Sitting of 29 July 1920

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

LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th day of June next" be dispensed with in respect of this Bill; and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES, ETC.) BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)had a Motion on the Paper—
To move that Standing Order No.143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill; and that the Bill be now read 3a.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, do not propose to make this Motion until Tuesda.y next, as I think that course will be more convenient to your Lordships.

IN VERGORDON HARBOUR (TRANSFER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, the Bill to which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day will, if it is passed into law, have the effect of raising the status of the Secretary for Scotland to
606
that of Secretary of State for Scotland. Clause 1 extends the statutory limit of the number of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State allowed to sit in the House of Commons. Meantime, as your Lordships are aware, that statutory limit is suspended under the terms of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916. Clause 2 transfers the powers and duties. of the Secretary for Scotland to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and Clause 3 contains the provisions necessary to ensure continuity, both as regards the powers and the duties of the Secretary for Scotland, during the period of transition. Your Lordships will observe that there is absent from the Bill any provision as to. the raising of the salary attached to the office of the Secretary for Scotland. I desire to make it perfectly plain that such provision has been omitted only because, if it were part of the Bill, it would be an infringement of the privilege of the House of Commons in the matter of Money Bills.
This Bill has at least this merit— that it presents the case for raising the status of the Secretary for Scotland unprejudiced by any embarrassing entanglements with the case of any English Departments. The demand which exists in Scotland for the restoration of the ancient office of Secretary of State for Scotland may very easily be accounted for. The Secretary for Scotland discharges onerous and responsible duties of the first importance to Scotland, which, by general consent, entitle him to be ranked as one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. As your Lordships are aware, the Secretary for Scotland is responsible for all purely Scottish Departments of Government, and when Scottish interests are at stake it is to the Secretary for Scotland that we have to look to see that our interests are well watched. There is a natural, and I think a proper, desire to see revived one of the great Offices of State reserved under the Parliamentary Union of 1707. It will be within the knowledge of all your Lordships that the Union was bitterly resented by a large proportion of the Scottish population at that time. In the unsettled period which followed the Union it was the purpose of English statesmen to do what they could to obliterate the marks of Scottish nationality, and in pursuance of that policy the Secretaryship of State for Scotland was abolished, first in 1725, and finally in 1746.

607
Happily the agitation which followed the Union was short-lived, and our forebears, recognising, in their good sense, that partnership is not necessarily repugnant either to the maintenance of self-respect or to the continuance of a separate individuality, accepted the situation and embarked upon a course of common enterprise and common sacrifice to which, whether in peace or in war, in good times or in bad, their descendants have adhered to this day. The principle of this Bill is supported by a volume and intensity of Scottish public opinion such as gives ample warrant for its translation into law. Representative bodies throughout Scotland have memorialised the Government in favour of the change. I have a list of twenty such bodies which have all passed resolutions, and yesterday a meeting in Edinburgh of the representatives of local and other public bodies from all parts of Scotland adopted a resolution urging the Government to raise the status of the Secretary for Scotland. In this brief survey I trust you will find an explanation and also a justification of the demands of Scotland in this matter, and I hope I may be so fortunate as to persuade your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Government fully recognise the justice of the claim made by the noble Marquess that the status of the Secretary for Scotland should be raised to that of a Secretary of State. The Government hope to deal with this subject in the autumn session.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the Government hope to deal with this matter in the autumn session, but he gave us no indication as to whether they are willing to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill now before your Lordships. I want to say one word on this matter as, if I did not, my silence might be misunderstood in this House and in Scotland, if it were known that I was present in the House. I want to say, as strongly as I can, that the feeling in Scotland is that the present position of the office of Secretary for Scotland is not quite in accordance with what is due to a country like Scotland. It is placed in an inferior position to that of other Departments. The question of raising the status of the office of Secretary
608
for Scotland ought to be regarded as standing by itself and not mixed up with that of other Departments. In the past it has rather been so mixed up and it has prejudiced the case.
I believe this alteration would promote public convenience and be of great public advantage. When I held the office of Secretary for Scotland, some sixteen years ago, great inconveniences were found because the signature of the Secretary for Scotland, not being that of a Secretary of State, was not interchangeable with that of other kindred Departments. Noble Lords will know that one Secretary of State can often sign on behalf of another, and that a Minute need not necessarily be signed by the Secretary of State of the particular Department. That is not the case so far as Scotland is concerned. There is no one whose signature can be substituted for that of the Secretary for Scotland, and in case of illness or necessary absence, great inconvenience has sometimes occurred. There is also a great variety of work, and this variety is increasing. The Secretary for Scotland has to represent Scotland in London, and therefore he has a great deal to do in connection with the work of other Departments, which, in other respects, are English Departments, but the work of which also extends to Scotland.
We have a definite promise on the matter I know. This promise was given in another place. It was acknowledged that the demand was unanimous from Scotland and the Government said they hoped to deal with the subject in the autumn session. If I heard the noble Lord aright, he has repeated that promise, and has said that the Government hope to deal with it in the autumn session. One is accustomed to scrutinise in a friendly way declarations of policy, and hope is not a very certain thing upon which to build. We all know that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and I should rather like to have a more definite undertaking to the effect that the Government will deal with this matter before the present session concludes. It cannot take very long, and it is due to Scotland to have such a reply. As a whole Scotland is more unanimous on this matter than on anything else which I can recollect in my public life. I hope this unanimity will not be under-rated and that due weight will be given to it. In the present condition of the House, if the Government were to

609
say that they could not assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, I should be the last person to against them. But various representations have been made to me by members of the other House who know Scotland, that if this Bill was passed through your Lordships' House it would facilitate work and save time, and, unless some very strong reasons are given why your Lordships should not pass this Bill, hope the Government will allow it to be read a second time.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have not the faintest right to intervene is this debate, except that I desire to express general sympathy with the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Linlithgow, and to express the hope, if an Englishman may venture to do so, that the Government will give the Bill a Second Reading. I understand, from what the noble Lord opposite has said, that there is some prospect that the proposal may be dealt with this session after the adjournment, and hope that that is the case. I hope, also, that the noble Lord's words mean that a favourable consideration is likely to be given to it. There is, however, this particular point to be borne in mind. What is called the raising of
status also means the raising of salary, and in these times, when we are all preaching economy, the raising of the salary of an office cannot be regarded as a light matter. I hope, therefore, that when the Government are considering this question they will bear in mind, appropriately to the season of the falling leaves, that there are some other Ministries which might be shed conceivably at the same time, which would enable money to be forthcoming for the enhanced salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland without adding to the total burden of the taxpayer.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I think it is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that the expression of a hope that we may be able to introduce a certain measure is not always very reassuring to persons who are greatly interested in that measure. But I should like to underline the expression of this hope on the part of the Government, and to say that the Government really are anxious to proceed in this matter, and that although it is, of course, perfectly impassible for them to commit themselves absolutely to dealing with it in this year, it is cer-
610
tainly not occupying a secondary place in their thoughts, or likely to occupy a secondary place in their programme.
As an earnest of our desire to deal with this matter the Government would be willing to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill if the noble Lord who introduced it would be prepared to leave the matter there for the present. In that case if, as we hope and believe, the Government are able to deal with the matter at a later stage of the Session, I think you will all agree it would be the most convenient thing that it should be dealt with by a Government Bill originating in the House of Commons, especially for the reason that there are certain very important provisions of the Bill which can only be adequately dealt with by that House. If, however, for any reason which I do not anticipate, the Government were prevented from taking up the matter at a later stage of the session, it would always be possible for the noble Lord, the Bill having been read a second time, to proceed with the further stages of it in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I desire to say only one word with respect to the observations of Lord Crewe on the matter of salary. We are all aware of the feeling which exists with regard to extra charges upon the public in these days. The matter is, of course, one of proportion and perspective, and if it were my duty to endeavour to persuade your Lordships that on all the considerations of the case it was proper and right to raise the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, I should have no fear for my success in doing so. I accept at once the offer put forward by the noble Viscount opposite, and in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill I do so on the understanding that it will lie on the Table pending developments.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROPRIETARY MEDICINES BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, last year the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that a Bill would be introduced dealing

