in which the ultimate decision is not in the hands of one authority. Of course, it may be that some cases are delegated, because they are comparatively unimportant and decisions may conveniently and properly be taken by subordinates.
I think the point of substance in the views pressed on the Government is this. It is felt, and it may be true, that there is no one Department which is responsible, in such matters as are immediately cognate to questions of health, for deciding whether or not prosecution shall take place. If your Lordships thought it was a convenient course, and with the concurrence of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, I would make this proposal—that between now and Third Reading the noble Viscount and myself should have some discussion with the Attorney-General, as being- primarily responsible for all prosecutions in this country, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, after which we should, perhaps, be in a position either to make some proposal or to communicate some information to your Lordships on the Third Reading stage. At that stage, of course, if your Lordships were not satisfied with what the Government were able to tell your Lordships, it would be possible to propose an Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I was rather depressed by the earlier part of the very able observations of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, because I thought he was going to meet my noble friend with a direct non possumus. He explained the objections to the proposal, but when he came to the end of his speech it seemed that he had a certain very definite concession to make, because he
732
promised that he himself and the noble Viscount would do their best to look into the point, which he described as one of substance, and would make a suggestion, or at any rate a communication, to those interested before the Third Reading stage. This is certainly a proposal which, it seems to me to use his own words, is "a proposal of substance" and one which may very properly be accepted. I must say that "the point of substance," as the noble and learned Lord described it, is to my mind all-important. It ought to be somebody's business, in the interests of health, to have regard to prosecutions in respect of violations of the law on these matters of patent medicines. Whose business is it? Nobody seems to know. Until it is made absolutely clear that upon some Minister is thrown the direct responsibility by Parliament of seeing that the law is enforced where it concerns the health of the people, your Lordships' House will not be satisfied. In the circumstances, I suspect that my noble friend will think it right to let the matter stand over until the Third Reading.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In the circumstances I do not feel justified in pressing the Amendment at the moment. I am bound, however, to say that the assurance of the noble and learned Lord is to my mind somewhat indefinite. The matter is one of very great urgency, and I hope that the Government will be able to find a way out of what is undoubtedly a difficulty. With the leave of the House, I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Clause 8:
Provisions as to Orders in Council.
8.—(1) Any Order in Council made under this Act may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order.
(2) Before any Order in Council under this Act (other than an Order appointing a day for the commencement of this Act or any provision thereof) is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the Order can be obtained shall be published in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for insuring publicity, and a draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting.
(3) In the case of a draft of an Order providing for any transfers of powers or duties to or from the Minister under subsections (2) and (3) of section 3 of this Act, the Order shall not be made until both Houses by resolution have approved the draft, nor, if any modifications are agreed to by both Houses, otherwise than as so

733
modified, and in the case of a draft of any other Order which is required to be laid as aforesaid, if either House before the expiration of such thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendment, I think, comes now. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with another speech, but this is the place at which to make the Amendment that I had the honour of indicating when I spoke on the Motion that the Report be now considered. I wish simply to explain the effect of the Amendment. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that it is not on the Paper. It is to insert the words, "or for the establishment of any Consultative Council under Section 4 of this Act," after the word "Act" in subsection (3) of Clause 8.
The effect of the Amendment was described by my noble friend Lord Down-barn during the Committee stage of the Bill when he moved what was practically the same Amendment. It is this, that when the Minister wishes to establish a Consultative Council by Order in Council, the Order will lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a certain number of days and it will not become effective without a definite Resolution, moved and carried, in both Houses of Parliament. That is the procedure which, under the Bill, obtains in respect of Orders in Council which provide for the transfer of powers. As the Bill stands it does not apply to Orders in Council establishing Consultative Councils, and all that this Amendment proposes to do is to assimilate the procedure in the case of Consultative Councils to the procedure in the case of transfer of powers.
The result is to retain in the hands of your Lordships and of the House of Commons effective power to control the specific establishment of Consultative Councils. It will be in your power to refuse then-, or to amend the conditions under which they are proposed. Both these powers will be reserved to both Houses. As I understand that the noble Viscount is ready to accept the Amendment, I will not detain your Lordships at greater length.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("or for the establishment of any Consultative Council under Section 4 of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Application to Ireland.
10.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act, the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), after the words "physical and mental defects," to insert "the treatment and care of the blind." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting and consequential Amendment. If you look at Clause 2 you will see that the words "treatment and care of the blind" have been inserted, and I have been asked by the Irish Office to move the insertion of these words in this clause. It is a formal amendment of the Irish clause and consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2 which gives powers in respect to the general administration of health. It is accordingly desirable to insert the words in the Irish clause in order to bring the two clauses into harmony.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, after ("defects") insert ("treatment and care of the blind").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I propose to take the Third Reading of this Bill on Thursday next.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I presume that the noble Viscount's Amendment will appear on the Paper to-morrow?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I hope so. I will do my best.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me to