611
with patent medicines. The Bill to which I am going to ask you to give a Second Reading to-day is introduced in order to carry out that undertaking. It has been framed on the recommendations of the Select Committee, which sat for three years and reported, I think, in 1914. That Committee took a great deal of evidence. saw a large number of witnesses, put something like 14,000 questions to the various witnesses, and considered the whole problem very fully and impartially. The Committee's recommendations were in the nature of a compromise. They were not based upon either of the two conflicting views. I have had made available copies of the Report of that Select Committee, and those copies are here in case you would like to refresh your memories by going over the Report.
This country is very much behind several of our Dominions, as well as most other civilised countries, in its treatment of proprietary and patent medicines and surgical appliances. It does not give the same protection to the public as is given in most other countries. I can supply one illustration showing the way in which the public is victimised at present. The Select Committee quote the instance of a man who came with a certain instrument to this country and is reported to have made over £60,000 by its sale. He went to France, and was there sentenced to three years' imprisonment, as well as heavily fined, for trying to sell the same instrument. The law here is unsatisfactory. There is a great deal of overlapping and duplication; it is doubtful on many points and it is inadequate; and certainly additional legislation is urgently necessary. Nor, at the present moment, is there any single Minister, or any single Department, which is responsible for protecting the public, or for seeing that the public does not suffer grievous injury.
In the Bill before you we do not propose to protect the purse of the public. We are not going as far as that. A very good case might be made out for preventing profiteering and exploitation of the public, and it is possible Amendments may be moved to strengthen the Bill in that direction; but as the Bill is drafted we do not do that. I will refer to a passage from the evidence quoted in the Report of the Committee. There, I think, the Medical Officer of one of the most important cities of the Kingdom reported that a
612
remedy was being sold in his town for 2s. 9d., the ingredients of which only cost 1d. We are not attacking that particular evil. All we are trying to do is to protect the health and the life of the public, and, as I have said, we are not attempting in this Bill to protect their purses.
Injury may be caused in one or two ways. Sufferers who purchase and attempt to use these appliances and medicines very often postpone going to a proper medical practitioner while trying to treat themselves by the use of these patent medicines. The delay very often aggravates their ailment, sometimes very seriously. In other cases actual injury is caused by the purchase and use of the remedies. We propose to prohibit the advertisement and sale of remedies purporting to treat, cure, alleviate or prevent diseases which are set out in the Schedule— cancer, consumption, diabetes, certain diseases peculiar to women, fits, epilepsy, deafness— because we know that serious risk is involved if sufferers try to treat themselves by using a patent drug while suffering from those particular diseases. They are serious complaints, and it is not in the public interest that people haunted by fear, and suffering, as they often are, from these complaints, should be encouraged to treat themselves by using these patent remedies. Too often those remedies merely touch a symptom of the disease. A case is quoted in the Report where a particular medicine— Hall's Wine— is advertised. It is said that if two wineglassfuls are taken that is a sufficient amount to cause sleep. It is recommended for children in these words: "For colds, coughs and bronchial affections." It contains cocaine, or the elements of cocaine. Nobody could advocate the continuation of a law which allows, or encourages, people to purchase cocaine in order to make their children sleep when those children are suffering from a cough.
It is essential that we should take powers to deal with these evils. In a limited number of cases not only is injury caused but death results. That is particularly brought about by the use of remedies intended to produce abortion. A considerable number of remedies are advertised as being suitable for female irregularities. I am told that, at best, these remedies are useless, and that too often the most serious consequences result from their use. It is impossible, I am told, to kill an unborn child without endangering the life of the

613
mother. Some of these remedies are intended to give lead poisoning. It is quite true that you may kill the unborn child by this means, but too often it also kills the mother. Not only is it serious as regards the health of the people who try to avail themselves of these remedies, but we are informed by the Select Committee that very frequently it results in blackmail. A case is quoted of two men who had threatened to expose the purchasers of a particular remedy intended to cause abortion. The police intercepted 600 letters containing, I think, two guineas each from these unfortunate women who were paying this money under a threat of exposure. I believe, if this Bill did nothing else than prevent this reprehensible practice, we should be justified in trying to pass it, even when we are so congested with legislation.
The Assistant Director of Public Prosecution said that it was almost impossible to prove fraud and that practically the law was non-existent. You cannot expect the purchaser of a remedy intended to produce miscarriage to come forward, after having bought this remedy, and say: "I bought this remedy in order that I should be able to commit a crime. I have not been able to produce miscarriage. I have been defrauded," You have only to state the case to see how very difficult it must be to get the necessary evidence. I think it may interest your Lordships if I quote the way in which this type of remedy is brought before the public. Here is a case where a bottle of mixture was sent with the intimation that the powerful and certain action of the medicine contained in the bottle necessitated the warning that the contents should not be taken by those expecting to be mothers, as the medicine was very liable to cause a miscarriage. That is the way in which these drugs are brought before the notice of a large number of unfortunate women who, too often in the past, have availed themselves of them.
In order to bring before your Lordships the exact situation, I cannot do better than quote a brief paragraph from the Report of the Select Committee who state—
"For all practical purposes British law is powerless to prevent any person from procuring any drug, or making any mixture, whether potent or without any therapeutical activity whatever (so long as it does not contain a scheduled poison), advertising it in any decent terms as a
614
cure for any disease or ailment, recommending it by bogus testimonials and the invented opinons and facsimile signatures of fictitious physicians, and selling it under any name he chooses on the payment of a small stamp duty, for any price he can persuade a credulous public to pay."
That summarises very briefly the situation as it now is.
In the Bill now before your Lordships powers are taken which I will briefly indicate. We propose that a register should be made on which every proprietary medicine and surgical appliance, and the owners thereof, shall be registered. We prohibit the sale of unregistered remedies. We take powers, subject to a right of appeal, to remove the owner of a proprietary medicine from the register, if his remedy is considered too dangerous to health. We also take powers to compel the owner of such a remedy to disclose its contents—the
formula, the ingredients—to the Government, of course privately and in confidence. Heavy penalties will be imposed for non-disclosure. Further, we prohibit the advertising of remedies purporting to prevent, cure or relieve the diseases which are set out in the Schedule. Clause 5 states that the alcoholic contents of a patent medicine must be given on the label. We find that many of the medicated wines contain as much alcohol as some of the heaviest wines and twice as much as claret. The Committee referred to a particular medicine which was recommended for us at the time of confinement. On analysis that medicine was found to contain something like 60 per cent. of alcohol, and the rest was apparently pure water. This was recommended as assisting confinement and producing fine and healthy babies.
The Bill prohibits correspondence with the vendors, and the enclosure of literature with one remedy recommending the use of another remedy. We also prohibit the advertising of remedies suggesting that they are useful or can be used for procuring abortion. Clause 5 sets out that all Regulations must be laid before Parliament. The Minister of Health is made responsible for the supervision of the matters dealt with, so that in future there will be one Department dealing with this subject, instead of at least four. I would also draw your attention to Clause 10, which is the clause defining a "proprietary medicine." You will see that it is necessary that the remedy should be (what I might call) "puffed," advertised, pushed, in

615
writing, as being beneficial for human ailments, as being a curative agent, and that there must be a monopoly. That is to say, we exclude from the definition of a "proprietary medicine" those proprietary medicines which are not advertised, pushed, or puffed in writing as being remedies, or as having special therapeutic qualities. We propose to exclude, for instance, mixtures, the composition of which is known, which are made by well-known and reputable chemists, and which are not pushed for sale on the ground that they have any special therapeutic qualities. Nor shall we include, in the definition of a "proprietary medicine," any recognised drug or preparation for which no monopoly is claimed.
I have seen it stated in a newspaper recently that under the Bill we contemplate the setting up of a new bureaucracy. So far as I know, and I think I can say this with confidence, we propose to appoint only one officer—a Registrar; and we anticipate that his salary will be met out of the fees charged to owners and vendors and proprietors of patent medicines. Therefore I do not think that opposition to the Bill can be raised on that ground. I have been told that the Press are going to oppose the passing of this Bill. I am perfectly well aware that the Press derive a large revenue from the advertising of patent medicines and surgical appliances. The Committee estimate that something like £2,000,000 is spent annually upon advertising these remedies and appliances in the Press. But I have too high an opinion of the Press as a whole to believe that they will attempt to stop the passage of this Bill. We do not propose to prohibit all advertising; we do not propose to deal with that to which I just now referred as profiteering. But I believe your Lordships will agree with me that the Press, as well as the State, have a duty and an obligation to prevent fraud and danger to life and health by the pushing of the sale of these remedies I have described. I am confident that the Government will get the support of the majority of the Press—of the reputable section of the Press—in their endeavour to deal with this problem.
At the present moment we are powerless to deal with it. We shall not interfere with legitimate or with harmless business. It is not possible for any impartial person to read the recommendations
616
of the Committee which went into this problem so carefully, without agreeing that the need for legislation is urgent. I cordially commend this Bill to your Lordships, because I believe it will enable us to deal with what is a real scandal, and because it will bring England more nearly level with other countries. If, by any chance, serious opposition should manifest itself, I feel certain that I shall be able to appeal with confidence to your Lordships to support the Government.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the noble Viscount has told your Lordships how this Bill is the result of about six years or more of work by a Committee dealing with the subject; but he has not quite brought before your Lordships the importance of this industry as a whole. Its importance may be judged by the fact that last year more than £1,250,000 was paid in stamp duty to the Inland Revenue. I understand that there are about 10,000 retail pharmacists in the kingdom, apart from the bigger shops, with an enormous number of formulœ for making these proprietary medicines. It is, therefore, a very important industry indeed. It employs a very large number of people; it produces a lot of articles, many of which are extremely useful to the community at large; and, although every one deprecates the kind of remedies to which the noble Viscount alluded, yet there are other remedies which almost every man, woman, and child in the country uses, off and on, in the course of the year. I am sure that there cannot be anyone in this House who has not at times derived great advantage from taking a proprietary pill. If this is so, it is important that the industry should have a good opportunity of considering this Bill as affecting their interests.
The Bill has been printed only a few days, and I trust that the noble Viscount will not put it down for Committee too early, so that an opportunity may be given to those concerned to have a look at it. In dealing with an industry of this kind we do not wish either to have any system, such as the noble Viscount deprecated, of having a large number of extra officials, nor do we wish to hurt the industry in such a way as to impair its usefulness where such usefulness exists. Further, we do not wish to cause it, or the

617
allied industries connected with it to suffer unduly. I would point out that an industry like this relies upon other industries, such as bottle-making, to assist it; and it also has a great deal of advertising to do. I agree with the noble Viscount that regulation is necessary, but a good opportunity should be afforded to those concerned to see that the Bill does not affect them unfairly.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should like to say that I welcome this Bill and sincerely hope that its effect will be salutary. But, if the noble Viscount will pardon me saying so, I have, as I think those in the House who are interested in the matter have, some little quarrel with him in view of the time of the session at which this Bill is introduced. The Bill originates in this House, and it surely ought to have been possible to introduce it earlier than practically the very last day of July. I therefore join, but for exactly opposite reasons to those of the noble Lord who has just spoken, in hoping that the Committee stage will not be taken before Wednesday or Thursday of next week at the earliest; because I should like to put down one Amendment, which I will indicate to the noble Viscount, to strengthen the Bill.
The noble Viscount did not mention it in his speech, but I think I am right in saying that the Committee which sat in 1914 discussed at considerable length the proposal which has been always made in this connection—namely, that every patent medicine of this sort should have its ingredients clearly stated on the wrapper. I believe I am right in saying that this question was gone into at some length by the Committee and that, on the whole, they reported against it. But it does seem to me that, if your object is to prevent the public being defrauded, the very best way of doing that is to state in the plainest language you can upon the wrapper of what your medicine actually consists, instead of allowing the present advertisements, which describe it as having been derived from some mystic root found in some South American swamp by some reputed scientific person. Some of these statements will be swept away by this Bill, but the way to get rid of all of them is to allow the actual composition of the medicine to be known, and I should venture, for the noble Viscount's consideration, to put down in Committee an Amend-
618
ment that that should be part of this legislation. I think, myself, that if you really desire to protect the public from fraud, that is one of the most effective ways of doing so.
There was a matter which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, namely, that the ingredients and the proportions in which they are used have to be furnished to the Registrar. That is dealt with in Clause 5 (2) (e). But by the last subsection of Clause 4 it is made an offence for the Registrar, or anybody who is acquainted. with it, to furnish this information to the public. If he or any other person, without lawful authority, publishes or communicates to any person any information with respect to the ingredients or composition of that medicine he is to be guilty of a misdemeanour. It seems to me that the legislation ought to be in exactly the opposite sense. These registered ingredients ought to be furnished to Parliament in the shape of a White Paper so as to be available to the Press and everybody else who wishes to see them, because the medicine is already protected by being registered, and by being a proprietary medicine. I do not know whether the noble Viscount can give the House any instance of any real secret in, the composition of these medicines which is not known to the "Pharmacopæia." I doubt whether there is any such thing. And therefore the best method seems to me to be to make this part of the register available to the public.
There are one or two smaller points which I think might also be worthy of discussion in Committee rather than now, and, as the Bill has been introduced so very late in the session, and with so very little notice that it was coming on, it would, I think, be worth while to give a reasonable opportunity for a full discussion. This House is very well fitted to discuss in Committee this kind of proposal, and to arrive at a common-sense solution of the various difficulties which arise when you are imposing restrictions for the first time upon what the last noble Lord who spoke called an industry. I confess that is not the view I should take of it. The view I take of practically all these patent medicines is that they are fraudulent. pilfering of the public for private profit, and that the only effect of that is—what the noble Viscount quite clearly stated in his speech —to increase the injury and suffering of the poor by postponing the time at which

619
they take legitimate and competent medical advice.
I notice that the Schedule does not refer to venereal diseases. Am I right in thinking that that is because a prohibition in regard to those diseases is contained in another Act? Even if that is so, it would probably be just as well, for the sake of completeness, that they should be included in the Schedule of the Bill. Perhaps when the noble Viscount replies he will deal with that.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the passage of this Bill. Indeed, I am quite sure that such a Bill is needed, although I must say I did not quite gather from the actual instance given by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether we were right in regard to the man who made a fortune here on a certain instrument, or France was wrong in imprisoning him, and preventing him from selling it. That, however is a matter of detail. My chief purpose in rising is merely to emphasise what has been said by the previous speakers as to the desirability of giving time for the consideration of this Bill. After six years of incubation I do not think it will hurt very much if it is put off until the autumn session. This is a very crowded period of the session, and a very inconvenient time to introduce new Bills, which are not very urgent and necessary.
I do not know whether one Registrar is going to be enough without an army of chemists. I fancy that the efficient carrying out of the work under this Bill will probably need another very considerable bureaucracy. I shall be very glad if I am wrong in regard to that matter. There is another point of detail upon which I am afraid I shall find myself in opposition to the noble Earl opposite, Lord Russell. I look at the matter rather in the other way, and, if he will consider the case of manufacturers who have built up a large trade in a beneficial or innocuous article, and possess it at the present time, whose trade would be absolutely destroyed if exhibition of formulæ became the law of the land, I think he will see that there is another side of the question which he has raised. At any rate, the provisions of the Bill for formula deposit (as I think it is called) appear to be likely to raise vehement opposition on the part of the manufacturers of many of these patent
620
medicines. Their objection, of course, is not sufficient in itself to induce your Lordships to adopt their view, but I do think it is a sufficient reason for asking for more time for the consideration of this measure. On the merits of that part of the question I should like to say that, on the face of it, it seems to me rather an un-English procedure to demand a full disclosure of ingredients, unless a very strong case can be made out for the necessity of doing so. The noble Earl opposite wants to destroy the whole of the trade. I do not think the country would be benefitted.
EARL RUSSELL: Not to destroy, but only to make it honest.
LORD EMMOTT: The noble Earl is advocating a measure which, in my opinion, would destroy it. The circumstances were, of course, very different, but I had to deal with this case when I was Director of the War Trade Department. It was necessary, with regard to many of these patent medicines and patent foods and other things, to know the general composition at any rate of them. But in that case the matter was compromised by demanding a disclosure of the composition so far as it consisted of articles whose export was prohibited, and in those circumstances we were able to avoid the necessity, which I very much desired to avoid, of full disclosure. The reason why I object to this, unless it can be proved to be absolutely essential, is that I do not like secrets of this kind being produced to public Departments, because it is such a temptation to officials in those Departments, if there are any unscrupulous people among them, to make money out of them. I think the argument is rather against even a formula deposit than in favour of the wider measure that the noble Earl opposite desires. In these circumstances I hope that we shall have an assurance from His Majesty's Government that the further proceedings upon the Bill will not be pushed in this period of the session.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, one matter in connection with the Bill as drafted has occurred to me. I may be wrong, but I think it is a matter which the noble Viscount who has charge of the Bill might have to consider. It is as to the manner of enforcing the provisions of Clause 1. If the Bill was in any way ineffective,