735
detain your Lordships, at any great length in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is one of the shortest measures that has ever been presented to your Lordships' House. Women have proved themselves in late years so well qualified to occupy positions of responsibility that I believe if it were possible to ascertain the feelings and opinions of your Lordships' House we should find on the part of the majority of members considerable surprise that a measure of this kind has not already become law.
Women have educated themselves through experience, and with the general approval of the people are fit to take a larger share in the local government of this country. I do not know that they could exercise their undoubted capacity better than in this particular fashion and in the Police Courts. In a book on The Administration of Justice in Criminal Matters, by Mr. Alexander, commenting on the personal qualities necessary, he writes—
"They appear to be high moral character, a fair degree of education, business knowledge, a knowledge of the world and common sense, together with an admixture of the milk of human kindness."
The training of a lawyer is unnecessary to carry out the duties of a justice of the peace efficiently, and therefore I think we shall find many women well qualified to act in that capacity.
In many cases it is quite evident when young girls are dealt with in Police Courts that a woman justice would be a considerable advantage. Her experience with girls would help her; modesty would suffer a good deal less injury, and in many cases in which offences against girls are involved I think we might hope to see a somewhat heavier penalty established. It is quite impossible to speak with any real useful criticism, but a number of cases you will see in the papers any day of men summoned for indecent assaults on girls. It is curious to see how very different are the sentences which are imposed. Quite recently I saw the case of an indecent assault against a girl nine years old, and the defendant was only fined 40 s. In other cases where similar assaults have been proved the defendant has been punished with fourteen days' hard labour, two months' hard labour,
736
and in the case of a girl four years of age the offender was placed on probation for twelve months. In another case a sentence of twelve months' hard labour was imposed.
It is desirable that in matters of this kind there should be a better fixed standard, and I believe that the presence of women justices would tend to secure that result. It is clearly unfair that a man who acts as chairman of a district council becomes ex officio, a magistrate, and that women are not allowed to act in that capacity. It has prevented women being appointed to that position. I am sure that every one of your Lordships would agree that women would be specially well qualified to do admirable work in the new Children's Courts. Even if the Courts did not consist wholly of women, still the presence of women on the Bench would be of the very greatest advantage. Women would be far better able to understand the minds of the children; and they would respond better to questioning from women. Some mothers, summoned for keeping their children from school, might find their home problems better understood by women justices than by the school attendance officer and male justices.
If you will pardon a personal reference, I should like to say that when I was a member of the old London School Board I found that admirable work was done on what were called "B" Committees by the women members. A parent was summoned for not sending the children to school. They made various excuses, generally that they needed help at home. The presence of women on these Committees was of the greatest assistance in helping us to sift the worth of the evidence, and in allowing us to say in which of the cases we might usefully prosecute and which cases should be left alone. I am sure that in this direction especially we should find the presence of women of the greatest use. I realise that there is no hope for any Bill in these days unless it secures the benevolent approval of the Government. I do not wish to press on the Government any request for time in another place. I shall be satisfied, for the present at any rate, if I can be assured that they will not offer any opposition to this Bill, and that so far from opposing it at the present stage they will be ready to give it their approval.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked your Lordships to read for a Second Time a Bill which contains proposals of the greatest possible importance. No woman in this country has ever been appointed a justice of the peace. The explanation of that omission is no doubt to be found in substance in the view, which has been rightly taken, that under the law as it stands to-day such an appointment could not legally be made. During the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace, which sat in 1910, one of the Commissioners raised the question as to whether women should be made eligible for the Commission, and Lord Halsbury made the observation that in his view there were many causes to which women could contribute much, but that it would not be desirable to make women magistrates with limited functions. To that view, I confess, I assent. If your Lordships, and Parliament generally, are prepared to sanction so great an innovation you must do so with a full consciousness that the choice is being taken for all purposes, and that no distinction must or can be drawn between the case of female and male magistrates. It may interest your Lordships to be told that, in spite of the generally received opinion, acted upon by all my predecessors, that women were not eligible for the Commission, recommendations of women have from time to time been made and strongly pressed upon my predecessors. One woman was recommended by the Lord Lieutenant of a county, and members of the public have frequently pressed on my predecessors, and on myself, names of different women.
It is obvious that the matter could only be dealt with by Parliament. In these circumstances I may, perhaps, explain what is the attitude of the Government. My noble friend might have put the matter as against the Government a little more emphatically, because declarations were made by leading members of the Government—indeed, they were made also by myself—not specifically with reference to the Commission of the Peace but with reference to the general position of women under the altered conditions of our time, and language was certainly used both by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the House of Commons which in my judgment would make it quite impossible to refuse assent to proposals of this kind. A measure which goes very far has been introduced in another place. I believe the
738
title of that Bill is "A Bill for the Emancipation of Women"; at any rate, that is the name it has received in the Press. That Bill has made a certain amount of progress in another place, but there were some practical difficulties in giving effect to its purpose which bad been insufficiently considered by its promoters, and it is improbable that that Bill will have a successful, or at any rate a complete, Parliamentary career. That leaves the noble Earl's Bill on this part of the women's question the sole occupant of the field, and I am able to give him even a larger reassurance than that for which he asked.
Either this Bill, or a Bill with the same object perhaps conceived in a slightly different way, will be assisted in the one case or introduced in the other by His Majesty's Government, so that it may reasonably be anticipated—whether the anticipation affords your Lordships pleasure or not, I do not know—that within a reasonable period of time women will become eligible as magistrates. It would be wrong if I attempted to conceal from your Lordships the far-reaching nature of this change. The decision involved is a very grave one. I am able only to suppose that on the whole it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I think that it will be thought here, as elsewhere, that we have reached the point at which decisions have already been taken which carry this present decision with them. The responsibility which this proposal throws upon myself is considerable, and is very much regretted by myself, because great as is the assistance which is rendered to the Lord Chancellor by Lords Lieutenant and by Advisory Committees your Lordships know that the Lord Chancellor constantly sustains in this connection a degree of personal responsibility which he cannot impose upon any one else, and the eligibility, if it be established by law in this session, of women to sit on the Magisterial Bench certainly promises to add considerably to the burdens, already sufficient to bear, of the Lord Chancellor.
In preparation of the period which may arise—in the near future if these proposals become law—I think it right to point out to your Lordships, and to point out to the many women in the country who may be aspirants in the near future to a seat on the Bench, that the Commissions all over the country at the present time are tolerably full. But both my own policy during the