621
or practically ineffective, to carry out the intentions of its framers it would be a matter of serious consideration how it is to be remedied. Clause 1 provides that—
"It shall not be lawful for any person to manufacture or prepare for sale any proprietary medicine or any proprietary surgical appliance unless—"
and then under paragraph (c)—
"in the case of a medicine, it is compounded of the ingredients and in the proportions specified in the register."
The proportions are specified in the register, and the ingredients are specified in the register.
But supposing that the ingenious proprietor of the patent medicine does not register the true proportions at all. How is the investigation to be carried out to determine, (1), whether the article sold is compounded of the ingredients and, (2), in the proportions specified? It is a very difficult task indeed, and any one who has read the Report of the British Pharmaceutical Society will see that it is an extremely difficult operation to ascercain, at any rate, the proportions in which any of these drugs, and especially vegetable drugs, are. used. If subsection (3) is to be operative at all it is absolutely necessary that there shall be a Department, or staff, or other means, of continually keeping watch for evasions of the Act. The noble Lord said that all that would be provided would be a Registrar, and that would be quite simple. But obviously the Registrar could scarcely keep any control over this particular matter. I may be wrong, but I have not noticed anything in the Bill which would enable this particular subsection to be worked practically. It is in that spirit that I make this suggestion for the consideration of the noble Lord.
With regard to the part of the Bill dealing with medicines purporting to cure certain diseases, I do not imagine that there will be a dissentient voice in this House in reference to those proprietary medicines, most of which are not worth very much at all. But if there is to be a check of any kind whatsoever upon this registration, then there must be analysis, and when the analysis is made, if it is found, after a good deal of trouble, that the article does not correspond with the register, what is to be done? I suppose there will be a prosecution. If there is to be a prosecution, the contents of this
622
valuable register will have to be disclosed. I can see for myself that a person who might have a desire to injure the owner of one of these fancy preparations, might set proceedings in motion. I do not know whether the common informer would be entitled to move or not, and that is a matter that will have to be considered. But whoever might move, action might involve the disclosure which the Bill seems to desire to prevent. I merely make this suggestion for consideration later on.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I hope very much that there will be no delay in passing this Bill. There are always good reasons for delaying everything, but when you calculate the amount of suffering that these medicines are causing, there are much better reasons for carrying this measure, and as quickly as possible. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with the number of instances that come to my knowledge of people damaged and injured for life and ruined in nerve by the use of these medicines, but I urge, as strongly as I can, that there shall be no delay in passing the Bill. I want the noble Viscount who brought the Bill in to consider this one point, if he will. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that a man may not make or sell any surgical appliance unless the appliance is registered. That we can quite understand. But in Clause 2 it is provided that he may not advertise any surgical appliance as curative or as relieving certain illnesses, whether registered or not, so I read it.
One of the infirmities, we will call it, that may not be advertised as being relieved by any surgical applicance, is deafness. I am deaf, and I throw away what I think Lord Beaconsfield called my "natural advantages" in not hearing speeches, by using a machine. It seems to me to be rather unfair that a man who has invented a machine which helps deaf people and, therefore, relieves their deafness, should not in any circumstances, registered or not, be allowed to advertise that machine. That is how the Bill reads to me; I think it must be a slip on the part of the draftsmen. I do not want an article to be advertised to cure deafness, because I have been to everybody who thinks he can cure deafness, and I know that nobody can. I have suffered from the quacks as much as most people. But I think a man who invents a machine to

623
help one to hear and in that way relieves deafness, or the man who invents a good truss ought to be allowed to advertise it and not be prohibited from advertising, whether he registers it or not. As I read the Bill he cannot do that. Perhaps the noble Viscount will kindly consider that when he comes to deal with the Bill in Committee. I urge as strongly as I possibly can that we should not delay, even for a moment and even if it is wise to do it, in passing this Bill and giving it a Second Reading.
LORD RIDDELL: If I may say so, I do not agree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down that there are reasons for delaying everything. I think, however, there are substantial reasons for delaying the progress of this Bill, inasmuch as it was impossible to obtain a copy of it from the King's printers the day before yesterday; so that persons whose businesses are involved have not yet been able to ascertain exactly what are the provisions of the measure. I have every sympathy with the proposal to regulate this trade, but this particular scheme requires a good deal of scrutiny. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke just now that an army of officials will be necessary in order to examine and report upon these various patent medicines and appliances. Unless some adequate measures are taken in that respect, this Bill is likely to do more harm than good, as it will engender among the public a belief in the efficacy of these measures which, at the present time, they do not possess.
I see from the Report of the Committee that the investigation of the contents of one patent medicine alone proved to be a very heavy task, involving 1,607 questions to the proprietors, several chemical analyses, and, generally speaking, a sort of legal inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining exactly of what the remedy was compounded. I assume, as the noble Lord has said, that if the Ministry of Health takes upon itself the task of registering and examining the various remedies, it will be the duty of that Department to see that they are according to prescription, and that the various appliances are suited to the purposes for which they are intended. I see that the Bill gives the Minister power to make a Regulation providing that no surgical appliance shall be registered unless and until a specimen thereof has been fur-
624
nished to the registry. That opens up a very serious vista, because, as I read the Bill, every false leg, every set of teeth which is sold under a trade mark, every ear-trumpet, every truss, and a hundred and one other surgical appliances will require to be investigated and registered by the Ministry.
The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, just now referred to deafness, and there is no doubt that his construction of Clause 2 is accurate. That clause provides that no remedy or appliance may be advertised with a statement which implies that it is effective for the prevention, cure, or relief of any of the diseases or infirmities mentioned in the Schedule. One of those infirmities is rupture. I agree with the noble Viscount that there is no reason why the maker of trusses should not, advertise them, and say that they are calculated to relieve rupture. It seems most unreasonable to provide that, advertisements of that sort shall not be permitted.
Reference has been made to the question of venereal disease. The law in regard to that question shows the danger of passing a measure of this sort hurriedly and without due care as to what the effect of the legislation is likely to be. There is already on the Statute Book a provision that no advertisement shall be published regarding remedies for venereal disease. At the present time a large section of the doctors, including many of the best-known medical men in the country, are interested in what they call prophylaxis, or early treatment. They are of opinion that the existing law prevents them from giving advice on the subject publicly, and I saw the other day that they held a meeting at which they said that they intended to give advice, although undoubtedly they were committing a legal offence. At the present time they are endeavouring to get the law remedied. It shows the importance of taking great care when dealing with a matter of this kind, and I appeal to the noble Viscount to allow the consideration of this Bill to stand over until the trade has had an opportunity of ascertaining what are its provisions.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not listen to the advice of the noble Lord who has just, spoken. This Bill is long overdue; in my opinion it is a measure of great urgency. The people who are asking the poorest

625
in the country to buy these remedies, which they know perfectly well will do them no good, are very little better than those who sell bogus five-pound notes. It is a great scandal that the law has allowed these men to do it for so long, making huge fortunes out of the poorest and most undefended part of our people. After all the most ignorant. and the poorest chiefly suffer by the imposition of these quack remedies and we ought to proceed as quickly as we can with the present measure. If noble Lords will only read the evidence given before the Committee they would all feel that there should he no delay. The Committee, which sat in 1914, did not get much publicity, and some members of the Committee ascribed this want of notice to the fact that the Press is largely interested in advertisements. I believe that something like £2,000,000 is spent in advertising these patent medicines. There is no doubt that the Press are very much interested in the matter, and, therefore, the Report of this Committee did not receive the notice which I think it deserved.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the Bill. Most of the objections which have been raised are, I think, Committee points. The Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House—it has not yet been before the House of Commons —and I trust, therefore, you will assist the Department with which I am connected in the endeavour to introduce legislation, whenever it is possible, in your Lordships' House. I propose to put down the Committee stage for Thursday of next week, which would give noble Lords reasonable time to consider the Bill. The measure is based entirely on the recommendations of the Committee, and while there is nothing new in it that is no reason, of course, why we should hurry it through. I hope, however, that your Lordships will facilitate its passage. We have introduced it here in order that there should be full and ample time for discussion, and to secure that it is available for consideration in another place when the House meets next autumn.
I will go very carefully into the point raised by Lord Knutsford in order to see whether instruments for deafness should be taken out of the Schedule. Lord Riddell and Lord Emmott raised the same point. Lord Riddell said that he did not see how
626
it was possible to operate the Bill unless there was an army of officials. I think Lord Riddell must have made that criticism, under a misapprehension as to what the Department intended to do. We do not intend to have inspectors going all over the country taking samples of bottles, analysing the ingredients and ascertaining whether. they are exactly in accordance with the formulæ submitted to the Department. We do not intend to do that. We shall have a register, and we shall prohibit advertisements of remedies purporting to cure or alleviate certain specified diseases or ailments. Thus we shall see that injury is not done to the public by the remedies. which are advertised. We shall, of course, generally speaking, see that the ingredients are what they are reported to the Department to be, before the owner or proprietor is authorised to put his particular medicine, on the market.
LORD RIDDELL: Will the noble Viscount refer to Clause 5, subsection (2), paragraph (g).
VISCOUNT ASTOR: That only deals. with the disclosure of the alcohol contained in a remedy so that the public may be warned whether it contains above 60 percent., as has been found to be the case in certain instances. It is to let the public know whether a medicine is mainly alcohol or not. I do not think it is necessary to analyse every bottle in order to see whether it is 60 percent. or 61 percent. We believe that the existing staff of the Ministry of Health will be able to provide all the necessary assistance that the Registrar will require. There is a complete misapprehension in the minds of noble Lords who fear the setting up of a new bureaucracy. I will not go into the question of the disclosure of the ingredients on the label. That is a point which I understand will be raised in Committee; and, as the noble Earl perfectly realises, it is a very contentious point. I thank him for giving me notice of his intention to raise it. Lord Shandon, when he asked the question, about Clause 1, had apparently forgotten Clause 5, subsection (2), paragraph (e). If he will look at that particular subsection he will find the reply to the point he raised. I am grateful for the reception your Lordships have given to the Bill. I trust. we may be able to pass it in the near future; I assure you we will not attempt to rush it.
LORD ASKWITH: The noble Viscount says he intends to put down the Committee stage for Thursday next. This morning there appeared a notice to the effect that the Duke of Northumberland is moving an Irish Motion on that day.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Would noble Lords agree to Wednesday next?
LORD ASKWITH: Wednesday is very early, with Bank Holiday intervening.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It is merely a question of studying the Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: On Wednesday there is a debate on Turkey.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to put it down for Wednesday, and if there is any general desire it can be postponed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole house.

NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, in ordinary circumstances I should not have thought it necessary to trouble you with any remarks in introducing this measure, which is very simple and self-explanatory; but, in view of the fact that it has given rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding, I think it might be as well for me to say a few words by way of explanation. Owing to a strange misconception, fears have arisen that some of the provisions of the agreement which this Bill is intended to confirm might be in conflict with the Covenant of the League of Nations. Accordingly words were introduced in Clause 1 of the Bill, during its passage through the House of Commons, which certainly exclude any such danger, if it ever existed. In my opinion it never did exist. The idea arose from a confusion of mind, very natural in those not familiar with the genesis and details of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations — the article dealing with Mandates— but which a more intimate acquaintance with the facts might have obviated.
628
One error into which critics have fallen is the idea that because the terms of the Mandate for this little island have not yet been finally settled—as indeed no Mandates relating to any of the ex-German colonies have yet been finally settled—the Mandatory Power has, as yet, no right to deal with the territory in any way. Indeed, some have gone even so far as to imagine that no Mandate for any of the ex-German colonies had yet been conferred, because the matter had not yet come before the League of Nations. That is, of course, a complete misconception. The League has nothing whatever to do with the conferring of Mandates. The ex-German colonies were ceded by Germany under the Peace Treaty to the principal Allied and Associated Powers. The principal Allied and Associated Powers alone could dispose of them, and they have, in fact, allotted them to various States, Members of the League, as Mandatories. This was done more than a year ago, and Nauru was then allotted to the British Empire.
At the same time, or shortly afterwards, a Commission consisting of representatives of the principal Allied and Associated Powers was appointed to draw up the terms of the Mandates, or, in ether words, to fix the conditions under which the various Mandatories should exercise their authority over the territories allotted to them. That Commission, of which I happen to have been Chairman, and which sat at the London Office of the League of Nations and had an officer of the. League as its Secretary, did in fact settle the Mandates, drawing up Mandates applicable to all the ex-German colonies, including Nauru, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 22 of the Covenant. Those Mandates are in existence; they have to my certain knowledge been expressly approved by some of the principal authors of the Covenant of the League of Nations; and it is simply due to a series of accidental delays, owing to the great congestion of work and the innumerable points of detail which have had to be settled in carrying out the various Peace Treaties, that they have not yet been finally passed by the Supreme Council, representing the principal Allied and Associated Powers, and communicated to the Council of the League of Nations, whose duty it will be to watch over the observance of their provisions.
But in the meantime the mandated territories could not be left derelict. The

629
various Mandatory Powers had no option but to do that which, as a matter of fact, all of them have done—namely, to carry on the administration of the mandated territories on the assumption that the Mandates, as drafted by the Mandates' Commission, did correctly define the conditions of their trust, and would in due course be formally ratified. Innumerable acts have been performed by all the Mandatory Powers on that assumption, and the Agreement which the Bill purports to confirm is simply one of those arts That assumption, inevitable in any case, was in reality not at all hazardous, because the Draft Mandates are in all essentials not capable of being called in question, for they are nothing more than an elaboration, a setting out with the necessary details and in proper legal form, of the provisions contained in the various paragraphs of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They follow closely the lines of that Article, and neither the Supreme Council nor the Council of the League, nor any other authority, could materially alter them without upsetting the Covenant itself.
As I have said, the Agreement about Nauru is only one of a number of steps which have been taken, and are constantly being taken, by one or other of the Mandatory Powers, in dealing with their several mandated territories, on the assumption that the conditions on which they are to administer these territories, when finally ratified, will conform to the terms of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League. It is a complete mistake to suppose—and this is the second error into which critics of this Bill have fallen—that the Agreement itself needs to be submitted to the Council of the League. If no Mandatory Power could take any action with regard to a Mandated territory without first obtaining the counsel of the League of Nations, the Mandatory system would be totally unworkable, and the whole thing would break down. To suggest such an idea is really to make the League ridiculous. I do not for a moment contend that it would not be competent for the Council of the League to object to any action taken by a Mandatory Power on the ground that it was inconsistent with the terms of its Mandate, or, pending the ratification of such Mandate, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22. On the contrary, I regard it as the duty of the Council to see that the terms of Mandates and the provisions of
630
Article 22 are duly observed, and for that reason a clause has been inserted in all the Draft Mandates that the Mandatory Power is to make an annual Report to the League of the way in which it administers the Mandated territory. The Council of the League is thus placed in a position to take cognisance of anything improperly done.
But it is one thing to say that the Council of the League has this duty of supervision and this right of intervention in case anything is done amiss, and quite another to say that nothing can be done without its previous approval. The latter contention really is untenable and absurd. It can only have been advanced thoughtlessly. He would be the worst enemy of the League of Nations who would impose upon the Council of the League such an impossible task as that which these incessant references would involve. Therefore, so far as the League of Nations is concerned, we may make our minds quite easy about this Agreement, unless some question is raised about it in the Council. My own belief is that no objection is ever likely to be raised against it before that Council, and I am quite certain that if such an objection were raised it could not be sustained.
It has been contended—and this is the third mistake into which some of the critics of the Bill have fallen—that the Agreement is not consistent with that sentence of Article 22 of the Covenant which provides that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of a territory under conditions which will secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League. The answer to that is twofold. In the first place, I say that there is nothing inconsistent with this principle in what has been done about the Nauru phosphates. A private company was owner of the phosphates, and it was free to make any arrangement it liked for the disposal of them. It was free to sell them to anybody it pleased. It has sold them to the Governments of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, who have acquired them with the primary object of supplying phosphates to their agriculturists at cost price. Any private syndicate might have bought these phosphates from the company, and disposed of them for its own purposes, without infringing in any way the provision about equal opportunities to the trade and commerce of the members of the League.

631
In what way is the principle affected by the fact that the purchaser is not a private syndicate, but a Government?
But in the next place I say—and this is really quite conclusive—that the particular provision of Article 22 of the Covenant which I have quoted applies to some mandated territories but does not apply to others, and that among those territories to which it clearly does not apply is the Island of Nauru. To attempt so to apply it would be to run counter to the provisions of the Covenant and to upset that portion of the Peace Treaty, as it would also be to fly in the face of the distinct understanding which Article 22 was expressly provided to implement. Without that understanding there are a number of signatories of the Covenant who would never have agreed to sign it. I think this is all that it is necessary for me to say on this occasion. The object for which the Agreement has been framed— to assure an adequate supply of a necessary fertiliser to the agriculturists of the countries concerned at cost price, thus eliminating the element of private profit by which that price might be greatly enhanced—is an object in itself so laudable that I do not think your Lordships will wish me to expatiate upon it, nor has it, as far as I know, been seriously called in question anywhere. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Milner.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the state of the House does not precisely invite extended debate either on this or on any other subject, but as this matter aroused no little interest in another place, and as the noble Viscount has thought it right to make a careful and full defence of the Government's action on one side of the question, it is right that a few comments should proceed from this bench. There are, of course, two quite distinct questions with which this Bill is concerned. His Majesty's Government has entered into an arrangement, in concert with Australia and New Zealand, for the purchase of certain rights and interests of a private company, and the first question, therefore, is whether the bargain, from a financial and from a national and Imperial point of view, is a good one in itself. The second, and quite distinct, question to which the noble Viscount devoted, I think, practically the whole of his speech,
632
is whether this purchase, or the terms of the Schedule to this Bill, infringe, either in letter or in spirit, the Covenant of the. League Of Nations.
I should like to say a word, first, about the bargain itself, altogether apart from the League of Nations. What happens is that the sum of £3,500,000 sterling is paid to buy out this company, which has been working the phosphates on this Pacific island of Nauru, on the terms that of the future product 42 per cent. shall be sent to this country, 42 percent. will go to Australia, and the balance of 16 per cent. to New Zealand. It is expected that from 400 to 500 tons of phosphate will be produced, and it is to go at cost price to each Government. That is to say, the c.i.f. price will be ascertained at British ports, and the only condition made is that all the product which is purchased in this country, and in the other countries, shall be used there and not employed for reexport; but supposing there to be more than any of the three countries require for their own use, the surplus may be sold to other countries, not at cost price but at, the world price for this particularly high-class and expensive guano.
There is one point on which I should be glad to have some information from the noble Viscount. It is evident that this phosphate, which is of a high class, will be in great request in this country, but it would arrive here in the form of phosphate rock, which is not, as we all know, used by agriculturists in its crude form. It will be, I take it, sold to a chemical manufacturer who will treat it with sulphuric acid in the well-known way of Sir John Lawes's great discovery, and will turn it into superphosphate which will be bought by agriculturists. It will be sold at cost price to the chemical manure merchant. He, therefore, will presumably get it more cheaply than he would get phosphate of a similar grade from other parts of the world. Even thus, in view of the distance it has to come, it may not be quite so cheap as a lower-grade phosphate received from North Africa or from Florida, whence considerable consignments of phosphate rock reach this country; but it would be sold more cheaply to the chemical manufacturer than phosphate of a similar grade on which profit had to be earned by some company.
What I want to know is this. There can be only one price in the country for