739
six months or so in which I have been responsible for this matter, and the policy as I understand it of my predecessors, has been to see that numerically the Bench was sufficiently strong for the manifold and constantly growing duties which the Legislature imposes upon justices of the peace. The result is that to-day it would in the main be generally true to say that all over the country the Benches of Magistrates are adequately manned. No one, I hope, would suggest that it would be reasonable that because so great a change was made in our law it would become my duty to make immense, inconvenient, and otherwise unnecessary additions to the number of magistrates in order that representatives of women might be found everywhere on the Benches.
Assuming, therefore, that my noble friend's proposals, or similar proposals, become law, I only desire to say, as a word of warning, that while naturally if these proposals are adopted it would be my duty to see that effect was given, if and when occasion offered, to the view of the Legislature that women should be made eligible, it must not be expected of me—I may say quite plainly that I would not and could not consent to that course—that I should make all over the country large additions to the number of magistrates merely in order that women might be given Commissions of the Peace in districts which are already completely provided for. The change must of course, for the reasons that I have indicated, be gradual. Nor do I think that the prospect need be a discouragement either to women themselves or to those who in this matter have advocated their claims in the past with so much perseverance. They should rather draw comfort when they reflect upon the enormous change which would take place and the increase in usefulness which would be open to women, and when they realise that the time will conic when women will be able to address themselves to a sphere of public activity in which, I believe with the noble Earl, they may contribute something which is quite special to their sex and is from the very nature of the case incommunicable from ours.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think that the House will have heard the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with great satisfaction. I am certain that my noble friend below the gangway, who is responsible for this Bill,
740
will be highly gratified at the attitude which the noble and learned Lord has taken on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It is quite true, as the noble and learned Lord stated, that in this matter the burden of proof has completely shifted since the time of which he spoke, when Lord Halsbury raised objections to the idea of adding women to the Bench. It is not now so much a question whether women can prove definitely their special fitness for a particular form of public service, but whether those who do not desire them to fill those posts can prove they are for some reason or another disqualified. That being so, it stands to reason that in this particular matter of the Bench—for the reasons so clearly explained by my noble friend, who showed that there are special functions which women can discharge, particularly those connected with the Children's Courts and cases in which girls are involved—women can play a part of special public usefulness.
Those of us who have the honour of being His Majesty's Lieutenants of counties will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the concluding passages of his speech. I have no doubt that we shall receive a large number of applications to send forward women's names. I am glad therefore, that the noble and learned Lord has uttered this caution, that he will not make himself responsible for large additions of magistrates to Benches which are already sufficiently occupied, simply because women desire to sit there. A great deal of the work of the magistrate is humdrum and exceedingly irksome, and, one would have thought, not specially attractive to anybody. One often wonders how it is that so large a number of people desire to be placed on the Bench. It is familiar to us that the satisfaction of being able to write the letters J.P. after a man's name has proved to be in itself a lure which cannot be resisted. And, no doubt, here too the distinction of being picked out for an honourable office from among one's fellow citizens will have attraction.
I am not entitled to speak for my brother Lords Lieutenant, but I have no doubt that they will in all cases be prepared to consider favourably, where additions to the Bench are required, the names of suitable and capable women that are sent forward. Perhaps at first they may even be disposed to strain a point, though not I hope to excess, in recommending additions

741
to the number of the Bench in respect of this change. We were all, I am sure, very glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord that His Majesty's Government are disposed to give facilities to this Bill or to a kindred Bill, which, I take it, would be in substance the same even though the wording or the method of approach might be in some respects different, and that there is therefore not merely a hope, but a definite prospect, that the change will become law during the current session.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 15.]
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK.
(Petition for Bill.)
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR. [H.L.]
(Petition for additional Provision.)
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
(Petition for Bill.)
WORKINGTON CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)

SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD.
(Petition for Bill.)
Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday the 21st instant.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting on May 19.]

THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Onslow be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Verulam; read, and agreed to.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before six o'clock.