633
superphosphate according to its grade; and how will the farmer profit if the chemical manufacturer takes, as he would apparently be entitled to take, the difference of price to him in view of its being Government rock and not rock imported by a trading company? I hope the noble Viscount sees my point; because, unless the price is controlled until the manure reaches the agriculturists, the advantage (whatever it may be) owing to the fact that the Government make no profit, must surely be intercepted by the middleman, and, therefore, the agriculturist, as I am at present advised, will not obtain the advantage which has been held out as an attraction for him. I am assuming, of course, that the phosphate rock reaches this country at a price at which it can compete with other phosphate rock and also with other phosphatic manures.
It is sure to be in great request, because the other main phosphatic manure which is used by agriculturists in this country is basic slag. Basic slag has fallen into a certain disrepute of late years, because, owing to changes in the process of steel manufacture, the slag which is now sold has a much lower phosphatic content than slag had in the old days when the Bessemer process was more widely used than it is now. Therefore superphosphate is, and will continue to be, in more and more request. But, as I have pointed out, I am not quite sure how this arrangement will enure to the benefit of the farmer unless the step is taken which, in itself, will not be favourably received by the agricultural community—namely, that of keeping on a controlled price for this manure until the time when the bags containing it arrive at the farm of the man who is going to apply it to his land.
One word on the other side of the question—that is to say, of the infringement, as I stated, of the spirit or letter of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 22, as the noble Viscountpointed out, contains a sentence (which he read) that equal opportunities will be secured for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League; but the noble Viscount said that this Article is not applicable to all Mandates, and was not applicable to this particular one relating to the Island of Nauru. If that be so, I confess that I do not see much purpose in applying a Mandate to this particular conquest at all. How do the circumstances of Nauru, as it
634
is, differ from what they would have been before the League of Nations or Mandates were invented, when we should have captured Nauru as spoil of war, kept it, and used it in any way we pleased? What is the use of bringing in the League of Nations at all for a transaction of this kind? It might be said that it would operate for the protection of the natives of the Island—an admirable race of people, but small in numbers. No one believes that under the British flag they are likely to be driven into slavery, or anything of that kind; and it appears to me that unless this proposition of the open door is to be applied to the commerce of this particular Island the introduction of the League of Nations into the business at all becomes somewhat nugatory.
I think it may be assumed as regards the statesmen, or some of them, who were responsible for this particular transaction, that, so far as Mr. Hughes is concerned, his principal object was to secure the supply of a sufficient proportion of this guano for Australia. He was also, I am sure, keen that what Australia did not want should be available for Great Britain. But I have little doubt that one of the paramount considerations in his mind was that in no circumstances should any of this stuff go to Germany. That being so, the arrangement, as carried out, practically makes it impossible that any should. It is equally impossible that any should go to France, or to our other Allies, which perhaps is in itself a misfortune, even if the noble Viscount is right in his argument that Article 22 of the Covenant is not technically infringed by this arrangement, the example set by capturing and retaining the whole of a product of this kind of a remote part of the world is one which is liable to be used against us when the whole operations of the League of Nations come to be considered by other Powers, who may, be, in some senses, our rivals.
I cannot help thinking that if, for instance, a great deposit of some valuable mineral, or gold were discovered in German East Africa, or such a soda lake as was discovered in British East Africa, we should not look well if we insisted upon a monopoly of such a product for our own purposes, or even if we joined up with South Africa in taking charge of it. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me that those cases are not on all fours, because, as a matter of fact, no

635
private company already exists, and therefore we should be starting ab initio, instead of taking over the concern of a private company. But still the Nauru company did in former days sell its wares to other countries besides ourselves, and we are, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly out of what was not, so far as I can understand, in any sense a monopoly before. For these reasons I cannot help regretting the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter, and even the closely reasoned defence of the noble Viscount does not, I confess, make me consider that the transaction is itself altogether a wise one.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I am not enamoured of unnecessary schemes of Government control and management, even of phosphates in Pacific islands, and I see no reason for supposing that three Governments will manage a business enterprise any better than one. Article 13 in the Schedule is rather curious. It says-
"There shall be no interference by any of the three Governments with the direction, management, or control of the business of working, shipping, or selling the phosphates, and each of the three Governments binds itself not to do or to permit any act or thing contrary to or inconsistent with the terms and purposes of this Agreement."
If a business is to be nationalised I really prefer the plan set up by Article 13 to any plan which would leave this business under the immediate control of a Minister who is dependent upon Parliament. This particular proposal is, I suppose, founded on Australian experience of the evils of nationalised business which is dependent on a Minister responsible to Parliament.
But, in connection with this Article, there arises this question of the manufacturers here, which was dealt with by my noble friend, Lord Crewe. Supposing there is an advantage in purchasing these phosphates to make into super-phosphate and supposing the super-phosphate can be produced from these phosphates at a lower price than it can be produced from the raw material imported from other countries, who is going to get the benefit, and how are the manufacturers to be selected who are to have the phosphates sent to them? Whenever you have Government business, particularly in controlled articles at prices which are below the regular market price, there is always this difficulty in determining who is to
636
benefit. I should like to know very much what the Government intend to do. Are the Government going to sell the rock phosphates here by auction, so that everybody may have the same chance, or are they going to sell to particular manufacturers who are going to benefit by them? I shall be glad, when the noble Viscount replies, if he will answer that question.
These, however, are details, and I want to deal with the essential point of whether or not this Agreement is really in accordance with the letter and spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The noble Viscount pointed out that it was not only not improper to deal with Nauru, but it was necessary to deal with it under the Mandate already given. But that does not decide the question of whether the method of dealing with it is really in accordance with what was meant by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League
of Nations. I would venture, with the greatest possible respect, to say to the
noble Viscount that his analogy of a private firm really has no force in it. No private firm is a party to the League of Nations. This is a question of three Governments, who are parties to the League of Nations, buying from a particular firm, and their position, I think, is altogether different from that of a private firm.
With regard to the actual substance of the matter, the noble Viscount argued that the words in paragraph 5 of Article 22 are not applicable to this island in the Pacific. There is another paragraph, dealing with territories such as South-West Africa and certain of the Pacific Islands, which I will read—
"There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of the population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical Contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."
The question I want to put to the noble Viscount is, What are the safeguards above mentioned? As a mere layman, with no pretence to any legal knowledge or to having an opinion which is worth anything upon any legal question, I should have thought that those safeguards are the safeguards at the end of paragraph 4, one of which he read—"Will also secure equal

637
opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League."
This Bill is a precedent, I believe, in one way; that is, I do not think that ever before the products of a part of the Empire have been allotted on preferential terms to certain parts of the Empire to the exclusion of the rest. Why are Canada and South Africa and India, all producers of wheat, debarred from this? That seems to me to be a new and most undesirable development in our policy. And on the broader question of the treatment of other Members of the League of Nations, I venture to say, although I know the noble Viscount will not agree with me here, that it is against public policy that we, who alone kept the open door in the past in Colonial trade, and, as I think, greatly profited by doing so, should now, before the League of Nations have settled the lines on which they are likely to interpret these Mandates, give a lead in shutting out not only most of our own Empire but all foreign countries from participation in the produce of Nauru Island. In spite of what the noble Viscount said, it is hardly fair to the League of Nations to carry a law, of which this Agreement is part, on questions on which, I think, they ought first to have adjudicated.
As my noble friend opposite said, it is a most unwise precedent to France, Italy, Portugal, Holland and Japan, in regard to old and new colonies of theirs. It must enhance the feeling, far too widely prevalent, that we mean to make what we can out of this war to compensate for the vast expenditure and losses incurred. That is a feeling with which I am sure it is unjust to charge the people of this country as a whole. But instances like this make it perfectly impossible to argue with a foreigner, in a way which will convince him, that we are not guilty of doing all that is possible to make what we can against the losses which we have incurred in this war. It destroys the system of the open door on which, for over half a century, we have conducted our Colonial system. I venture, with the greatest possible respect, to say that it seems to me to be a retrograde step, and, although I am sorry to have detained your Lordships these few minutes, I felt bound to raise my voice against it.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a minute, but there are one or two points
638
made by previous speakers, to which I think it would be almost discourteous of me not to say a word in reply. There was the very interesting point raised by the noble Marquess opposite, with reference to the question of the advantage which would result to our agriculturists from this Agreement. He expressed a doubt whether, as a matter of fact, the agriculturists would benefit though the manufacturer of super-phosphates might, in consequence of the arrangements here made, get his raw material at a lower price. I cannot help thinking that, even without any special action being taken by the Government in the matter as between the manufacturer and the agriculturist, the mere fact of obtaining a large quantity of raw phosphate rock in this country at a lower price than it otherwise would be obtained, could not but tend to a reduction in the cost of the finished article. Surely there is competition among the manufacturers of super-phosphates, and, in view of the fact that a considerable portion, at any rate, of the raw material used would be obtainable by them at a lower price, it seems to me to be inevitable that the competition amongst the manufacturers themselves would tend to force down the price of the manufactured article. Nevertheless, I think it is possible that special provisions may have
to be made in order to ensure that the actual user of super-phosphates should get the full benefit of what the Government has done to cheapen the cost of the raw material. I believe there is already some communication with the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to the question of the steps which ought to be taken to give the agriculturist the maximum benefit which he can derive from the fact that there will be this supply of raw material at a regulated price.
The other point which the noble Marquess raised, which was enforced by a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, was the old point and, in my opinion, certainly the most important one, as to whether this Agreement is contrary to the terms or the spirit of the League of Nations. The noble Marquess argued that it might possibly not be contrary to the actual terms of Article 22 of the Covenant, and that my defence on that point was a technicality. I beg most strongly to say on that point that it was not a technicality. Nor would the noble Marquess for one moment. have assumed that it was a

639
technicality if he had been as familiar as I am with the reasons why Article 22 was drafted as it was drafted. The fact is that when it came to the question of the 'disposal of the ex-German colonies, there was very strong opposition on the part of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa to these territories which were going in their immediate neighbourhood, contiguous to them, which they had looked forward to 'obtaining, being mandated territories at all. They showed very good reasons indeed why these territories should be simply incorporated with the contiguous British colonies. Practically everybody would have agreed to that, I believe, had it not been that the Allied Powers had repeatedly insisted on the fact that they were justified in taking these territories away from Germany because of the manner in which, under German colonial administration, the natives were treated. To that the representatives of the Colonies of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand replied: "Well, if that is all you mean, if your only anxiety in the matter is that the treatment of the natives should be according to the highest civilised standard, then we are quite willing to accept a Mandate for that purpose, the terms and conditions of which should be limited to the protection of the natives." There is no technicality in it.
These Pacific Islands and South West Africa were deliberately handed over to their Mandatories with the provisions of the Article drawn in such a way as to make it clear that they would have no limitations on their soverignty except the particular limitation of the protection of the natives. The question would never have arisen at all under this Agreement if it had not been for the fact that among the territories which were to be handed over, under the simplest form of Mandate with the fewest binding conditions, there happened to be one small island about which there was a difference between Australia and New Zealand as to which of the two should be the Mandatory. Out of that, and mainly in order to act as a mediator between Australia and New Zealand, Great Britain came into the matter as a third party, and the Mandate, nominally given to the British Empire, was really intended from the first to be a Mandate to these three Powers, which happened to be those portions of the British Empire which alone can be said to be contiguous to this small island, and which
640
almost exclusively at present—nobody can say what may arise in the future—are interested in this trade. These three British States were partners in this particular Mandate, and in that respect it is singular and stands alone among all the Mandates conferred by the principal Allied and Associated Powers. They are partners in it; but they are partners under the conditions laid down, and deliberately laid down, not as a technicality but as expressing the well-considered intentions of the Peace Conference with regard to all the ex-German colonies in the Pacific and South West Africa.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAS REGULATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Power to substitute new basis of charges.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILLhad an Amendment on the Paper, after subsection 4 of Clause 1, to insert the following new sub-section—
(5) If in any case the alteration, adjustment, or replacement of the burners in a consumer's appliances does not secure that the gas can be burned with safety and efficiency, the Board of Trade may, on the application of the consumer if they think fit, require that the undertakers shall at their own expense, and within such period as the Board of Trade may prescribe, alter or enlarge the service pipes and meters of such consumer.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in the absence of Earl Grey, who withdrew certain Amendments in Committee in order that they should receive further consideration by the Board of Trade. I hope the noble Marquess will be able to accept it. If he cannot do so, I trust he will tell us, specifically, why it is that the Board of Trade decline to undertake the discretionary powers which it is proposed by the Amendment to confer upon them.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Viscount is virtually the same as one moved by Earl Grey during the Committee stage with the object of placing

641
upon undertakers a similar obligation to alter service pipes and meters in the event of an alteration of calorific value as is imposed in the case of burners. I promised to consider this matter carefully with the Board of Trade to see if it was possible for them to make some modification in the attitude which I had taken up on the Second Reading and also in the Committee stage. The question has since been discussed fully at the Board of Trade with a deputation representing the Association of Local Authorities not owning gas undertakings, and the Railway Companies' Association. The deputation's final proposal was that the Board of Trade should take power to call upon undertakers to replace service pipes where they appeared to be inadequate to carry a sufficient supply of gas of the calorific value which the undertakers proposed to supply, and this virtually is the effect of the Amendment now proposed by the noble Viscount.
I should like to point. out that the provision in the Bill as it stands carries out the recommendations which were made by the. Fuel Research Board, which were subsequently confirmed by a conference held on October 28, 1919, by the Fuel Research Board with the main interests concerned. I should also like to say that the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London, who are always very watchful of the interests of gas consumers, have not raised any objection to the proposals contained in the Bill. The objections mainly come from the railway companies, and I shall endeavour—I hope successfully—to persuade them that this is really an Amendment which the Board of Trade cannot accept. The Board of Trade are of opinion that, even in this modified form, the proposal would impose upon undertakers a liability which it is impossible to define. That is the main difficulty, and in the opinion of the Board of Trade it must lead to endless disputes. The question whether a consumer's service pipes are or are not adequate to deliver a supply of a particular quality of gas is one which does not admit of a precise determination.
Pipes which are adequate when a normal number of burners are in use may be inadequate if the consumer chooses to use all his lights at once, or is desirous of putting on other lights or gas fires. It may be said then that the pipes which he is using are not adequate for conveying the necessary number of calorific values. Also,
642
pipes may not be properly cleaned, and if they are dirty the noble Lord will recognise they are also inadequate. The possibilities of dispute are very great, and the questions at issue are not such as the Board of Trade should be called upon to determine. Indeed, if the Board of Trade were to be called upon to determine all the disputes which may arise it would necessitate employing a very large staff to go into all the questions which any litigious consumer might be desirous of raising. I think the noble Lord will see that the litigious consumer might really ask for the most extraordinary things in the way of altering pipes, and it would then be for the Board of Trade to alter practically the structure of his house in putting in new pipes, if it was decided that there was some point in the litigious consumer's desire.
The cases to meet which the suggested provision is designed are chiefly those of railway companies, who may have a large system of service pipes which are too small to carry a gas of low calorific value, and, secondly, the poorer districts in towns where the domestic pipes may be of small size. The view of the Board of Trade is that these cases can, and should be, met by provisions regarding pressure inserted in the Order relating to the undertaking. Under Clause 2 (2) they have power to specify different minimum pressures for different parts of the undertaking, or for gas of different calorific values, and they can, where the distribution system, or any part of it, is shown to be inadequate for the supply of gas of low calorific value, prescribe such increased pressure as would be necessary to maintain an adequate supply. There is no doubt that in practice the majority of these questions will be amicably settled on the application for an Order.
Generally, it must be borne in mind that under the new régime gas companies will only be paid for the heat units which they supply, and they are not likely deliberately to make it impossible for themselves to sell as many heat units as the consumers are willing to buy. I think the noble Viscount will see that, after all, this is a case where human nature comes in, and the undertakers are not likely to lose money in these transactions. Gas is paid for by the amount of gas supplied, and consequently it will be necessary for the undertakers to supply that pressure which will enable the consumer to obtain the gas he requires; and if the pipes are not large

643
enough, with the pressure which is the statutory minimum, 1 think it is only reasonable to expect that the gas companies will make a point of giving so much pressure as will enable the amount of gas which the consumer requires for consumption in his house to go through the meter.
A vague general obligation to alter meters and pipes might very well deter undertakers from making any effective use of the provisions of this Bill, and I think the noble Viscount will realise that the main object of these provisions is to give a certain amount of freedom in the production of the best kind of gas, together with the conservation of coal. I think, if you are going to impose more conditions on gas undertakers than are necessary, that you will cramp the enlargement of the industry and deter undertakers from using their ingenuity and inventive powers for the purpose of producing gas at the lowest cost to the consumer, and in the most effective way. With respect to the replacement of meters, it involves very similar considerations, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships by giving the same reasons over again, which, in my view, and the view of the Board of Trade, make it impossible for us to accept the Amendment which has been moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Composition and pressure of gas to be supplied.
(2) The minimum permissible pressure shall be such pressure in any main, or any pipe laid between the main and the meter having an internal diameter of two inches and upwards, as to balance a column of water not less than two inches in height except as may he otherwise provided by the order relating to any undertaking, and different minima may be specified for different parts of an undertaking, or for gas of different calorific values.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The object of my Amendment in subsection (2) is to make clear what was always intended—that the limitation of the size of pipes applies only to pipes between the main and the meter, i.e., service pipes, and that the prescribed pressure must be maintained in any main, whether the main is more or less than two inches in diameter.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, after ("or") insert ("in").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to make special orders.
(c) authorise any local authority which may be authorised to supply gas within its area to supply gas outside that area in any district or part thereof not supplied with gas by another authority or company:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: These are Amendments which arose on the Committee stage, and their effect is to make paragraph (c) read as follows
(c) authorise any local authority which may be authorised to supply gas within their district to supply gas outside the district in any area which is not supplied with gas by any other undertakers or which is within the area of supply of any undertakers whose undertaking has been acquired by such local authority.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 26, leave out ("its area") and insert ("their district")
Page 11, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("that area") and insert ("the district")
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("district or part thereof") and insert ("area which is")
Page 11, line 28, leave out (" another authority or company") and insert ("any other undertakers or which is within the area of supply of any undertakers whose undertaking has been acquired by such local authority").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Application, of War Pensions Acts.
2. The expression "the present war" in the War Pensions Acts shall mean any war carried on by His Majesty at any time during the period from the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, to the thirtieth day after the date fixed under the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, 1918, as the date of the ter-

645
mination of the present war, both inclusive, and accordingly, unless the context otherwise requires, references in those Acts to pensions, grants, and allowances, and to deceased or disabled officers or men, shall respectively be construed as references to pensions, grants, and allowances, granted, made, or awarded in respect of wounds, disablements or other matters suffered, incurred, or happening daring the said period, whether the officers or men to or in respect of whom the pensions, grants, or allowances are granted, made or awarded, retired or are discharged from the service, or die before the expiration of the said period, or whether they so retire or are discharged or die after the expiration of the said period, and to officers and men Who have died or been disabled through causes arising out of their service during that period, whether they retire or are discharged from the service or die before the expiration of the said period, or whether they so retire, or are discharged, or die after the expiration of the said period:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section three, of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 2 be agreed to.
TIFF, CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): On that Question 1 should like to say a word. The Earl of Mayo and others have pointed out to me that in the statement which I made on the Bill I rather misled your Lordships as to the exact purport of this clause. Therefore I desire now to record that the object of this clause is merely to fix the date at which existing local war pensions committees will cease to be concerned with any new casualties which may arise in the fighting Forces, but they will continue to be responsible for dealing with such cases as arose between the beginning of the Great War and the official date upon which that War will be decided, by Order in Council, to have terminated.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

BANK NOTES(IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee(according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CENSUS(IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Enumerators and their duties.
2.—(1) The Lord Lieutenant may appoint such officers of local authorities or such other persons as he thinks proper to act as and be enumerators for the purpose of this Act, or to superintend or assist in the enumeration.
(2) Every enumerator shall, upon the Monday following the census day, and such one or more next consecutive days as the Lord Lieutenant may fix, visit every house within the district assigned to him and take an account in writing, according to such instructions as may be given to him by the Chief or Under Secretary to the Lord Licutenant, of the number of persons who abode therein on the night of the census day, and of the sex, age, religious profession, birthplace, parentage, condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, and occupation of all such persons, and (in the case of persons married or having been married) the number of children and step children living and their respective ages.
THE EARL OF CRAMFORDmoved, at the end of subsection (2), to leave out "and their respective ages." The noble Earl said: This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Subsection (4) of the same clause provides the necessary authority. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 24, leave out("and their respective ages").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, there is a series of Amendments on the Paper, all of which are purely drafting, and probably it would suit the convenience of your Lordships if I moved them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 6, leave out the first ("or")
Clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out the first ("and")
Clause 5, page 3, line 17, leave out the first("and")
Clause 5, page 3, line 42, after("pension") insert("under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1919")
Clause 8, page 7, line 26, after ("pension") insert ("under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1919")
Clause 10, page 7, line 36, leave out ("employment") and insert ("such employment as to make the person engaged therein an employed person")
Clause 10, page 8, line 1, after the first("person") insert("or class of persons"), and after the second ("person") insert ("or class of persons")
Clause 11, page 10, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 9.
Clause 16, page 14, line 24, leave out ("three years") and insert ("the expiration of three years from the commencement of this Act")
Clause 18, page 18, line 38, leave out from ("the") to("there ") in line 39, and insert ("fourth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one")
Clause 18, page 19, line 9, leave out ("a sum to") and insert ("such sum as may")
Clause 20, page 20, line 38, at end insert ("and
(b) the general provisions of this Act shall not, except in so far as they are applied by a supplementary scheme apply to or have effect in relation to or for the purposes of the scheme")
Clause 35, page 30, line 32, leave out ("decision") and insert ("determination")
Clause 41, page 34, line 12, leave out ("including") and insert ("in the case of").— (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
ill passed and returned to the Commons.

GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS INTERNED IN ECYPT.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask whether the High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, has taken any action with regard to the German and Austrian civilians formerly resident in Palestine and subsequently interned in Egypt.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, instructions were issued to Sir Herbert Samuel on July 7 that the persons referred to should be informed that they are free to return either to Palestine or to Germany, with the exception of individuals who are on the list of undesirables.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
LORD GAINFORD: On this Motion may I ask the noble Earl a question with regard to the business of the House for next week. I understand that it is anticipated that the Ministry of Mines Bill will be brought from another place to-night, and, in that event, that it will be read a first time tomorrow in your Lordships' House. It will be to the general convenience of those who are interested in the question if the noble Earl could indicate when the Second Reading, and still more when the Committee stage, would be taken.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I wish I were in a position to give my noble friend definite information upon the subject. Our expectation, however, is that this Bill will reach us from another place to-night, and be read a first time in order that we can take the Second Reading, if possible, on Tuesday next. As regards the further stage, on Thursday probably the greater portion of the sitting will be devoted to a debate on the Duke of Northumberland's Motion about the situation in Ireland. I should, therefore, greatly hope that it may be possible for us to begin the Committee stage of the Mines Bill at any rate on Wednesday, August 4. If, however, that proves inconvenient to Lord Gainford and other noble Lords who are well versed in the subject, we will try to meet them as best we can. I cannot, however, at present go definitely beyond Tuesday as the most likely day for the Second Reading.
LORD GAIN FORD: May I say that so far as my friends are concerned, and so far as I personally am concerned, we would take no exception to the Bill being put down for Committee stage on Wednesday if the Government thought that was not too soon after the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My only desire is to consult the convenience of the House, and if that is Lord Gainford's opinion I am very much indebted to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From. Minutes of July 28.]

READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday the 11th of August (Lord Gain ford).
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES(FARES, ETC.) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA GAS BILL.
Committees to meet on Tuesday next.

PONTYPRIDD STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at. ten minutes before seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of July 29.]
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Londonderry Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ERITH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SHEKLETON'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 the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered to-morrow.
DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3a to-morrow (Lord Stan-more).